Author Topic: MPCV's service module requirements?  (Read 77397 times)

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
MPCV's service module requirements?
« on: 07/22/2011 02:43 pm »
Orion's service module requirements (delta V, consumables, etc) were driven by a lunar mission.  What is going to drive the requirements of the MPCV's service module?
Danny Deger

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #1 on: 07/22/2011 03:37 pm »
Service module?  What service module?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #2 on: 07/22/2011 07:06 pm »
Question still stands even though the name has changed.
Danny Deger

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #3 on: 07/24/2011 02:19 pm »
It's a great question, and my first response was admittedly somewhat elliptical.  To answer more directly, there doesn't seem to be much public discussion of the service module component of the Orion MPCV stack, compared with what we hear about the capsule, and about the highly successful pad abort test of the launch escape system.

In showing the ULA-proposed alternate, where the service module is itself decomposed into its ECLSS function and a "standard" ACES propulsion module, I was hoping to point out that Lockheed-Martin might be focusing on the capsule precisely because they hope the hardware that provides the service module functions might be open to negotiation, and more responsive to your question, its requirements are completely unspecified at this point.

Personally I think the fate of the service module is tied to the (as yet completely undefined) mission module.  I just don't believe there's a viable mission mode that sends Orion beyond LEO without a mission module, and yet there's no discussion of funding for its development.  Because of that funding profile (i.e. essentially zero dollars) the only possibility I've seen is using a second Orion as a mission module, in the "Plymouth Rock" kissing Orions configuration.  I mention that because within the context of a long duration mission without closed loop ECLSS and without resupply, it would be quite convenient to have the two Orion service modules configured differently, i.e. with the propulsion in one and the other solely providing extra ECLSS capability.

(Apologies in advance if that response rambled a bit....)
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #4 on: 07/24/2011 03:44 pm »
The Orion should be sufficient for trips to the Earth-Moon Lagrange points.

For trips to a Near Earth Object (NEO) IMHO the Orion is likely to need two mission modules - a hab and a investigation module.  The hab provides the space and ECLSS needed for a journey lasting several months, the Bigelow BA 330 may be a suitable off the shelf product.

The NEO Investigation Module (NIM) would provide a method of attaching the spacecraft to the asteroid, robotic arms/platform for the astronauts to stand on during the EVA, air lock and scientific instruments.

If the Orion's Service Module and BA 330 do not have sufficient delta-V then an engine and propellant tank module will also be needed.  The assembly could be controlled from the panel in the Orion originally supplied to remote control the Altair Lander.

Offline Space Pete

Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #5 on: 07/24/2011 04:22 pm »
The NEO Investigation Module (NIM) would provide a method of attaching the spacecraft to the asteroid, robotic arms/platform for the astronauts to stand on during the EVA, air lock and scientific instruments.

The Multi Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV) will provide all these functions.
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #6 on: 07/24/2011 04:43 pm »
The NEO Investigation Module (NIM) would provide a method of attaching the spacecraft to the asteroid, robotic arms/platform for the astronauts to stand on during the EVA, air lock and scientific instruments.

The Multi Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV) will provide all these functions.

What are the current and planned levels of funding for that vehicle? The art looks awesome, but I was under the impression that it was likely to stay just art for the foreseeable future.
« Last Edit: 07/24/2011 04:43 pm by Jason1701 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #7 on: 07/24/2011 04:50 pm »
The NEO Investigation Module (NIM) would provide a method of attaching the spacecraft to the asteroid, robotic arms/platform for the astronauts to stand on during the EVA, air lock and scientific instruments.

The Multi Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV) will provide all these functions.

What are the current and planned levels of funding for that vehicle? The art looks awesome, but I was under the impression that it was likely to stay just art for the foreseeable future.

It is not a funded project.  It is just a study by a group that does advance studies.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #8 on: 07/24/2011 05:02 pm »
The NEO Investigation Module (NIM) would provide a method of attaching the spacecraft to the asteroid, robotic arms/platform for the astronauts to stand on during the EVA, air lock and scientific instruments.

The Multi Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV) will provide all these functions.

What are the current and planned levels of funding for that vehicle? The art looks awesome, but I was under the impression that it was likely to stay just art for the foreseeable future.

It is not a funded project.  It is just a study by a group that does advance studies.
And yet without funding they built two units and are building a third.... 

Something does not sound right there.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Space Pete

Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #9 on: 07/24/2011 06:11 pm »
And yet without funding they built two units and are building a third.... 

Something does not sound right there.

Yup - construction of a mock-up has already begun, so somebody must be funding it:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24909.msg756556#msg756556

There are also plans to fly a prototype to the ISS.
« Last Edit: 07/24/2011 06:12 pm by Space Pete »
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #10 on: 07/24/2011 06:26 pm »
And yet without funding they built two units and are building a third.... 

Something does not sound right there.

Yup - construction of a mock-up has already begun, so somebody must be funding it:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24909.msg756556#msg756556

There are also plans to fly a prototype to the ISS.

There are no "plans" to fly it to the ISS.  It is not a funded flight project. 

Mockups are cheap and easy and part of studies.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #11 on: 07/24/2011 06:28 pm »
This is no different than ATHLETE.  Is it flying?

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #12 on: 07/24/2011 06:31 pm »
And yet without funding they built two units and are building a third.... 

Something does not sound right there.

Yup - construction of a mock-up has already begun, so somebody must be funding it:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24909.msg756556#msg756556

There are also plans to fly a prototype to the ISS.

There are no "plans" to fly it to the ISS.  It is not a funded flight project. 

Mockups are cheap and easy and part of studies.
and the two analog units?
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Space Pete

Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #13 on: 07/24/2011 06:43 pm »
There are no "plans" to fly it to the ISS.  It is not a funded flight project. 

Mockups are cheap and easy and part of studies.

Yes, an ISS flight isn't funded *yet*. But I'm talking about later this decade.

As for ATHLETE, the reason it isn't flying yet is because it has no work to do yet. It would be pointless to send it to the Moon right now, without any work to do.
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #14 on: 07/24/2011 06:46 pm »
There are no "plans" to fly it to the ISS.  It is not a funded flight project. 

Mockups are cheap and easy and part of studies.

Yes, an ISS flight isn't funded *yet*. But I'm talking about later this decade.

As for ATHLETE, the reason it isn't flying yet is because it has no work to do yet. It would be pointless to send it to the Moon right now, without any work to do.

Not only is the ISS flight not funded, neither is any flight vehicle.  It is not in the budget.

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #15 on: 07/24/2011 06:56 pm »
From what's been said, it seems there's a high probability of SEV and ATHLETE being sacrificed to SLS, even though they're what we should be funding.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #16 on: 07/24/2011 07:06 pm »
From what's been said, it seems there's a high probability of SEV and ATHLETE being sacrificed to SLS, even though they're what we should be funding.

That is an over-reaction by trying to blame it on SLS and clearly one is doing this out of simple bias and mis-understanding.  Perhaps it is not funded because it has no purpose.  NASA still has no mission scope(s), architecture(s), destination(s) or time table(s).

Those would seem to be necessary for SEV.  And before you jump on the SLS bandwagon again, we also do not know what that is, what it entails and there are no contracts for that either to divert funding to.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Space Pete

Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #17 on: 07/24/2011 07:28 pm »
Not only is the ISS flight not funded, neither is any flight vehicle.  It is not in the budget.

What are the chances of it being funded later this decade (i.e. 2019/2020)?
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #18 on: 07/24/2011 07:33 pm »
Not only is the ISS flight not funded, neither is any flight vehicle.  It is not in the budget.

What are the chances of it being funded later this decade (i.e. 2019/2020)?

Depends on what NASA wants

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #19 on: 07/24/2011 08:13 pm »
Trying to tie this back to the original post, and looking at a mission mode where the Orion SM provides propulsion for at least one maneuver of the combined Orion and MMSEV, what are the chances that the specifications (i.e. mass) of the flight-ready MMSEV can be nailed down enough so that Orion SM requirements could be known?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #20 on: 07/25/2011 12:30 am »
The NEO Investigation Module (NIM) would provide a method of attaching the spacecraft to the asteroid, robotic arms/platform for the astronauts to stand on during the EVA, air lock and scientific instruments.

The Multi Mission Space Exploration Vehicle (MMSEV) will provide all these functions.

What are the current and planned levels of funding for that vehicle? The art looks awesome, but I was under the impression that it was likely to stay just art for the foreseeable future.

It is not a funded project.  It is just a study by a group that does advance studies.

So we build SLS/MPCV then have to wait several more years to develop the MMSEV?  What do we do with the standing army that produce and operate SLS and MPCV?  I see a train wreck in a few years.
« Last Edit: 07/25/2011 12:33 pm by Danny Dot »
Danny Deger

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #21 on: 07/25/2011 02:07 am »
So we build SLS/MPCV then have to wait several more years to develop the MMSEV?  What do with the standing army that produce and operate SLS and MPCV?  I see a train wreck in a few years.

With nothing to launch for many years

IMHO.
Civil servants may be kept.
Contractor's manufacturing staff laid off, assuming they were hired in the first place.  The production machines scrapped.
Contractor's design staff laid off after test flight.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #22 on: 07/25/2011 02:27 am »
Trying to tie this back to the original post, and looking at a mission mode where the Orion SM provides propulsion for at least one maneuver of the combined Orion and MMSEV, what are the chances that the specifications (i.e. mass) of the flight-ready MMSEV can be nailed down enough so that Orion SM requirements could be known?

MMSEV will have no bearing on Orion

Offline DARPA-86

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 137
  • Pig farmer from Ryan, Iowa
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #23 on: 07/25/2011 02:41 am »
My apologies if this has been asked, and answered somewhere else -

But is not the real question, How far and how fast is the Orion/MPCV going to go being launched on an Atlas (or maybe a Delta)?

