Media Casualties Mount
Administration Split On Europe Invasion
Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire
Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan
Pot, Kettle On Line Two...
Allies Seize Paris
Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics
Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit
Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff
A New Beginning
My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
James Lileks Bleats
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Space Flight
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)
Nanobot (Howard Lovy)
Lagniappe (Derek Lowe)
Geek Press (Paul Hsieh)
Redwood Dragon (Dave Trowbridge)
Turned Up To Eleven (Paul Orwin)
Cowlix (Wes Cowley)
Quark Soup (Dave Appell)
Assymetrical Information (Jane Galt and Mindles H. Dreck)
Marginal Revolution (Tyler Cowen et al)
Man Without Qualities (Robert Musil)
Knowledge Problem (Lynne Kiesling)
Cut On The Bias (Susanna Cornett)
The Funny Pages
Cox & Forkum
Day By Day
Happy Fun Pundit
Amish Tech Support (Lawrence Simon)
Scrapple Face (Scott Ott)
Quasipundit (Adragna & Vehrs)
England's Sword (Iain Murray)
Daily Pundit (Bill Quick)
Daimnation! (Damian Penny)
Z+ Blog (Andrew Zolli)
The Kolkata Libertarian
Midwest Conservative Journal
Protein Wisdom (Jeff Goldstein et al)
Dean's World (Dean Esmay)
Yippee-Ki-Yay (Kevin McGehee)
Spleenville (Andrea Harris)
Random Jottings (John Weidner)
On the Third Hand (Kathy Kinsley, Bellicose Woman)
Inappropriate Response (Moira Breen)
Inadvertent Comic Relief
Warblogger Watcher (Cowardly Anonymous Idiotarians)
Other Worthy Weblogs
Ain't No Bad Dude (Brian Linse)
A libertarian reads the papers
Anna Franco Review
Ben Kepple's Daily Rant
Dropscan (Shiloh Bucher)
End the War on Freedom
Insolvent Republic of Blogistan
James Reuben Haney
Mind over what matters
Page Fault Interrupt
Sand In The Gears(Anthony Woodlief)
The Blogs of War
The Fly Bottle
The Illuminated Donkey
What she really thinks
Where HipHop & Libertarianism Meet
Zem : blog
Space Policy Links
The Space Review
The Space Show
Space Frontier Foundation
Space Policy Digest BBS
USS Clueless (Steven Den Beste)
Unremitting Verse (Will Warren)
World View (Brink Lindsay)
The Last Page
More Than Zero (Andrew Hofer)
Pathetic Earthlings (Andrew Lloyd)
Spaceship Summer (Derek Lyons)
The New Space Age (Rob Wilson)
Rocketman (Mark Oakley)
Site designed by
Is Orion In Mass Trouble?
"Anonymous" over at Space Politics thinks so (see sixth comment):
You’re right that it’s normal for any project to be allocating mass and cost at this (or any other) stage of the design process.
As someone involved in space program management for over two decades, I agree.Posted by Rand Simberg at July 01, 2007 01:22 PM
the new "six-seats" (for 3/4 astronauts travels) 5 m. Orion has THREE TIMES the internal volume of the old three-seats Apollo CSM, so, why don't (simply) resize the new capsule to have "ONLY" 2.5 (or 2) times the internal volume of the Apollo CSM??? (instead of CUT so much of the astronauts/missions' safety, reliability, and capability!)
if that news is true, it's the CRAZIEST THING I've read so far about the ESAS hardware!
maybe... they need to "draw a dotted line" on the Orion's top... :)Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at July 1, 2007 02:19 PM
Orion isn't having mass trouble. Ares I is having performance trouble.Posted by xraydog at July 1, 2007 03:33 PM
Orion isn't having mass trouble. Ares I is having performance trouble.
Those are not mutually exclusive things.Posted by Michael Kent at July 1, 2007 03:41 PM
Question: Is this good news or bad news?Posted by K at July 1, 2007 05:34 PM
Capricorn One, Capricorn One, come in; geez if this is true, it's a disaster.Posted by narciso at July 1, 2007 06:23 PM
Those are not mutually exclusive things.
In a political sense, you are right. In a technical sense, you are not.Posted by Leland at July 1, 2007 06:45 PM
7400lbs of trouble. sdr won't slip but the entry criteria will be waived. Muratore is apparently the weight loss czar....Posted by anon in tx at July 1, 2007 09:44 PM
if that news is true, it's the CRAZIEST THING I've read so far about the ESAS hardware!
And you've obviously read your site, so that's saying an awful lot about the sanity of this 5m CEV.
Question: Is this good news or bad news?
Good news and bad news. The good news is that for every pound of CEV we don't drag out to LLO, we gain an extra half pound of scientific payload on the lunar surface.
The bad news is that if NASA doesn't pull their head out and shrink the CEV diameter then they are going to have their program cancelled outright. And likely well before the election.Posted by Adrasteia at July 2, 2007 01:25 AM
if they shrink a cone-shaped capsule its internal habitable space become less comfortable, while, just cutting the capsule top (like in my "sliced-Orion") the internal USABLE space will remains substantially the same of a 5 m. capsulePosted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 2, 2007 02:55 AM
I respectfully suggest the following: in honor of Mr. Marano's frequent and invaluable contributions to aerospace design, any random collection of aerospace hardware, assembled LEGO(tm)-style without regard to good engineering principles, basic physics or simple common sense, should henceforth be named a "Gaetano".
Thus the Ares-I is an archetypical Gaetano.Posted by Ugly Bag of Mostly Water at July 2, 2007 04:29 AM
thank you UGLYPosted by gm at July 2, 2007 05:14 AM
Hey - I also invented something really cool using Photoshop - see graphic at
I hope the TPS on Orion works at warp speeds....Posted by Keith Cowing at July 2, 2007 06:50 AM
the warp-orion is a great childrens' game the Stumpy/Direct/Jupiter/EELVs/COTS guys can play at home when the Ares-I/Orion (with some design changes, of course) will fly around 2013... :)Posted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 2, 2007 07:17 AM
about my "sliced-Orion" and the physics' laws... please consider that great part of the Orion's mass is on the middle-bottom of the capsule, so, cutting 1 mT on its top, doesn't change so much the Orion's CG position (that goes just a few centimeters down than now) then, the sliced-Orion should work on re-entry EXACTLY like a non-sliced-cone capsulePosted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 2, 2007 09:02 AM
Yes, Photoshop is a really powerful design tool for spacecraft. I highly recommend it.Posted by Keith Cowing at July 2, 2007 09:04 AM
Hey GM, you never did answer my question. How old are you?Posted by Mike Puckett at July 2, 2007 09:29 AM
Orion isn't having mass trouble. Ares I is having performance trouble.
Jupiter is the answer . . .Posted by at July 2, 2007 09:30 AM
good ideas don't depends of age, also, I've not asked you or anyone (NOR want to know) your age, your work, your credentials, where you live, which company you work for, which (EELVs, Direct, etc.) lobby you support (if any) if you really exists (since internet allows that, so, if you want, you can post a fake mail address like those used by Ugli Bag...) if your nickname is your real name, etc. so, don't ask me the same things ...however, I can to say you that I'm an adult with the enthusiasm of a teenager... :)Posted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 2, 2007 09:43 AM
You need to move up to using at least HTML 2.0. The text colors and bold case letters - and bad English grammar - detract from the sheer engineering brilliance you have achieved with Photoshop.Posted by Keith Cowing at July 2, 2007 09:50 AM
why do you dedicate so much time (and so many off-topic posts) to me, Keith? ...do you have closed your blog or there is a giant lack of NASA news to post in the summer? :)Posted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 2, 2007 09:56 AM
Best KC thread evar!Posted by Mike Puckett at July 2, 2007 09:59 AM
Hey, did you know that you can use the 'distort' function in Photoshop to make the Orion smaller - and the Ares 1 bigger? What an easy way to solve all the problems that currently confront NASA!Posted by Keith Cowing at July 2, 2007 10:26 AM
Your photoshop idea from NIAC is fantastic. Too bad NIAC has just been closed.
