The Summer 2007 issue of Horizons has been posted.  Horizons is the
online newsletter produced by the AIAA Houston section that covers
local AIAA activities and events and features notices of upcoming
paper presentations, general interest items, local aerospace stories,
and relevant commentary.  In this issue:

·      From the Editor: An "Open Source" Launch Vehicle Family?
·      Chair's Corner
·      A DIRECT Approach
·      Staying Informed
·      Membership Page
·      AIAA Historic Aerospace Site Plaque at NASA/JSC
·      Virgin Galactic Training for Travel Representatives
·      Summary Report: The 2007 Annual Technical Symposium
·      Student Essay: To Boldly Go
·      Student Essay: You're a GO for Launch
·      The Engineering and Sciences Contract Group
·      The Space Settlement Design Competition
·      The International Space Development Conference 2007
·      Elon Musk of SpaceX Addresses AIAA Houston
·      Calendar
·      Cranium Cruncher
·      Odds and Ends
·      Conference Presentations/Articles by Houston Section Members
·      AIAA Local Section News

You can find the new issue at the AIAA Houston Horizons web page:

http://www.aiaa-houston.org/horizons

JON S. BERNDT
Editor, Horizons Online Magazine
AIAA Houston
www.aiaa-houston.org/horizons
email:  editor * at * aiaa-houston . org

Sounds great, an Open Source Launch Vehicle Family, a paradigm shift.

I'll have to read the article. :-)

--
Craig Fink
Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeG...@GMail.Com

On 12 Ago, 16:14, Jon <j...@hal-pc.org> wrote:

.

MY EMAIL TO AIAA and HORIZONS EDITOR (about "Direct") >>>

.

To: AIAA and Horizons Editor

I'm sorry for the powerful "Direct" lobby... but the FIRST rocket of
this kind is my "FAST-SLV" published on my website in May 12, 2006 and
(in the same days) on SEVERAL space forums and blogs like NewMars,
HobbySpace, Universe Today, etc.

The (similar) NASA (?) "Stumpy" was published on NSF in July 2006 and
the (original...) "Direct Launcher" in August 2006 on NSF (FOUR MONTHS
AND HUNDREDS POSTS LATER MY "FAST-SLV" CONCEPT).

Ok, I've not a "FAST-SLV" lobby... that's why "Direct" has a full
(never deleted in last nine months) Wikipedia "commercial" article,
while, my Wiki FAST-SLV links are regularly deleted whitin a few
hours... but, if the FREEDOM of the U.S. Press is TRUE (and STILL
exists) I believe that AIAA (and ALL space websites, forums and blogs)
should publish this email to evidence WHO (me) WHEN (four months
before "Direct") and WHERE (on my website) the idea of Single Launch
Vehicle (built with ready available, cheap and man-rated STANDARD
Shuttle-derived hardware) was FIRST proposed:

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

Best Regards

Gaetano Marano

.

On Aug 12, 7:32 pm, gaetanomarano <m...@gaetanomarano.it> wrote:

Gaetano:

Let me say that even though DIRECT was announced in October 2006, it
had been worked on for the year prior to that. And even then, the
concepts had some heritage from previous NASA  designs. In fact, I
recall a Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle design more than fifteen years ago
that bears a resemblance to DIRECT - and your design.

It's not about who is first, or even who came up with what idea. It's
about keeping an open dialogue to ensure that the Vision for Space
Exploration gets the best possible tools to fill the needs. It's not
about any individual's vanity.

Jon

On 13 Ago, 04:26, Jon <j...@hal-pc.org> wrote:

.

Jon

the Direct concept was first posted on NSF in August 2006, however
(August or October) it's always SEVERAL months AFTER my FAST-SLV
concept was first published on my website and many important space
forums and blogs (that all space "experts" read daily...)

in latest months, when I've said that on some space forums and blogs,
I've received answers similar to yours here "it had been worked on for
the year prior to that" but, when I've asked them to have an EVIDENCE
of that (from a reliable and credible source) they haven't posted
NOTHING (since that evidence, simply, doesn't exists)

about NASA studies, that could be made (then rejected) but, if the
Direct guys are aware their concept is NOT NEW (since already
proposed, months/years before, in my website or by NASA studies) why
do they propose it as a product of their minds/studies??? (and why do
they insist to propose a Xerox-copy of a NASA project?)

and, yes, the (real/main) problems is NOT about "who is first" nor
"individual's vanity" but it's much WORSE since it's a problem of
journalists' HONESTY and of FREEDOM of Press!

