it's OFFICIAL > 1st manned Orion launch in May-July 2016

.

from this Nov. 16, 2007 SpaceRef article:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1244

"NASA sources also report that the 6 month slip in the Ares 1 PDR (Preliminary Design Review) recently announced could impact the first launch of humans aboard an Ares 1 by as much as 14-16 months beyond the announced first flight date of March 2015"

did you have realized that Orion will be ready in 2012 but will not fly (then, will be "freezed" four+ years) until the Ares-1 will be (IF will be) ready for manned launches in June 2016+ ...and that the american manned-flights' GAP will be (now) of (at least) SIX years (+ further delays) ...and the first lunar landing could slip to 2022+ ...and all that (including the four+ years delay) happened in the first two years (late 2005 / late 2007) of the ESAS plan ???

that mainly (if not ONLY) due to the Ares-1 problems:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/012arescantfly.html

.

Read Griffin's hearing before the Senate: Orion will fly 2014, if NASA gets $2 billion more it will fly 2013. And if you quote SpaceRef, don't miss the important parts!



Gemini-Titan had much more severe problems and was done in time. Saturn had a lot of problems and was done in time. So let the ENGINEERS do their work without flaming them with yellow press arguments.

it seems that NASA would not have that extra-money, also, the problem can't be solved only with some extra-money, since the main delay is due to the 6+ years J-2X R&D timeline



in the '60s the real Gemini and Apollo "booster" was the "cold war"...

.

Read Griffin's hearing before the Senate 3 or 4 days ago.

And Titan and Saturn had the same problems about oscillations and pogo-effects during *development* and engineers fixed these.

Or do you go into a restaurant and flame the cook while you order your meal that he's too dumb and it will never taste?!

Anyone who posts a NASA document that shows the gross liftoff weight to be 2,036,356 pounds and the engine thrust to be 3,510,791 pounds and then says it cannot even lift off the pad, as gaetanomarano has done, is an idiot. You are wasting your time even reading, much less posting comments on his idiotic ravings.

And here I am, reading and posting. I must be an idiot.

Here is an example of a big idea that [url=http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/PERFECT-4-BETS-COMMERCE-LOAN-MONEY-EURO-GAMES-PSP-XBOX_W0QQitemZ280136862589QQihZ018QQcategoryZ3767QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem]didn't get off the launch pad:
[/url]
Trying to sell a domain name for £20,000 and getting no bids.

Trying to sell a domain name like VeryEasyEuro in a country which does not use the Euro.

Some ideas need just a little more work.

I'm not a domains' trader, but, if I sell this domain, I could use that money to start other web projects, so, thank you for the free publicity...



probably you don't know that british have a long experience in games and bids and have many websites that cover any kind of bid about every sport from several countries of the world and under all main currencies, so, England is the BEST PLACE where I can try to sell my domain

.

Mr. Griffin has often changed his claims about the ESAS timeline... ...so...



maybe it's due to the fact that he is a former NASA employee, but SpaceRef/Nasawatch's Keith Cowing has good sources and often his claims and rumors become true within a few days/weeks

also, the Ares-1 seems have several problems, not only the "oscillations"

.

you have (maybe, DELIBERATELY) missed my point

I've NOT "invented" this problem, but (simply) made some comparisons and calculations that (clearly) show it

the real mysteries are the NASA data and specs I've used for my thought

the mystery is why the Shuttle, with two (so powerful) SRB boosters can't lift more payload (that, after the Challenger accident, was also cutted from 28 mT to 24 mT max)

the mystery is why the CLV (that has a so powerful standard SRB, pretty close to the new SRB thrust) can lift only 182 mT of upperstages' mass

the mystery is why, with a so powerful (and ENOUGH powerful) 1st stage, they have added a 5th segment despite the 5 m. Orion should be (but seems it's not) lighter than a 5.5 m. CEV

the mystery is why that 5th segment adds +25% of weight but doesn't give +25% of power

the mystery is why they cut every lb. from the Orion (including essential navigation and safety redundant systems) despite it will be lauched with a so powerful booster

the mystery is why they think/believe to lift +15% of payload and +10 mT of upperstages' mass with a 2nd stage engine that has -43% of thrust and less Isp than the SSME planned in the early CLV

read again my article... I've just made some COMPARISONS between original NASA data and specs ...or between "mysteries"... the Shuttle vs. the CLV vs. the Ares-1 mystery... the 4-segments SRB vs. the 5-segments SRB mystery... the 5.5 m. CEV vs. the 5 m. Orion mystery... the SSME power vs. the 43% less powerful J-2X mystery... etc.

.

Clearly you are trying to be, and so far you have failed.



Being British I do know how well-established the gaming industry is here, and that is precisely why nobody wants your ill-considered domain name. As a native English-speaker I can tell you it is a clumsy, trashy, unappealing name which most people will assume is just some get-rich-quick MLM scam. I will be astonished if you ever sell it at all, let alone for £20,000. And I am doing you a favour by telling you that, safe in the knowledge that no amount of advice or free publicity will do you any good. Even the experience of failing to sell it has no meaning for you.

Meanwhile, sold any advertisement spaces on your website for $2000 yet? Something else stuck on the launch pad?

it's unclear to me what is YOUR problem about MY domain, however, I've used it when the Euro currency was introduced to talk about it (I've published a dozen of articles about then Euro) then I've decided to use the site to talk/publish everything about the Europe, but I've soon realized that was a too big project to develop for a one-man-company... ...then I've decided to sell it



ALL games suggest/promise to get-rich quickly, no matter their name



again, it's unclear what is YOUR problem about MY website ad prices, however, those who will decide to buy that ad spaces should be not advertisers (since it's a small blog) but (possible) sponsor/supporters of my ideas and proposals... yes, it's not easy... but not even impossible...

.

So you are saying that a offcial budget hearing before the Senate to get more that the already given $1 billion is not to be taken serious because "Griffin has often changed his claims".

Did you ever once in your lifetime engineered anything? Development, Calculations, Drawings, Design Reviews etc. etc.?

Changing things is often a good thing Not everyone is stuck within his own believes
@gaetanomarano, some free psychological advice, "when the world turns against you, it's not the world, it's you"

Hello, Sigurd,

the advice seems to have some philosophical implications - so it might also laed to the opposite of the orginal intention.

The problem here seems to be argumentation by alibis to some degree. And there is a bit of polemicising that has been applied as a cause to go on as done before the polemics.

It may be that the discussion should be lead back to reasonable basics like mathematics, formulars, logics, data and contextual reading of it all. Gaetanomarano is using them and it may be of help to concentrate and focus on them while avoiding all psychologics, polemics and so on.

The article "NASA Chief: $2 Billion Would Speed Development of Shuttle Replacement" ( www.space.com/includes/iab.html?url=/in ... nding.html ) seems to assistv the view that additional money simply would - or might - accelerate debugging, testing, development and the like while the chance or degree of acceleration dimishes as time goes by - because of the world or the environment being changing permanently.

And these changes etc. will be one of the - understandable - reasons why . Under such views his behavior will show up to be consistent and logical. The environment also includes the logics of politicians which are quite different to those of engineers and economists.

...



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)

It is a clear example of how you overvalue your ideas.


No, I don't think any game that you pay to play would get away with a promise of easy money, or any name suggesting easy money. Give me an example.


It is a clear example of how you overvalue your ideas.


It is not a blog. It is a shameless self-promotion website


Good luck with that. I hope someone does buy an ad on your site, so I can boycott them.