the only difference between a smallSM and bigSM is the bigger tanks extra-mass (that's only a mere 0.5-1 mT)
great part of the mass of the SM is the propellant, but it's easy to put the right amount of propellants for different missions (ISS, lunar crew rotation, full lunar mission, etc.) to have the required total SM mass
it's very much simpler than have many different SM models!
my position is simple: I don't believe the SAME rocket can lift over 2.5 mT of extra payload mass to the SAME orbit until REAL tests will confirm that your flight profile can give the performances you claim
can you explain me a LOGICAL reason about why NASA has evaluated the max payload at only 19.2 mT (22+4-LAS-interstage) if (with a different flight profile and not too much G for the astronauts) a J-2x Ares-I can lift 22 mT - 200 kg. to the SAME orbit?
Last edited by gaetanomarano; 2006-Sep-26 at 03:33 PM. Reason: grammar and new text
the LAS is not "payload" but it's (without doubts) a MASS and, since the ESAS table max payload was evaluated with an (expected) 4 mT only LAS (and a total 26 mT max payload+LAS mass at lift-off) with the REAL 6.2 mT LAS (and the same max upperstages mass at lift-off) the max payload falls to 19.8 mT (or 19.2 mT if we must include the interstage mass)
but you IGNORE this (simple and logical) point since it contradicts your evaluations
I'm through trying to explain an engineering problem to a non-engineer. Go to college, get a degree, and then we'll talk.
and (again) you still don't give us any LOGICAL reason about NASA (-2.5 mT less payload!) performances' underestimation of its own rocket!
Last edited by gaetanomarano; 2006-Sep-26 at 04:30 PM. Reason: grammar
How do you, or we, know that you are not getting your information from someone with a mental problem?
You should have no problem giving us some credible references.
Fact: Others present information and links.
Fact: You say that information is wrong.
How is that a personal attack? It doesn't even say if you or others are wrong.
Here is my specific critic about your argument:
I see no credible source of information, or opinions of people with the proper technical background, to support the argument. Even if the argument is correct, I do not have any confidence that it was properly scrutinized by anyone with the proper qualifications.
On the other hand, I see very much detail presented for the other side of the argument, cross referenced with proper technical information. And these details demonstrate that the people presenting the argument have the knowledge to know what is being said.
Bob B said:
Now you know why I quit responding to his posts. He doesn't seem to understand and is unwilling to listen to an explaination of why he is wrong. It reminds me of the saying, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. You'll only waste your time, and annoy the pig."I'm through trying to explain an engineering problem to a non-engineer. Go to college, get a degree, and then we'll talk.
And no, I'm not calling him or anyone else a pig.
the bigSM and bigOrion are very close (in design, purpose, mass and work) to the Apollo CSM, then, I don't need to give "sources" about Apollo or post calculations to demonstrate the bigOrion can fly, since the (very close) Apollo CSM have already performed many REAL and successful flights!
the bigSM/bigOrion discussions rounded all the time about the extra propellants a "new CSM" needs to brake (also) the LSAM mass (and I've posted/replied about this point) but the MAIN POINT of the discussion (and Poll) is NOT (or, not only) the final mass of a bigOrion (33 or 35 or 37 mT) but the ADVANTAGES of this solution vs. the TEI-only standard Orion (I call "corkscrew")
ALL to-day's Orion design choices will remain unchanged (in the next 40+ years!) including the small (9.5 mT) Service Module with its small tanks for (about) 6.5 mT of propellants (4.5 mT for TEI + 2 mT for "other").
the early data was 10 mT for the full SM and 7 mT the propellant of a standard Orion
then, I've changed the data (after the discussion with you) to 13 mT for the full SM and 10 mT its propellants
but, after the NEOWatcher post (with REAL data of the Apollo CSM) I've changed again the articles' data to match the REAL propellants' mass used in the REAL Apollo missions to perform LOI and TEI with similar mass, propellants and engine
the 21+ mT Orion is only YOUR evaluation, NOT confirmed (so far) by any official (NASA or LM) source, then, in my article I write my evaluation
of course, I'm READY to CHANGE again the SM data in my article when LockMart or NASA will release the REAL figures!
this document). Based on this published data, the total propellant number shown in your article is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!
don't forget we are evaluating the STANDARD version of SM that may use the LSAM engines and propellants for LOI and other maneuvers
so, an LSAM-driven mission may need LESS "extra" SM propellants than Apollo
The total propellant number shown in your article is impossible. Your failure to understand the scientific reason why does not relieve of your responsibility to represent facts honestly.