View Poll Results: Which Orion is better? A (smallSM) "CorkScrew Orion" or a (bigSM) "SwissKnife Orion&q

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • The (smallSM) "CorkScrew Orion" >>>

    19 79.17%
  • The (bigSM) "SwissKnife Orion" >>>

    5 20.83%
Page 6 of 21 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 611

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

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    I noticed your curious absence from this thread.

    It looks like cjl bailed too. (You guys must be smarter than I. )
    I wouldn't say smarter. I tried the same thing as you back in one of these threads, and it went no where. While I have an engineering background, it's not in rockets or rocket propulsion. I can see very easily by your posts that you are correct in your calculations and gaetanomarano is wrong in his. I might even be able to do some of the calculations you've done, but then I'd have to get out my physics books, look up the equations, and spend too much time doing it. But I doubt I'd be anywhere near as effective as you are at it, Bob B.

    As for gaetanomarano, simply stating you are right does not make you so. I've seen you time and time again in this thread claim you're ideas are right, yet you have nothing to back up your claims with. In fact, in this thread, Bob B. has pretty much destroyed all your claims 100%, yet you still claim you are right. Well, you aren't. No one else reading this thread is fooled by your continued reposting of incorrect information and statements of being right. You really should consider picking up an engineering textbook or taking some classes, because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Having an idea is all well and good, but when that idea can be shown to be unfeasible, clinging to it and trying to pretend it's still a good idea is simply foolish. Don't believe me? Take a look at all the 9/11 threads in the Conspiracy Theories forum and that's all the evidence that's needed.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    The total propellant number shown in your article is impossible.
    the data in my article are only my evaluation (and I'm ready to change them when LM will release real data)
    what is incredible in your claim is that you not only want to be right vs. my evaluation, but, also, vs. NASA and LockMart!
    do you've asked yourself why NASA and LM have released ALL data about the Orion (including some minute details like the food or the moonrocks mass) but NOT the (very important) SM and propellants' mass???
    in my opinion, the reason is simple: they DON'T KNOW (now) the FINAL mass they can/want allocate for the SM and its propellants!
    well... you PRETEND to know (now) some REAL figures that NASA and LM will know (and release to the press) only in the next weeks, months or years (if they want to know, from REAL tests, the TRUE payload an Ares-I can lift)
    .

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,174
    Quote Originally Posted by DOOMMaster View Post
    I wouldn't say smarter. I tried the same thing as you back in one of these threads, and it went no where.
    Yeah... I recall you posting in some of these threads, DOOMMaster. Were you in the "5-segment SRB won't work" thread? There where quite a few knowledgeable folks posting in that one, yet the result was the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by DOOMMaster View Post
    While I have an engineering background, it's not in rockets or rocket propulsion.
    My degree is actually in civil engineering. Rocketry is something I've been studying on the side for the last eleven years. Anyone who has mastered the core engineering curriculum can go pretty far in their understanding of the subject if they apply themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by DOOMMaster View Post
    I can see very easily by your posts that you are correct in your calculations and gaetanomarano is wrong in his. I might even be able to do some of the calculations you've done, but then I'd have to get out my physics books, look up the equations, and spend too much time doing it. But I doubt I'd be anywhere near as effective as you are at it, Bob B.
    Most of what I do isn't all that difficult as far as the mathematics go. Heck, most of the calculations in this thread are performed using just one equation. It does take time though to get really proficient at it.
    Last edited by Bob B.; 2006-Sep-27 at 12:06 AM. Reason: spelling

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by DOOMMaster View Post
    ...has pretty much destroyed all your claims 100%...
    not true

    the difference of evaluation between me and Bob B. is in the range of 1-2 mT of propellants

    my evaluation is:

    Ares-I max payload+LAS: 26 mT
    standard Orion SM mass: 3-3.5 mT
    standard Orion propellants' mass: 7.2-7.7 mT
    standard Orion full mass: 19.2 mT
    bigOrion mass: 35 mT max

    Bob B. (most recent) evaluation is:

    Ares-I max payload+LAS: 27.8 mT
    standard Orion SM mass: 4.9 mT
    standard Orion propellants' mass: 9.5 mT
    standard Orion full mass: 21 mT
    bigOrion mass: 37 mT

    ...idea is all well and good, but when that idea can be shown to be unfeasible...
    why???

    the bigOrion is a VERY GOOD IDEA full of advantages at EVERY weight!

    if I'm right in my evaluation, the bigOrion is a very good idea!

    but ALSO if Bob B. will be right in its (+2 mT) evaluation, the bigOrion STILL remains a very good idea!

    buy a Swiss Knife (with a corkscrew + nine useful tools) will ALWAYS be BETTER than buy (only) a corkscrew!!!

    ,
    Last edited by gaetanomarano; 2006-Sep-26 at 11:37 PM.

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Boulder, CO
    Posts
    3,480
    I bailed more because I don't have the time to read this forum (or any other) as often anymore with school. I don't really have the spare time to do the calculations or refute the arguements thoroughly, not to mention you seem to be managing it pretty well yourself, bob.

