More DIRECT vs NASA

"I think building a single uneconomic new launcher is better than building two."

but not if the "single uneconomic new launcher" is unable to land more than a new collection of flags on the Moon

always remember, that, the (FAST-SLV-like but FOUR months LATER) Direct needs TWO launches (like in my ArianeX proposal) to accomplish the same goal of just ONE Ares-5/cargo-Altair

that's NOT so cheap... and NOT so reliable due to the number of launches, engines and motors that MUST work well:

cargo-Direct: TWO launches, four SRB, six RS-68, two J-2X

Ares-5: one launch, two SRB, six RS-68, one J-2X

MY Ares 5+: one launch, three SRBs, three RS-68, one J-2X

http://www.ghostnasa.com/po...

consider, that, in EVERY cargo launch, the two cargo-Direct rocket MUST work well to avoid the full cargo-mission to FAIL

last... think that ESAS is MAINLY a CARGO landing program (rather than a crew landing program like Apollo) since it's goal is (or should be...) to land the hardware for outposts, long stay, scientific research, etc.

so, have a simple, cheap, reliable, easy and heavy-payload launcher, is a key feature of the full program

.

Posted by gm at 07/05/08 03:07:25

post edit: from NASA study .pdf the Direct EDS looks have TWO engines... so the total number of engines/motors in a two-launches cargo missions should be "13" rather than "9" of the Ares-5 and "7" of the Ares 5+, so, the Ares-5 is about 50% more reliable than Direct and MY Ares 5+ is about 100% more reliable than Direct!!!

Posted by gm at 07/05/08 03:25:07

post edit 2 (sorry): just consider, that, the ABSOLUTE needs of a SUCCESSFUL rendezvous at EVERY Direct's (cargo or crew) launch, ADDS so much risks (then a GIANT LOSS of reliability) that OUTCLASS on ONE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE the simple (unreliable) fact that EACH cargo-Direct needs TWICE the engines/motors of MY Ares 5+ or 50% the engines/motors of an Ares-5 to ALWAYS work well!!!

.

Posted by gm at 07/05/08 03:32:56

post edit: at EVERY Direct's (cargo or crew) ...MISSION...

Posted by gm at 07/05/08 03:33:56

All those posts, yet nothing was really said since 3 SRB's are not feasible

Posted by Me at 07/05/08 06:38:39

post edit: or 50% ...MORE... engines/motors of an Ares-5

Posted by gm at 07/05/08 06:40:05

"yet nothing was really said since 3 SRB's are not feasible"
it seems you really like to LOSE your time (both) supporting "Direct" AND posting (everywhere) against my (very good!) proposals... :)

.

Posted by gm at 07/05/08 06:43:07

Again gaetano spamming with his useless concepts made from ugly MS-Maint drawing ...

Again gaetano pretending he has invented something, but i've never seen on the internet someone who believes him.

Posted by JC at 07/05/08 07:41:04

"against my (very good!) proposals... :)"

That is completely untrue and unsubstantiated. Not one of your proposals has been validated as feasible or even beneficial.

I am "wasting" much less time than you since it takes less to discredit your non viable proposals than you spent coming up with them.

Also, it is labor of love and along as you are going to post your crap on these forums, I will be countering it with my posts

Posted by Me at 07/05/08 07:44:54

to Me, JC, etc. ...how many names (or nicknames...) have the Direct PR-guys?

your time is wasted (while, MY time isn't) NOT by the "amount" of comments/words you (and other Direct-lobby supporters) post on the web forums and blogs, but by the POOR argument of ALL your posts!!!

you may like or (I believe...) dislike my articles, ideas, proposals, suggestions, comments and posts, but ALL them are FULL of arguments, drawings, concepts, ideas, calculations, evaluations, logic, reasonings, proposals, comparisons, alternatives, critics, etc. (again, you like them or not) while ALL your posts against me are THE SAME... "clueless", "spam", "not feasible", "non viable", "not feasible"... "clueless", "spam", "not feasible", "non viable", "not feasible"... "clueless", "spam", "not feasible", "non viable", "not feasible"... "clueless", "spam", "not feasible", "non viable", "not feasible"... "clueless", "spam", "not feasible", "non viable", "not feasible"... repeated hundreds times...

that's why YOUR posting is a WASTE of time, while, MY postings is NOT !

that, of course, assuming you are "human" and not a Direct-lobby's "web spider" programmed to reply "clueless", "spam", "not feasible", "non viable", "not feasible" to all peoples that posts critics to Direct on the http://WWW... :)

.