I was under the distinct impression that Administrator Bolden favors a test flight of Orion/MPCV on one or both of the aforementioned LV's.

That test flight, or flights, is the only thing even close to being a real world mission in the next three to five years.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #24 on: 07/25/2011 05:38 am »
My apologies if this has been asked, and answered somewhere else -

But is not the real question, How far and how fast is the Orion/MPCV going to go being launched on an Atlas (or maybe a Delta)?

I was under the distinct impression that Administrator Bolden favors a test flight of Orion/MPCV on one or both of the aforementioned LV's.

That test flight, or flights, is the only thing even close to being a real world mission in the next three to five years.

Only 1 unmanned test flight planned on Delta IV heavy and that is having funding problems atm. No other flights on EELV. I also think the EDS for Atlas and Delta might only be good for single stick configurations but I could be wrong there(heard it on an internet broadcast or something months ago).

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #25 on: 07/25/2011 06:14 am »
Not only is the ISS flight not funded, neither is any flight vehicle.  It is not in the budget.

What are the chances of it being funded later this decade (i.e. 2019/2020)?

Depends on what NASA wants

It's at least in the "recommended portfolio" for the Advanced Exploration Systems program. It's proposed that JSC would get $6M for it per year in FY12-14.
« Last Edit: 07/25/2011 06:29 am by Jorge »
JRF

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #26 on: 07/25/2011 06:57 pm »
Not only is the ISS flight not funded, neither is any flight vehicle.  It is not in the budget.

What are the chances of it being funded later this decade (i.e. 2019/2020)?

Depends on what NASA wants

It's at least in the "recommended portfolio" for the Advanced Exploration Systems program. It's proposed that JSC would get $6M for it per year in FY12-14.
The first part of that is good to hear. The second part... That sounds like more mock-ups and studies and powerpoints to me. :(
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline PeterAlt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 720
  • West Palm Beach, FL
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #27 on: 08/23/2011 02:35 am »
The MPCV budget is currently funding the development of what now?

- Crew capsule? Yes, check
- LAS? Yes, check (or funded previously through CxP)
- Alternate excape system? Yes, check (don't understand why, though)
- Service module? Don't know (previously funded under CxP?)

After the Orion crew capsule is developed in a few years, could the MPCV budget shift to development of an MPCV service module, an MPCV mission mission, an MPCV habitation module, and extraterrestrial landing/accent vehicle?

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #28 on: 08/23/2011 02:39 am »
Orion is pretty clearly defined as the stack that includes the LAS, the capsule, and the service module.  MPCV is now defined as being baselined on Orion.  Ergo the baseline MPCV is the LAS, the capsule, and the service module.  Are you asking what might be part of MPCV beyond the baseline?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline PeterAlt

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 720
  • West Palm Beach, FL
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #29 on: 08/23/2011 02:43 am »
Orion is pretty clearly defined as the stack that includes the LAS, the capsule, and the service module.  MPCV is now defined as being baselined on Orion.  Ergo the baseline MPCV is the LAS, the capsule, and the service module.  Are you asking what might be part of MPCV beyond the baseline?

I wasn't originally asking that, but yes I'm asking that...

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #30 on: 08/23/2011 08:44 am »
The MPCV budget is currently funding the development of what now?

- Crew capsule? Yes, check
- LAS? Yes, check (or funded previously through CxP)
- Alternate excape system? Yes, check (don't understand why, though)
- Service module? Don't know (previously funded under CxP?)

After the Orion crew capsule is developed in a few years, could the MPCV budget shift to development of an MPCV service module, an MPCV mission mission, an MPCV habitation module, and extraterrestrial landing/accent vehicle?

No, those would be separate projects with new names and new funding.  MPCV budget is not constant for an indefinite amount of years.  It will rise and fall and each year will have be justified.  New projects will have to do the same thing.  They can come in and try to use the equivalent amount of MPCV budget (after MPCV development) as to not increase the overall NASA budget but the funding is not guaranteed.
« Last Edit: 08/23/2011 08:49 am by Jim »

Offline apace

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #31 on: 08/23/2011 08:59 am »
Any news available about the service module? Which status, which engine, what specs?

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #32 on: 08/23/2011 03:02 pm »
Any news available about the service module? Which status, which engine, what specs?
Engine is an AJ-10, they have been testing that for years.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #33 on: 10/10/2011 10:24 am »
Another dismissed idea popping up again… This time seriously ::)

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/10/nasa-managers-serious-atv-role-as-orion-service-module/
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #34 on: 10/10/2011 10:43 am »
Which raises the question of an engine again. If MPCV has a SM built in Europe, what would be engine choices? AJ10/OME still, or a European engine/engines?

Offline AndyMc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 313
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 405
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #35 on: 10/10/2011 11:10 am »
Would not the Aestus/RS72 be an alternative
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/engines/rs72_specs.shtml

Here's what an ATV derived service module might look like...


Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #36 on: 10/10/2011 11:33 am »
Interesting… I was looking at their second stage engines as well…

Robert
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ariane5.html

Not to go OT, but if we go down this road can a ATV derived lander be too far behind?

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2008/04/more-esa-lunar-lander-details.html
« Last Edit: 10/10/2011 12:33 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #37 on: 10/10/2011 12:16 pm »
The Aestus has a thrust of about 27 kN, compared to 33 kN for AJ10, so slightly worse thrust losses, but not bad. On the other hand, the much better Isp of Aestus (312 sec vs. 271 sec for AJ10) would provide 15% more delta V per given prop mass/volume...

EDIT: Ah, just saw the numbers for RS-72 (the PWR licensed gas generator version), and it looks even better in thrust and Isp.
« Last Edit: 10/10/2011 12:22 pm by simonbp »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #38 on: 10/10/2011 12:27 pm »
Would not the Aestus/RS72 be an alternative
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/engines/rs72_specs.shtml

Here's what an ATV derived service module might look like...

Interesting concept. If Orion's Service Module ends up being designed around the ATV, then some interesting synergies become possible. By having NASA fund the SM model of the ATV, ESA may yet be able to afford its own manned spacecraft, employing the same ATV-based SM. This in turn could likely enable (a little further on) an ATV-based mission module base design.

International cooperation to design and build the ISS evolves into international cooperation to design and build human spacecraft around internationally shared spacecraft design elements. Hmm. Interesting.

Edit: Does anyone have an image of the RS-72 itself?
« Last Edit: 10/10/2011 12:31 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #39 on: 10/10/2011 12:29 pm »
Would not the Aestus/RS72 be an alternative
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/engines/rs72_specs.shtml

Here's what an ATV derived service module might look like...



Interesting concept. If Orion's Service Module ends up being designed around the ATV, then some interesting synergies become possible. By having NASA fund the SM model of the ATV, ESA may yet be able to afford its own manned spacecraft, employing the same ATV-based SM. This in turn could likely enable (a little further on) an ATV-based mission module base design.

International cooperation to design and build the ISS evolves into international cooperation to design and build human spacecraft around internationally shared spacecraft design elements. Hmm. Interesting.


What would really help is if this leads to more of the BEO hardware for serious BEO missions being built on an international front, rather than us paying for it ourselves. I might have a bit more hope for SLS if this becomes the case, because we won't be paying for everything.

Particularly, would be good if perhaps the lander was built internationally, if not commercially.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #40 on: 10/10/2011 01:08 pm »
Mods, perhaps we should move this page 3 on to the other thread?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27029.msg817079;topicseen
« Last Edit: 10/10/2011 03:43 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline AndyMc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 313
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 405
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #41 on: 10/10/2011 03:55 pm »
Would not the Aestus/RS72 be an alternative
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/engines/rs72_specs.shtml

Here's what an ATV derived service module might look like...

Interesting concept. If Orion's Service Module ends up being designed around the ATV, then some interesting synergies become possible. By having NASA fund the SM model of the ATV, ESA may yet be able to afford its own manned spacecraft, employing the same ATV-based SM. This in turn could likely enable (a little further on) an ATV-based mission module base design.

International cooperation to design and build the ISS evolves into international cooperation to design and build human spacecraft around internationally shared spacecraft design elements. Hmm. Interesting.

Edit: Does anyone have an image of the RS-72 itself?

I could only find this -

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2000/news_release_000622s.htm


ESA would like independent manned access to ISS so sharing ATV with Orion gives them just that if launched on Ariane V. If they purchase Orion capsules from the US it makes more work and money for Lockheed and perhaps reduces costs for NASA. Integrate it with Ariane V and NASA has alternatives in case of failure of SLS or for rescue. I think if the SM were light fueled an existing Ariane V could launch it.

With money being tight on both sides of the pond a shared design for a small lander based on Orion/ATV systems seems reasonable. With work for both sides.


Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #42 on: 10/10/2011 04:10 pm »
The Aestus has a thrust of about 27 kN, compared to 33 kN for AJ10, so slightly worse thrust losses, but not bad. On the other hand, the much better Isp of Aestus (312 sec vs. 271 sec for AJ10) would provide 15% more delta V per given prop mass/volume...

EDIT: Ah, just saw the numbers for RS-72 (the PWR licensed gas generator version), and it looks even better in thrust and Isp.
Depends on the version of the AJ-10.  The OME from the Shuttle, for instance, had a thrust of 26.7 kN but an isp of 316.  The AJ-10-137 from Apollo, however, had a thrust of 97.5 kN and isp of 312.  And the AJ-10-118K from Delta II has a thrust of 43.4 kN and isp of 321. 

AJ-10 is a family of engines, not a model of engine.  There are units which had thrust in the 600 kN range.  Aerojet optimized the engine to the need of the application.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #43 on: 10/10/2011 04:23 pm »
Particularly, would be good if perhaps the lander was built internationally, if not commercially.