    I wish I had more time, but if I ever hope to really work with rockets this size and get the aerospace engineering degree that is my dream, I have to focus on schoolwork for the time being

    I'm definitely still following this thread though...

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,174
    Quote Originally Posted by cjl View Post
    ... but if I ever hope to really work with rockets this size and get the aerospace engineering degree that is my dream ...
    Good luck with that. Keep working hard and you'll probably get there.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post

    buy a Swiss Knife (with a corkscrew + nine useful tools) will ALWAYS be BETTER than buy (only) a corkscrew!!!

    ,
    NO!

    A swiss army knife costs $100 a corkscrew costs $5.

    If all you are planning to do is remove a cork then throw the tool away, why waste $95?

    [gaetanomarano]
    I propose we use a real Orion, we could orbit an apartment block if we wanted.

    Of course there are enormous political, engineering and cost problems with that idea but I'm just going to ignore them because I know I'm right. You foolish engineers must tremble before my mighty sense of self belief.
    [/gaetanomarano]


    Seriously Bob, thanks for you efforts. You've shown a JayUtah type level of patience and integrity here.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by DogB View Post
    A swiss army knife costs $100 a corkscrew costs $5.
    you're 100% right about the REAL Swiss Knife and Corkscrew PRICE... but I've (clearly) used the two objects to explain the difference of functions, not their relative price

    the GOOD NEWS is that a (TEN times better!) "SwissKnifeOrion" doesn't cost ten times the "CorkScrewOrion" but ONLY (about) 20% more!

    the extra R&D costs between an Ares-I and an Ares-II may be around $1B and the hardware extra costs per launch may be in the range of $100M

    in other words, NASA can buy a Swiss Knife for the price of a corkscrew + 20% !!!

    however, if you think that a $100 swiss knife don't worth the price... just imagine you're lost in a forest in the winter with very much snow and very low temperatures... to survive (and save your life) you need a knife to cut branches and burn a fire for the night... build a small lance to capture fishes in the river... a small scissors to slash cloths and ropes... a tin opener for the beans' can... and a small compass to find the right path to safety when a new day will born...

    well... can save your life with a "corkscrew"???

    the astronauts in space will be alone in a giant forest... ask them to know if (in the space-forest) they prefer to have a swiss knife or a corkscrew...
    .
    Last edited by gaetanomarano; 2006-Sep-27 at 06:19 AM. Reason: grammar

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,174
    Quote Originally Posted by DogB View Post
    You've shown a JayUtah type level of patience and integrity here.
    JayUtah was my mentor.

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    0.5

    this is a (simple) number that (better than tons of discussions, evaluations, calculations) demonstrate how absurd all critics and hostility against the bigOrion are!

    the ONLY difference between a smallOrion and a bigOrion are the enlarged propellants' tanks with an increase of mass of (about) 0.5 mT

    develop and build the SM with bigger tanks don't cost so much but the Orion will be ready for every future scenario!

    now, the (19.2+0.5 mT or 21+0.5 mT) "standard-Orion-with-bigger-tanks" can be launched with the planned Ares-I and low propellants' mass (for TEI-only or ISS) and, in future, the SAME vehicle can be launched (alone) with more propellants and a bigger rocket

    .
    Last edited by gaetanomarano; 2006-Sep-27 at 10:32 AM.

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,174
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    0.5

    this is a (simple) number that (better than tons of discussions, evaluations, calculations) demonstrate how absurd all critics and hostility against the bigOrion are!

    the ONLY difference between a smallOrion and a bigOrion are the enlarged propellants' tanks with an increase of mass of (about) 0.5 mT.
    So your argument has been reduced to a single number that you've pulled out of thin air and for which you can provide no justification. Furthermore, I've provided data that suggests your number is off by a factor of four.

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    So your argument has been reduced to a single number that you've pulled out of thin air and for which you can provide no justification. Furthermore, I've provided data that suggests your number is off by a factor of four.
    since you prefer to IGNORE all data don't match your calculations, I post again the NASA table with the original 5.5 m. CEV specs:
    CEV: 9,237 kg.
    SM: 13,405 kg.
    LAS: 4,218 kg.
    CEV+SM: 22,642 kg.
    you know that, thanks to CEV resizing, new materials, etc., the full weight was reduced of -6500 lbs. (2,948 kg.) a few months ago
    also, you know that the LAS has INCREASED (+2 mT) its mass (from ESAS plan) so, the 3 mT reduction comes (only) from Orion and SM mass
    then, doing a simple subtraction, we can know the mass of the new Orion+SM that is: 22,642 kg. - 2,948 kg. = 19,694 kg. (or, rounded, 19.7 mT max)
    NASA and LM have released only the data of Orion mass (8,485 kg.) not the SM mass, but we can calculate the latter (again) with a simple subtraction: 19,694 kg. - 8,485 kg. = 11,209 kg. (or, rounded, 11.2 mT) that is the MAX weight of SM dry mass + propellants' mass
    please note that these specs don't come from my "evaluations" but from NASA specs, tables and press releases!!!
    from NASA data (and some simple subtractions...) we can evaluate the final Orion specs:
    interstage: 0.6 mT
    LAS: 6.2 mT
    Orion: 8.5 mT
    SM: 11.2 mT
    Orion+SM: 19.7 mT
    and...
    Orion+SM+LAS: 25.9 mT
    that figure PERFECTLY matches the max (22+4) 26 mT upperstage mass of the J-2x CLV of the NASA table!
    unfortunately, we don't know how the dry mass and the propellants' mass are allocated in the 11.2 mT total SM mass
    however, since the Orion+SM mass is very close to the Apollo CSM mass, we can allocate the same propellants' mass: 4.5 mT for TEI and 2.9 mT for maneuverings and redundancy
    then, we can evaluate the Orion's SM dry mass around: 11.2 mT - 4.5 mT - 2.9 mT = 3.8 mT
    and the total Orion+SM dry mass around (8.5+3.8) 12.3 mT (that's very close to the 11.9 mT Apollo CSM dry mass!)
    if the Orion needs MORE propellants (for TEI and "extra") the SM dry mass must be less than 3.8 mT (but I don't know "how much")
    consider that "3.8 mT" (or less) include ALL the SM parts: engine, structure, batteries, life support, RCS (+propellant), solar panels, electronics... and tanks
    the "0.5" (mT) figure I've posted, refers to MY evaluation of the extra mass for the bigSM tanks
    however, also if the real increase of mass to enlarge the SM tanks will result (e.g.) "0.8 mT" or "1.3 mT", that doesn't change so much the validity of my (very good and 100% feasible!) proposal!

    cev+sm.jpg
    Last edited by gaetanomarano; 2006-Sep-27 at 11:53 PM. Reason: grammar

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,174
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    since you prefer to IGNORE all data don't match your calculations
    You have no idea how hilarious that is coming from you.

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,174

    Three reasons why the bigSM is a bad idea…

    There are three very strong arguments against the big Orion SM. These are not so much arguments for the small Orion SM as they are arguments for the big LSAM decent stage. If the large LSAM decent stage is used for LOI, then the small Orion SM is the natural and logical choice to mate with it.

    REASON #1

    Having Orion perform LOI with its lower efficiency engines will require about 5 mT* more propellant than having LOI performed by the LSAM. Since the convoy mass is capped at around 66 mT, allocating more mass to propellant means that less equipment and cargo can be carried. This results in a significant reduction in the amount payload that can be landed on the Moon. Performing LOI with the LSAM results in the delivery of several tons more lunar surface payload with each mission, which is of course a primary objective.

    (* assuming 1,100 m/s delta-v.)

    REASON #2

    Regardless of which vehicle performs LOI, it will have to be sized for the maximum expected LOI delta-v. For missions requiring less than the maximum delta-v, there will be excess propulsion capability. If this excess capability resides in Orion, then it is stuck in lunar orbit and is unless for the remainder of the mission. The LSAM will land the same payload on the Moon whether it is a maximum LOI mission or a minimum LOI mission. If the excess propulsion capability resides in the LSAM, then it can be used to land more cargo on the Moon. For every 3 kg less LOI propellant needed, we can add 1 kg descent propellant and 2 kg extra surface cargo.

    REASON #3

    Building LOI capability into the LSAM descent stage means the same stage can be used to power a cargo LSAM to deliver large 20+ mT shipments to the surface of the Moon. Assigning LOI to Orion means the LSAM descent stage will too underpowered for a large cargo LSAM. NASA will have to develop an entirely new stage just for the cargo deliveries, which is a costly alternative. The single large LSAM descent stage to be used in combination with Orion on manned landings and as the propulsion unit for unmanned cargo deliveries is very attractive.

    CONCLUSION

    The large LSAM decent stage with a small Orion SM appears to be a clear winner. This configuration gives us:
    • Greater lunar surface payload with each mission.
    • Enhanced payload deliverability on low delta-v LOI missions.
    • Dual use on both manned and cargo LSAM missions.

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    Three reasons why the bigSM is a bad idea…
    in my "0.5" (or 0.8 or 1.3) post I don't suggest to build a bigOrion (with a bigAres-I and a small-LSAM) but ONLY the (+0.5 mT) bigger SM tanks
    in other words, I suggest to design the new SM with THREE options built-in (TEI-only, LOI+TEI alone and LOI+TEI with LSAM) and launch it (now) with the standard Ares-I and the standard propellants' mass
    with a ready-to-use-bigSM every day will be the right day to decide the launch of an autonomous bigOrion with a bigger rocket
    that's choice is smart, simple and very low cost since it doesn't need to build/modify NOTHING out of the main "plan"
    and, also the cargo and crew LSAMs can be built the same size as planned and used with the FULL propellants' mass (for 20 mT cargo) or only PART of it
    then, the LSAM doesn't need to be "resized" but ONLY used with different amounts of propellants for different missions
    .
    Last edited by gaetanomarano; 2006-Sep-27 at 11:08 PM.

