TRUE story of "Direct"
As I've already said SEVERAL TIMES and EVERYWHERE on the web, my FAST-SLV idea was/is NOT a "new rocket" (like all other 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 parts (SRB, SSME, ET) just rearranged in a different configuration to SAVE giant amounts of R&D time and money... and (exactly) that (time/money saving) "kit" was MY idea, NOT the rocket! ...but... was the "chicken" (FAST-SLV) or the "egg" (Direct) born first ???
Well, about "who was the FIRST that has had this idea", I've found a TRUE SCOOP !!!
About three weeks ago I've 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 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... and now... just read this NSF thread (that I've saved on my PC...) started July 13, 2006 where in this July 18, 2006 post the forum user edkyle99 said... "One alternative ESAS option, for ex., 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, just one day and five posts later, the forum user kraisee (nickname of Ross Tierney, that, later, became the head and spokesman of the Direct-lobby...) replied to Ed Kyle in this July 19, 2006 post (3.5 MONTHS AFTER my article) 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 EXACTLY the SAME thought and idea of my FAST-SLV article... just 3.5 months later... :)
In other words, it's CLEAR that he has had """ his """ true shuttle-derived concept idea ONLY in July 19, 2006 or OVER 3.5 MONTHS LATER my FAST-SLV article and LOTS of threads and posts about MY idea on several Space forums and blogs !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then, ONE MONTH LATER (or OVER FOUR MONTHS AFTER my FAST-SLV article!!!) in this (saved...) August 15, 2006 post 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 thestation. 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 about "something" pretty close to MY IDEA of a TRUE shuttle-derived single rocket/kit with similar evaluations and the same R&D 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." ...this is the first post where he use the term/name "Direct" for """ his """ alternative rocket concept, as he explains in this August 24, 2006 post 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."
The kraisee's post ends 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." ...as noticed/remarked by another NSF user (gladiator1332) in this recent NSF post where he says... "That's where it all began folks!" ...thank you very much gladiator1332 !!!
Then, """ his """ idea was "adopted" by a "shadow group" of fired NASA engineers and lobbyists (probably those who lost the "battle" for the NASA chiefs' seats in 2005...) to suggest something better than the "wrong" ESAS' rockets/architecture proposed by the (NASA administrator's seat battle winner) Mike Griffin... the same peoples that now hope that, the current NASA administrator, will be soon FIRED by the next US President...
Several times (on Space forums and blogs) the Direct's guys/supporters/PR/propaganda men have INSULTED me saying that "Direct" was developed MONTHS or YEARS before my FAST-SLV concept/article (and Space forums/blogs' posts).
They said that there was ideas, concepts, drawings, study, calculations, etc. first made by their "Direct's engineers" in 2005 or before... and, 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 ANYTHING to support them and to demonstrate that "Direct" was born months (or just weeks...) BEFORE my FAST-SLV idea/concept/proposal... :)
Clearly, the reason why they have NEVER posted any evidence or source about the true Direct's origin is (simply) because, this kind of evidences/sources, DOESN'T EXIST !!!!!
There was NO Direct-idea, NO Direct-concept, NO Direct-drawing, NO Direct-study, NO Direct-calculations, NO Direct-evaluations, NO Direct-supporters/engineers inside NASA, NO Direct-guys, NO Direct-lobby, NO Direct-press/forums/blogs, NO Direct-peoples, NO Direct-project, NO Direct-proposal and NOT EVEN the Direct's term/name, before MY article, since EVERYTHING about Direct was born on NSF between July 18 and August 24, 2006 ...this is the TRUE STORY of my FAST-SLV vs. """ their """ Direct... :) :) :)
Is the free press STILL "free"???
The worst thing I've learned from this story (and from the Lunar X Prize story) is that, the "free press" is NO LONGER FREE, but (every day more) servant of those that have power and money!!!
In latest two years for Direct (and one year for the Lunar X Prize) I've sent (literally) HUNDREDS emails to the biggest TV networks and newspapers and posted HUNDREDS comments on Space forums, blogs, news sites around the world, to show them why that "original" projects was/are NOT so "original" since they was FIRST published (months or years before) on my website and in this blog !!!
Well, in the past (when the press was FREE and BRAVE vs. every kind of "power") just a fraction of THAT would be ENOUGH to write dozens articles against the big company or the bad "inventor" who propose the someone else intellectual property as a product of their own mind !!!
But, now, it seems that everything is changed, since, in latest two years (for Direct) and one year (for the Lunar X Prize) NO ONE of the famous bloggers and newspapers or TV journalists (that have received my email or read about my protest on their blogs or on other well known Space forums and blogs) have written just one-line article about that, but have insisted and STILL insist to claim both (FAST-SLV-like but FOUR months LATER) Direct as (really!!!) born in the Direct-guys' minds and the """Google""" Lunar X Prize as (really!!!) developed by Google (despite the clear evidences published in my Lunar X Prize article) so, my question is: Where the BRAVE and FREE press is gone?
you talk/discuss about this idea on forums, blogs, websites, magazines, newspapers
Copyright © Gaetano Marano - All rights reserved