Posted by gm at 07/05/08 08:50:32

"FULL of arguments, drawings, concepts, ideas, calculations, evaluations, logic, reasonings, proposals, comparisons, alternatives,"

That is so wrong, only the first two thing are true.
1. True, you do provide arguments and like most arguments they aren't based on emotions and not facts
2. Just because you can make a Photoshop picture doesn't mean it is feasible.
3. your concepts have been proved nonviable on many forums over and over. You just refuse to believe anyone.
4. None of your "calculations" are based on engineering equations
5. Logic? Your posts and website are have none, since you refuse to acknowledge when you are wrong, which happens to be most of the time

gm, why do you think you have been banned from many of the mainstream forums* or why have some of your posts been deleted or not allow on others*?
You can't blame the "Direct lobby" since you were banned long before Direct and your posts were removed by Direct non supporters.

Where is your "logic"? Can't you see a pattern here? The common denominator is gm. If you keep saying the Direct lobby, then you have some type of paranoia. The problem is you, gm. You don't know rocket science, you don't even know basic physics, you don't know how to have a rational discussion, you don't know how to admit you are wrong (which most of the time). You think everyone is wrong and you are the only one right. That itself indicative of an issue.

Show me one person that is known to the people of these forums, that is knowledgeable in spaceflight, that has the respect of these same people, show me that this person has backed one of your concepts and is willing to forward.

I am willing to bet that you can't find one.

*SDC, NSF, NASA Watch, etc

Posted by Me at 07/05/08 10:33:07

You know, using a resuable launch vehicle just isn't practical when going to the moon. No government or nation has yet to build a safe, reliable, and relatively cheap reusable orbital vehicle. Nasa's space shuttle cost more to operate than the Saturn V and could launch less payload. Nasa intends to go to the Moon, and they are relying on proven technology to get them there, not on some new, risky, and unneccesary RLV. Leave it to the private sector to inovate. Nasa should focus on technology that is proven to get them back to the Moon, and that is exactly what they are doing.

Posted by C4Casey at 07/05/08 11:20:23

GM,
Your quota of posts is up for this thread. I will delete any more posts that you place here.

Me, etc,
GM is limited to one post per thread except when someone addresses him directly. So if you guys don't poke him, we won't have these long GM flames.

Patrick,
I'm not advocating RLV for a Moon mission. I'm advocating that NASA not build more ELVs. Instead of ~$20B for Ares I + V + Orion, use a fraction of that to expand COTS to contract out launch services from multiple providers. Let L-M, Orbital, SpaceX, etc. battle to provide the lowest prices to orbit.

Combine low cost LEO access with NASA's tremendous skills and experience in on-orbit assembly and operations to obtain highly capable deep space access systems. Instead of a heavy lifter, use whatever size modules the above guys can get to orbit.(Can also take advantage of Bigelow inflatable modules.) Focus on reusable in-space hardware.

The only really new innovation needed is development of fuel depots and the technology needed for that is available or very close. See these presentations, especially that of Dallas Bienhoff from Boeing:

http://selenianboondocks.bl...

This approach would result in lower cost LEO access, lunar bases, plus a huge expansion of in-space infrastructure. Instead, NASA is pushing just another hyper-expensive Apollo style program that leaves little to build on.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 07/05/08 12:39:56

Can someone PLEASE stop GN from spamming his lies on this comment section? Plus, who really cares what Coppinger thinks? He's the guy that gets confuses by Ares V being the CLV, when it's the CaLV.

Posted by anon at 07/05/08 15:23:34

At the pace mankind is growing,there is no question about the real need to build a reliable deep space transport.The question is rather when.And how expensive.....
With enough life support,artificial gravity,radiation protection,etc.etc.With considerations about tools and means to mine low gravity planets, small transports, and the like.....

Posted by Gustavo Canas at 08/08/09 18:26:50

Your comment: Name: Website: E-mail:

Enter the string of characters appearing in the picture: Remember Me