  16. #166
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,174
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    please note that these specs don't come from my "evaluations" but from NASA specs, tables and press releases!!!
    No, your evaluations do not come from NASA because,

    (1) You don't know from what mass the 6,500 lbm was deducted from. The source article doesn't give this information and we know there where many changes made to the CEV between the time the early mass budgets were published in the ESAS report and the time the final mass cuts were made. We don't know how the mass of the CEV may have evolved during that time, thus you cannot assume 22,642 kg is the reference point.

    (2) The source article says that almost 3,000 lbm was deducted from the SM and 2,000 lbm from the CM. That is at most 5,000 lbm, not 6,500 lbm. The article is very clear about this; You don't get change what it says just because you like some other number better. If this article is your "authoritative" NASA source, then use literally. The CM+SM was reduced 5,000 lbm (2,268 kg) from some unkown number.

  17. #167
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    Yeah... I recall you posting in some of these threads, DOOMMaster. Were you in the "5-segment SRB won't work" thread? There where quite a few knowledgeable folks posting in that one, yet the result was the same.
    Yeah, I tried a few things, I was met with the same type of things you have been so far. I get annoyed quickly, and while I'm still following these threads, I don't want to start being a major participant. Too little time and I don't want to end up posting something that will get me in trouble (which will happen eventually with how gaetanomarano responses to posts)


    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    My degree is actually in civil engineering. Rocketry is something I've been studying on the side for the last eleven years. Anyone who has mastered the core engineering curriculum can go pretty far in their understanding of the subject if they apply themselves.
    I went for computer. I didn't really go outside of electrical stuff, so while I understand the various calculations, performing them effectively isn't something I can do without taking time to go over the work an check I did everything correctly.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    Most of what I do isn't all that difficult as far as the mathematics go. Heck, most of the calculations in this thread are performed using just one equation. It does take time though to get really proficient at it.
    Yeah, it's not the difficulty, it's the time. I'd rather someone like you do it. You're a lot less likely to make a mistake than I am. I am glad you spend the time to do it, though. I enjoy reading your calculations and conclusions, then watching gaetanomarano make up numbers and claim he's right. It kinda gives me a warm fuzzy feeling as well as a good chuckle.

  18. #168
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    ...You don't know from what mass the 6,500 lbm was deducted from...
    no, we know it
    the latter OFFICIAL data (-6500 lbs.) must be deducted from the ONLY previous OFFICIAL data (from ESAS plan)
    we CAN'T deduct an OFFICIAL NUMBERS from "rumored figures" invented by press or "experts" (maybe, a "rumored figure" that matches your calculations... which figure do you prefer?)
    then, if the old CEV was 22,642 kg. the new Orion must be 22,642 kg. - 2,948 kg. = 19,694 kg.
    different evaluations are only SPECULATIONS (that we can do, but are NOT derived form NASA specs)
    The source article says that almost 3,000 lbm was deducted from the SM and 2,000 lbm from the CM
    the article's author gives a NEWS from NASA (the -6500 lbs. reduction) and his own INTERPRETATION of the news
    in fact, he suppose that part of the reduction comes from a smaller LAS, but (now) we know its evaluation was WRONG since the LAS weigh MORE than planned
    however, if you want, we can calculate the reduction "globally" (including the increased LAS) but the SM mass' result is SMALLER than my post:
    22,642 kg. (ESAS official CEV+SM) + 4,218 kg. (ESAS official LAS) = 26,860 kg. - 2,948 kg. (6500 lbs. GLOBAL reduction) = 23,912 kg. - 6176 kg. (real LAS) = 17,736 kg. - 8485 kg. (real Orion) = 9,251 kg. - 7,400 kg. (Apollo CSM propellants' mass) = 1,851 kg. (total SM dry mass)
    clearly, 1,851 kg. can't be the sufficient as SM dry mass, while, in your calculations the Orion weigh too much (and needs an "exotic" and untested flight profile to work...)
    the ONLY correct evalutation is my (#162) post since it PERFECTLY matches ALL known NASA specs, tables, data and press releases, the planned flight profile, the J-2x Ares-I (26 mT) max payload+LAS and (also) the LOGIC and the COMMON SENSE

    the problem is that you DON'T WANT to know the real Orion specs but ONLY to demonstrate that your calculations are right, and, to do that, you "cut in dozens slices" the NASA specs, data and table, instead of (simply) READ that data the SAME way NASA has written them!

    now (simply) you try to "erode" (somewhere) 1.3 mT of mass to add it to "YOUR" Orion mass and demonstrate you was right in your calculations.......
    .
    Last edited by gaetanomarano; 2006-Sep-28 at 01:11 AM.

