View Poll Results: Which Orion is better? A (smallSM) "CorkScrew Orion" or a (bigSM) "SwissKnife Orion&q

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • The (smallSM) "CorkScrew Orion" >>>

    19 79.17%
  • The (bigSM) "SwissKnife Orion" >>>

    5 20.83%
Page 21 of 21 FirstFirst ... 11192021
Results 601 to 611 of 611

Thread: Which Orion is better? A (smallSM) "CorkScrew-Orion" or a (bigSM) "SwissKnife-Orion"?

  1. #601
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    20,108
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    the puropose of my articles and posts is ONLY to suggest alternative vehicles and architectures NOT to dictate anything to anyone...
    That would be fine if you stuck to that idea. The problem is, you are using it to argue that NASA is wrong.

    They are not wrong, they are just not approaching it the same way that you would.

  2. #602
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by boppa View Post
    ...how protection against micrometeors...
    Bigelow claims that its inflatable modules will be safe like to-day's modules since they are made with many layers of strong materials (however, I've not real data about them)
    .

  3. #603
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    The problem is, you are using it to argue that NASA is wrong.
    if I'm right it's obvious they are wrong (or the opposite) ...we can't be both right or both wrong
    They are not wrong, they are just not approaching it the same way that you would.
    the standard plan can work, of course, but this is NOT the ONLY way to be "wrong" ...you can be wrong ALSO if you accomplish a mission with twice the money or in twice the time or with half the results compared with better plans, so, the ESAS plan is RIGHT if compared with ITSELF while it's WRONG if compared with BETTER plans
    .

  4. #604
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    20,108
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    Bigelow claims that its inflatable modules will be safe like to-day's modules since they are made with many layers of strong materials (however, I've not real data about them)
    .
    He didn't say that (although he may have meant it).
    He asked for the HOW, not the "is it or isnt it".

    I, for one, assume that the provisions for micro-meteorite safety has been made. But; I still have some questions about it, and would like to know HOW (just like boppa said). I'm sure there are differences between a ridgid and a flexible craft, but I would like to learn more about what that is.

  5. #605
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    20,108
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    if I'm right it's obvious they are wrong (or the opposite) ...we can't be both right or both wrong
    HOGWASH. You have good points, you have bad points, NASA has good points NASA has bad points. It's only a matter of what each believes are the important points.

    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    the standard plan can work, of course, but this is NOT the ONLY way to be "wrong" ...you can be wrong ALSO if you accomplish a mission with twice the money or in twice the time or with half the results compared with better plans, so, the ESAS plan is RIGHT if compared with ITSELF while it's WRONG if compared with BETTER plans
    .
    You also save a lot more than that by not running missions that are unnecessary.

  6. #606
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by boppa View Post
    ...ie more fuel to get into orbit in the first place...
    no, the extra-fuel is not launched when unnecessary ...and the Ares-I will be able to launch the extra-mass of larger SM tanks
    just imagine the ESAS standard-Orion is your car... well, my SwissKnife-Orion is EXACTLY like your car with an additional Gasoline Can...

    +

    you always have that can in your car but you don't need to fill it for every travel... only IF and WHEN you NEED it for a LONG travel or a travel too away from Gas stations

  7. #607
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,174
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    you always have that can in your car but you don't need to fill it for every travel... only IF and WHEN you NEED it for a LONG travel or a travel too away from Gas stations
    The issue is, figure out what you need and then make the tanks that big. We don't know how big that is until NASA reveals their final plans, which is what they are currently working on. When the engineers are finished doing their job, Orion will be as big as it needs to be and no more.

  8. #608
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    ...until NASA reveals their final plans...
    the "final plan" was already revealed 1.5 years ago ...the Orion specs (with STANDARD tanks) was already revelated in aug. 2006 and jan. 2007 ...to have different plan/specs/tanks they must CHANGE its current versions the way I suggest in my articles
    .

  9. #609
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    ...provisions for micro-meteorite safety...
    if they want to use them for humans that modules MUST be protected and safe
    .

  10. #610
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,174
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    the "final plan" was already revealed 1.5 years ago ...
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    the main differences between the early ESAS plan and "my plan" are in three little steps (two of them ALREADY adopted by NASA in the latest months!)
    (underlining mine)

    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    they have made MANY changes in less than a year, then, many other will/may happe(n).

    So which is it; were the plans final 1.5 years ago or are they still revising them? It can't be both.

  11. #611
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    So which is it; were the plans final 1.5 years ago or are they still revising them? It can't be both.
    they're both true ...the early ESAS plan has been revised in many points (going towards my plan) but all lunar landing missions are still based on expendable-LSAMs, standard-Orion, big-EDS and Ares-V
    .

Similar Threads

  1. 16/8/2010 - AR 11098 gave a fantastic "ORION SUNSPOTS BELT".
    By THEO-007 in forum Astrophotography
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-Aug-16, 12:50 PM
  2. Holy moly! Orion now has 36", 40" and 50" Dobs!
    By redshifter in forum Astronomical Observing, Equipment and Accessories
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2010-Jan-07, 11:43 AM
  3. "Ares and Orion Are the Way to Go"
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2008-Oct-31, 01:20 AM
  4. Supersonic "bullets" in the Orion Nebula
    By Blob in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2007-May-01, 08:02 PM
  5. () -- EggCEV - The "bell-shaped" Orion
    By gaetanomarano in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 2006-Oct-05, 10:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: