« Human Space Exploration: The Next 50 Years | Main | Where Do We Go From Here? »

March 21, 2007


Gaetano Marano - Italy


the comment seems posted by John M Wilkes (again, too small fonts) ...however, I don't agree in some points

the first point is about "deliver lunar LOX to earth orbits" that is VERY INEFFICIENT, then, a wrong idea

to have a small amount of lunar-LOX in earth orbit we need to:

1. carry some giant empty LOX tanks in earth orbit

2. launch them towards the moon performing a Trans Lunar Iniection (TLI) that needs very much propellent

3. brake the giant tanks around the moon performing a Lunar Orbit Insertion (LOI) that (again) needs very much propellent

4. send the LOX from the lunar surface (to fill the giant LOX tanks) with many ascent/descent flights of a special (reausable) LSAM that burns very much propellent at every flight

5. launch the (VERY HEAVY) filled LOX tanks towards the earth orbit performing a Trans Earth Iniection (TEI) burn (that, again, needs very much LOX/LH2)

6. last, brake the GIANT and HEAVY (filled) LOX tanks to the (6x lunar gravity) earth orbit (probably) using near all the LOX produced on the moon AND a giant quantity of LH2 that we must send FROM EARTH

then, use the lunar-LOX to fill earth parked vehicles and rockets is simply ABSURD (if not impossible!)

the ONLY efficient way to use the lunar-LOX is ON THE MOON for life support, to make water (with LH2 sent from earth), to drive surface vehicles and to refuel reusable (cargo and/or crew) LSAM-like vehicles for suborbital jumps from points to points on the moon and to/from the lunar orbit to dock the Orion or a Lunar Space Station

I agree that a (ready made) Lunar Space Station is absolutely necessary (mainly for the astronaut's safety) and must be sent BEFORE the first manned launch, as suggested in my June 5, 2006 article here: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/009_LSS.html

also, the best "remote-controlled operations" on the moon are NOT the "hotel modules' manufacture" but the exploration of the ENTIRE moon surface with LOW COST moonrovers, as suggested in my "Vision for Moonrovers Exploration" article here: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/moonrovers/moonrovers.html

last but not least, I completely DISAGREE with all peoples that claim we must go on the moon "to find the Helium-3" (if any...) or to use the H3 mining as a modern "gold-rush" (sorry... "helium-rush") that (also) must DRIVE the private effort to develop a lunar-based economy...

first of all, the best fusion research scientists are NOT confident about reaching a stable (and power-efficient) fusion in the next 50+ years... (also, they are NOT completely sure to hit this goal at all...)

second, we don't need to have soon the H3 fusion since the lack of energy is only a GIANT ILLUSION of a paranoic world !!!

the problem is that we confuse "oil" with "energy" but...

1. the (known) oil world's reserve is evaluated to be sufficient for the next 50 years (before they end) ...but we must consider the UNKNOWN sources we will find in future (that may be sufficient for a a further century!)

2. if and when the oil reserve will end, we can use methane, ethanol and other fuels

3. but the giant (and poor used) resource is the carbon coke that is avaiable in over 30 countries and has reserves sufficient for 250 years!!! ...of course, it must be treated (with ready available technologies) to reduce the pollution when used to produce energy

4. while the oil price will ride up, MANY other technologies (ready avaiable now, but not price-competitive with a so cheap oil on the market) will grow very fast and give us great part of the energy now made with oil and methane

5. again, while the oil price will grow, great part of the houses, cars, etc. will be made/modified to SAVE energy, since, to-day, up to 50% of the energy is (simply) wasted !!!

6. last but not least, we will have (at least) THREE (simple, low cost and available ALL OVER THE WORLD) leader technologies that will give us INCREDIBLE quantities of energy: a) the low cost "printed" polymer solar cells... b) the 10+ miles deep earth's drilling geothermal energy, and... c) the high altitude rotors driven by high speed jet stream winds

Gaetano Marano




sy levine

Since Bush has been president thousands of innocent people died needlessly in 911. Yet, neither the Secretary of the Department of Transportation (DOT) nor the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) have lost their job. Hijacking and Terrorist attacks have traditionally accounted for about 10% of fatal accidents world-wide. This known threat existed and was well tabulated/tracked prior to 911 in world fatal accident statistics and still President Bush’s appointed a political head of the FAA that had little security or aviation experience. Neither the DOT nor FAA took the required steps necessary to keep the public and the nation safe even though the threats were known and it was their job to assure the security and safety of our sky. They operated out of fear of losing the aviation industries support for maintaining their positions and thereby allowed the nation and the traveling public to suffer needlessly. The deaths that occurred on 911 won’t even show up on the FAA’s fatal accident statistics. This is done intentionally to minimize aviation related fatalities and to give the public a false sense of security. Thus 911, like Katrina, was the result of President Bush’s Republican political appointees that had little knowledge of their appointed critical tasks.
At first look it isn't obvious that the golfer Payne Stewart, and the Helios (2005 - 100+fatality) decompression crashes and 911 are related but from a aviation safety and security system view they are:

When a plane substantially deviates from its approved flight plan it is presently possible to have a remote pilot located in a secure simulator fly the plane to a safe landing at a sparsely populated airfield. Over 70% of all fatal air crashes occurrences are readily preventable if handled correctly.

Unfortunately, the data needed to accomplish this is locked up in the flight recorder and is utilized predominately in an autopsy mode. If the data is so important that it is necessary to discover the cause of a fatal crash it is much more important to prevent a fatal crash. Yet because of the aviation industry's partnership with the FAA and NTSB none of the flight data coming out of the recorders is available in real-time to proactively prevent fatal crashes. The inability to use the flight data in real time has jeopardized the safety and security of the traveling public and the nation. The astronauts were guided back from the moon because the data was telemetered to the ground in real-time. Once it got to the ground it was analyzed, and then via a concerted effort by experts, using simulations the proper and safe way to handle life threatening situation was accomplished. Yet this proven technique isn't utilized by the industrial/government partnership to keep our nation and air-passengers safe and secure.

One year prior to 911, I was the guest speaker at the International Aviation Safety Association meeting in NY where I spoke on how terrorists and decompression fatal crashes are preventable via remote control of a deviating aircraft using ciphered technology developed for our ballistic missiles. This technology can prevent most aviation crashes (approximately 70%) even those from mechanical problems and errors of commission and omission. At present a pilot has displayed only a fraction of the information necessary to make the right decision to prevent a crash. The pilot in many instances is seeing a problem for the first time. The aircraft data and air traffic control data isn't shared extensively so experts on handling the aircraft's problem aren’t consulted nor can the problem be simulated to aid in crash prevention. This data vacuum is responsible for most fatal crashes. For example, the Swiss Air and Alaskan Air fatal crashes could have been prevented if handled correctly.

In addition it is not only terrorists that sabotage aircraft. Commercial and Military pilots have also done it. When a pilot deviates substantially from the approved flight plan the aircraft should be safely remote piloted to a landing at a sparsely populated airport. Several years ago a rogue military pilot substantially deviated from his approved Continental United States (CONUS) flight plan and flew an A-10 aircraft loaded with bombs clandestinely across multiple states. It took two weeks to find the plane which had crashed into a Colorado mountain. The plane was eventually found but the bombs are still missing. Exhaustive searches were made but no one has a clew as to what happened to the bombs. Must we wait for a bigger disaster than 911 before any action takes place?

Everyone knowledgeable about the holes in our aviation system, brought about by the industrial government partnership, knew that a 911 could occur and the government allowed it to occur. Even though we knew about Payne Stewart nothing was done and so we got Helios' 100 + deaths. Presently we are just as vulnerable to a 911 disaster, decompression disaster, ... etc. as we were in 2001. The public needs to know the system is fixable for the good of our nation. Even though 3000 people died needlessly on 911 the system doesn't fix the data vacuum mode of operation. It works around the system with attempted patches that are costly and ineffective fixes simply to protect the industry from liability suits. The necessary data is only available in the tombstone/autopsy mode. With all of the deaths that were preventable not a single FAA or NTSB person was even laid-off. Thus, the industry won out and the public and nation suffered. It is quite possible that we went into an unnecessary and horrible war just because we protected the special interest of the aviation industry. The cost of those disasters alone would have been a small fraction of the cost necessary to fix the system and we would now have a safer and securer nation. Instead, things are the same and we are vulnerable.

If you should need more info on this please don't hesitate to contact me (you can see some of my work by going to Google and doing a search on "aviation security, safety and sy levine" or go to my web site www.safelander.com. My work was also featured on the BBC show called "The Black Box". There is simply no reason, technical, cost or data privacy wise" for not using the Black Box Data in real-time, in addition to its autopsy mode, to make our nation safer and securer. The fear of liability, via law suits, should not stand in the way of the airline passenger safety, the safety of people on the ground, or our national security. It is imperative that the traveling public write to the President, their Congressional Representatives, the DOT, FAA and NTSB and demand that the Black Box data be available and utilized in real-time for the security of our nation and to substantially reduce fatal crashes.

Sy Levine

Gaetano Marano - Italy


reading the last year's news, we know the problems of the Ares-I design (too high R&D costs, very long timeline, budget cuts, etc.) that forced NASA to SHIFT the (already delayed) first manned Orion launch from the (planned) "end of 2014" to the mid 2015, then, now (after suggesting MANY possible solutions of these problems in my past articles) I've published the "new Ares-I design" article that follows the same "money and time saving" philosophy: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/023newAres.html


Gaetano Marano - Italy


over 1.5 year ago I've suggested the (criticized) "VME", a low cost (alternative) "Vision" for Moon(rovers) Exploration":


but now China has unveiled its plan to land soon (in 2012) on the moon the first "3-D view" moonrover:



this is the image of the rover's prototype:


and, since China already IS (and will be more in future) the country able to mix high technology and low costs at their extreme level, we can expect to see HUNDREDS low cost ("made in China") moonrovers landing and running around on the moon (exploring the ENTIRE moon surface, as suggested in my VME article)

maybe... the NASA/ESA/RSA/Japan/etc. manned-moon-missions' plans will just remain "virtual" ... ?


Robert Ambrose

Great article !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Robert Ambrose

Great article !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dennis Wingo

>the comment seems posted by John M Wilkes (again, too small fonts) ...however, I don't agree in some points


The comment supposedly from me listed on the page before is definitely not my writing!!! While the sentiments are similar to what I write I completely disagree with both the structure and several of the points in the article.

Is there some way to get my name taken off of that comment?

The comments to this entry are closed.

On Space Contributors