  19. #169
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,174
    8,485 kg CM + 3,000 kg dry SM + M2O4/MMH + 1,855 m/s delta-v = 21 mT

    Three of the four terms in the “equation” are known as recently as 31-August. The only unknown is the 3,000 kg dry mass of the SM. If the 3,000 kg number is correct, then so is the 21 mT total mass. It is just that simple. Your analysis is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

  20. #170
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    8,485 kg CM + 3,000 kg dry SM + M2O4/MMH + 1,855 m/s delta-v = 21 mT Three of the four terms in the “equation” are known as recently as 31-August. The only unknown is the 3,000 kg dry mass of the SM. If the 3,000 kg number is correct, then so is the 21 mT total mass.
    apparently... you've found "your mT"... but...
    1. both (my and your) SM mass figures are only hypothetical, and...
    2. the real Orion SM may have LESS "extra" propellants than Apollo CSM
    I've used the Apollo's 2.9 mT figure ONLY because no real data is known, but (as I've explained in another post) the Orion may need LESS maneuverings and redundancy propellants
    in the Apollo project ALL "extra" jobs was performed with the CSM engine and fuel since the LEM was too little and used only for lunar landings
    in the ESAS plan the "lunar locomotive" will be LSAM that can perform the LOI and other maneuverings with its own engines and fuel
    if the LSAM will perform part of the work, the Orion SM doesn't need 2.9 mT of "extra" propellant, but (only) 2 mT or 1.5 mT or less
    then, if Orion needs (e.g.) 5.5 mT of propellants to perform a TEI, the max propellants mass may (still) remain (5.5+1.9) 7.4 mT and the full Orion+SM+fuel mass (still) at 19.7 mT
    and, if the LSAM is planned to perform, not only "some", but, GREAT PART of the extra-jobs, the Orion SM may need ONLY a few extra propellants for redundancy, maybe, 20% of the TEI fuel, with a total propellants' mass of (5.5+1.1) 6.6 mT and the full Orion+SM+fuel mass at only 18.9 mT
    this is (also) LOGICAL since a 18.9 or 19.7 mT mass (+ the LAS) matches the max Ares-I (payload+LAS) upperstage mass (as defined in the NASA table)
    .

  21. #171
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834

    The solution of all problems... or... "how to have the best of both worlds"!

    .

    The solution of ALL problems! or... "how to have the BEST of BOTH worlds!"

    after my "0.5" post [#160] and my reply [#165] about the LSAM, I've found an interesting idea to have (both) the bigOrion AND the bigLSAM

    my idea is very simple:

    the cargo and crew LSAM may have the same (46 mT) size as planned and will work in the same way (including the LOI)

    the 20 mT cargo-LSAM doesn't need the Orion and can be launched alone with an AresV (as planned)

    in all manned Orion+LSAM missions the bigOrion (with its larger SM and tanks) will be fueled ONLY with the 7.4 mT of propellants for TEI while the LOI will be performed with the LSAM engines and fuel (as planned)

    the bigOrion (launched with a standard Ares-I) will weigh only (about) 0.5 mT more than a standard (TEI-only) Orion, so, the loss of payload will be insignificant

    when the (cargo or crew) bigOrion (the "standard" version in my "vision") needs to fly alone (without the LSAM for LOI) the SM tanks will be fueled with the FULL propellants for LOI, TEI, maneuverings and redundancy

    and, since this "light" version of the bigOrion will NEVER perform the LOI with a docked LSAM, it will NEVER need 16+ mT of propellants for LOI but ONLY the (smaller) amount of propellants to brake itself (and enter its own mass in lunar orbit)

    I've evaluated that a bigOrion "light" may need about 6 mT extra propellants for LOI, then, THIS version of bigOrion will NEVER weigh "35" or "37" or "42.5" or "44" mT but ONLY (about) 26 mT

    its interesting that the bigOrion-light propellants' mass (about 13.5 mT) will be LESS than the Apollo CSM propellants' mass (18.4 mT) since THIS bigOrion "light" (alone or with a LSAM) will never brake any "LEM" to LOI

    for the same reason, also the bigOrion-light (26 mT) mass will be LESS than the Apollo CSM (30.3 mT) mass!

    last but not least... the "bigOrion-light" needs a SMALLER "miniEDS" and two (standard) Ares-I launches or (best) a (smaller and cheaper!) Ares-II for a single (more reliable) launch!


    do you want to change your vote? (or vote now!)

    .
    Last edited by gaetanomarano; 2006-Sep-28 at 06:57 AM.

  22. #172
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834

    A further saving of weight!

    .

    A further saving of weight!

    the main difference between a standard Orion and a bigOrion is the tanks' size and mass

    the LOI+TEI+LSAM bigOrion extra-tanks' mass (and SM extra-structure) may be (around) 0.5-1 mT more than its standard version, while, the bigOrion "light" extra-tanks' mass may be around 0.3-0.5 mT

    both extra-mass (excluding the extra-propellants) are not so much, but we can further reduce this (already small) extra-mass with a simple design trick:

    the bigOrion can be built with a larger structure able to allocate two standard tanks (for standard Orion flights WITH a LSAM) or two enlarged tanks (for all bigOrion flights WITHOUT a LSAMs)

    with this simple idea, the extra-mass in standard missions (with LSAM and 7.4 mT of fuel) may be under 0.2 mT

    and, with the same idea, LM can build a "triple-version bigOrion" with the same (bigger but light) structure: one with small tanks (for TEI-only fuel and LSAM for LOI) one with medium tanks (for LOI+TEI fuel to fly without a LSAM) and one with big tanks (for TEI fuel + LOI fuel for, both, Orion and LSAM)

    bigTanks.jpg
    .

