This contribution is still an ongoing learning curve of work in
progress, that's partially taboo and/or need-to-know as a direct result
of others (mostly the Usenet naysayers) that are not about to be caught
dead sharing. Thus I'm having to locate somewhat interesting numbers
that at least others and I can use for future arguments.

Ariane 5 / Flight 162
http://www.arianespace.com/site/news...on_up_131.html
"Combined weight of the complete triple payload "stack" -- including
the dispensers and adapter hardware -- was approximately 6,160 kg."

"During the multi-step mission sequence, the 2,750-kg. INSAT 3E was
released approximately 29 minutes into the flight after riding in the
upper payload slot atop the Ariane 5's SYLDA 5 dispenser system."

"The SYLDA 5 structure was separated three minutes later, exposing
e-BIRD for its deployment at 34 minutes into the flight. e-BIRD, which
had a liftoff mass of 1,525 kg."

Their final launch task of deploying SMART-1 came 8 minutes later, 42
minutes after liftoff: SMART-1 was by far the smallest of the
Flight-162 payloads, weighing in at 370 kg was released as for
eventually (about as slow as you'd dare go) heading itself towards
orbiting the moon.

"Flight 162 is the first time Ariane 5 has launched three satellites"
Total of these three individual satellites represented a combined
payload mass of 4645 kg.

The total launch vehicle mass at liftoff was about 743~746 metric
tonnes, and of that only 8% of the total payload(s) that amounted to
4645 kg was attributed to SMART-1 at merely 370 kg (seems hardly worth
mentioning). Actually, it's more like 6% of their grand payload plus
dispenser total. Seems only fair that perhaps at most SMART-1 should
have to pay for 8% of the ride.

Even though numbers are seemingly all over the place, whereas I'd have
to say that's about as complex and otherwise as efficient as multi-task
deployments get. Though seemingly offering a good enough deployment
ratio, as having suggested something that's overall better off than
745:4.645 = 160:1. However, a dedicated all-in-one GSO deployment of
82:1 is considerably better off, as well as for whatever a dedicated
Ariane-5 should manage on behalf of a dedicated translunar deployment
should very well become twenty fold greater than SMART-1, making their
existing translunar deployment capability of 7.2t into a ratio that's
closer to the 110:1 mark as being rather oddly rocket-science
deficient, at nearly twice as bad off as the reported performance of
what the Saturn-5 with it's antiquated LOX/RP-1 first stage having
supposedly accomplished such an extensively better than SRB performance
as of today (is that impressive, or what?).

With the new and improved inert/dry mass of the Ariane-5 as becoming
touted for getting 12t into GSO with an 800t gross liftoff is 66.7:1,
whereas if the translunar demand is half again demanding as per GSO, as
such making their lastest improved capability 100:1

By way of the old Saturn-5 example, it's certainly suggesting a
somewhat pathetic ratio as for the Ariane-5 class of their translunar
deployment phase as having accommodated the SMART-1 portion, that was
pretty much entirely on it's own ION micro-thruster after Ariane-5
dropped off the first two primary items along the way. Unfortunately, I
believe SMART-1 was actually another wag-the-dog sort of pro-NASA/ESA
infomercial, representing yet another limited cost impact mission that
has taken (as in wasted) the most time while having diverted the public
media, plus otherwise having accomplished little if any improvement in
lunar-science (partly because of SMART-1 having been way too damn far
away from the moon).

Here's some of the interesting old numbers that do and don't add up.
Saturn-5 total Mass: 3,054,750 kg
A-17 Launch mass ? : 2,923,387 kg
The Apollo-17 Spacecraft total (meaning all inclusive) mass of 52,740
kg was either suggesting a ratio as poor as 58:1 or of it's rather
unusually impressive 55.4:1, whereas Apollo-15 having accomplished 65:1
is still impressive by modern standards if using Saturn-V w/seacraft
tally of 3,054,750 kg as their total liftoff mass; therefore you get to
pick and chose whatever suits your argument.

It's only because these NASA/Apollo numbers simply are not adding up,
is why I'm having to suggest that our Apollo spacecraft inert/dry mass
wasn't nearly as bad off as we'd been told, and that they essentially
utilized this insider (aka need-to-know) advantage of instead of such
inert mass, of rather hauling extra fuel and having utilized such extra
capacity on behalf of their spacecraft being the forth stage that was
essential in order to have achieved the fully robotic portions of
orbiting our moon, then having recovered the film from somewhere within
the relative safety of the LL-1/ME-L1 zone that remains as so gosh darn
unusually bad-topic as well as science and physics taboo/nondisclosure
these days.
-
Brad Guth