One just wonders don't one.Posted by Dennis Wingo at July 2, 2007 10:40 AM
don't lose your (precious) "guru-time" to write that useless (and ZERO effect) comments... :)Posted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 2, 2007 11:18 AM
"don't lose your (precious) "guru-time" to write that useless (and ZERO effect) comments... :)"
Huh?Posted by Keith Cowing at July 2, 2007 11:31 AM
Oh, thats just GM trying to change the subject after his attempted thread hijack does not go the way he wanted. Yip, yip, yip!Posted by Mike Puckett at July 2, 2007 11:50 AM
to Mike & C.
before your sarcastic, useless and off-topic posts against me, my posts was ONLY on-topic (the "Orion's mass trouble") so, when you'll stop posting them, we can come back to discuss about the OrionPosted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 2, 2007 12:05 PM
So we are supposed to be impressed that you have had your first on-topic post out of thousands? Flukes don't impress me.Posted by Mike Puckett at July 2, 2007 12:25 PM
Your cartoons and Photoshop approach to spacecraft design are not serious - so why should we be serious?Posted by Keith Cowing at July 2, 2007 12:43 PM
you are not "the judge" about how serious are my (or other peoples) articles and proposals, but can only have/post your opinions... and, since I don't agree with your opinion, I'll continue to write my articles until the first ESAS' astronauts will walk on he moon (and after)Posted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 2, 2007 12:59 PM
>em>Your cartoons and Photoshop approach to spacecraft design are not serious - so why should we be serious?
Don't equate the medium with the message. How much design gets done on the back of a bar napkin?
The whole thing about the CEV being overweight is, I'm sure, no surprise to anyone. Maybe the next thing they'll do is stick wings on it.Posted by Ed Minchau at July 2, 2007 01:23 PM
argh. I screwed up a tag.Posted by Ed Minchau at July 2, 2007 01:23 PM
"Don't equate the medium with the message. How much design gets done on the back of a bar napkin?"
Posted by Mike Puckett at July 2, 2007 01:25 PM
..."the first ESAS' astronauts will walk on he moon (and after)"
ESAS was an internal NASA study. It is not a space agency i.e. it does not employ astronauts. If you are confused about what ESAS is then I suspect that a few other things have you perplexed and confused as well.
Ed: The whole thing about the CEV being overweight is, I'm sure, no surprise to anyone. Maybe the next thing they'll do is stick wings on it.
GAETANOMARANO.IT has a photoshop version of Orion that is also a helicopter! Imagine that.
Posted by Keith Cowing at July 2, 2007 01:30 PM
>> Maybe the next thing they'll do is stick wings on it.
A balloon launched Ares I would be easier to PhotoShop, thus the superior alternative.
This modern day Leonardo has a helicopter variant of the Orion on line at http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/025orioncopter.html
Maybe the blades could spin on ascent as well and help pull the Ares 1 through the air ... or maybe you could spin the blades really fast with little rockets on the blade tips and use this feature as a pad escape system.
Its amazing how he fits the motor, fuel, and parachutes in the capsule without affecting everything else.
Pure genius.Posted by Keith Cowing at July 2, 2007 01:44 PM
Actually, the best way to cut Orion's weight is to only fly dwarfs (I hear MiniMe is job hunting). That way you could make everything teen tiny. Photoshop can do that rather easily - just use the "scale" function.Posted by Keith Cowing at July 2, 2007 01:50 PM
you don't read this blog so much if you have missed this reply to brian d.:
I agree that the web is full of stupid ideas, but this is not the case of MY ideas...
