Orion program delayed 2 years

[AngelLestat]

KSP is not the real world, I never said it was. But it does give an excellent idea of the math involved. Something AngelLestat seems to have problems with.

Well, after searching and providing accurate data, doing some math, showing proof and explaning all details meanwhile all others just make excuses and call me ignorant, stupid, brain damage, dreamer, etc. In addiction to skip and ignore (without admit) all the things that I previously prove.

So I will just do one step more, to see if someone here has the balls to accept the evidence or try to counter with better data and calculations; or shut up until they do.

Is a nightmare try to find real data about SLS, nobody (seriously nobody) in internet made a calculation or estimation on deltaV for the SLS. I was looking this yesterday and even 1 hour today. I found nothing.

I dont have neither good estimations about booster and main core masses. The only thing we know (depending the setup) is the amount of mass that can carry to low orbit, but that is useless, because we need to know the exact deltaV in which the third stage (LES ejection) happen in conjunction with the final deltaV for Orion.

I will not break my head trying to make reverse engineering of this, so the only way is trying to make some testing in ksp to have a better idea of the process.

I dont have installed real scale solar system (it consume a lot of memory), so I try to mimic the SLS behavior in normal KSP with some mods.

I choose to mimic the block 1a crew 70T to LEO, because it seems the most easy, but dont think the 130T version would change anything, the Tower-LES it can only eject in the last stage of SLS, besides nobody knows the exact payload of those versions, plus it would disminish the effect of the mass added from the Dra-LES.

I start matching the Orion mass, with its service module and the right % of proppelent. Then I just estimate the mass of each stage by visual and experience.

The behavior seems pretty accurate in stage times and adjusting the different speed relation in KSP.

I notice that the service module give me almost the double of deltaV that it should, and the third SLS stage less than it should, but as the ejection happen before that, it seems pretty accurate.

Image Gallery: http://postimg.org/gallery/1oy9n790a/

I portray the Tower and Draco LES as an TOP RCS cone tank, one with 8.6T and the other with 3.9T (40% of orion capsule).

The Tower-LES is ejected before start the third stage. The service module is the same for both.

Tower-LES data stages:

Booster=1490 m/s

Core=4250 m/s (ejection LES 8.6T)

upper= 5500 m/s

serv module= 6870 m/s

Draco-LES data stages:

Booster=1500 m/s

Core=4400 m/s

upper= 5500 m/s

serv module= 6630 m/s (draco-LES 3.9T, extra deltaV of 300m/s in ksp values, it should have 600m/s)

The real deltaV should be close to 8000 m/s for empty CORE and 12500 m/s empty serv module.

Leo: 7km/s, +3.5km/s Moon transfer, +1km/s mars transfer.

This match my prediction that the DeltaV is the same. You dont achieve more deltaV with the tower-LES, because the extra mass is significative and you can not use the deltaV from the tower contrary to draco-LES.

Now.. you can make your own calculations, call experts, try to match this in Orbiter or in realism overhaul. It would not matter.

The conclusion will be the same.

[Nibb31]

What has the SLS got to do with anything here? We are talking about the dV of the spacecraft, not the launcher. An expendable LES optimizes spacecraft dV for deep space missions (which is the main operational role for Orion), not for shuttling people up and down (which is the main operational role for Dragon). Different roles = different requirements = different optimizations.

Really, at this stage, I give up. I have better things to waste my time on than this.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Nibb31

[shynung]

Really, at this stage, I give up. I have better things to waste my time on than this.

Like playing KSP.

[Bill Phil]

Well, after searching and providing accurate data, doing some math, showing proof and explaning all details meanwhile all others just make excuses and call me ignorant, stupid, brain damage, dreamer, etc. In addiction to skip and ignore (without admit) all the things that I previously prove.

So I will just do one step more, to see if someone here has the balls to accept the evidence or try to counter with better data and calculations; or shut up until they do.

Is a nightmare try to find real data about SLS, nobody (seriously nobody) in internet made a calculation or estimation on deltaV for the SLS. I was looking this yesterday and even 1 hour today. I found nothing.

I dont have neither good estimations about booster and main core masses. The only thing we know (depending the setup) is the amount of mass that can carry to low orbit, but that is useless, because we need to know the exact deltaV in which the third stage (LES ejection) happen in conjunction with the final deltaV for Orion.

I will not break my head trying to make reverse engineering of this, so the only way is trying to make some testing in ksp to have a better idea of the process.

I dont have installed real scale solar system (it consume a lot of memory), so I try to mimic the SLS behavior in normal KSP with some mods.

I choose to mimic the block 1a crew 70T to LEO, because it seems the most easy, but dont think the 130T version would change anything, the Tower-LES it can only eject in the last stage of SLS, besides nobody knows the exact payload of those versions, plus it would disminish the effect of the mass added from the Dra-LES.

I start matching the Orion mass, with its service module and the right % of proppelent. Then I just estimate the mass of each stage by visual and experience.

The behavior seems pretty accurate in stage times and adjusting the different speed relation in KSP.

I notice that the service module give me almost the double of deltaV that it should, and the third SLS stage less than it should, but as the ejection happen before that, it seems pretty accurate.

Image Gallery: http://postimg.org/gallery/1oy9n790a/

http://s20.postimg.org/bmebbkm0t/test_LES3.jpg

I portray the Tower and Draco LES as an TOP RCS cone tank, one with 8.6T and the other with 3.9T (40% of orion capsule).

The Tower-LES is ejected before start the third stage. The service module is the same for both.

Tower-LES data stages:

Booster=1490 m/s

Core=4250 m/s (ejection LES 8.6T)

upper= 5500 m/s

serv module= 6870 m/s

Draco-LES data stages:

Booster=1500 m/s

Core=4400 m/s

upper= 5500 m/s

serv module= 6630 m/s (draco-LES 3.9T, extra deltaV of 300m/s in ksp values, it should have 600m/s)

The real deltaV should be close to 8000 m/s for empty CORE and 12500 m/s empty serv module.

Leo: 7km/s, +3.5km/s Moon transfer, +1km/s mars transfer.

This match my prediction that the DeltaV is the same. You dont achieve more deltaV with the tower-LES, because the extra mass is significative and you can not use the deltaV from the tower contrary to draco-LES.

Now.. you can make your own calculations, call experts, try to match this in Orbiter or in realism overhaul. It would not matter.

The conclusion will be the same.

KSP isn't a particularly accurate simulation.

Not only that, but if you know the payload you can use a few rules of thumb to give a very rough estimate on total mass. I'd say between 3500 and 4200 tonnes, what with LH2.

[AngelLestat]

What has the SLS got to do with anything here? We are talking about the dV of the spacecraft, not the launcher. An expendable LES optimizes spacecraft dV for deep space missions (which is the main operational role for Orion), not for shuttling people up and down (which is the main operational role for Dragon). Different roles = different requirements = different optimizations.

Ok, your avatar picture is insulting the intelligence of chimps. What it has to do with the SLS??? The deltaV leaving earth does not count in your deltaV??? How do you place orion in space, with faith?? Living earth means 9km/s of deltaV, and the ejection happens after LEO speeds.

But well, as always, here you are one more time in evidence in front everyone, proving that you are unable to learn and admit nothing, raging in shame and without any trace of integrity.

have a nice day..

- - - Updated - - -

KSP isn't a particularly accurate simulation.

Not only that, but if you know the payload you can use a few rules of thumb to give a very rough estimate on total mass. I'd say between 3500 and 4200 tonnes, what with LH2.

As I said, make better calculations or demostration countering all my data or shut up.

[Kryten]

Really, at this stage, I give up. I have better things to waste my time on than this.

Remember the ignore function, it makes life a lot easier. It's not as if your going to miss him coming up with something insightful, after all this time.

[G'th]

Well, after searching and providing accurate data, doing some math, showing proof and explaning all details meanwhile all others just make excuses and call me ignorant, stupid, brain damage, dreamer, etc. In addiction to skip and ignore (without admit) all the things that I previously prove.

So I will just do one step more, to see if someone here has the balls to accept the evidence or try to counter with better data and calculations; or shut up until they do.

Is a nightmare try to find real data about SLS, nobody (seriously nobody) in internet made a calculation or estimation on deltaV for the SLS. I was looking this yesterday and even 1 hour today. I found nothing.

I dont have neither good estimations about booster and main core masses. The only thing we know (depending the setup) is the amount of mass that can carry to low orbit, but that is useless, because we need to know the exact deltaV in which the third stage (LES ejection) happen in conjunction with the final deltaV for Orion.

I will not break my head trying to make reverse engineering of this, so the only way is trying to make some testing in ksp to have a better idea of the process.

I dont have installed real scale solar system (it consume a lot of memory), so I try to mimic the SLS behavior in normal KSP with some mods.

I choose to mimic the block 1a crew 70T to LEO, because it seems the most easy, but dont think the 130T version would change anything, the Tower-LES it can only eject in the last stage of SLS, besides nobody knows the exact payload of those versions, plus it would disminish the effect of the mass added from the Dra-LES.

I start matching the Orion mass, with its service module and the right % of proppelent. Then I just estimate the mass of each stage by visual and experience.

The behavior seems pretty accurate in stage times and adjusting the different speed relation in KSP.

I notice that the service module give me almost the double of deltaV that it should, and the third SLS stage less than it should, but as the ejection happen before that, it seems pretty accurate.

Image Gallery: http://postimg.org/gallery/1oy9n790a/

http://s20.postimg.org/bmebbkm0t/test_LES3.jpg

I portray the Tower and Draco LES as an TOP RCS cone tank, one with 8.6T and the other with 3.9T (40% of orion capsule).

The Tower-LES is ejected before start the third stage. The service module is the same for both.

Tower-LES data stages:

Booster=1490 m/s

Core=4250 m/s (ejection LES 8.6T)

upper= 5500 m/s

serv module= 6870 m/s

Draco-LES data stages:

Booster=1500 m/s

Core=4400 m/s

upper= 5500 m/s

serv module= 6630 m/s (draco-LES 3.9T, extra deltaV of 300m/s in ksp values, it should have 600m/s)

The real deltaV should be close to 8000 m/s for empty CORE and 12500 m/s empty serv module.

Leo: 7km/s, +3.5km/s Moon transfer, +1km/s mars transfer.

This match my prediction that the DeltaV is the same. You dont achieve more deltaV with the tower-LES, because the extra mass is significative and you can not use the deltaV from the tower contrary to draco-LES.

Now.. you can make your own calculations, call experts, try to match this in Orbiter or in realism overhaul. It would not matter.

The conclusion will be the same.

So, in order to prove whatever nonsense you're spewing here, you use a version of KSP that basically tells us nothing about how real life rockets and spacecraft work. Lol.

But I'll bite. No one bothers listing Delta V because in the real world its the payload and where you can put it that matters. Rockets are designed around an intended payload size and a target, not around an arbitrary requirement of having as high a dV as possible. This is why every chart listing a rocket stacks performance will typically list a selected payload mass to such and such orbit. Delta V doesn't describe anything other than how much a particular stage can change its velocity. It says nothing about how much payload you can move with it without also looking at the rocket/spacecraft itself. Simply put, performance is measured in where you can put a selected payload, not delta V.

Two rockets could have the same total dV amount, but that doesn't mean they actually perform the same nor are just as powerful as each other. Mercury-Atlas could put its payload into LEO just as well as a Block 1 SLS could. That doesn't mean they're equally powerful rockets.

As such, even if FH/Dragon has more dV than SLS/Orion, it doesn't mean diddly. SLS can use less delta V to move more payload. PERIOD. Your argument would only have weight if FH and SLS had the same payload capacity, BUT THEY DON'T.

And for the record, I found SLS' stats pretty easily, even if the ones I found may be a bit outdated: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/sls0.html

[Motokid600]

Again... To clarify. All this AngelLestat because your against the use of older methods and technology? What exactly is it your arguing? Just trying to put this in perspective.

Also every post you make is getting less and less coherent. Settle down and rethink exactly what it is your arguing about.

[sojourner]

And he's still stuck on the launcher while everyone else is talking about the BEO mission.

[AngelLestat]

The BEO excuses:

No is not. The 90% of orion mission (what I am saying? it would be 4 as much) would be launching from earth without making any huge space tug in LEO.

So for the 90% of cases, my point is relevant.

For the next 10%, this Draco-LES system is not death mass as you called, because you can extract deltaV from it.

Or used as extra engines, manuvering, to land, etc.

You can even remplace the service module engine, and if we go one step further, we can use RCS-Propulsion with methane-ox. Of course I bet for spacex to be the first to accomplish this.

And you can even use it to land on moon in case you needed for rescue missions.

Is reusable, cheap and cost efficient.

No one bothers listing Delta V because in the real world its the payload and where you can put it that matters. Rockets are designed around an intended payload size and a target' date=' not around an arbitrary requirement of having as high a dV as possible. This is why every chart listing a rocket stacks performance will typically list a selected payload mass to such and such orbit. Delta V doesn't describe anything other than how much a particular stage can change its velocity. It says nothing about how much payload you can move with it without also looking at the rocket/spacecraft itself. Simply put, performance is measured in where you can put a selected payload, not delta V.[/quote']

Ok, is nice that you have lose time writing all that which I already knew that, but I was looking for the DeltaV in the 70ton version when the change of stage happens, because is in that moment where the Tower-Les is ejected.

I dont care if it can place 70 tons in orbit if I dont know when the stage change happens!

As such, even if FH/Dragon has more dV than SLS/Orion, it doesn't mean diddly. SLS can use less delta V to move more payload. PERIOD. Your argument would only have weight if FH and SLS had the same payload capacity, BUT THEY DON'T.

What has FH/dragon has to do with this discussion??????

I never mention FH in this whole topic, and I just mention dragon to point how good is its LES design vs Orion, and that Orion would be better with that system.

And for the record, I found SLS' stats pretty easily, even if the ones I found may be a bit outdated: http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/sls0.html

I saw that link, but I search for the word "mass" and "deltaV" in that page, as I could not see the data that I was looking for, I keep with my search in other pages. But I dint saw the table with all the data on the bottom.

I can do the math with that without KSP attemps, of course the result will be the same. And your excuses too.

There is no way you will accept how wrong you were over the whole topic even if I analize all possible orion missions.

Again... To clarify. All this AngelLestat because your against the use of older methods and technology? What exactly is it your arguing? Just trying to put this in perspective.

Also every post you make is getting less and less coherent. Settle down and rethink exactly what it is your arguing about.

My argument is that NASA stop almost all development after the apollo mission, if you knew all the other things that was partially develope over that time is amazing, then nasa from that day didnt do much more to change the basic tech. They never care to make things more affordable (even taking into account that all space exploration is firmly attached to money).

They dont even use all the tech that we adquire in these 45 years to improve the cost of manufacture or design.

Not, they spent even more money today than in 1970 to make the same things, how is that possible?

They had to bring back the industry and procedures to produce AVCOAT again, who cost a lot, even when we already had much better materials now, as the one that SpaceX uses a much lower cost.

They designs are bad too.. if a design is not thinked from the begining to be cost efficient, then you are wasting your time. Because the fuel of space exploration is not the proppelent or rockets.. is money.

So if you remove money from the equation, you are just denying space exploration, and that's what they did all these years.

[Motokid600]

Well it sounds like you have it all figured out. Congrats your more intelligent then NASA engineers. Maybe you should write a letter or something.

...seriously though. In the biggest nut shell I can fathom. NASA has there reasons to do what they do. Reasons your very obviously clueless of.

[Bill Phil]

Angelestat, NASA was ordered to stop developing tech after Apollo. Before the landing, actually. Then they started up the space shuttle, which took over a decade to fully develop.

[G'th]

The BEO excuses:

Ok, is nice that you have lose time writing all that which I already knew that, but I was looking for the DeltaV in the 70ton version when the change of stage happens, because is in that moment where the Tower-Les is ejected.

I dont care if it can place 70 tons in orbit if I dont know when the stage change happens!

If you don't care that it can place 70 tons in orbit then you don't care about how the rocket is actually performing. Its the end result that actually matters in rocket design, now how every individual stage performs. Eschewing Orion's LAS altogether isn't going to result in any significant payload improvements, and will result in huge safety issues. Giving Orion a Dragon-like LAS would be detrimental to the payload, as an equivalent system for Orion would result in a much larger weight penalty that would actually bring the performance of the Orion and SLS down. (whereas the current LAS only marginally penalizes SLS, and has zero effect on Orions performance)

Orion's LAS weights ~6 tons. A Dragon-style LAS (which in reality isn't even a pure LAS. Its Dragon's engines, LAS, and orbital maneuvering system all in one) would weigh around twice that (if not more) without making Orion smaller, and would require significant redesign to support it. It would also require new landing procedures, a complete rewrite of mission profiles, and likely an increase in size of Orion altogether in order to still support Orion's purpose.

This is the core of why you're so devastatingly wrong. You're comparing the two systems as if you can just translate the mass of one over to the other, but real life engineering doesn't work that way.

What has FH/dragon has to do with this discussion??????

I never mention FH in this whole topic, and I just mention dragon to point how good is its LES design vs Orion, and that Orion would be better with that system.

You're the one thats been comparing Dragon to Orion this whole time (even though the comparison was ridiculous from the start). And you can't talk about the two without their accompanying launchers.

I saw that link, but I search for the word "mass" and "deltaV" in that page, as I could not see the data that I was looking for, I keep with my search in other pages. But I dint saw the table with all the data on the bottom.

I can do the math with that without KSP attemps, of course the result will be the same. And your excuses too.

There is no way you will accept how wrong you were over the whole topic even if I analize all possible orion missions.

The information is all there. I already explained to you why no one is going to bother listing delta V.

You can't override facts by calling them "Excuses".

My argument is that NASA stop almost all development after the apollo mission, if you knew all the other things that was partially develope over that time is amazing, then nasa from that day didnt do much more to change the basic tech. They never care to make things more affordable (even taking into account that all space exploration is firmly attached to money).

They dont even use all the tech that we adquire in these 45 years to improve the cost of manufacture or design.

Not, they spent even more money today than in 1970 to make the same things, how is that possible?

Yes, NASA stopped all development. The SLS/Orion programs are the only thing NASA has done in the 50 years since Apollo. Orion totally isn't larger than the Apollo Capsule. Definitely doesn't support 4x the mission length or feature modern hard and software. Orion definitely can't support a wider range of BEO missions than Apollo.

Real life engineering isn't a matter of modern or antiquated. Being upset that Orion is a modern upgrade to a concept from over 50 years ago is just silly. Its a multi-sided coin and neither side is more valuable than the other, and what Orion is doing is simple, effective, and reliable. Dragon is more complicated, but also effective and (likely) reliable. Neither one is "better" because the relative performance of the two isn't so vastly different that you can actually make that distinction. The only way you could say Dragon was "better" is if it could do everything Orion could, and more, and do it at the same or cheaper cost. As of right now, Dragon can't, and won't.

You seriously need to just stop, because you understand nothing about engineering or rocketry.

[AngelLestat]

Well it sounds like you have it all figured out. Congrats your more intelligent then NASA engineers. Maybe you should write a letter or something.

Thank you, it was about time someone recognize this.

...seriously though. In the biggest nut shell I can fathom. NASA has there reasons to do what they do. Reasons your very obviously clueless of.

Everybody with common sense is clueless of their reasons. But you are just a bunch of NASA fans who are offended because someone who you don't know (me), is criticising them.

But you are like 6 vs me, and you all have at disposal all NASA info to search for "whys" or reasons behind their selection. So it should be very easy for all of you to flood me with evidence supporting their choices. But you are not.. the only things that came from you is excuses, insults without evidence or logic.

Me, by the other way was too easy to flood you with reasons, logic and evidence. Like the fact that is safest to do ISRU than not. Or all the NASA economics, or the list of all pros than the Draco-LES has over the old Tower-LES. Which all you tried to find refuge over the last holding point "the deltaV" which was not hard to refute.

Angelestat, NASA was ordered to stop developing tech after Apollo. Before the landing, actually. Then they started up the space shuttle, which took over a decade to fully develop.

Ok, they tried before, I give them that. They totally fail by the way... but well, maybe that is why they never try again.

Eschewing Orion's LAS altogether isn't going to result in any significant payload improvements' date=' and will result in huge safety issues[/quote']

Sorry what? 8,6 tons of dead weight that is drop it just after the 65% of the deltaV, is not a drawback? Also.. the Tower-LES is more risky than the Draco-LES.

Because first you need to detach the side farings, this take you at least half second, then not only the engines needs to work, also the RCS in the top should work. Once you are away from the danger, you need to detach the capsule in the right angle and move the tower fast from the capsule, because the parachutes would not be able to open if the tower remains close.

With the other system you just need 4 engines that act fast and without any risk of hitting something above you, neither when the parachutes open.

But again, according to all of you, it must be a holy reason why NASA choice that.. This is like a religion freak group. We can not question NASA!! we must have faith!!

Giving Orion a Dragon-like LAS would be detrimental to the payload, as an equivalent system for Orion would result in a much larger weight penalty that would actually bring the performance of the Orion and SLS down. (whereas the current LAS only marginally penalizes SLS, and has zero effect on Orions performance)

Ok you have the data now, if you can add 2+2 (well with that kind of comments I doubt it) then you can calculate the deltaV penalties of both system.

Dont forget to add the extra deltaV of the LES included system. Good luck.

Orion's LAS weights ~6 tons. A Dragon-style LAS (which in reality isn't even a pure LAS. Its Dragon's engines, LAS, and orbital maneuvering system all in one) would weigh around twice that (if not more) without making Orion smaller, and would require significant redesign to support it.

Lol, ...? first it weight 6.8Tons 80% of the capsule mass; and the dragon-Style only adds a 40% of the capsule mass.

Make the math with the info of dragon. A complete failure of your part.

You're the one thats been comparing Dragon to Orion this whole time (even though the comparison was ridiculous from the start). And you can't talk about the two without their accompanying launchers.

In the whole topic I never compare functions, I clarify this in all post. I just comparing techs that can be included in ORION increasing its funcionality and cost.

And I prove it.

The information is all there. I already explained to you why no one is going to bother listing delta V.

Well you will need that if you want to refute my calculations about deltaV loses using each system.

If you plan to do it with "payload", then... it will be the most ridiculous post ever.

[Motokid600]

Im afraid you need to look in a mirror.

The agency upon which you dislike is the only reason SpaceX and the Dragon exist at all. Elon does not have the money to do it himself. NASA is starving. How is it you expect such an under funded company to make leaps and bounds? There is no way in hell NASA could possibly afford the R&D for such a massive launch vehicle and caosule with the capabilities of a Falcon rocket. NASA is a government agency therefore is at the mercy of present politics. Until the day comes where the genial public gain enough interest ( as if ) to where NASA gets its funding percentages it had during Apollo this is what we have. So accept it.

Or hey maybe tomorrow every billionaire will wake up and decide "Hey I want to start a space program". That would be nice, huh?

Edited September 25, 2015 by Motokid600

[G'th]

Sorry what? 8,6 tons of dead weight that is drop it just after the 65% of the deltaV, is not a drawback?

6 tons of weight that ensures safety of the crew, protects the capsule during ascent, and is proven and reliable > 12+ tons of weight that's carried from launch to touchdown and largely wouldn't be used, at all, for most BEO missions.

Also.. the Tower-LES is more risky than the Draco-LES.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Because first you need to detach the side farings, this take you at least half second, then not only the engines needs to work, also the RCS in the top should work. Once you are away from the danger, you need to detach the capsule in the right angle and move the tower fast from the capsule, because the parachutes would not be able to open if the tower remains close.

With the other system you just need 4 engines that act fast and without any risk of hitting something above you, neither when the parachutes open.

But again, according to all of you, it must be a holy reason why NASA choice that.. This is like a religion freak group. We can not question NASA!! we must have faith!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I'm sorry, but no.

Ok you have the data now, if you can add 2+2 (well with that kind of comments I doubt it) then you can calculate the deltaV penalties of both system.

Dont forget to add the extra deltaV of the LES included system. Good luck.

The burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the defense. And for the record, by my calculations eschewing the Orion LAS (and replacing it with nothing, which is not an option.) saves you somewhere in the region of 1000km/s in dV. But again, that means diddly because its all a matter of what you can do with that dV. That difference means a couple extra tons in any given location, or the same tonnage as before goes slightly farther.

The trade off is either putting your crew and capsule at extraordinary risk or spending huge amounts of development time and funding making Orion (And SLS for that matter) do something its not meant to do (nor needs to do) for no other point than to slightly increase the performance of the system overall. The former is not even an option, period, and the latter would completely fail because a Dragon style LAS would make Orion far heavier for the entire duration of the mission, whereas Orion's current LAS only penalizes a small part of the mission where Orion basically hasn't even been activated yet. And ultimately when it comes to the mission Orion has, the extra dV still means diddly one way or the other, as you're adding more dV to a spacecraft that already has more than enough to meet its mission requirements, which is actually a waste.

You can sit there and stick your thumbs in your ears all you want, but fact of the matter is you're ignoring the facts of why this system was chosen and focusing on arbitrary numbers that don't actually mean what you think they mean.

Lol, ...? first it weight 6.8Tons 80% of the capsule mass; and the dragon-Style only adds a 40% of the capsule mass.

Make the math with the info of dragon. A complete failure of your part.

Like I said, you know nothing of engineering. Dragon's LAS only being 40% of the total mass DOES NOT translate to Orion and vice versa. Just the simple mass difference between the two capsules means that taking the system from one and putting it on the other isn't going to result in a negative mass difference, never mind the fact that you'd have to tear Orion apart and rebuild it (With a LOT of extra mass) just to do it anyway.

The simple fact that Dragon is meant to actually land somewhere and not splashdown in the ocean means it needs a completely different structural design than Orion. You can't just stick landing sticks on Orion and make it work. You have to rebuild the capsule so that its interior structure could support the entire capsules weight, including any downmass (IE, astronauts, cargo, etc), and be able to absorb the stress of landing on land (Be it a soft touch down or a literal drop from such and such height). And the capsule still has to be able to splashdown in water as a reserve. THEN, you have to built into the capsule more fuel tanks as well as the engines themselves and all the structural and electronic elements to support them. This would likely require that the capsule be enlarged to maintain the same interior volume, or you sacrifice the interior volume for this capability.

Doing all of this to Orion IS going to add near twice the weight of the current LAS, because what you're doing is essentially taking the LAS Tower and the Service module and cramming them into the Orion capsule. And you still have to add a separate service module for anything past LEO, which is more weight. And then, you also have to design the capsule so that its all reusable, because otherwise THERE IS NO POINT IN DOING ANY OF THIS. And all the while, the SLS' performance goes down because now on an Orion launch its dealing with a significantly heavier payload.

Cost wise this becomes unfeasible really quickly, and no amount of reuse of even just ONE capsule is going to make up for it nor justify what ultimately decreases overall performance.

And on that note, after having thought out everything that would actually have to be added to Orion to make this possible, my initial mass estimate was wrong. We can say that the mass increase for this on Orion will be closer to 16 tons.

In the whole topic I never compare functions, I clarify this in all post. I just comparing techs that can be included in ORION increasing its funcionality and cost.

And I prove it.

So you agree then that doing what you propose would be more costly than leaving it as is, and as such have been wrong the whole time. Thank you.

Well you will need that if you want to refute my calculations about deltaV loses using each system.

If you plan to do it with "payload", then... it will be the most ridiculous post ever.

I think its ridiculous to assert that you're smarter than people who actually build and design real spacecraft. What exactly do you even do in real life that you actually have the the arrogance to say such a thing? What experience do you have in the aerospace industry of wherever you're from (because you either don't speak english as a first language or you're 8) that qualifies you to ignore what literally everyone else here has been telling you?

Honestly, you're embarrassing yourself the more you eschew your complete lack of understanding of pretty much everything to do with, well, everything.

[shynung]

Just give it up, people. u/AngelLestat does not take being proven incorrect lightly, and will endlessly craft posts to defend his own opinion no matter the evidence. Just stop this whole discussion and leave the matter to rest, as nobody in this forum ever seemed to change his mind.

[G'th]

Just give it up, people. u/AngelLestat does not take being proven incorrect lightly, and will endlessly craft posts to defend his own opinion no matter the evidence. Just stop this whole discussion and leave the matter to rest, as nobody in this forum ever seemed to change his mind.

Never give up, never surrender.

[Bill Phil]

What is Angelesat's point? That's kind of an important thing before we analyze what he's saying.

[sojourner]

I think his point is "I can make assumptions based on incomplete information and not listen when people try to educate me to my mistakes".

[G'th]

I reckon he's somewhere between a SpaceX fanboy and a KSP player that tries to assert KSP knowledge as real engineering knowledge.

[Vanamonde]

The last few pages of this thread have consisted mostly of personal attacks, and the thread has become unproductive. It's time to move on to other discussions, please, and watch the tempers.