  23. #173
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,174
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    in all manned Orion+LSAM missions the bigOrion (with its larger SM and tanks) will be fueled ONLY with the 7.4 mT of propellants for TEI while the LOI will be performed with the LSAM engines and fuel (as planned)

    the bigOrion (launched with a standard Ares-I) will weigh only (about) 0.5 mT more than a standard (TEI-only) Orion, so, the loss of payload will be insignificant

    when the (cargo or crew) bigOrion (the "standard" version in my "vision") needs to fly alone (without the LSAM for LOI) the SM tanks will be fueled with the FULL propellants for LOI, TEI, maneuverings and redundancy

    and, since this "light" version of the bigOrion will NEVER perform the LOI with a docked LSAM, it will NEVER need 16+ mT of propellants for LOI but ONLY the (smaller) amount of propellants to brake itself (and enter its own mass in lunar orbit)

    I've evaluated that a bigOrion "light" may need about 6 mT extra propellants for LOI, then, THIS version of bigOrion will NEVER weigh "35" or "37" or "42.5" or "44" mT but ONLY (about) 26 mT
    Your idea, huh? I suggested this option to you ten days ago…

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    you can calculate the TEI+LOI propellant weight, but I think may be over 20 mT in total
    The Apollo CSM had a delta-v of 2,800 m/s, which we can probably consider a worst-case scenario. If we assume the inert CEV mass is 12 mT, then we will need about 18 mT of propellant to achieve this. However, if we just need enough for LOI+TEI plus a few course corrections, then maybe we can get by with 2,200 m/s or so. In this case we would need about 12 mT of propellant. The total vehicle mass would then be 24 mT, which is what I told you in an earlier post.

    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    also, since the Orion must be a "standard vehicle", we must add the LOI propellant also for the missions that Orion will perform WITH the LSAM
    Not necessarily. Orion can have the capacity to carry enough propellant for independent operations while still having the LSAM perform LOI for joint CEV/LSAM operations. Make Orion’s tanks large enough to carry 12 mT when operating alone but fill them to only 9-10 mT (as mission requirements dictate) when operating with the LSAM. Using the LSAM’s higher efficiency engines for LOI will allow about 4 mT more payload each mission.
    Despite seeming like a good idea at the time, I’ve revised my thinking on this. The only launch vehicle capable of sending Orion to the Moon will be the Ares V. Since the Ares V will have a lunar delivery performance of about 55 mT, launching a 24-26 mT Orion will be a waste of its potential. We should do this only in the case of a rescue mission in which saving lives takes priority over cost. Any other mission launching Orion on an Ares V should include cargo to maximize the launch vehicle’s potential. Therefore Orion will require the propulsion to break both itself and the cargo into lunar orbit. I’m therefore leaning toward two SM variants. A small one for ISS and Orion/LSAM missions and a large stretched version for Orion/Cargo missions to lunar orbit. The large version would also be used for emergency rescue. The small version is what we are now building, thus no revisions are necessary.
    Last edited by Bob B.; 2006-Sep-28 at 01:42 PM.

  24. #174
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    ...suggested this option...
    good... the most important thing is to have the (the times more versatile) bigOrion
    ...I’ve revised my thinking on this...
    the bigOrion is absoulutely the BEST choice and I've never suggested to launch it with the AresV
    in ALL posts I suggest to launch the bigOrion with two standard Ares-I or (best) with a single Ares-II able to lift the bigOrion and a small-EDS

  25. #175
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,174
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    good... the most important thing is to have the (the times more versatile) bigOrion
    Versatility is not always the best choice. It is often better to have something special built for a specific purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    the bigOrion is absoulutely the BEST choice
    Not according to 92.86% of your poll respondents.

    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    and I've never suggested to launch it with the AresV
    Correct, I suggested it.

    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    in ALL posts I suggest to launch the bigOrion with two standard Ares-I or (best) with a single Ares-II able to lift the bigOrion and a small-EDS
    First, I agree with your 26 mT figure for an Orion configured for solo lunar operations. I previously calculated 24 mT but this was for a low delta-v (2,200 m/s) vehicle doing little more than shuttling crews and/or supplies to a lunar space station. If we need to keep open the option to perform a lunar orbit rescue, then we must have the ability to reach any lunar orbit immediately upon arrival at the moon. NASA calculates the LOI delta-v required to do this is 1,390 m/s*. Adding for TEI and a little bit of maneuvering, I think we need a vehicle with at least 2,400 m/s delta-v. A 2,400 m/s CEV will have a mass of about 26 mT.

    Orion will also require a small EDS for TLI. Let’s set the parameters for the EDS at LOX/LH2, 0.90 propellant mass ratio, and 3,150 m/s delta-v. Based on these numbers, the EDS will have a total mass of about 34 mT.

