Re: >>> in the same page of the animation I've added a second (static) image with some moons seen from Earth in a city's skyline >>>

On 6 Dic, 00:03, behlin...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 5, 4:25 pm, gaetanomarano <m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

That is where you completely wrong. The internet is not the only
place where ideas are published. Direct existed before your idea, it
was in the ESAS.

NOT TRUE AND NOT NOW
OFTEN, DOCUMENTS BORN FIRST ON PAPER, BUT, EVERYTHING PRINTED, GOES ON
THE WEB IN A MATTER OF HOURS/DAYS
SO, THE WEB COULD NOT BE THE FIRST SOURCE BUT IS ALWAYS PRETTY CLOSE
TO THE DATE THINGS ARE INVENTED/PRINTED

Boeing's refueling station existed long before you and Boeing put it on the internet.

I HAVE THE EVIDENCE THAT I WAS THE FIRST AND MY EVIDENCE HAS 100%
VALUE UNTIL OTHERS GIVE THE EVIDENCE THAT I'M WRONG ... WITHOUT ANY
EVIDENCE, MY PROPOSAL WAS/IS THE FIRST AND YOUR CLAIM ONLY A GUESS

Stumpy existed before it got on the internet

AGAIN, I'VE THE CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT I'M RIGHT AND I WAIT TO SEE
EVIDENCES, NOT GUESS, THAT I'M WRONG

Many studies never make it to the internet.

IF A STUDY IS NOT PUBLISHED ON THE WEB OR FIRST ON PAPER AND AFTER ON
THE WEB IT DON'T EXIST
IF WE APPLY YOUR PRINCIPLE, ANYONE CAN SAY TO BE THE INVENTOR OF THE
TRANSISTOR, THE PC, THE SHUTTLE, ETC.
PEOPLES THAT INVENTS IDEAS PUBLISH THEM, TALK OF THEM OR PATENT THEM
(IF PATENTABLE) NOT ONLY "THINK" THEM
AGAIN, GIVE US CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF WHAT YOU SAY

Publishing on the internet is not the same as copyrighting.

WRONG, PUBLISH ON THE WEB ACTUALLY IS COPYRIGHT OF TEXTS, IMAGES,
PROPOSALS, ETC. BUT IT'S NOT A PATENT
ALSO, IDEAS CAN'T BE PATENTED BUT THOSE WHO INVENTED FIRST THOUSANDS
THINGS ARE WELL KNOWN

ABOUT "DIRECT" I POST HERE A TEXT THAT I'VE PUBLISHED ON THE DISCUSS
PAGES OF WIKIPEDIA BUT DELETED BY UNKNOWN USERS

DESPITE I DON'T KNOW THE PEOPLES THAT HAVE DELETED MY LINKS AND
DISCUSSIONS ON WIKIPEDIA, IT'S EASY TO UNDERSTAND THEIR GOALS AND
INTERESTS

A FEW DAYS AGO, I'VE UPDATED THE ARES-1 PAGE WITH THE LATEST NASA
SPECS OF THE ROCKET FROM MY ARES-1 ARTICLE

THIS IS THE LINK: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/IMAGES/012ares.jpg

THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT MY BLOG ON THE IMAGE, BUT "SOMEONE" HAS DELETED
IT SINCE HOSTED ON MY BLOG

IF YOU WORK FOR SPACE COMPANIES, ROCKETS-LOBBYES, AEROSPACE MAGAZINES
AND FORUMS YOU CAN SIMPLY WRITE MANY ARTICLES FOR WIKI (THEY NEED FREE
WRITERS TO EXIST) THEN, SOON, YPU BECOME MODERATORS WITH THE POWER TO
PUT HUNDREDS LINKS TO SOME WELL KNOWN COMMERCIAL MAGAZINES AND FORUMS,
SUPPORT YOUR POINT OF VIEW AND THE POINT OF VIEW OF YOUR FRIENDS AND
DELETE ALL THE CRITICS OR PEOPLES YOU DON'T LIKE SINCE SAY THINGS YOU
DON'T WANT

THAT'S WHY "SOMEONE" HAVE DELETED ALL THE LINKS TO MY ARTICLES, MY
CRITICS ON THE DISCUSS PAGE, THE TRUTH ABOUT THE GOOGLE X PRIZE

DIRECT SI NOT AN OFFICIAL NASA PROJECT NOR A REAL ROCKET BUT ONLY A
WORD&PHOTOSHOP PROPOSAL BUT, FROM OVER A YEAR, IT HAS A FULL ARTICLE
AND SEVERAL LINKS ON WIKI AND NO ONE OF THE "INDEPENDETNT" WIKI
"MODERATORS" HAVE DELETED THE ARTICLE ABOUT THIS PRIVATE, NOT REAL,
NOT EXISTISTING, NOT NASA, NOT OFFICIAL CONCEPT