I think/believe that every (really free and honest) journalist, space
magazine, news website, forum, blog, etc. that KNOW my proposals (like
you now) should publish articles, reviews, posts, etc. ALSO on them
(clearly evidencing WHEN that proposals was FIRST published)

COULD an important US newspaper say that the first man in space was
Glenn rather than Gagarin?

clearly NOT ...but THAT is EXACTLY what happens DAILY with the
"original" Direct concept!

COULD Wikipedia publish a full article on Glenn while DELETING all
links to articles about Gagarin?

should be NOT ...but THAT is EXACTLY what happened in last nine months
with Direct and my FAST-SLV

it's a problem of HONESTY and FREEDOM OF PRESS ...not of vanity...

or, maybe... the "Direct" lobby has so much "power" on Press than US
Presidnts could never "dream" to have... ?

gaetano

.

On Aug 13, 8:42 am, gaetanomarano <m...@gaetanomarano.it> wrote:

Now you are going out of line and becoming annoying. Nobody on DIRECT
to my knowledge has claimed that they are first in anything - in fact
if you read the article carefully (without being blinded by your own
ego) then you will see. Neither DIRECT nor your concept are completely
original. Since Horizons has published an article on DIRECT, are you
now claiming that Horizons must also publish an article on your
concept - and every other concept that someone comes up with. I've
received some emails that suggest that your complaint sounds like
"sour grapes" (envy and jealousy at the publicity that DIRECT is
getting) - and it does. DIRECT did not gain any notice because of a
"lobby", which implies the concept has no merit, but because it has
appeal to them. Nobody is stopping you from trying to raise awareness
of your concept, which it appears you have been doing, without the
success you crave.

Read the article again and tell me where there was any dishonesty. If
you are not satisfied, you can raise the question on
forums.nasaspaceflight.com in the DIRECT v2.0 thread.

Jon

news:1186928096.949779.161530@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

Thanks for posting this link.  The articles there look pretty interesting.

Jeff
--
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
     little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
     safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

news:1187014322.955913.98770@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

He posts all of his drawings on his web site and makes all sorts of claims
about them without providing any engineering analysis to back up his claims.
And his drawings are all over the map like he's taking a shotgun approach at
things.

Now it looks like he's starting to use these drawings to claim he came up
with such and such idea first.  Shame on him.

This is why I've got gaetanomarano in my killfile.

Jeff
--
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
     little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
     safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

On 13 Ago, 16:12, Jon <j...@hal-pc.org> wrote:

.

Jon

clearly you're NOT obliged to publish anythings you don't want to...
but a correct journalistic work should include to talk, publish and
add links to the concepts that have (or could have) "inspired" the
(most recent) proposal (NO MATTER if the previous concept was
developed by NASA, ESA, Boeing, etc. or by a small blogger...)

in other words, if a recent song (just) "seems" inspired to an old
Beatles' song, ALL (really) free, correct and honest music's
journalists/critics should point that in ALL their TV/web/newspapers'
articles, forums' posts, blogs' comments, books, etc.

this is my opinion, of course, and anyone is free to follow it or
not...

gaetano

.

On 13 Ago, 17:06, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:

.

I'm sorry for the "Direct" lobby/religion's devotees, but the
"concept" actually is EVERYTHING (and add some calculations is just a
detail) since the "core" of (both) my "FAST-SLV" concept and the (four
months LATER) "Direct" proposal is to use STANDARD and READY AVAILABLE
motors, engines, tanks, etc. (rather than build two new rockets) to do
everything FASTER and save LOTS of billion$$$

.

Indeed.  I especially liked the article about the training that Virgin
Galactic held for travel agents.  I hadn't heard about that event
before.

news:p4wvebjtjj8.fsf@panix5.panix.com...

The article on the Direct (Jupiter) launch vehicle (family) was interesting
as well.  I still don't support any new NASA developed launch vehicle, but
the Direct launch vehicle approach does seem to have a few advantages.  It
seems to minimize initial launch vehicle development costs and schedule by
keeping the four segment SRB's and having the liquid fueled first stage be
the same diameter as the existing ET.  Because it has more in common with
the STS stack it maximizes reuse of shuttle facilities.  And finally, it
would give NASA a launch vehicle family with fewer variations (hardware and
work-flow)between them than Ares I + Ares V.

Jeff
--
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
     little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
     safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

On 13 Ago, 20:16, "Jeff Findley" <jeff.find...@ugs.nojunk.com> wrote:

point by point, word by word, EXACTLY the SAME reasons I've suggested
in my "FAST-SLV" article/concept in May 12, 2006 (FOUR months before
"Direct") ...use existing parts, same Shuttle derived tanks, same
launch pads, giant saving of money, etc... :-)

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

.

.
.

the MAIN problem of "Direct" (and of all alternative concepts) is that
NASA should FAIL in its effort to develop the Ares-I to have (just a
few) chances to be adopted... that is possible, but NOT likely
probable, since there are MANY WAYS to CUT the Orion's mass... SEVEN
of them suggested in my article:

http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/031easyways.html

.
.

As a slight aside, as the original front-man for the DIRECT concept, I
would just like to mention that our concept, and even Gaetano's, is
certainly nothing "new".

The original concept for this style of vehicle was being floated in
the 1970's as the Shuttle's design was still being finalised.   The in-
line configuration launcher was *always* a logical derivative of the
STS, although funding was never available to do much with the concept.

Following the 1986 loss of Challenger, NASA MSFC led a push to create
an unmanned variant of the STS.   Two concept came from this work.
The better known is "Shuttle-C" because it used the existing Shuttle
payload loading system - but an in-line variant of STS was also
developed by this team and is precisely the same style of launcher and
designs which we have proposed in the last year.   But with the
expenses involved in the original Return To Flight in the late 1980's,
again was no money to build either variant of STS derivative - Shuttle-
C nor the In-Line.

The In-Line STS concept once again emerged in 1991 as the National
Launch System (NLS) - a joint NASA/DoD effort to create Heavy Lift
capability for military purposes and civillian exploration use.   With
a disposable engine program (which would interestingly result in the
RS-68 ultimately), the NLS Heavy Lift launcher system bears an
incredible likeness to what has been presented by multiple groups
recently.

And even the ESAS Report included the same basic concept again in
November 2005 as vehicle "LV-24" and "LV-25".   They discounted it for
the bizarre reason that it "also required a Crew launcher, making it a
3-launch solution" - yet their own figures show that LV-24 (the crew
launch configuration) did achieve all of the safety requirements of
better than 1:1000 Loss of Crew (LOC) numbers so could have been
analized in its own right as a Crew launcher.   ESAS missed this
opportunity, and debate continues to rage whether this oversight was
deliberate or accidental.   Either way, that discussion is ultimately
irrelevant though.

The debate of "who's idea was first" is equally irrelevant.   DIRECT
came up with the idea completely independently of other work.
Gaetano Marano came up with the same idea completely independently.
Team Vision also came up with the exact same concept completely
independently too.

Yet how did we all independently arrive at the same basic
configuration?

Because it is clearly the simplest, cheapest and most logical
solution.   It requires the least investment in terms of both $$$ and
time, and returns the maximum scientific and exploration results of
any of the solutions for any given $$$ investment.   And being Shuttle-
derived it also recongizes the political reality that NASA *must*
retain the Shuttle's current "standing army" workforce scattered
around the country.

Where our different groups differ is purely in terms of
presentation.   While I was personally unaware of Gaetano's work until
earlier this month, he might well have been the first to announce his
solution last year.   But Team Vision was the first to publish the
concept in an industry-recognized forum - their AIAA presentation of
last year.   And DIRECT was the first team to bring NASA engineers
into the concept with real hardware designs, structural analysis
simulations and cost breakdowns and to present the concept directly to
NASA and relevant political & oversight groups.

Ultimately we all have the same goals though - a more robust US space
program which returns better results for the taxpayers hard-earned
investment $$$.   We all share the belief that Ares has "concerns",
and that a single LV solution with real Heavy Lift capability can
solve these concerns.

While debate may continue in a few limited corners about "who was
first", the truth is that NASA was first - beating DIRECT, Team Vision
and Gaetano to the finish line by about 20 years.

What disturbs me is how ESAS just ignored two decades of NASA's
previous work in order to build two radically different vehicles
instead of one.   Their choice was to build both the smallest and the
largest theoretical Shuttle-derived variants possible for some reason,
and the justification is actually fairly thin in engineering terms.
Why they did that should be the focus of some discussion, but more
importantly how we can fix this should be the primary concern now that
the Ares "1.5 launch solution" (still actually 2-launch if you bother
to count them) architecture is struggling to close its Lunar
performance targets and meet the "gap" closure targets.

Call it FAST, DIRECT, Jupiter, NLS, Shuttle-II or whatever - this
concept offers tangible benefits over Ares in terms of performance,
safety, program risk reduction, cost and engineering requirements.

FYI - Team Vision and DIRECT merged our two separate efforts about 9
months ago and are together about to present a new AIAA paper for
"SPACE 2007" in September.

Ross B Tierney
www.directlauncher.com