just a few examples of MANY other I've collected in last two years:
this is MY "FAST-SLV" published in MAY 12, 2006:
well, I'm sure you know the NASA "Stumpy" rumored in JULY 2006 and the "Direct Launcher" published on NSF four months LATER in AUGUST 2006 (that the powerful "Direct-Lobby" promotes EVERYWHERE)
also assuming there was not any "inspiration" from my idea... the last two designs clearly show that I was RIGHT and my idea was GOOD
2nd example, the "underside-LAS":
four months after my proposal, NASA has published this study about the ALAS:
as you can see from the pictures in the NASA document, the ALAS has a big FARING that forces the abort motor's thrust from the top of the LAS to the bottom of the Orion's Service Module, so, in both (ALAS and underside-LAS) systems, the Orion capsule (on abort) is NOT "dragged" from the top, but "pushed" from the bottom (like happen with rockets)
the only difference between my underside-LAS and the ALAS is that MY design is ways simpler, safer, cheaper and lighter than ALAS... :)
the 3rd (and most incredible) example is MY "Orioncopter":
well, it could seem a too complex and useless idea... but, just a week ago, Jeff Hagen has sent me a mail with a link to a 2005 AIAA document (with lots of drawings and data!) where the Orioncopter (called "Rotocapsule") was evaluated and studied at SCIENTIFIC LEVEL
well, I've NOT just "drawn a dotted line" NOR said “see how stupid NASA is”
my proposal is only the latest of a series of article (that will continue) with suggestions and ideas about how to design a simpler, lighter, better, safer and cheaper Orion, LAS, Ares-I, etc. (that, of course, need studies and tests to work)
last, I've to say to you (and to some "anonymous" that post insults against me) that comments about how "stupid" (or, at least, "not engineered") are my ideas have ZERO EFFECT on me since I will ALWAYS publish my past and future ideas on my website and write threads, posts and comments about them on all free and democratic forums and blogs that accept to publish my alternative opinions and proposals (so, don't lose your time)
which kind of "space expert" are you, Keith, if you don't know the AIAA documents?Posted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 2, 2007 02:36 PM
Damn, its days like this I wish the board had emoticons......Posted by Mike Puckett at July 2, 2007 02:37 PM
about this comment you've posted... "Its amazing how he fits the motor, fuel, and parachutes in the capsule without affecting everything else." do you know the 2autorotation"??? ...so, PLEASE, before post a comment, at least READ the article you're posting a critic about!Posted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 2, 2007 02:41 PM
If you want to know who Keith Cowing is, I suggest this newfangled contraption called 'Google'.Posted by Mike Puckett at July 2, 2007 02:42 PM
I know who Keith Cowing is, that's why I wonder he lose his time to post so ridiculous comments...
but... just a moment... is the REAL Keith Cowing posting here?Posted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 2, 2007 02:51 PM
No, I am just a holographic version of Keith. The REAL Keith is packing for his trip to the arctic next week.Posted by Keith Cowing at July 2, 2007 02:54 PM
Riiiight! There is more than one, you are onto the great conspiracy.Posted by Mike Puckett at July 2, 2007 02:55 PM
again... just look at the Ugly Bag of Mostly Water's post... the email he posted in the signature is: email@example.com
well, do you (really) think that (also) Mike Griffin is following this discussion??? :) :) :)Posted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 2, 2007 03:01 PM
And just think GM, next week he will be able to put the smack down on you all the way from above the Arctic Circle!
I do want to know one thing Keith, do they paint the polar bears green and give them little springy antennas on Devon Island to complete the simulation?Posted by Mike Puckett at July 2, 2007 03:02 PM
"again... just look at the Ugly Bag of Mostly Water's post... the email he posted in the signature is: firstname.lastname@example.org"
Yes, that is right, KC is Griffin......what are you babbling about?Posted by Mike Puckett at July 2, 2007 03:05 PM
sorry :( in both TM threads I forgot to post the link to the the 2005 AIAA .pdf document about the "Rotocopter"
the link is:
http://www.aiaa-houston.org/cy0405/event-06may05/pres/pres013.pdfPosted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 2, 2007 03:08 PM
Yes I am Administrator of NASA - today. On Tuesdays it is Rand's job. Mike has the job on Wednesday ...Posted by Keith Cowing at July 2, 2007 03:08 PM
Mike Griffin is a fictional construct, a virtual person.....a Captain Tuttle if you will........you could say we all made up Mike Griffin.....A hologram with many actors.Posted by Mike Puckett at July 2, 2007 03:15 PM
are you drinking too much while posting? :) :) :)Posted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 2, 2007 03:18 PM
No, I am letting a floor dry between moppings. I mop for relaxation on vacation. Better enjoy me now, I am hitting the AT tommorow for a day.Posted by Mike Puckett at July 2, 2007 03:22 PM
Orion is not in mass trouble. it can't be, because the real Orion programme was cancelled in 1965.Posted by Fletcher Christian at July 2, 2007 03:40 PM
while you're drinking your Martini... :) ... I've UPDATED my first idea to cut the Orion's mass and ADDED my SECOND idea in the same page:
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/031easyways.htmlPosted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 2, 2007 04:27 PM
Sorry, but this just screams to be done:
What would our friend Gaetano do
So, you want to lop off the "useless and unused" forward bay? Great idea...unless of course you're one of the crewmembers, and you don't find the idea of being turned into meat-flavored jelly by a parachuteless landing an especially appealing capstone to your career as an astronaut.
Assuming, of course, that you could even get that far without the aid of star trackers and other navigational hardware also located in this "useless and unused" space.Posted by T.L. James at July 2, 2007 06:14 PM
I know that in the small Apollo the parachutes was located inside the top of the capsule (and the same should be with part of the Orion's top cone) but my "sliced-Orion" is NOT "parachuteless" since the parachutes' bays are (exactly) located in the flat top, also, when I talk of an "useless and unused" space, I don't refer to the space used for the parachutes bays (of course) but to the small conical part on the top of the pressurized cabin that, in (both) the Apollo CSM and the standard Orion, is too small and uncomfortable to be (really) used in some ways, so, it's "an useless and unused space" (look at the difference of internal space show in the drawings of my articles about the Orion).
about the "star trackers and other navigational hardware" etc... it's a further invention of an unexisting problem (like your "parachuteless" Orion) just to denigrate my proposal, since... 1) seems that NASA wants to CUT many of these systems and redundancies to save weight... and, 2) that systems was located in the small Apollo despite they was big and heavy (since built with '60s technology) so, the THREE TIMES bigger (than Apollo) Orion will have enough space to put dozens times the (2010-up technology, then, hundreds times smaller and lighter) navigation systems, etc.Posted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 2, 2007 06:43 PM
"but to the small conical part on the top of the pressurized cabin that, in (both) the Apollo CSM and the standard Orion, is too small and uncomfortable to be (really) used in some ways, so, it's "an useless and unused space" (look at the difference of internal space show in the drawings of my articles about the Orion)."
Posted by Mike Puckett at July 2, 2007 07:10 PM
Sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking about. Unfortunately, I'm constrained as to what I can say to correct your misconceptions, much as I would like to.Posted by T.L. James at July 2, 2007 07:17 PM
Sorry, Mike, that last post was aimed at our friend Gaetano.Posted by T.L. James at July 2, 2007 07:18 PM
I think Gaetano should be the new head of Orion development at NASA. He's our generation's Leonardo. He's awesome.Posted by Keith Cowing at July 2, 2007 07:32 PM
I understood T.L.
GM needs to understand there are all kinds of things in the physical world that have to play happy with each other and when you casually change one thing you can easily screw up the whole. Particularly when you are playing fast and loose in ballistic shapes that are designed to slam into the upper atmosphere at 25,000mph. Mold lines are what they are for a reason.
Real life isn't a simplified simulation like Sim City. The devil is in the details and one small change can make the whole thing not work.........like changing the operating voltages in a thermostat.......
I suggest GM read this for edification:
Yes I am Administrator of NASA - today. On Tuesdays it is Rand's job. Mike has the job on Wednesday ...
Can I have Fridays? It would work out much better for my scheduale.Posted by Ferris Valyn at July 2, 2007 09:55 PM
Teddy the Wonder Lizzard is penciled in for Friday. Mabey he can trade you for Thursday.Posted by Mike Puckett at July 2, 2007 10:43 PM
Sorry - Ferris is NASA admin on Fridays - and Saturdays. I am being generous - after all, I am (was) NASA Administrator ...Posted by Keith Cowing at July 2, 2007 11:53 PM
some random replies...
Keith Cowing about "Photoshop" and Mike Puckett about "AutoCAD"...
no, I use PaintShopPro and other graphics tools... however... ALL ideas (also the BIGGEST ones) NEVER born in a multiprocessors workstations with super CAD softwares, but (first) in the mind of its inventor, then, it goes from the mind to a (paper) notebook (or to a napkin, if the inventors is doing a breakfast without his "tools"... :) and the next step is a blackboard's surface where the inventor illustrate the new idea to his colleagues to have their opinions, critics, suggestions
when a new idea his adopted, the inventor's assistants write a .pdf document (with lots of Photoshop images... :) and publish them on a website and/or diffuse to the company/agency offices, then, ONLY if they decide to actually BUILD the new device, it moves to a CAD computer/software for a real/final design
however, what have you against photoshop images?
ALL (small and big) space forums and blogs are FULL of thousands users-made images to illustrate their proposals, many websites (including well known aerospace magazines) use virtual (and, sometimes, bad made) images to illustrate their news and rumors, the JULY 2006 "Stumpy", the AUGUST 2006 "Direct", the JANUARY 2007 "Jupiter" (EXACTLY like my MAY 12, 2006 "FAST-SLV") and dozens other (NASA, ESA, RSA, COTS, aerospace companies, etc.) studies and proposals about spacecrafts and spaceflights are ONLY "paper documents with photoshop images" and also the ESAS plan (published at the end of 2005) was, is and will be (for, at least, seven years from now) JUST a "Word/Excel/PowerPoint/Phothosop plan" !!!
so, why I can't do the same thing anyone does on the planet???