Sure, that has worked out well for us in the past.  I'm fine with international cooperation but everyone moans about the US government around here but in the next breath it is somehow a good idea to place additional multi-government led agencies into the critical path.  I mean it worked so well on ISS and clearly there were no delays or concerns there.... (sarcasm)

As for commercially, again that makes no sense.  Every vehicle NASA has ever developed has been done "commercially".  If you somehow mean that industry will provide it with their own funds or even just some "skin in the game", that is an indealistic notion not based in reality.

Having ESA provide the SM for Orion is nothing short of a disaster.  The current ATV SM is hardly "plug and play".  It will require a complete redesign, abandonment of any work and funds spent already on our own SM, placing Orion hostage to a collective of nation-states who have been inconsistent in the past which could ultimately lead to yet again more American money moving oversees to employ others instead of some of the people who have just been culled here in the name of "international cooperation". 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #44 on: 10/10/2011 04:26 pm »
It will require a complete redesign, abandonment of any work and funds spent already on our own SM

How expensive will this "complete" redesign be? Does it matter if NASA doesn't pay for it? How much funds have we spent on our own SM?

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #45 on: 10/10/2011 04:32 pm »
It will require a complete redesign, abandonment of any work and funds spent already on our own SM

How expensive will this "complete" redesign be? Does it matter if NASA doesn't pay for it? How much funds have we spent on our own SM?

Expensive.  Just look at the basic capabilities of the current ATV and Orion.  They are not "plug and play" as I said.  As far as how much money has been spent, I do not have an exact figure. 

NASA not paying for it is a lose-lose situation as far as I am concerned.  If NASA does not pay for it, we are hostage to ESA and the assumption and hope they will.  If they do not, or say they will and then not deliver funding, the US will be forced to divert money there.

I see zero practical purpose in any of this. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #46 on: 10/10/2011 05:34 pm »
It will require a complete redesign, abandonment of any work and funds spent already on our own SM

How expensive will this "complete" redesign be? Does it matter if NASA doesn't pay for it? How much funds have we spent on our own SM?

From what I heard from my (ironically enough) ESA source the US have already spent over 1 billion US $ on their own service module design. That's combined over development and test of the OME, additional thrusters, structures, panels, solar panels, etc. The whole works.

Edit: typo
« Last Edit: 10/10/2011 05:35 pm by woods170 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #47 on: 10/10/2011 07:02 pm »
It will require a complete redesign, abandonment of any work and funds spent already on our own SM, placing Orion hostage to a collective of nation-states who have been inconsistent in the past which could ultimately lead to yet again more American money moving oversees to employ others instead of some of the people who have just been culled here in the name of "international cooperation". 

Bingo

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #48 on: 10/10/2011 07:23 pm »
It will require a complete redesign, abandonment of any work and funds spent already on our own SM

How expensive will this "complete" redesign be? Does it matter if NASA doesn't pay for it? How much funds have we spent on our own SM?

Expensive.  Just look at the basic capabilities of the current ATV and Orion.  They are not "plug and play" as I said.  As far as how much money has been spent, I do not have an exact figure. 

NASA not paying for it is a lose-lose situation as far as I am concerned.  If NASA does not pay for it, we are hostage to ESA and the assumption and hope they will.  If they do not, or say they will and then not deliver funding, the US will be forced to divert money there.

I see zero practical purpose in any of this. 

Isn't the Orion SM pretty much just a glorified upper stage with cooling radiators,solar panels, and storage tanks for consumables while all the expensive stuff is in the CM.

While the ATV supposedly is built the opposite way everything is in the SM?
« Last Edit: 10/10/2011 07:31 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #49 on: 10/10/2011 10:24 pm »
The Aestus has a thrust of about 27 kN, compared to 33 kN for AJ10, so slightly worse thrust losses, but not bad. On the other hand, the much better Isp of Aestus (312 sec vs. 271 sec for AJ10) would provide 15% more delta V per given prop mass/volume...

EDIT: Ah, just saw the numbers for RS-72 (the PWR licensed gas generator version), and it looks even better in thrust and Isp.
Depends on the version of the AJ-10.  The OME from the Shuttle, for instance, had a thrust of 26.7 kN but an isp of 316.  The AJ-10-137 from Apollo, however, had a thrust of 97.5 kN and isp of 312.  And the AJ-10-118K from Delta II has a thrust of 43.4 kN and isp of 321. 

AJ-10 is a family of engines, not a model of engine.  There are units which had thrust in the 600 kN range.  Aerojet optimized the engine to the need of the application.

Maybe they could trade us engines?  Could we use the Vulcain LOX/LH2 engine's 110 tons of thrust.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #50 on: 10/11/2011 08:10 am »
From what I heard from my (ironically enough) ESA source the US have already spent over 1 billion US $ on their own service module design. That's combined over development and test of the OME, additional thrusters, structures, panels, solar panels, etc. The whole works.

Wow. That's a lot of money. I would really love to see a breakdown of where all the costs come from: how much of it is fixed sustainment for facilities etc.

I wonder if they could have saved money if they had a bit more mass margin and didn't have to optimise everything as much (e.g. use metal rather than composites, making structural analysis easier). Definitely get the feeling that Ares I wasn't helping design-wise.
John

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #51 on: 10/11/2011 03:23 pm »
The Aestus has a thrust of about 27 kN, compared to 33 kN for AJ10, so slightly worse thrust losses, but not bad. On the other hand, the much better Isp of Aestus (312 sec vs. 271 sec for AJ10) would provide 15% more delta V per given prop mass/volume...

EDIT: Ah, just saw the numbers for RS-72 (the PWR licensed gas generator version), and it looks even better in thrust and Isp.
Depends on the version of the AJ-10.  The OME from the Shuttle, for instance, had a thrust of 26.7 kN but an isp of 316.  The AJ-10-137 from Apollo, however, had a thrust of 97.5 kN and isp of 312.  And the AJ-10-118K from Delta II has a thrust of 43.4 kN and isp of 321. 

AJ-10 is a family of engines, not a model of engine.  There are units which had thrust in the 600 kN range.  Aerojet optimized the engine to the need of the application.

Maybe they could trade us engines?  Could we use the Vulcain LOX/LH2 engine's 110 tons of thrust.
Are you serious? What good would this do, as it's fuel would boil off before the mission was even part-way over?  In addition, you'd increase the systems size and weight from the fuel needed to support that much thrust, *AND* you'd liquify the astronauts from the sheer thrust applied to them.  As it was, the AJ-10-137 on Apollo was bordering on too powerful.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5490
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1809
  • Likes Given: 1302
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #52 on: 10/11/2011 11:44 pm »
The Aestus has a thrust of about 27 kN, compared to 33 kN for AJ10, so slightly worse thrust losses, but not bad. On the other hand, the much better Isp of Aestus (312 sec vs. 271 sec for AJ10) would provide 15% more delta V per given prop mass/volume...

EDIT: Ah, just saw the numbers for RS-72 (the PWR licensed gas generator version), and it looks even better in thrust and Isp.
Depends on the version of the AJ-10.  The OME from the Shuttle, for instance, had a thrust of 26.7 kN but an isp of 316.  The AJ-10-137 from Apollo, however, had a thrust of 97.5 kN and isp of 312.  And the AJ-10-118K from Delta II has a thrust of 43.4 kN and isp of 321. 

AJ-10 is a family of engines, not a model of engine.  There are units which had thrust in the 600 kN range.  Aerojet optimized the engine to the need of the application.

Maybe they could trade us engines?  Could we use the Vulcain LOX/LH2 engine's 110 tons of thrust.
Are you serious? What good would this do, as it's fuel would boil off before the mission was even part-way over?  In addition, you'd increase the systems size and weight from the fuel needed to support that much thrust, *AND* you'd liquify the astronauts from the sheer thrust applied to them.  As it was, the AJ-10-137 on Apollo was bordering on too powerful.

Think he is tossing the idea to swap the SSME for the Vulcain.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #53 on: 10/12/2011 01:22 am »
The Aestus has a thrust of about 27 kN, compared to 33 kN for AJ10, so slightly worse thrust losses, but not bad. On the other hand, the much better Isp of Aestus (312 sec vs. 271 sec for AJ10) would provide 15% more delta V per given prop mass/volume...

EDIT: Ah, just saw the numbers for RS-72 (the PWR licensed gas generator version), and it looks even better in thrust and Isp.
Depends on the version of the AJ-10.  The OME from the Shuttle, for instance, had a thrust of 26.7 kN but an isp of 316.  The AJ-10-137 from Apollo, however, had a thrust of 97.5 kN and isp of 312.  And the AJ-10-118K from Delta II has a thrust of 43.4 kN and isp of 321. 

AJ-10 is a family of engines, not a model of engine.  There are units which had thrust in the 600 kN range.  Aerojet optimized the engine to the need of the application.

Maybe they could trade us engines?  Could we use the Vulcain LOX/LH2 engine's 110 tons of thrust.
Are you serious? What good would this do, as it's fuel would boil off before the mission was even part-way over?  In addition, you'd increase the systems size and weight from the fuel needed to support that much thrust, *AND* you'd liquify the astronauts from the sheer thrust applied to them.  As it was, the AJ-10-137 on Apollo was bordering on too powerful.

Think he is tossing the idea to swap the SSME for the Vulcain.