HERE THE DELETED WIKI DISCUSSIONS' TEXT (ALSO) ABOUT DIRECT:

==The "underside-LAS"==

'''A SERIOUS EPISODE OF VANDALISM: SOMEONE HAS CUT THIS ENTIRE SECTION
ABOUT THE ORION'S LAS'''

this is an interesting alternative LAS design (the "underside-LAS")
that has several advantages (mainly "less mass") vs. the standard
tower-LAS and whose link (I think) should be added in the main
article:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/020newLAS.html

[[User:Gaetanomarano|Gaetanomarano]] 23:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

:no it should not, you have copied it from Klipper, see :
:http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper.html
:http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper_history.html
:Please stop spamming Wikipedia with your crappy website

'''answer to the brave anonymous Wikipedia reader's question:'''

'''NO''', the early Kliper design had a '''SIDE'''-mounted LAS like
those proposed in a NASA study and a Griffin's sketch you can see in
this NSF image:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/get-attachment-big.asp?action=view&attachmentid=17477

and discussed in this BAUT thread:

http://www.bautforum.com/914200-post40.html

while the last version of the (now deleted) Kliper had an Apollo-like
tower-LAS called "'''SAS'''" as clealy shown in the first image of the
link '''YOU''' posted:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kliper_history.html

my "'''underside-LAS'''" is a completely '''NEW''' concept
('''NEVER''' proposed nor used in a spacecraft) that works like all
rockets work and has many advantages (first of all: '''LESS WEIGHT''')

PS - if you want to see something that '''REALLY SPAMS''' the web and
Wikipedia, just see the (non-NASA, non-official, unexisting, "Word &
Photoshop", "cents & website") '''COMMERCIAL-ADVERTISING''' "Direct
Launcher" '''FULL''' Wikipedia article + '''LOTS''' of texts and links
in several Wiki space articles (that no one has '''DELETED''' so
far...)
[[User:Gaetanomarano|Gaetanomarano]] 16:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
:Sorry but '''your''' proposals are "Word & Photoshop", there are no
technical, concerning DIRECT you may have a look on August AIAA issue
here http://www.aiaa-houston.org/horizons , where are your article on
serious publication ? You're just jealous because your proposals looks
awful and amateur compared to DIRECT ...

again, no signature nor IP address in your reply... how can that
happen on Wiki? ...however...

1. both my "FAST-SLV" and the (similar but FOUR months LATER) "DIRECT"
actually ARE "Word & Photoshop" proposals (like ALL "concepts" are)
and Direct is not more "technical" just since it has some (non-NASA,
non-official, non-tested) hobby-made calculations about thrust, Isp,
payload, etc.

2. sorry, but, nobody can be "jealous" of a "Direct" since that (FOUR
months LATER) concept has ZERO chances of success (I've no time, nor
is this the right place, to explain you WHY) but I find not correct
nor honest that some (self defined "independent", "free" and
"authoritative") sources ALWAYS "forgot" to talk, review and post
links about my (FOUR months PREVIOUS Direct) concept, as I've
explained in this Google.Groups.Space thread:

http://groups.google.it/group/sci.space.policy/browse_thread/thread/572aab3e34e76c29/87b1ff7a25147bb4?hl=it#87b1ff7a25147bb4

3. about the large press/forums/websites coverage of the (FOUR months
LATER) "Direct" vs. the deleted links to my proposals and the insults
I receive, that's why I've NOT a FAST-SLV lobby, while "Direct"
actually '''IS''' a lobby that (recently) has (also) made "coming out"
on a NSF thread:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=9367&posts=6&start=1

[[User:Gaetanomarano|Gaetanomarano]] 11:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
:Again where is your article on serious publications like AIAA or
SpaceReview ? About your awful "FAST-SLV", so the DIRECT guys have
stolen your idea ? That's funny, your behavior is pathetic, you're
just jealous because DIRECT is much more serious. BTW DIRECT is
LV24/25 from ESAS NASA report, did NASA steal also your ideas ?

my dear (brave) anonymous "friend"...

'''Q:''' where is your article on serious publications like AIAA or
SpaceReview?

'''A:''' while (in general) I doubt we can call "serious" all
publications that HIDE some (disliked) sources about new ideas... if
and when I'll have my own lobby, you'll see '''LOTS''' of "serious
publications" about my proposals... :)

'''Q:''' the DIRECT guys have stolen your idea?

