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

[Bob B.]

this is exactly the point
I've respected ALL data of the NASA table in my evaluations while you've ignored and changed the orbital altitude to match the Ares-I payload with your calculations
of course, the Ares-I can lift "your" Orion but on a lower orbit, not the right orbit of the Ares-I table (where the LSAM/EDS waits for do docking).

No, I have not changed the orbit. I kept the orbit the same and calculated how much the payload needs to be reduced to reach that orbit. This was clearly stated five days ago when I wrote:

Assuming all other things remain equal, my calculations indicate that the necessary decrease in Ares I payload resulting from the heavier LAS is not more than 200 kg. The Ares I should therefore have no problem inserting a 21.8 mT payload into a 220 nautical mile, 28.5-degree orbit.

How many more times are you going to ignore and/or misrepresent what I've posted?

[gaetanomarano]

...plan is building the big one-size-fits-all SM now...

develop, build, test and launch ONE version of SM for ALL missions may result in an incredible saving of (R&D, manufacturing, assembly and operational) costs!
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!

[gaetanomarano]

How many more times are you going to ignore and/or misrepresent what I've posted?

I've not ignored nor misrepresented your post and I've already posted many replies about this point
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

[Bob B.]

I don't believe the SAME rocket can lift over 2.5 mT of extra payload mass to the SAME orbit...

I don't believe that either, which is why I've said repeatedly it will lift about 200 kg less payload to the same orbit.

[gaetanomarano]

I don't believe that either, which is why I've said repeatedly it will lift about 200 kg less payload to the same orbit.

that's exactly the point I don't believe possible with +2.5 mT of extra payload
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?

[Bob B.]

that's exactly the point I don't believe possible with +2.5 mT of extra payload

The LAS is not payload. Payload is the cargo delivered to orbit. In this case the payload consists of Orion's CM and SM.

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?

Post #37

[gaetanomarano]

The LAS is not payload. Payload is the cargo delivered to orbit. In this case the payload consists of Orion's CM and SM.

again and again and again and again
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

Post #37

this is only YOUR opinion/evaluation and NOT "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"
.

[Bob B.]

I'm through trying to explain an engineering problem to a non-engineer. Go to college, get a degree, and then we'll talk.

[gaetanomarano]

I'm through trying to explain an engineering problem to a non-engineer. Go to college, get a degree, and then we'll talk.

as "non-engineer" I perfectly understand your "engineer" post but (simply) I don't believe "your" flight profile can give the performances you claim
and (again) you still don't give us any LOGICAL reason about NASA (-2.5 mT less payload!) performances' underestimation of its own rocket!

[NEOWatcher]

since I read many hundreds pages per month I don't save all links, but, if I found it again, I will post it here
.

Since you were asked over a month ago to provide the source of your knowledge, you should have hundreds of links for us.

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.

[gaetanomarano]

You should have no problem giving us some credible references.

everytime I've a source I post it, also, 90% of my posts talk about common arguments (Apollo, Shuttle, SRB, SSME, etc.) of which every user of this forum is able to find detailed info and data with Google, Wikipedia, Astronautix, etc.

[SirThoreth]

everytime I've a source I post it, also, 90% of my posts talk about common arguments (Apollo, Shuttle, SRB, SSME, etc.) of which every user of this forum is able to find detailed info and data with Google, Wikipedia, Astronautix, etc.

After which the majority of said users illustrate that your ideas aren't practical, or, more often, that you've misunderstood some of the principals involved.

[SirThoreth]

as "non-engineer" I perfectly understand your "engineer" post but (simply) I don't believe "your" flight profile can give the performances you claim

And what engineering principals are you basing this non-belief on?

[SirThoreth]

I'm through trying to explain an engineering problem to a non-engineer. Go to college, get a degree, and then we'll talk.

BTW, thanks for the pretty concise explanations on the engineering behind this, Bob - it's appreciated.

[Bob B.]

and (again) you still don't give us any LOGICAL reason about NASA (-2.5 mT less payload!) performances' underestimation of its own rocket!

NASA gives the payload preformance as 22.0 mT to 220 nmi./28.5 deg. In my evaluation that is not an underestimation.

[NEOWatcher]

everytime I've a source I post it, also, 90% of my posts talk about common arguments (Apollo, Shuttle, SRB, SSME, etc.) of which every user of this forum is able to find detailed info and data with Google, Wikipedia, Astronautix, etc.

Which is then presented to you, then you deny it.

[Bob B.]

BTW, thanks for the pretty concise explanations on the engineering behind this, Bob - it's appreciated.

You're welcomed, SirThoreth. And the same to others who have also expressed thanks.

[gaetanomarano]

...your ideas aren't practical...

a thing everyone is able to judge by himself

[gaetanomarano]

NASA gives the payload preformance as 22.0 mT to 220 nmi./28.5 deg. In my evaluation that is not an underestimation.

again...

[gaetanomarano]

Which is then presented to you, then you deny it.

I think it's better to discuss of arguments instead of ourself... if you have any specific critic about them, post here

[NEOWatcher]

I think it's better to discuss of arguments instead of ourself... if you have any specific critic about them, post here

That was not a personal attack, that was a comment on the tactics you are using and why they are not effective with the crowd here.
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.]

again...

And again your logic is wrong, as explained many times previously.

[Larry Jacks]

Bob B said:

I'm through trying to explain an engineering problem to a non-engineer. Go to college, get a degree, and then we'll talk.

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."

And no, I'm not calling him or anyone else a pig.

[Bob B.]

Now you know why I quit responding to his posts.

I noticed your curious absence from this thread.

It looks like cjl bailed too. (You guys must be smarter than I. )

[gaetanomarano]

...present information and links...

great part of my articles and posts can't have any "source" since they are not about past or present vehicles, but, new, unexisting and (only) conceptual vehicles and architectures

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")
.

[Bob B.]

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").

The alternate discussion started only because you have factually incorrect data in your article, which is still there by the way. The data is provably false yet you persist in representing it as fact.

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").

[gaetanomarano]

you have factually incorrect data in your article, which is still there by the way. The data is provably false yet you persist in representing it as fact.

the data don't are "still there" in the article and they are not "false"
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!
.

[Bob B.]

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.

Orion will not be flying an Apollo mission.

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!

I have yet to see NASA or Lockheed-Martin release a mass figure for the Orion SM, but they have released a delta-v figure as recently as August 31 (page 7 of this document). Based on this published data, the total propellant number shown in your article is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

[gaetanomarano]

...the total propellant number shown in your article...

not true if we talk of the total mass of the Orion, since its final figure depends of the extra propellant LM will allocate for maneuverings, emergency, etc.
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
.

[Bob B.]

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.