J-2X has almost the same trust, and more impulse, so would be a better fit regardless.  And the RAC studies did go over just this idea, and they found that it was not quite as powerful.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #54 on: 01/29/2012 05:32 am »
Has anyone analyzed Orion delta-v gains which could be had by switching the service module from hypergolics to LO2/CH4, assuming the same propellant mass in each case?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline fregate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 939
  • Space Association of Australia
  • Melbourne Australia
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #55 on: 09/06/2012 07:13 am »
Something does not match according to ORION Quick Facts poster issued by NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (Ref FS-2011-12-058-JSC)

Crew Module GLOW       8,913 kg   
Service Module GLOW  12,337 kg
Propellant weight          7,907 kg

Delta-V 1,595 m/sec (ESAS requirement for Lunar Mission)

Therefore Specific impulse of Propulsion System should be 350 m/sec!
If Orion/MPCV would have Apollo propulsion system AJ10-137 (Isp=314.5 sec) it's Delta-V capability would be 1,435 m/sec only.   

So what is going on with a Service Module propulsion system?

AFAIK the fuel for the Orion/MPCV main propulsion system will be monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) and the oxidizer will be nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4).
According to Encyclopedia Astronautica specific impulse for this propellant is 336 s.
So, Delta V of spacecraft is going to be 1,533 m/sec instead?
« Last Edit: 09/06/2012 07:24 am by fregate »
"Selene, the Moon. Selenginsk, an old town in Siberia: moon-rocket  town" Vladimir Nabokov

Offline simcosmos

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Portugal
    • SIMCOSMOS
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #56 on: 09/06/2012 12:12 pm »
Hello fregate (all):

From some time that I do not write a looooong post that are so characteristic of me at NSF, here goes :) :

EDIT: corrected a data conversion from the quickfacts pdf, that I have made in the original version of the post, should be ok now.

UPDATE: added reference links and a little of extra info, please search for green 'update' tags.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. From ESAS to Constellation to Current Times...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


Only as a generic starting comment, a little of care should be taken when comparing sources for CEV / Orion / MPCV requirements, among many other issues, because the context of a given spacecraft iteration does have changes regarding assumed hardware, design maturity (including comparison and differentiation between conceptual vs 'real' hardware / tests), mission design (and related margins for all)...


The above to write that in my humble opinion, we should always have that in mind and do not do direct comparisons between what are different materials... The same can be written when comparing, for example, CLV concepts with one solid booster as first stage (vs any post-ESAS AresI iteration without updating first some of ESAS assumptions!) or even when comparing current SLS work with similar vehicles on ESAS report ( http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/news/ESAS_report.html ).


But back to CEV / Orion / MPCV, yes, the CEV from ESAS assumed an higher dV budget: however, in terms of design maturity, it can't be really directly compared with the conceptual work being done *now* on MPCV, nor with metal being bent and real hardware tests, several years after and under a number of updated contexts when comparing with the mentioned conceptual ESAS work!




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. The story of CEV / Orion / MPCV Mass Control and dV Requirements
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is something that I have been following mostly for 3D, simulation and personal conceptual musings, either here at NSF (L2 included, thanks to sources and Chris) and/or using public materials.

It is really interesting to compare several design iterations: since ESAS there have been a number of Orion revisions, either caused by specific constraints of AresI-Orion integration, either caused by Orion project itself (independently of launch vehicle), either caused by revision of the 'anytime, anywhere' related requirements for lunar return (and here enters also loiter times as a parameter vs dV trade), either caused by updated context of 'current' days (SLS variants as launch vehicle, impacts on Orion SM of new missions key features – including NEO and high lunar orbits - vs the previous low lunar orbit main requirements, interaction of Orion MPCV with other in-space hardware, etc).




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. For the moment, and to try to not make this post any longer
(than what will already be!) and focusing in:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/617408main_fs_2011-12-058-jsc_orion_quickfacts.pdf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is how I interpret the numbers:
 
  9820.275 kg : CM
  4429.329 kg : SM (except main prop.)
  7907.476 kg : SMprop
--------------------
22157.080 kg : (CM + SM + SMprop)
    627.318 kg : Adapter / ASE (my interpretation)
--------------------
22784.398 kg : effective mass to orbit


Now, this interpretation has some difficulties regarding the gross liftoff mass provided in the quick facts pdf (27751.235 kg), because if adding the LAS to the above numbers:

EDIT: my mistake on original post, corrected conversion now (31379.974 kg for gross liftoff mass):


22784.398 kg : CM + SM + SMprop + Adapter / ASE
  7314.177 kg : LAS (away during ascent)
--------------------
30098.575 kg

To which we still need to add about 1.2t (?) for the SM covers (accordingly to the mass expectation for such covers, from another pdf that will have to hunt for in the archives):

30098.575 kg
  1227.000 kg (away during ascent)
--------------------
31325.575 kg (LAS + CM + SM + SMprop + SM Covers + Adapter)

Not bad, a difference of 31379.974 kg - 31325.575 kg = 54.399 kg (maybe the SM Covers are slightly heavier than the 1227 kg, perhaps 1227 + 54.5 ~1281.4 kg / 3 = 427.1 kg per cover?)



---------------------------------------------------
IV. Orion MPCV dV Rough Analysis
---------------------------------------------------


Independently of these considerations, and doing a rough and clumsy calculation focusing only on CM + SM + SMprop (without taking in account different gravity environments / burn conditions and losses, mass variations during mission and a number of other factors), in first order and assuming 326s ISP (from several other pdf):


9.807 x 326 x ln (22157.080 / ( 9820.275 + 4429.329 + 7907.476 x 0.05)) = 1323m/s
9.807 x 326 x ln (22157.080 / ( 9820.275 + 4429.329 + 7907.476 x 0.02)) = 1375m/s
9.807 x 326 x ln (22157.080 / ( 9820.275 + 4429.329 + 7907.476 x 0.00)) = 1411m/s

Where in the rough calculation above I would recommend to use at least the 2% margin value for conceptual musings (as what seems to be a good practice)... Again, this needs to be compared with updated mission design requirements... Example: it is not quite the same thing to assume low lunar orbit 'anytime, anywhere' vs dV for a mission to / from EML2, I mean, in the first case Orion would need something else to brake it into low lunar orbit while in the second case Orion could do it alone, under some mission scenarios.


Only for comparison, from another pdf (which will still need to hunt in the archives, but which is 'recent' – late 2011 / first trimester 2012 - and already in the  context of SLS and BEO exploration targets - UPDATE: DSH Module Concepts Outlined For BEO Exploration, L2 thread) - although also think that have somewhere from public info, probably from a related workshop material - I have a written note here for a conceptual Orion with the following numbers:

  9740 kg : CM
  4998 kg : SM
  8602 kg : SMprop
-------------------------
23340 kg

9.807 x 326 x ln (23340 / ( 9740 + 4998 + 8602 x 0.05)) = 1378m/s
9.807 x 326 x ln (23340 / ( 9740 + 4998 + 8602 x 0.02)) = 1433m/s
9.807 x 326 x ln (23340 / ( 9740 + 4998 + 8602 x 0.00)) = 1470m/s

The above numbers (including liftoff total mass) seem to be more or less in accordance (within limits) with updated expectations for requirements (UPDATE: @ NSF L2) regarding Orion's total mass and dV budgets for a given 'Control Mass and dV Tactical Case'. 


From yet another pdf (UPDATE: 113007.ISTIM.pdf), although an older one (2007 Constellation times and with different - lower - lunar CM / SM masses) but with significance because of conclusions regarding Orion's SM sizing (loiter time vs dV for the type of lunar missions which were baseline under AresI+V assumptions):

“recommended nominal delta-V reduced from 1760 m/s to 1492 m/s (17426 lbs ~7904 kg) with tanks sized for additional 68 m/s (1300 lbs ~590 kg) to be covered from Program Mgr reserve”

(1492 + 68 = 1560m/s)

*UPDATE (extra info added):*

When reading the source pdf of the quoted paragraph please remember the context (l2007 / 2008) of such  document: different launch vehicle integration, different mission procedures, different margins, a number of pending issues being refined, etc.

Also: the numbers assumed for the *lunar* CM and SM and in what relates to conceptual mission design of that specific time frame were lower than the ones apparently being used nowadays. To be specific, at that time period of Constellation (~2008), we had quickfacts and other pdf where Orion was generically represented with numbers similar to:

  8732 kg : CM (CM sometimes  assumed at 8.9t, less than 9t... this later increased to ~9.3t and now higher)
  4325 kg : SM (SM with extra mass now)
  8494 kg : SMprop (SM being sized for a maximum load of ~8494 kg : but usually being represented with loads of 7904 kg up to 8185 kg)
-------------------------
21551 kg : CM + SM + SMprop
    627 kg  : adapter / ASE
-------------------------
22178 kg : total of above
  1012 kg (up to 1022 kg SMcovers, away during ascent)   
  7260 kg : LAS (away, during ascent)
------------------
30450 kg : total @ liftoff

9.807 x 326 x ln (21551 / ( 8732 + 4325 + (7904+590) x 0.05)) = 1500m/s
9.807 x 326 x ln (21551 / ( 8732 + 4325 + (7904+590) x 0.02)) = 1561m/s
9.807 x 326 x ln (21551 / ( 8732 + 4325 + (7904+590) x 0.00)) = 1602m/s

9.807 x 326 x ln (20961 / ( 8732 + 4325 + (7904+000) x 0.05)) = 1418m/s
9.807 x 326 x ln (20961 / ( 8732 + 4325 + (7904+000) x 0.02)) = 1475m/s
9.807 x 326 x ln (20961 / ( 8732 + 4325 + (7904+000) x 0.00)) = 1513m/s

*/UPDATE (extra info added above)*



Only for reference and comparison to all the above, from chapter5 in ESAS Report (and for a lunar CEV, 363s ISP):

  9506 kg : CM
  4576 kg : SM
  9071 kg : SMprop
-------------------------
23153 kg

9.807 x 363 x ln (23153 / ( 9506 + 4576 + 9071 x 0.05)) = 1657m/s
9.807 x 363 x ln (23153 / ( 9506 + 4576 + 9071 x 0.02)) = 1724m/s
9.807 x 363 x ln (23153 / ( 9506 + 4576 + 9071 x 0.00)) = 1770m/s




-------------------
V. Summary
-------------------


And this is just a glimpse about why we should not 'blindly' compare ongoing work with past ESAS or other previous reports (or with, for people having access to and wishing to compare,  UPDATE: early CEV DAC2 work (~2006) and/or mass reduction exercises, etc, available on NSF L2 and also in other places) or even with past Constellation work (despite heritage), I mean, comparisons are OK IF taking in account the differences inherent to such comparisons...


… A 5m diameter CM is apparently coming up with a total mass very similar to what was assumed for ESAS 5.5m diameter capsule... Yes, ESAS CEV used other propellants and the packaging could perhaps be slightly easier due to the increased diameter (and there are also differences in baseline landing methods...) but it still raises the question about conceptual vs 'metal bending' work vs mass control... If the above numbers are correct, Orion is going back to mass expectations similar to the ones before mass reduction exercises (but again, the launch vehicle and mission requirements are now different, so some care should be taken with comparisons).


Something similar could be written about the Service Module, although ESAS assumed Methane-Lox and a more integrated RCS+OMS it still is interesting to compare ESAS masses expectations for such element (5.5m 'cylinder' in ESAS vs now enclosed and with a very different shape SM, different solar panels, etc) vs what seem to be the evolving expectations for Orion's SM (hypergolics, updated mission designs and launch vehicle integration assumptions, etc)...

(and yet something similar could also be written about ESAS assuming 4200 kg for LAS, with the CM exposed, vs the ~>7300 kg of current days, then there is also the topic of updated margins at a global level, etc, etc).


In the end and despite all conceptual analysis, the real hardware capabilities will only be better known when actually flying the hardware and then optimizing it with data from a few flights.

Meanwhile... I guess that it might be safe (?) to assume, that the CM might be ~>9500 kg (?) , the SM ~>4500 kg (?) and the SMprop ~>8000 kg (?), LAS ~>7300 kg, etc (?)... Yes / No / Maybe?



On a personal note and to (finally!) end, I'm very curious to know if there will exist a detailed mass breakout of the hardware that will be used in the upcoming Orion test flight on DeltaIV Heavy, in particular because seem to remember (from older pdf) about a given limit (was it ~9500 kg?) for the 5m diameter CM total mass (vs constraints regarding sizing and storing of the recovery system).  Also: the heavier the CM the less dV can be 'extracted' from the SM (and this might be non-trivial for some missions, given that in most, if not all of current missions the CM is assumed to go all the way to the main mission objective and back, but again, it all depends of updated and integrated ground rules and assumptions set).
 
Best wishes,
António Maia
« Last Edit: 09/07/2012 12:49 pm by simcosmos »
my pics @ flickr

Offline Riley1066

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
  • Upstate New York
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #57 on: 09/06/2012 04:14 pm »
I don't want the US Beyond Low Earth Orbit Program to be reliant on ESA for crucial parts.

NASA should source the service module from US Aerospace contractors.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2012 04:15 pm by Riley1066 »
Go at Throttle Up!

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #58 on: 09/06/2012 06:53 pm »
I don't want the US Beyond Low Earth Orbit Program to be reliant on ESA for crucial parts.

NASA should source the service module from US Aerospace contractors.

What you want is not of any interest to the powers working at NASA.
An answer as to ESA will produce any service module (components or parts) for Orion is likely to be expected coming november, when the issue will be on the table of the ESA ministerial conference.

« Last Edit: 09/06/2012 06:57 pm by woods170 »

Offline fregate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 939
  • Space Association of Australia
  • Melbourne Australia
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #59 on: 09/07/2012 12:39 am »
Thanks António,

Could you please give me a link for PDF that states:
“recommended nominal delta-V reduced from 1760 m/s to 1492 m/s (17426 lbs ~7904 kg) with tanks sized for additional 68 m/s (1300 lbs ~590 kg) to be covered from Program Mgr reserve”

Do not worry - got it!

Lunar Capability Concept Review (LCCR) Transportation Systems Only June 18 – 20, 2008 Report to the PSS

Page 34 DRMs/Mission Key Driving Requirements Mapping
Lunar Sortie Design Reference Mission:

Quote
ORION ΔV for TEI 1,492 m/s (4,895 ft/s)
(Tanks sized for 1,560 m/s (5,118 ft/s)

But it was Oct 2008, total mass of Orion was 20,125 kg and propulsion system supposed to be LOX/Methane.

On SM it's seems to be a decision had been made not to make ANY decisions. Let's wait until NASA/LM/Aerojet would reveal more detailed information.   
« Last Edit: 09/07/2012 04:08 am by fregate »
"Selene, the Moon. Selenginsk, an old town in Siberia: moon-rocket  town" Vladimir Nabokov

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #60 on: 09/07/2012 12:52 am »
Orion weight was in Exploration Begins here which I linked here.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29807.0


Orion
Propellants Hypers
CM, SM Mass 53,405 lbm
LAS 16,300 lbm
# Engines / Type 1 / STS OMS
Total Mass 73,738 lbm

Offline simcosmos

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Portugal
    • SIMCOSMOS
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #61 on: 09/07/2012 11:39 am »
Thanks António,

Could you please give me a link for PDF that states:
“recommended nominal delta-V reduced from 1760 m/s to 1492 m/s (17426 lbs ~7904 kg) with tanks sized for additional 68 m/s (1300 lbs ~590 kg) to be covered from Program Mgr reserve”

Do not worry - got it!

Lunar Capability Concept Review (LCCR) Transportation Systems Only June 18 – 20, 2008 Report to the PSS

Page 34 DRMs/Mission Key Driving Requirements Mapping
Lunar Sortie Design Reference Mission:

Quote
ORION ΔV for TEI 1,492 m/s (4,895 ft/s)
(Tanks sized for 1,560 m/s (5,118 ft/s)

But it was Oct 2008, total mass of Orion was 20,125 kg and propulsion system supposed to be LOX/Methane.

On SM it's seems to be a decision had been made not to make ANY decisions. Let's wait until NASA/LM/Aerojet would reveal more detailed information.   

Hello Fregate, all:

No, that was not the pdf I was making reference to. Also, the change from methane-lox to hypergolics happened before the date you mention:

EDIT (to add link): http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/07/nasa-makes-major-design-changes-to-cev/

EDIT: please also remember that sometimes, in Constellation documents, there is reference to Orion TLI control mass, which is the mass of Orion less the prop. used for orbit circ. and rendezvous with EDS-Altair under AresI+V mission design assumptions


I have updated my previous post with links and a little of extra information (please search there for update tags, at green, thanks).

(When reading the source pdf of the quoted paragraph please remember the context (2007/2008) of such  document: different launch vehicle integration, different mission procedures, different margins, a number of issues being refined, etc.)



Orion weight was in Exploration Begins here which I linked here.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=29807.0


Orion
Propellants Hypers
CM, SM Mass 53,405 lbm
LAS 16,300 lbm
# Engines / Type 1 / STS OMS
Total Mass 73,738 lbm

That 33446.994 kg (7393.556 kg LAS + 24244.106 kg Orion MPCV + 1809.332 Adapter/ASE/SMcovers) seems  to be the maximum mass that should, in principle, be used in updates to SLS (or any other LV conceptually carrying a full Orion MPCV) ascent simulation runs and global mission designs 'brainstorms' while still allowing for mission / architecture closure (with margins of several order). This would essentially be like going to the 'quickfacts' that I have commented on previous post and adding a little of mass on top of each main component while protecting the MPCV to achieve a given minimum (NSF L2 documented) dV capability.

Then, once metal is bent, if the CM and/or SM comes up lighter, there is extra dV 'bonus' (due to the tanks being sized for the maximum case) and / or there is capability to add extra mission features (examples: secondary payloads, extra mission endurance), if not, then at least such minimum dV should protect against mass growth... I guess that a next release of the MPCV QuickFacts pdf will already have the components numbers updated to reflect this (?)


---------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion / Open Questions
------------------------------------------------------------


If there is the possibility of the MPCV CM being up to ~10000 kg, what is the impact of such assumption on the abort and recovery systems?

In particular, it would be interesting to know about what CM mass interval is being used on drogue / main parachutes tests (and what CM mass was used in the LAS test). When having time will try to research that.

This focus on CM (and SM) mass control is related with this thread's main topic (MPCV SM Requirements) because they are factors for sizing the tanks that, for a given ISP value and set of ground rules will define the amount of propellant load that will protect for a minimum dV capability (vs updated mission designs).

But I agree with you fregate: perhaps better to wait for NASA to release the document with updated mission designs  / architectures (and set of ground rules) for SLS, MPCV and all other related mission elements / key mission objectives.

António Maia
« Last Edit: 09/07/2012 12:03 pm by simcosmos »
my pics @ flickr

Offline Riley1066

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
  • Upstate New York
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #62 on: 09/07/2012 03:44 pm »
I don't want the US Beyond Low Earth Orbit Program to be reliant on ESA for crucial parts.

NASA should source the service module from US Aerospace contractors.

What you want is not of any interest to the powers working at NASA.
An answer as to ESA will produce any service module (components or parts) for Orion is likely to be expected coming november, when the issue will be on the table of the ESA ministerial conference.



As a citizen of the United States, and a taxpayer, my opinion should matter to "the powers working at NASA". Orion should be a US vehicle not an international project.
Go at Throttle Up!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #63 on: 09/07/2012 05:06 pm »
I don't want the US Beyond Low Earth Orbit Program to be reliant on ESA for crucial parts.

NASA should source the service module from US Aerospace contractors.

What you want is not of any interest to the powers working at NASA.
An answer as to ESA will produce any service module (components or parts) for Orion is likely to be expected coming november, when the issue will be on the table of the ESA ministerial conference.



As a citizen of the United States, and a taxpayer, my opinion should matter to "the powers working at NASA". Orion should be a US vehicle not an international project.

So, you would rather have no Orion vs an international Orion?

Offline Riley1066

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
  • Upstate New York
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #64 on: 09/07/2012 09:04 pm »
So, you would rather have no Orion vs an international Orion?

If NASA can't even build a VEHICLE without international participation, then that signals a massive failure of our human spaceflight program.

Building a massive space station with international help is one thing, but needing foreign help on a critical part of our nation's next vehicle is another.

This isn't even remotely similar to the Canadian Arm or the ESA Spacelab, which were very welcome capability enhancements to an American Space Shuttle, this is a critical aspect of vehicle functionality being made dependent on a non American source.

I welcome ESA participation with NASA in exploring space, its essential to the future I believe, but we should each contribute complete systems to this effort.
« Last Edit: 09/07/2012 09:21 pm by Riley1066 »
Go at Throttle Up!

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #65 on: 09/07/2012 09:17 pm »
I don't want the US Beyond Low Earth Orbit Program to be reliant on ESA for crucial parts.

NASA should source the service module from US Aerospace contractors.

What you want is not of any interest to the powers working at NASA.
An answer as to ESA will produce any service module (components or parts) for Orion is likely to be expected coming november, when the issue will be on the table of the ESA ministerial conference.



As a citizen of the United States, and a taxpayer, my opinion should matter to "the powers working at NASA". Orion should be a US vehicle not an international project.

So, you would rather have no Orion vs an international Orion?

that is not the question.  The Orion is a USA development by law. end of story.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #66 on: 09/08/2012 01:32 am »
There is no such law. 

Offline LegendCJS

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 575
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #67 on: 09/08/2012 01:58 am »
I don't want the US Beyond Low Earth Orbit Program to be reliant on ESA for crucial parts.

NASA should source the service module from US Aerospace contractors.

What you want is not of any interest to the powers working at NASA.
An answer as to ESA will produce any service module (components or parts) for Orion is likely to be expected coming november, when the issue will be on the table of the ESA ministerial conference.



As a citizen of the United States, and a taxpayer, my opinion should matter to "the powers working at NASA". Orion should be a US vehicle not an international project.

So if a different citizen's opinion is contrary to your opinion do they cancel out?

More seriously, do you even know how many robotic space missions have international partners now days? The performance of these missions speaks very positively for international cooperation. No one is talking about putting an unreliable partner on a critical hardware path. Some people are of the opinion that without the international component of ISS it would have been defunded and splashed by now. Having the international partner gives a program a great shield to weather the ever shifting domestic budget priorities.


If NASA can't even build a VEHICLE without international participation, then that signals a massive failure of our human spaceflight program.


That eventuality is not a failure of anything.  It is only ever a question of priorities.
« Last Edit: 09/08/2012 02:03 am by LegendCJS »
Remember: if we want this whole space thing to work out we have to optimize for cost!

Offline Riley1066

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
  • Upstate New York
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #68 on: 09/08/2012 02:03 am »

So if a different citizen's opinion is contrary to your opinion do they cancel out?

More seriously, do you even know how many robotic space missions have international partners now days? The performance of these missions speaks very positively for international cooperation. No one is talking about putting an unreliable partner on a critical hardware path. Some people are of the opinion that without the international component of ISS it would have been defunded and splashed by now. Having the international partner gives a program a great shield to weather the ever shifting domestic budget priorities.

No critical operational functions of these robotic joint ventures has ever been outsourced ... the contributions have been add ons.
Go at Throttle Up!

Offline Riley1066

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
  • Upstate New York
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #69 on: 09/08/2012 02:15 am »

So, you would rather have no Orion vs an international Orion?

Russia doesn't subcontract the Descent Module of their Soyuz spacecraft to another space agency ... why should America subcontract the service module of its Orion vehicle to another space agency?
Go at Throttle Up!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #70 on: 09/08/2012 02:17 pm »

No critical operational functions of these robotic joint ventures has ever been outsourced ... the contributions have been add ons.

Wrong on many accounts.  Here is just one example to discredit your point.  Galileo's propulsion system, which was also a large part of structure, was provided by the German's

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #71 on: 09/08/2012 02:19 pm »

So, you would rather have no Orion vs an international Orion?

Russia doesn't subcontract the Descent Module of their Soyuz spacecraft to another space agency ... why should America subcontract the service module of its Orion vehicle to another space agency?

It doesn't matter what the Russians do.  Fiscally, if is a difference of having Orion or no Orion, then yes, America should subcontract out the SM.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #72 on: 09/08/2012 02:24 pm »
So, you would rather have no Orion vs an international Orion?

If NASA can't even build a VEHICLE without international participation, then that signals a massive failure of our human spaceflight program.

Wrong, it has nothing to do with the success or failure of the "US" human spaceflight program.  It has to do with the US Gov't priorities on the US Gov't  operated human spaceflight program.  NASA does not equate to the US human spaceflight program.  The US human spaceflight program is doing great with 3 manned systems in development.

Offline wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #73 on: 09/08/2012 02:27 pm »
As a citizen of the United States, and a taxpayer, my opinion should matter to "the powers working at NASA". Orion should be a US vehicle not an international project.

I'll quote from the Space Act of 1958:

"(7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results, thereof; and"
« Last Edit: 09/08/2012 02:28 pm by wolfpack »

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #74 on: 09/08/2012 02:28 pm »
It doesn't matter what the Russians do.  Fiscally, if is a difference of having Orion or no Orion, then yes, America should subcontract out the SM.

It would make more sense to me if NASA did the SM, but used commercial crew for the capsule. Yes, that would require a more generic design, and yes that would involve a mass penalty, but I'd say suck it up and get on with the program. Having Orion Lite would be another way of achieving the same result, provided it would be economical enough for commercial use.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #75 on: 09/08/2012 02:32 pm »
  The US human spaceflight program is doing great with 3 manned systems in development.

Subjective.

Flying 3 manned systems would be "great", developing them is just that. Development.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #76 on: 09/08/2012 06:34 pm »
  The US human spaceflight program is doing great with 3 manned systems in development.

Subjective.

Flying 3 manned systems would be "great", developing them is just that. Development.

Better than just one gov't developed system

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #77 on: 09/08/2012 07:20 pm »
I don't want the US Beyond Low Earth Orbit Program to be reliant on ESA for crucial parts.

NASA should source the service module from US Aerospace contractors.

What you want is not of any interest to the powers working at NASA.
An answer as to ESA will produce any service module (components or parts) for Orion is likely to be expected coming november, when the issue will be on the table of the ESA ministerial conference.



As a citizen of the United States, and a taxpayer, my opinion should matter to "the powers working at NASA". Orion should be a US vehicle not an international project.

So, you would rather have no Orion vs an international Orion?

If I see the former as a nearly-inevitable result of the latter (int'l Orion will be delayed and cost more due to re-work of the CM), then yes, I say stop the charade and cancel Orion now.

I absolutely concur with this. 

Offline Riley1066

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
  • Upstate New York
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #78 on: 09/09/2012 02:34 am »
So, you would rather have no Orion vs an international Orion?

If NASA can't even build a VEHICLE without international participation, then that signals a massive failure of our human spaceflight program.

Wrong, it has nothing to do with the success or failure of the "US" human spaceflight program.  It has to do with the US Gov't priorities on the US Gov't  operated human spaceflight program.  NASA does not equate to the US human spaceflight program.  The US human spaceflight program is doing great with 3 manned systems in development.

Unless we're actually buying CST-100s, Dragons, and Dreamchasers and launching them with NASA employees the way we bought the Space Shuttles from Rockwell/Boeing, then they are not NASA vehicles.  There is only one NASA vehicle being developed ... that is Orion ...  and that vehicle should be US sourced.
« Last Edit: 09/09/2012 02:37 am by Riley1066 »
Go at Throttle Up!

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4870
  • Liked: 2783
  • Likes Given: 1097
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #79 on: 09/09/2012 03:36 am »
So, you would rather have no Orion vs an international Orion?
If NASA can't even build a VEHICLE without international participation, then that signals a massive failure of our human spaceflight program.
Wrong, it has nothing to do with the success or failure of the "US" human spaceflight program.  It has to do with the US Gov't priorities on the US Gov't  operated human spaceflight program.  NASA does not equate to the US human spaceflight program.  The US human spaceflight program is doing great with 3 manned systems in development.
Unless we're actually buying CST-100s, Dragons, and Dreamchasers and launching them with NASA employees the way we bought the Space Shuttles from Rockwell/Boeing, then they are not NASA vehicles.  There is only one NASA vehicle being developed ... that is Orion ...  and that vehicle should be US sourced.

In what way does the lack of a NASA vehicle--that is, NASA building, buying, owning, or operating a launch vehicle or spacecraft--equate to a "massive failure of our human spaceflight program"?
« Last Edit: 09/09/2012 05:26 am by joek »

Offline wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #80 on: 09/09/2012 11:25 am »
Better than just one gov't developed system

Agree. But this is OT and belongs in the space policy thread.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #81 on: 09/10/2012 04:14 pm »
Unless we're actually buying CST-100s, Dragons, and Dreamchasers and launching them with NASA employees the way we bought the Space Shuttles from Rockwell/Boeing, then they are not NASA vehicles.  There is only one NASA vehicle being developed ... that is Orion ...  and that vehicle should be US sourced.

Oh the irony... All the commercial crew vehicles in development are 100% US sourced. And the offical NASA vehicle might not be.  ;D But then again I've never understood why so many people have such an emotional attachment to the idea of NASA having its "own" vehicle.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2012 04:17 pm by Lars_J »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #82 on: 09/10/2012 11:27 pm »


It would make more sense to me if NASA did the SM, but used commercial crew for the capsule. Yes, that would require a more generic design, and yes that would involve a mass penalty, but I'd say suck it up and get on with the program. Having Orion Lite would be another way of achieving the same result, provided it would be economical enough for commercial use.

I agree the SM's specs should be driven by the mission requirements and having the ESA may cause delays and cost overruns.
There also could be infighting as to what needs to be included which can cause feature creep.
Just look at what happened to STS by having NASA work with the USAF.
« Last Edit: 09/10/2012 11:28 pm by Patchouli »

Offline thydusk666

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 136
  • I see dead pixels in the sky!
  • Europe
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #83 on: 09/10/2012 11:46 pm »

I agree the SM's specs should be driven by the mission requirements and having the ESA may cause delays and cost overruns.

What are the reasons for thinking that ESA would bring any delay to the building of SM? Same question for the cost overruns.

Did this occur in the past, so that your confidence in ESA is so low?

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #84 on: 09/11/2012 02:20 am »
Which would cost NASA more: paying Lockheed Martin to build a SM, or accepting the ESA contribution of one?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Riley1066

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
  • Upstate New York
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #85 on: 09/11/2012 03:57 pm »
Unless we're actually buying CST-100s, Dragons, and Dreamchasers and launching them with NASA employees the way we bought the Space Shuttles from Rockwell/Boeing, then they are not NASA vehicles.  There is only one NASA vehicle being developed ... that is Orion ...  and that vehicle should be US sourced.

Oh the irony... All the commercial crew vehicles in development are 100% US sourced. And the offical NASA vehicle might not be.  ;D But then again I've never understood why so many people have such an emotional attachment to the idea of NASA having its "own" vehicle.

I want the American people to have a safety net in case these new private contractors decide to screw us in pricing.  Having an in-house government option keeps the private contractors honest.

I have no faith in SpaceX, Boeing or SNC keeping their agreements on cost.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2012 03:58 pm by Riley1066 »
Go at Throttle Up!

Offline e of pi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 723
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 297
  • Likes Given: 406
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #86 on: 09/11/2012 04:14 pm »
I want the American people to have a safety net in case these new private contractors decide to screw us in pricing.  Having an in-house government option keeps the private contractors honest.
Orion's not an in-house government construction project, it's a NASA project contracted to Lockheed Martin, who are (surprise!) a private contractor under contract with NASA to assist in the design and bend the metal. Why do you trust Lockheed Martin more than you trust Boeing, Space, or SNC?  Not to mention that the base costs for Orion are significantly higher than the commercial capsules you want it as backup for, so it's not a great backup--if they've got no fear of contractual penalties, as I understand it the commercial providers could jack up prices by two or three times what they're promising and still beat what it'd cost NASA to use Orion for the same role.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #87 on: 09/11/2012 04:15 pm »
I want the American people to have a safety net in case these new private contractors decide to screw us in pricing.  Having an in-house government option keeps the private contractors honest.

And you're not noticing how you are "getting screwed in pricing" already with Orion? $18+ billion development (excluding operational cost)... for *that*?

I have no faith in SpaceX, Boeing or SNC keeping their agreements on cost.

Skepticism is good, and so is competition. Hopefully the cost of Orion will not be 100% wasted.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2012 04:19 pm by Lars_J »

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #88 on: 09/11/2012 04:33 pm »
I want the American people to have a safety net in case these new private contractors decide to screw us in pricing.

You have it precisely backward, having multiple providers means each is a safety net against the others. Having a single "government" system makes it much more likely you will be screwed on price.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #89 on: 09/11/2012 06:22 pm »

I want the American people to have a safety net in case these new private contractors decide to screw us in pricing.  Having an in-house government option keeps the private contractors honest.

I have no faith in SpaceX, Boeing or SNC keeping their agreements on cost.

Huh?  There is no safety net as you propose.  You have no clue on how things work.  "In-house government" option would nothing of sort and actually would more susceptible to cost increases because it is supported by cost plus contracts.  LM builds Orion on a cost plus contract and then NASA operates it with another cost plus contract.

 Commercial crew with SpaceX, Boeing or SNC would be firm, fixed cost contract, with each year having agreed to prices.  They eat the costs above the contract prices and can't ask for compensation.  Their only way out is to default on the contract which you won't see happening and that is why having two is better than one.  That is the safety net. Anyways, Boeing is not a new private company.

Unfounded lack of faith in the commercial project and unjustified faith in the inhouse/arsenal method.

There is no real benefit to having an inhouse capability when there are commercially available services.   That is why NASA does not operate Delta, Atlas, Pegasus, etc.

« Last Edit: 09/11/2012 06:40 pm by Jim »

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #90 on: 09/11/2012 09:09 pm »

I want the American people to have a safety net in case these new private contractors decide to screw us in pricing.  Having an in-house government option keeps the private contractors honest.

I have no faith in SpaceX, Boeing or SNC keeping their agreements on cost.

Huh?  There is no safety net as you propose.  You have no clue on how things work.  "In-house government" option would nothing of sort and actually would more susceptible to cost increases because it is supported by cost plus contracts.  LM builds Orion on a cost plus contract and then NASA operates it with another cost plus contract.

 Commercial crew with SpaceX, Boeing or SNC would be firm, fixed cost contract, with each year having agreed to prices.  They eat the costs above the contract prices and can't ask for compensation.  Their only way out is to default on the contract which you won't see happening and that is why having two is better than one.  That is the safety net. Anyways, Boeing is not a new private company.


That's only half the story.  FFP is just as valid a contract mechanim as cost plus. 

With cost plus, the government sees pretty much everything, with whatever company only making any money on the negotiated fee that is charged.  In addition, there are areas of emphasis and award fee periods where the customer is free to give zero or up to a pre-negotiated amount for the work completed and the quality of work.  In other words, nothing really happens in those contracts without the customer pretty much knowing everything and authorizing it.

In FFP, you lose some of that insight and oversight to how the money is spent.  True it is easier to manage but also the seller takes into account whatever the life cycle costs are, risks they feel are relevant for whatever product and adds some profit to it. 

The contract mechanism by itself does not increase tendency for cost increases.  Those are derived from requirements (both technical and programmatic), requirements creep, etc. 

Contract mechanisms are a choice based on what is trying to be achieved or by the customer for whatever reason.  Typically, cost plus are suited for developments.  There is no reason NASA could not decide to use an FFP for any operations contracts.

Of course scope changes to those are much more difficult to manage.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #91 on: 09/11/2012 11:48 pm »

There is no reason NASA could not decide to use an FFP for any operations contracts.

Of course scope changes to those are much more difficult to manage.

Huh?  Wrong, that is exactly why they are not FFP except for the simplest of tasks.

Where dd I say that FFP wasn't a valid mechanism.

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #92 on: 09/12/2012 12:40 am »

There is no reason NASA could not decide to use an FFP for any operations contracts.

Of course scope changes to those are much more difficult to manage.

Huh?  Wrong, that is exactly why they are not FFP except for the simplest of tasks.

Where dd I say that FFP wasn't a valid mechanism.

I don't know why you are "Huh'ing" me. 

I simply said operations could be FFP and there is no reason why they could not be.  It would just require that there would be little to no scope changes, all based on milestones, etc so that we are not got in a never-ending contract negotiation cycle to change the baseline contract....that ultimately increases cost. 

You are the one that said cost-plus automatically increases cost.  That is not absolutely true.  So I offered an alternative based on your comments that could be done in relation to government-owned vehicles. 

I never said that you said FFP was not a valid contract mechanism.  I just offered clarification so as to not be so slighted and bias. 

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #93 on: 09/12/2012 01:46 am »

There is no reason NASA could not decide to use an FFP for any operations contracts.

Of course scope changes to those are much more difficult to manage.

Huh?  Wrong, that is exactly why they are not FFP except for the simplest of tasks.

Where dd I say that FFP wasn't a valid mechanism.

I don't know why you are "Huh'ing" me. 

I simply said operations could be FFP and there is no reason why they could not be.  It would just require that there would be little to no scope changes, all based on milestones, etc so that we are not got in a never-ending contract negotiation cycle to change the baseline contract....that ultimately increases cost. 


Because there are always changes in operations contracts, that is why most can not be FFP

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #94 on: 09/12/2012 01:52 am »
Because there are always changes in operations contracts, that is why most can not be FFP

You are totally missing my point.  They can be FFP if they wanted to do it that way.  And since you are saying "cost plus equals cost increase" I was pointing out an alternative. 

Besides you always point to LSP.  Is that not FFP and is that not operations?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #95 on: 09/12/2012 02:13 am »
Because there are always changes in operations contracts, that is why most can not be FFP

You are totally missing my point.  They can be FFP if they wanted to do it that way.  And since you are saying "cost plus equals cost increase" I was pointing out an alternative. 

Besides you always point to LSP.  Is that not FFP and is that not operations?

Operations do not produce hardware.  Launch services are paided by the launch.  Operations contracts are time period  and level of effort based.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2012 02:18 am by Jim »

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #96 on: 09/12/2012 02:17 am »
Because there are always changes in operations contracts, that is why most can not be FFP

You are totally missing my point.  They can be FFP if they wanted to do it that way.  And since you are saying "cost plus equals cost increase" I was pointing out an alternative. 

Besides you always point to LSP.  Is that not FFP and is that not operations?

Operations does not produce hardware.

Ok, I didn't realize that rockets grew on trees ready for launch. 

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Orion SM requirements so we can drop it because I firmly believe you and others clearly get my point. 
« Last Edit: 09/12/2012 02:31 am by Go4TLI »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #97 on: 09/12/2012 02:33 am »

Ok, I didn't realize that rockets grew on trees ready for launch. 
 

I can tell there are many other thing you haven't realized.  Launch preparations are part of production, not operations. 

Operations contracts use completed hardware like managing the AFSCN or TDRSS.   

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #98 on: 09/12/2012 02:39 am »

Ok, I didn't realize that rockets grew on trees ready for launch. 
 

I can tell there are many other thing you haven't realized.  Launch preparations are part of production, not operations. 

Operations contracts use completed hardware like managing the AFSCN or TDRSS.   

Man, it really is kind of sad you always insult for no reason and trying to split hairs that thin.

So let me try it this way then, if I order an Atlas 5 to fly a payload for me will that be FFP or cost plus?  Careful with your answer.... :)

Offline Riley1066

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 354
  • Upstate New York
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #99 on: 09/12/2012 04:54 am »

Huh?  There is no safety net as you propose.  You have no clue on how things work.  "In-house government" option would nothing of sort and actually would more susceptible to cost increases because it is supported by cost plus contracts.  LM builds Orion on a cost plus contract and then NASA operates it with another cost plus contract.

 Commercial crew with SpaceX, Boeing or SNC would be firm, fixed cost contract, with each year having agreed to prices.  They eat the costs above the contract prices and can't ask for compensation.  Their only way out is to default on the contract which you won't see happening and that is why having two is better than one.  That is the safety net. Anyways, Boeing is not a new private company.


I'd still rather have NASA own the vehicles that it sends its astronauts into space with. I'll eat the extra cost of whatever this "cost plus contract" would be to get that security.

I'm just afraid that after a while, the commercial crew tail will start wagging the NASA dog.
Go at Throttle Up!

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #100 on: 09/12/2012 08:06 am »

Huh?  There is no safety net as you propose.  You have no clue on how things work.  "In-house government" option would nothing of sort and actually would more susceptible to cost increases because it is supported by cost plus contracts.  LM builds Orion on a cost plus contract and then NASA operates it with another cost plus contract.

 Commercial crew with SpaceX, Boeing or SNC would be firm, fixed cost contract, with each year having agreed to prices.  They eat the costs above the contract prices and can't ask for compensation.  Their only way out is to default on the contract which you won't see happening and that is why having two is better than one.  That is the safety net. Anyways, Boeing is not a new private company.


I'd still rather have NASA own the vehicles that it sends its astronauts into space with. I'll eat the extra cost of whatever this "cost plus contract" would be to get that security.

I'm just afraid that after a while, the commercial crew tail will start wagging the NASA dog.

Roskosmos (the Russian space agency) does not own the Soyuz spacecraft it uses to send it's kosmonauts (and US and ESA astronauts) into space. They remain property of the company that builds 'em. Does not seem to be a problem for the Russians. Why would you want NASA to own the vehicles it uses for it's astro's? What are the underlying reasons for you wish for NASA to do so? What 'security' do you mean? Could you elaborate please? Thank you.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #101 on: 09/12/2012 11:35 am »

I'd still rather have NASA own the vehicles that it sends its astronauts into space with. I'll eat the extra cost of whatever this "cost plus contract" would be to get that security.

I'm just afraid that after a while, the commercial crew tail will start wagging the NASA dog.

So you would have NASA waste money for real purpose.  You have no basis for that fear and NASA "owning" them does not provide any additional security.  NASA would still have to pay a contractor to operate them and they could wag the NASA dog.
« Last Edit: 09/12/2012 11:36 am by Jim »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #102 on: 09/12/2012 01:32 pm »
Hope this is the knife in the heart of this idea of ESA building the SM.

Europe space agency eyes manned flights with China
http://news.yahoo.com/europe-space-agency-eyes-manned-flights-china-201750935--finance.html

Indirectly the USA would be having ITAR issues me thinks.

"Reiter said the 19-nation agency plans to hold a series of meetings with its Chinese counterpart, the China National Space Administration, that will explore closer cooperation in the areas of astronaut training, spacecraft docking and developing life support systems"

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #103 on: 09/12/2012 04:18 pm »
I'd still rather have NASA own the vehicles that it sends its astronauts into space with. I'll eat the extra cost of whatever this "cost plus contract" would be to get that security.

So first you want NASA to own the vehicle to prevent a cost explosion, and then you are willing to accept additional costs if NASA owns the vehicle?

Quote
I'm just afraid that after a while, the commercial crew tail will start wagging the NASA dog.

Shifting justifications. It sounds as if you have a real reason you aren't telling us about.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #104 on: 09/12/2012 06:40 pm »
Unless we're actually buying CST-100s, Dragons, and Dreamchasers and launching them with NASA employees the way we bought the Space Shuttles from Rockwell/Boeing, then they are not NASA vehicles.  There is only one NASA vehicle being developed ... that is Orion ...  and that vehicle should be US sourced.

Oh the irony... All the commercial crew vehicles in development are 100% US sourced. And the offical NASA vehicle might not be.  ;D But then again I've never understood why so many people have such an emotional attachment to the idea of NASA having its "own" vehicle.

I want the American people to have a safety net in case these new private contractors decide to screw us in pricing.  Having an in-house government option keeps the private contractors honest.

I have no faith in SpaceX, Boeing or SNC keeping their agreements on cost.
Is Lockheed Martin better?

If Boeing, SNC, or SpaceX doesn't keep their agreement on cost, then they have to eat it (not that there's no effect on NASA).

Remember, Orion is cost-plus, so if LM doesn't keep their agreement on cost (i.e. if the cost goes higher than they expect), then NASA has to eat it, and pay LM a guaranteed profit!

(I'm not an enemy of Orion necessarily, but I just thought I'd point that out...)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #105 on: 09/13/2012 12:23 pm »
Is Lockheed Martin better?

If Boeing, SNC, or SpaceX doesn't keep their agreement on cost, then they have to eat it (not that there's no effect on NASA).

Remember, Orion is cost-plus, so if LM doesn't keep their agreement on cost (i.e. if the cost goes higher than they expect), then NASA has to eat it, and pay LM a guaranteed profit!

(I'm not an enemy of Orion necessarily, but I just thought I'd point that out...)

That is a distortion of reality.  FFP contracts are exactly that, fixed.  If something needs to happen that ends of driving costs there are mechanisms in both types of contracts to address it.

With respect to the three above, it really depends on what is driving the cost increase.  If it is the customer, then even with an FFP they are absolutely entitled to seek a renegotiation of the contract to cover the costs and get additional contract value.

With respect to LM and a cost plus contract, the same applies. 

In both cases, if it is anything else then just because it is a cost plus contract hardly means that LM just goes off and does it and sticks it to NASA.  There are a host of options defined, along with risks for such and a careful estimate on what the new cost is and a decision is made that fits the operating rythm of the project.  In the case of Orion all of these are coordinated with NASA and NASA has the final say and can chose to pick any of the options LM has defined, none of them or do something they want to do. 

"Guaranteed profit" is hardly guaranteed.  Clearly you do not understand how engineering works and certainly do not understand the contract mechanims in relation to these. 

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #106 on: 09/13/2012 08:15 pm »
Orion is at least partially cost-plus (or at least it was originally). You knew that, right?
« Last Edit: 09/14/2012 01:48 am by Chris Bergin »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #107 on: 09/13/2012 11:14 pm »
Yes, Orion is cost plus. That takes away from nothing I said with giving clarification on your mis-leading comment

Offline simcosmos

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Portugal
    • SIMCOSMOS
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #108 on: 09/11/2014 06:53 pm »
I'm not sure if should have opened a new topic or not but, just for completeness, and following my previous interventions on this thread...

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26133.msg950931#msg950931
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26133.msg951146#msg951146



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a preliminary interpretation of data available at:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/fs-2014-08-004-jsc-orion_quickfacts-web.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


10387.2653 kg      CM
  6184.7320 kg      SM
  9275.9639 kg      SMprop (+ some fluids?)
-------------------------------------------
25847.9612 kg      Orion Total Mass
    510.2914 kg      Adapter
--------------------------------------------
26358.2526 kg      Orion + Adapter
  1383.4567 kg      SMcovers (away during ascent)
  7643.0314 kg      LAS         (away during ascent)
--------------------------------------------
35384.7407 kg       TOTAL @ Liftoff

dV
9.807 x 316 x ln (25847.9612 / (25847.9612 – 9275.9639 +  9275.9639 x 0.023)) ~ 1338 m/s
9.807 x 326  x ln (25847.9612 / (25847.9612 – 9275.9639 +  9275.9639 x 0.023)) ~ 1380 m/s

I have a couple of doubts regarding the way some information is presented (will need time to further study the numbers) but, at first sight, we continue to see an heavy Command Module (with updated LAS assumptions and extra margins on SMcovers + adapter)...

But... The SM numbers were really  the ones which surprised me the most.

António Maia
« Last Edit: 09/11/2014 08:43 pm by simcosmos »
my pics @ flickr

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: MPCV's service module requirements?
« Reply #109 on: 09/11/2014 07:44 pm »
I want the American people to have a safety net in case these new private contractors decide to screw us in pricing.  Having an in-house government option keeps the private contractors honest.

I have no faith in SpaceX, Boeing or SNC keeping their agreements on cost.

This makes no sense at all. A NASA-owned spacecraft (Orion) would by definition cost an exorbitant amount of money, far more than any of the three commercial crew providers. Two of them, Sierra Nevada and SpaceX, are attempting to keep the cost of space transportation far below what it would cost NASA to fly astronauts on a government-owned spacecraft, and one of them, SpaceX, is in this business for the specific reason of driving down the cost of space transportation so low that humanity can actually afford to become a multi-planet species.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0