Which Orion is better? A (smallSM) "CorkScrew-Orion" or a (bigSM) "SwissKnife-Orion"?

[NEOWatcher]

the puropose of my articles and posts is ONLY to suggest alternative vehicles and architectures NOT to dictate anything to anyone...

That would be fine if you stuck to that idea. The problem is, you are using it to argue that NASA is wrong.

They are not wrong, they are just not approaching it the same way that you would.

[gaetanomarano]

...how protection against micrometeors...

Bigelow claims that its inflatable modules will be safe like to-day's modules since they are made with many layers of strong materials (however, I've not real data about them)
.

[gaetanomarano]

The problem is, you are using it to argue that NASA is wrong.

if I'm right it's obvious they are wrong (or the opposite) ...we can't be both right or both wrong

They are not wrong, they are just not approaching it the same way that you would.

the standard plan can work, of course, but this is NOT the ONLY way to be "wrong" ...you can be wrong ALSO if you accomplish a mission with twice the money or in twice the time or with half the results compared with better plans, so, the ESAS plan is RIGHT if compared with ITSELF while it's WRONG if compared with BETTER plans
.

[NEOWatcher]

Bigelow claims that its inflatable modules will be safe like to-day's modules since they are made with many layers of strong materials (however, I've not real data about them)
.

He didn't say that (although he may have meant it).
He asked for the HOW, not the "is it or isnt it".

I, for one, assume that the provisions for micro-meteorite safety has been made. But; I still have some questions about it, and would like to know HOW (just like boppa said). I'm sure there are differences between a ridgid and a flexible craft, but I would like to learn more about what that is.

[NEOWatcher]

if I'm right it's obvious they are wrong (or the opposite) ...we can't be both right or both wrong

HOGWASH. You have good points, you have bad points, NASA has good points NASA has bad points. It's only a matter of what each believes are the important points.

the standard plan can work, of course, but this is NOT the ONLY way to be "wrong" ...you can be wrong ALSO if you accomplish a mission with twice the money or in twice the time or with half the results compared with better plans, so, the ESAS plan is RIGHT if compared with ITSELF while it's WRONG if compared with BETTER plans
.

You also save a lot more than that by not running missions that are unnecessary.

[gaetanomarano]

...ie more fuel to get into orbit in the first place...

no, the extra-fuel is not launched when unnecessary ...and the Ares-I will be able to launch the extra-mass of larger SM tanks
just imagine the ESAS standard-Orion is your car... well, my SwissKnife-Orion is EXACTLY like your car with an additional Gasoline Can...

+

you always have that can in your car but you don't need to fill it for every travel... only IF and WHEN you NEED it for a LONG travel or a travel too away from Gas stations

[Bob B.]

you always have that can in your car but you don't need to fill it for every travel... only IF and WHEN you NEED it for a LONG travel or a travel too away from Gas stations

The issue is, figure out what you need and then make the tanks that big. We don't know how big that is until NASA reveals their final plans, which is what they are currently working on. When the engineers are finished doing their job, Orion will be as big as it needs to be and no more.

[gaetanomarano]

...until NASA reveals their final plans...

the "final plan" was already revealed 1.5 years ago ...the Orion specs (with STANDARD tanks) was already revelated in aug. 2006 and jan. 2007 ...to have different plan/specs/tanks they must CHANGE its current versions the way I suggest in my articles
.

[gaetanomarano]

...provisions for micro-meteorite safety...

if they want to use them for humans that modules MUST be protected and safe
.

[Bob B.]

the "final plan" was already revealed 1.5 years ago ...

the main differences between the early ESAS plan and "my plan" are in three little steps (two of them ALREADY adopted by NASA in the latest months!)

(underlining mine)

they have made MANY changes in less than a year, then, many other will/may happe(n).

So which is it; were the plans final 1.5 years ago or are they still revising them? It can't be both.

[gaetanomarano]

So which is it; were the plans final 1.5 years ago or are they still revising them? It can't be both.

they're both true ...the early ESAS plan has been revised in many points (going towards my plan) but all lunar landing missions are still based on expendable-LSAMs, standard-Orion, big-EDS and Ares-V
.