Space Forum / Space Policy / July 2008

.

as I've already said SEVERAL TIMES and EVERYWHERE on the web, my FAST-
SLV was/is NOT a "new rocket", like all old shuttle-derived concepts
(or the LATER "Direct", that's only a BAD COPY of my idea) but a
"rocket kit" built with the SAME Shuttle's parts (SRBs, SSMEs, ET)
just rearranged in a different (in-line) configuration to SAVE giant
amounts of &D time and

money... the (time/money-saving) "kit" was MY idea, not the
rocket... :)

but.. was born first the "egg" (FAST-SLV) or the chicken (Direct) ???

well, about the FIRST that had this idea, I've found a true scoop!!!

found on NSF (yes! on NSF.direct.lobby.com!) the FINAL EVIDENCE that
"Direct" was born (at least) THREE MONTHS AFTER my FAST-SLV idea!!!

I've published my FAST-SLV concept in May 12, 2006 on my website:

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

and (in the same days) I've posted my idea and the link to my article
on several Space forums and blogs around the world

now, just read this (now saved on my HDD...) NSF thread started on
July 13, 2006:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3307.0;all

well, in this July 18, 2006 post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3307.msg50478#msg50478

the forum user "edkyle99" said...

"One alternative ESAS option, for example, called for the development
of only one, "mid-size" launch vehicle (90-100 tonnes to LEO).  The
study found that a lunar mission performed with two such launchers
would cost less than the current "1.5 Launch" mission."

then, one day and five posts later, the forum's user kraisee (the
nickname of Ross Tierney, that, later, has become the head and
spokesman of the Direct-lobby...) replied to Ed Kyle in this July 19,
2006 post (3.5 months AFTER my article and posts) saying...

"That option has me curious. Pure hypothetical:   Two 4-seg SRB's plus
three 500,000lb thrust engines (Shuttle) today is enough to launch
116mT to ISS. Replace the three SSME's with two RS-68's and you'd get
very similar performance, but you can do so in a simpler in-line
arrangement, and spend less cash. The Payload would require an OMS
system to performa the final circularisation burn, but the ol' space
tug idea would seem to suit that role nicely.   The two Shuttle's OMS
Pods mass a total of about 20mT, including the integral RCS systems,
so my guess would be you could launch 100mT of useful payload on each
flight. NASA wouldn't need to pay for 5-segs (yet, although they'd be
nice as an upgrade later), wouldn't need to plan extensive changes to
the MLP's or Pad Structures and could retain much of the current
infrastructure for both SRB's and ET processing. Depending on it's
expected LOC figures, it might be a realistic, less costly and quicker
system to get operational."

that was the SAME thought and ideas of my FAST-SLV article... just 3.5
months later... :)

in other words, its CLEAR, that, he has had """his""" true-shuttle-
derived concept idea ONLY in July 19, 2006, over 3.5 months LATER my
FAST-SLV article and my LOTS of posts on several space forums and
blogs!!!

so, ONE MONTH LATER (and OVER FOUR MONTHS AFTER my FAST-SLV article)
in this (saved...) August 15, 2006 post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3613.msg57114;topicseen#msg57114

kraisee/Tierney said...

"Of course, I'll plug my "Direct" SDLV solution    One single launcher
based on all the good bits of current STS hardware, with very few
modifications.   Only one development cost, not two.   The same
vehicle is powerful enough to fly crew or cargo - or both!   It uses
well-known, already man-rated, systems throughout and has a full
workforce ready to work on it right now.  Cut the cost and dangers of
the Orbiter completely out of the program and open the moon up with
just one payment for one launch vehicle to develop, not two. Direct
Shuttle Derivative.   2x4seg, 3xSSME, 73.5mT to LEO.   Add an EDS and
this 2.0 launch solution costs about half the cost of Ares-I and Ares-
V together per year, yet it does more.   For a total of less than
$2.5Bn, you could launch 3 complete 4-man Lunar missions, plus two 6-
man missions to the ISS, each of which would allow an extra 48 ton
payload module to be brought along at the same time to resupply the
station. The unlikely looking Ares-I & Ares-V choice NASA had been
planning, would have cost about $3.2Bn for just TWO 150mT Lunar
missions with TWO CEV-only ISS missions, and would not offer any extra
payload capacity to ISS.   Resupply missions would cost extra again.
Looks like a very good alternative to me."

in that post he talks EXACTLY of MY idea of a TRUE shuttle-derived
single rocket with similar evaluations and the same time/cost saving
advantages!!! (like... "It uses well-known, already man-rated, systems
throughout and has a full workforce ready to work on it right now.",
"Shuttle Derivative.",  "2x4seg, 3xSSME, 73.5mT to LEO.", etc.)

also, this seems the first post where he use the term/name "Direct"
for """his""" alternative single rocket concept as he explain in this
(saved...) August 24, 2006 post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=3537.msg59690;topicseen#msg59690

saying... "Actually I didn't come up with the idea, so I don't want
the credit. The idea simply presented itself as the simplest possible
solution to take what we have now and make a better LV out of it.
Then when I checked, it had already been proposed and was actualy
anaylsed in the ESAS (the EOR-LOR option) - although with a few minor
changes, like putting the LOI burn on the CEV instead of the LSAM.
With the latter conclusions in the ESAS though, putting LOI on the
LSAM for the EOR-LOR option works even better than their CEV-LOI
option.   But the decision appears to have already been made to go
with the 1.5 solution by that third stage of the anaylis. All I am
trying to do is promote the idea as the most effective design
available, fullfilling all the requirements better and covering all
the bases (economic, political, technical & performance) even better
than I believe any of the other alternatives do."

kraisee's post ending with... "To do that I have created a "face" and
a "name" for people to relate to it: "Direct"ly I'll take credit for
that, maybe."

and, today, that has been noticed/remarked also by another NSF user
("gladiator1332") in this new NSF thread's post:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=71594f4e53630d70382eadd43a2
35df6&topic=13824.msg299967#msg299967

(thank you very much gladiator1332 !!!)

then, """his""" idea was "adopted" by a "shadow group" of fired NASA
engineers and lobbyists (probably made by those who

have lost the "battle" for the NASA chiefs seats in 2005...) to
propose something "better" than the ("wrong") ESAS Ares-1/5 rocket/
architecture proposed by the (chief administrator seat battle's
winner) Mike Griffin... :) ...the same peoples that (now) hope/suggest
that the current NASA administrator will/must be FIRED by the next
President...

several times, on several space forums and blogs, the Direct-guys/
supporters/PR/propaganda-men have INSULTED me saying that "Direct" was
developed MONTHS or YEARS before my FAST-SLV concept/article/forum's
posts...

they said that there was ideas, concepts, drawings, study,
calculations, etc. made by "Direct engineers" in 2005 or before...

so, EVERYTIME, I've asked them to give me just ONE (small but reliable
and credible) evidence/source of their claims... but they have NEVER
posted NOTHING to support them and to demonstrate that "Direct" was
born BEFORE (maybe, months or years before) my FAST-SLV idea/concept/
proposal... :)

but the reason why they have NEVER posted any evidence nor source
about the true Direct origin is (simply) because, this kind of
evidence/source, DOESN'T EXIST !!!

there was NO Direct-idea, NO Direct-concept, NO Direct-drawings, NO
Direct-study, NO Direct-calculations, NO Direct-evaluations, NO Direct-
group, NO Direct-guys, NO Direct-lobby, NO Direct-supporters, NO
Direct-peoples, NO Direct-project, NO Direct-proposal, NOT EVEN the
"Direct" term/name, before MY article, since EVERYTHING was born on
NSF between July 18 and August 24, 2006 !!!

and this is the TRUE story of (MY) "FAST-SLV" vs. ("""their""")
"Direct"... :)

.