'''A:''' clearly there is no evidence of that and I don't know
(exactly) how that happened, but everyone can judge by himself... :)

'''Q:''' you're just jealous because DIRECT is much more serious

'''A:''' again... nobody can be "jealous" of a proposal that has
'''ZERO''' chances of success... :)

[[User:Gaetanomarano|Gaetanomarano]] 14:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
:you have forgotten the question about NASA ESAS' LV 24/25

my answer to the anonymous user's question:

in the past years NASA has evaluated (and rejected) DOZENS different
(liquid, solid, shuttle-derived, EELV-derived, etc.) rockets for the
ESAS plan

the rockets you refer (LV24/25) are two of a series of NEW "shuttle-
derived" rockets to be designed from ZERO (exactly like the Ares-I and
V) while my "FAST-SLV" actually IS a "shuttle rocket" since built with
the SAME hardware of the Space Shuttle (standard SRB, ET, SSME, etc.)
and WORKS exactly like a Space Shuttle (with a similar flight profile
and payload mass) to allows a GIANT saving of time and money

that's why I've called it "F-A-S-T" SLV... and why in the article's
title I've written "On The Moon in 2012" !!!

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

it's clear that you don't like my proposals but you must actually read
my articles to understand them

also, my proposal has a big advantage vs. (both) Direct and LV24/25
since in the same article (that clearly you have not read) I suggest
to "resize the lunar mission" to launch it with a SINGLE rocket (to
DOUBLE the number of lunar missions from two to FOUR per year!) while,
if two FAST-SLVs will be used, each mission will be very "hardware
rich" since the total payload of two FAST-SLVs should be around
180-200 mT

I think that you must ask the LV24/25 question to your "Direct
Launcher" friends since "their" rocket has NOT the advantages of my
FAST-SLV

but (most important) if they think that "Direct" is ONLY an "LV24/25-
derived" rocket, WHY they call it "Direct"???

why they don't (simply) call it "the NASA LV24/25 rocket"???

why have they given a NEW name ("Direct") to a 100% NASA design that
ALREADY has a name???

why have they "calculated" rockets parameters that NASA has ALREADY
calculated and published in the ESAS plan???

why have they started a website called "www.directlauncher.com"
instead of "www.NASAdesigned-LV24/25.com"???

why have they opened forums' threads with the "Direct" or "Direct 2.0"
titles instead of "NASA LV24/25"???

why Direct-guys and its supporters talk EVERYWHERE of a "new" Direct
Launcher instead of an OLD NASA LV24/25???

why the Wikipedia article is titled "Direct" instead of "NASA LV24/25"

"what" want they "sell" to NASA if they are (already) aware that
"Direct" is only a (NASA designed, owned and rejected) LV24/25
concept???

however, if you have read (or will read) my website, you have noticed
that I've not added any FAST-SLV-like article (but only some articles
about the Orion and the Ares-I) since I think that (both) the FAST-SLV
and the (FOUR months LATER) Direct concepts have NO FUTURE

last, I suggest we STOP talking here about FAST-SLV, Direct, etc.
since this page is for discussions about the "Orion abort modes" (and
the LAS)

[[User:Gaetanomarano|Gaetanomarano]] 00:27, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

..
.

Relevant Pages

  • gaetanomaranos FAST-SLV is not original
    ... I'VE UPDATED THE ARES-1 PAGE WITH THE LATEST NASA ... SPECS OF THE ROCKET FROM MY ARES-1 ARTICLE ... You're just jealous because your proposals looks ... LV24/25 from ESAS NASA report, did NASA steal also your ideas? ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • NASA Seeks Concept Proposals for Ares V Heavy Lift Rocket
    ... NASA SEEKS CONCEPT PROPOSALS FOR ARES V HEAVY LIFT ROCKET ...
    (sci.space.news)
  • Re: Ares vs DIRECT
    ... "Ares III" and the general public will hardly notice. ... DIRECT is not a concept that originated outside of NASA. ... straightforward evolution of one of the concepts studied in NASA's ESAS ... ESAS Report which included the cost figures behind ESAS which was the ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Ares vs DIRECT
    ... "Ares III" and the general public will hardly notice. ... DIRECT is not a concept that originated outside of NASA. ... straightforward evolution of one of the concepts studied in NASA's ESAS ... created by reducing the launcher costs. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Space Access Update #111 04/05/05
    ... - What We Want From NASA: ... Esther Dyson, of computer journalism fame, with her "Flight ... limited engine catalyst-pack life. ... exhibition rocket flights added in 2006 and the first X-Prize ...
    (sci.space.policy)