    We therefore need to get 60 mT into orbit with either single or dual launch architecture. For the single launch, the vehicle must insert 60 mT -- about 1/2 the Ares V. For the dual launch, the vehicle must be able to launch the largest single component, or 34 mT. We therefore have to develop a launch vehicle with at least 155% the performance of the current Ares I design (34 vs. 22 mT).

    I don’t like this concept at all because we end up with a vehicle that’s way too big for the majority of missions we’ll be flying. I prefer keeping the Ares I small and losing the option of flying Orion to the Moon unless we launch on an Ares V. Quite frankly, I see very little purpose in flying Orion to the Moon by itself. Putting Orion on an Ares V means it can launch with a cargo shipment or a load of propellant for a reusable LSAM. Of course in this case the SM has to be big enough to insert both Orion and the cargo into LLO. We therefore end up with two SMs -- a small one ISS and Orion/LSAM missions and a big one for Orion/Cargo missions. I just don’t see a niche for gaetanomarano‘s intermediate sized SM. This seems to be a case where specialization is better than a one-size-fits-all solution.

    (* 1,390 m/s is the worst-case delta-v required for anywhere access with no loiter time. The ESAS plan reduced the LOI delta-v requirement to 1,100 m/s by compromising on loiter time. Anywhere access can be achieved with a combination of 1,100 m/s and up to 3 days loiter time. 1,100 m/s with zero loiter time can gain access to 84% of the Moon.)

  26. #176
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    It is often better to have something special built for a specific purpose.
    but not with the very expensive space hardware and the very risky space travels
    a VERSATILE hardware means have more different missions with a single vehicle and "versatility" is (also) very important when the "unknown" will happen in a mission
    Not according to 92.86% of your poll respondents.
    "BEST" is (clearly) my (strong) opinion about the bigOrion!
    ...the EDS will have a total mass of about 34 mT...
    this is also my evaluation (made by comparison with the LSAM/EDS) from which I suggested to build an Ares-II with twice the Ares-I payload + one LAS
    ...dual launch architecture...
    no, I prefer the Ares-II single launch, the reason I talk (also) of two Ares-I launches is ONLY to match the rocket NASA has decided to build
    ...develop a launch vehicle with at least 155% the performance of the current Ares I design...
    no, the proportion between Orion/LSAM and EDS is (about) 70/80, then, the mini-EDS must be around 30 mT and the full Oiron+LAS+EDS around 56 mT
    also, further weight can be saved if we double the Ares-II 2nd stage as EDS (like the AresV) with the same engine, structure and tanks in common, so, the Ares-II must lift (about) +120% more upperstage mass than Ares-I
    ...I see very little purpose in flying Orion to the Moon by itself....
    I've published/posted a dozen of very good reasons, but two of the best are: to send RESCUE Orions AND launch only the crews that will use reusable-LSAMs
    ...propellant for a reusable LSAM...
    send the refuel propellants alone is more efficient (saving the mass of the Orion, LAS, interstages, astronauts, equipments, spare-fuel, fairings, etc.)
    ...the SM has to be big enough to insert both Orion and the cargo into LLO....
    no, I suggest to send cargo+crew Ares-II/Orion missions ONLY to the ISS (to use the extra FREE payload)
    for the moon missions the bigOrion must be used ONLY for crew rotation, rescue missions and small cargo send/return
    the big cargos must always be sent with the AresV
    ...We therefore end up with two SMs...
    no, as we've posted (and agreed) the SM can be ONE with different propellants' mass for different missions
    the multiple size tanks is only a further option
    .

  27. #177
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    N.E.Ohio
    Posts
    19,850
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    ...
    a VERSATILE hardware means have more different missions with a single vehicle and "versatility" is (also) very important when the "unknown" will happen in a mission...
    Which is why the shuttle is as expensive as it is. It was designed as the do-everything orbital craft. Routine missions are now too expensive, and we need a replacement.
    NASA learned that lesson the hard way, and that's the lesson everyone is trying to teach you.

  28. #178
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,174
    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    no, the proportion between Orion/LSAM and EDS is (about) 70/80
    You’re way off on the EDS mass. According to ESAS, the on-orbit mass of the EDS will be about 122.5 mT (about 23 mT inert mass plus 99.5 mT useable propellant). Of course there will be some boil-off of propellant by the time of TLI, thereby reducing the mass slightly. The ESAS calculation was based on a CEV+LSAM mass of 65.5 mT and a specific impulse of 451.5 s. If we assume 7.5 mT of propellant boil-off, we have a delta-v of

    dV = Isp*g*LN(Mo/Mf)

    dV = 451.5*9.80665*LN((23+92+65.5)/(23+65.5)) = 3,156 m/s

    This just meets the ESAS requirement of 3,150 m/s for TLI. It therefore appears the EDS will have to have a mass of at least 115 mT prior to TLI.

