This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ATK has released a promotional video. I don't know if it is appropriate for the article, but it does provide a big-picture view of what Liberty is conceptually trying to do, albeit with a marketing spin point of view. N2e ( talk) 17:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Can this really be ready by 2015 with no capsule specified? The images show no Launch Abort Sytem tower. Could an MLAS-style abort system be ready by 2015? Fotoguzzi ( talk) 20:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/sep/HQ_M11-189_Commercial_Crew_Agreement.html seem to suggest that Liberty is not completely written off from CCDev, though NASA is dealing with it via SAA (nonreimbursable space act program). 84.0.165.214 ( talk) 19:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Political reasons aside, what does this proposal do that the Ariane 5 does not? The Ariane 5 ES can deliver 21,000 kg to LEO; Liberty delivers 22,000 kg to LEO. Surely it is less risky sticking a capsule on top of a proven and (partly?) man-rated rocket design than making a chimera? 86.41.46.28 ( talk) 23:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM, and especially not a forum about DIRECT |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think that you should write in the main article that this ATK/EADS Liberty rockets has been CLEARLY ispired by my (4+ years-old) "Ares-F" concept or, at least, that it isn't a new idea, since published years ago here: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/024aresF.html thanks posted by gaetano marano Dec. 8, 2011 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.111.156 ( talk) 10:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
that's why I've said "inspired" and not "copied" all my space blogs have a counter and my articles have received over 400,000 pageviews in last years, great part coming from space agencies and aerospace companies also, I've posted and discussed about my Ares-F on several space forums and blogs, that are read daily by space engineers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.111.156 ( talk) 17:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
maybe you're right, but it's strange that all Wikipedia policies aren't enough to DELETE the, total fantasy, fake, unexisting, non-NASA, failed and abandoned by its own proposers, "DIRECT" concept wikipedia page and to delete also ALL the links in other wiki pages that point to articles about it I think that ALL laws (including the wiki rules) MUST be the same for ALL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.111.156 ( talk) 17:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
"take it to that article talk page" ... already done several times but my posts has been always deleted by DIRECT-guys
Liberty has been proposed by two aerospace giants with thousands engineers while the real number of DIRECT's guys and their names are STILL completely unknown, it's ONLY a fake concept proposed by a fake lobby
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Liberty (rocket). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
ATK has released a promotional video. I don't know if it is appropriate for the article, but it does provide a big-picture view of what Liberty is conceptually trying to do, albeit with a marketing spin point of view. N2e ( talk) 17:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Can this really be ready by 2015 with no capsule specified? The images show no Launch Abort Sytem tower. Could an MLAS-style abort system be ready by 2015? Fotoguzzi ( talk) 20:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2011/sep/HQ_M11-189_Commercial_Crew_Agreement.html seem to suggest that Liberty is not completely written off from CCDev, though NASA is dealing with it via SAA (nonreimbursable space act program). 84.0.165.214 ( talk) 19:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Political reasons aside, what does this proposal do that the Ariane 5 does not? The Ariane 5 ES can deliver 21,000 kg to LEO; Liberty delivers 22,000 kg to LEO. Surely it is less risky sticking a capsule on top of a proven and (partly?) man-rated rocket design than making a chimera? 86.41.46.28 ( talk) 23:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM, and especially not a forum about DIRECT |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think that you should write in the main article that this ATK/EADS Liberty rockets has been CLEARLY ispired by my (4+ years-old) "Ares-F" concept or, at least, that it isn't a new idea, since published years ago here: http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/024aresF.html thanks posted by gaetano marano Dec. 8, 2011 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.111.156 ( talk) 10:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
that's why I've said "inspired" and not "copied" all my space blogs have a counter and my articles have received over 400,000 pageviews in last years, great part coming from space agencies and aerospace companies also, I've posted and discussed about my Ares-F on several space forums and blogs, that are read daily by space engineers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.111.156 ( talk) 17:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
maybe you're right, but it's strange that all Wikipedia policies aren't enough to DELETE the, total fantasy, fake, unexisting, non-NASA, failed and abandoned by its own proposers, "DIRECT" concept wikipedia page and to delete also ALL the links in other wiki pages that point to articles about it I think that ALL laws (including the wiki rules) MUST be the same for ALL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.111.156 ( talk) 17:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
"take it to that article talk page" ... already done several times but my posts has been always deleted by DIRECT-guys
Liberty has been proposed by two aerospace giants with thousands engineers while the real number of DIRECT's guys and their names are STILL completely unknown, it's ONLY a fake concept proposed by a fake lobby
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Liberty (rocket). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)