Ed Minchau: "Don't equate the medium with the message."...
exactly true, the purpose of the photoshop images is only to illustrate the idea/message (since... "one image worth thousands words") ...unfortunately, there are some guys that don't understand (or don't want to...) a so simple thing... :)
Mike Puckett: "By trained engineers who can AutoCAD those sketches into viable designs."...
also, MY "sketches" could become "viable designs"
Keith Cowing: "ESAS was an internal NASA study. It is not a space agency i.e. it does not employ astronauts."...
you don't need to learn me so obvious things... I believe it's clear to anyone (except to your brilliant mind) that I refer to the "astronauts that will come back to the Moon with thanks to the ESAS plan and the ESAS hardware" and NOT to a "new space agency called ESAS" ...but you have time to lose writing that kind of posts...
Keith Cowing: "has a photoshop version of Orion that is also a helicopter!"...
not read so far my reply and the AIAA document???
Roger Strong: "A balloon launched Ares I would be easier to PhotoShop, thus the superior alternative."...
the Ares-I is too heavy, but there are study, concepts and tests aimed to launch small rockets and suborbital (manned and unmanned) vehicles from big stratospheric balloons
Keith Cowing: "This modern day Leonardo has a helicopter variant of the Orion..."
I regret since (unfortunately) I was not the first to think the idea of a capsule+rotor (the AIAA study was published in 2005 and his co-author, Jeff Hagen, said me that he has found references of similar vehicles as far back as 1958) but I'm HAPPY to see that I was RIGHT also about my most astonishing idea!!! ...so, I'll soon add the answer "yes" (or delete the question mark) on my article's title: "Possible an Orioncopter?"
Keith Cowing: "Maybe the blades could spin on ascent as well and help pull the Ares 1 through the air."...
nearly impossible with the Ares-I (due to the mass involved) but (you know) not a crazy idea since its similar to the american and russian airlaunch studies, concepts and tests (and to the SS1/SS2-like suborbital vehicles)
Keith Cowing: "how he fits the motor, fuel, and parachutes"...
answer posted ("autorotation")
Mike Puckett: "Who needs a docking adapter and tunnel anyway?"...
the sliced-Orion always has enough space for everything they need
T.L. James: "I'm constrained as to what I can say to correct your misconceptions"...
sorry T.L. but YOU are misinformed about the Orion's design story... the current Orion is a cone ONLY since this is the shape (both) NASA and the Orion's contract winner (LockMart) have decided to use, but it's NOT the ONLY possible shape for the Orion!!!
just look at the Mark Wade articles about the Orion's early concepts and you will see MANY different (not all conical) shapes (including the first LockMart Orion concept that was a multi-module small spaceplane!!!)
Mike Puckett: "...needs to understand there are all kinds of things in the physical world..."
there is nothing strange in my rockets and capsule designs, then, they can perfectly match the physics' lawsPosted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 3, 2007 05:42 AM
post edit: "teach me" NOT "learn me"Posted by gm at July 3, 2007 05:46 AM
Gaetano is truly a genius - of that I have no doubt.Posted by Keith Cowing at July 3, 2007 06:23 AM
Trust me, Gaetano...I know a lot more about the design history of LM's Orion concepts than you think.Posted by T.L. James at July 3, 2007 07:17 AM
then, you know I'm right about the Orion's shapes, T.L.Posted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 3, 2007 07:21 AM
I admire his enthuiasm, I will grant him that much. It is his apparent lack of discipline that needs work.
If he were to channel it into an aerospace education, there are people on these boards that might be able to help him achieve an aerospace career.
If he continuse along his current path, he will be banned from most of these posting boards inside of 18 months. I would rather see him take a more productive path.
If you really want to play this game for real GM, get an engineering degree instead of spamming boards, it will be far more productive in the long run.
Nurtue contacts, don't alienate them.
Anyway, off to the woods.Posted by Mike Puckett at July 3, 2007 07:22 AM
"there is nothing strange in my rockets and capsule designs, then, they can perfectly match the physics' laws"
So you call them designs. I bet the rest of the commenters would call them a ridiculous mixture of photoshopped images from various past and present ideas. I call them ridiculous, since there does not seem to be any analysis made for their feasibility.
And how can you state (I presume that you are serious) that they can match the laws of physics. That kind of statement without any analysis is the other giveaway of your serious lack of understanding of these kinds of aerospace concepts.
Since I too have a limited amount of time available, I decided only to comment on your last sentence. The same goes for *practically* everthing else that you seem to "design".
There is nothing wrong with mixing different ideas and playing with concepts, but I would recommend doing some analyses for the stuff that you propose. That "analysis" stuff is the hard part in aerospace world, photoshopping together a large number of viable and non-viable stuff in a random way is really quite silly (IMHO).Posted by Teddy the Wonder Lizzard (NaySay admin on fridays) at July 3, 2007 07:27 AM
post ideas YOU don't like doesn't mean "spamming boards" ...the real spamming is posting useless comments to attack peoples that have opinions different from yours...Posted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 3, 2007 07:31 AM
"...there does not seem to be any analysis made for their feasibility..."
give me the billion$$$ of funds paid to the big aerospace companies (that have army of engineers) and I will give you the detailed analysis you wantPosted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 3, 2007 07:37 AM
Gaetano claims that he is capable of doing the analysis that hundreds of aerospace professionals are usually required to do - all by himself - and he will do it by using Photoshop.
Wow. He is truly an awesome person.Posted by Keith Cowing at July 3, 2007 07:49 AM
I respect your enthusiasm, I really do. But if you want to change minds with your ideas, you simply HAVE to provide quantifiable analyses to indicate that what you propose will work.
I do not intend to demean you in any way--but if you want to win anyone with a technical background to your cause, you _must_ show at least some depth of analysis. If you're positive that your ideas are sound, then post your numbers in a clear, structured way, and let everyone scrutinize the content. That's how it has to work.
You're not doing yourself any favours by arguing with the engineers here.Posted by Grant Bonin at July 3, 2007 08:03 AM
probably the best thing I can do is to stop reply to your ridiculous post where you deliberately understand my posts the way you want to have good arguments to write insults... however... clearly I can't do the analysis of hundreds aerospace engineers, but, having BIG funds, I can start MY aerospace company (or buy one) and hire enough engineers that do the analysis that company needsPosted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 3, 2007 08:28 AM
"...You're not doing yourself any favours by arguing with the engineers here..."
no one can do that without large funds, engineers and infrastructures, then, I propose each idea "as is" and I don't want to convince anyone, but just show my ideasPosted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 3, 2007 08:32 AM
In case you weren't aware: T.L. James works on the real Orion.Posted by Mike Puckett at July 3, 2007 01:47 PM
assuming you're right, Mike (...why should an Orion project engineer lose his time on the web instead of do his job?) T.L. could apply the best ideas on the new hardware... :):):)Posted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 3, 2007 02:00 PM
Could everyone get back on topic on this Thread? Geesh!
The performance problem is two-fold:
In both cases, the root of the problem is NASA. They haven't DESIGNED LVs or Crewed Vehicles in a GENERATION. Get them out of the loop.
"Could everyone get back on topic on this Thread?"
I agree with your first question...
...unfortunately, your last claim is excellent to start a new off-topic controversy... :)Posted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 3, 2007 03:04 PM
Regarding the comment about Ares-1 being underperforming and the Orion capsule not being overweight ... that's apparently not true. I had the same thought, but was told by someone on the "inside" that Ares-1 could meet the targets set for it in the Constellation Architecture Requirements Document (CARD).
in the first NASA/LockMart Orion specs released at the end august 2006, the Orion's mass was about 8.5 mT, while, now, it's expected to be 10.5 mT, then, the Orion is clearly overweighted (however, we don't know if the Ares-I is able to lift the 8.5 mT)Posted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 5, 2007 12:11 PM
in the first NASA/LockMart Orion specs released at the end august 2006, the Orion's mass was about 8.5 mT, while, now, it's expected to be 10.5 mT, then, the Orion is clearly overweighted (however, we don't know if the Ares-I is able to lift the 8.5 mT Orion)Posted by GAETANOMARANO.IT at July 5, 2007 12:11 PM
Post a comment