    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    then, the mini-EDS must be around 30 mT and the full Oiron+LAS+EDS around 56 mT
    Even if your logic is right, your numbers are not because you greatly underestimated the mass of the EDS. Appling your logic and using the correct mass, the mass of the mini-EDS used with a 26 mT Orion is,

    Mini-EDS mass = 26*115/65.5 = 45.65 mT

    The reason this comes out so much higher than my 34 mT estimate is because I used a propellant mass fraction of 0.90, which is normal for a fully fueled LOX/LH2 rocket stage. In the ESAS architecture, the EDS will have burned off most of its propellant during ascent, thus reducing its mass fraction to about 0.80 by the time of TLI. If I redo my calculations with the lower mass fraction, I get an EDS mass of 45.5 mT.

    Quote Originally Posted by gaetanomarano View Post
    also, further weight can be saved if we double the Ares-II 2nd stage as EDS (like the AresV) with the same engine, structure and tanks in common, so, the Ares-II must lift (about) +120% more upperstage mass than Ares-I
    No, it seems your Ares II will have to inject a mass of about 72 mT for your preferred architecture. This is more than 3 times the performance of the Ares I.

  29. #179
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by NEOWatcher View Post
    ...the shuttle is as expensive as it is...
    absolutely NOT TRUE
    I don' want to repeat again the same posts written in other threads and forums about the Shuttle's costs, the costs/advantages comparison between the Shuttles and the Orion (# of astronauts, cargo, cargo-return, canadarm, airlock, space-lab, large internal space, orbital assembly, etc.)
    I only want to say that the (VERY VERY VERY versatile!) Shuttle (so versatile a capsule NEVER can dream to be, so versatile to build a space station and launch/repair the amazing Hubble!!!) has an higher than planned cost per launch ONLY due to its INCREASED maintenance costs and DECREASED flight rate!
    the Shuttle hardware costs per launch (by itself) STILL are UNDER the price of a satellite mid-rocket (unmanned) launch!
    $600M per launch are NOT so much if we think that ONE Shuttle can lift 24 mT of cargo and up to EIGHT astronauts!
    the Orion needs TWO crew launches and EIGHT cargo launches to deliver to the ISS the SAME crew/payload of ONE Shuttle launch!
    at the (optimistic) $800M+ Orion costs per launch... the price of a "Shuttle-equivalent" Orion mission will be over $8 billion!!!!!!!!!!!!
    .
    Last edited by gaetanomarano; 2006-Oct-01 at 04:03 AM.

  30. #180
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob B. View Post
    According to ESAS, the on-orbit mass of the EDS will be about 122.5 mT...
    the latest figure about the MAX AresV payload to LEO is 130 mT (no more, no less!)
    this is the TOTAL mass of the FULL orbital LSAM/EDS duo that waits the Orion to fly towards the moon, and, since the LSAM weigh only 45 mT, the EDS can't weigh more than 85 mT
    clearly, the "130 mT" AresV payload CAN'T BE the LSAM alone (that weigh only 45 mT) NOR the LSAM + "your" (122.5 mT) EDS since the 167.5 mT total mass EXCEEDS very much the AresV max payload!
    the (wrong) figure you've posted may (probably) be the EDS+propellants' mass at LIFT-OFF (NOT the FINAL mass in LEO) since the EDS works (also) as 2nd stage!
    then, 37.5 mT of EDS propellants will be used to reach the earth orbit and (only) 62 mT for TLI (with a LSAM+Orion/EDS rate of 65/85)
    assuming that one J-2x will weigh 2 mT and the bigOrion 26 mT, the mini-EDS mass will be (65/83=26/X) 33.2 mT + 2 mT (the J-2x) = 35.2 mT and the full Orion/SM/mini-EDS/TLI-propellants' mass (around) 61 mT (NOT 72 mT) that is (only) a +135% more upperstage mass of a standard Ares-I (NOT "more than 3 times")
    like in the AresV, also the mini-EDS will double as Ares-II 2nd stage, but I can't give any evaluations of the extra propellants and extra tanks' mass for that job since these figures come from the 1st stage design and performances
    ...it seems your Ares II will have to inject a mass of about 72 mT...
    as explained here, the Orion/mini-EDS mass is 11 mT less than your calculations... but, also at 72 mT, "my preferred architecture" (and the bigOrion/AresII) STILL remains the BEST choice, since, in "my architecture", the AresV will be used to launch ONLY half dozen of cargoLSAMs, half dozen of reusableLSAMs (for 60+ lunar landings!!!) and the LSAM refuel, while, 70% of the (crew rotation and small cargo) Orion launches will be accomplished with the smaller and cheaper Ares-II
    .

Similar Threads

  1. 16/8/2010 - AR 11098 gave a fantastic "ORION SUNSPOTS BELT".
    By THEO-007 in forum Astrophotography
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-Aug-16, 12:50 PM
  2. Holy moly! Orion now has 36", 40" and 50" Dobs!
    By redshifter in forum Astronomical Observing, Equipment and Accessories
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2010-Jan-07, 11:43 AM
  3. "Ares and Orion Are the Way to Go"
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2008-Oct-31, 01:20 AM
  4. Supersonic "bullets" in the Orion Nebula
    By Blob in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2007-May-01, 08:02 PM
  5. () -- EggCEV - The "bell-shaped" Orion
    By gaetanomarano in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 2006-Oct-05, 10:25 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: