Author Topic: UK steps up, as ESA commit to ATV Service Module on NASA's Orion  (Read 175543 times)

Offline rcoppola

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1934
  • USA
  • Liked: 1172
  • Likes Given: 437
I think this was a big piece of the puzzle NASA might have been waiting for in order to finalize their new, officially unannounced plans for a moon return. Who knows, maybe the Germans and Russians will hop on board to build the re-usable landers.

In the long run, I think it will be a net gain for every country involved. Perhaps short term it looks as if some American workers will be shut out of this piece but I have to believe if we and our cousins across the pond can make this work and we actually get about doing what both of us do best, namely exploring, there will be many more industry opportunities moving forward.

I'm all in. FWIW
 
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
www.linkedin.com/in/rvcoppola/

Offline RocketmanUS

Is the Orion CM going to be reusable if sent on an EML1/2 mission?
IS it reusable if used for LEO missions?

If so then would they make several of the CM?
Could it be launced by ESA at Guiana Space Centre?

Edit:
Could the SM by it's self be able to deliver cargo to EML1/2 to LLO if the TLI burn was done by an EDS?
« Last Edit: 11/21/2012 11:33 PM by RocketmanUS »
Mars and beyond, human exploration
The grass is always greener on the other side. When you stand on top of the hill you see both sides!

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12024
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 2746
  • Likes Given: 482
Well of course. But is it likely the US will turn their nose up at this development?

I think a better question, though very much related, is:  how will Lockheed respond?  These will be lost $billions for Colorado, Louisiana, Texas, Florida, etc. 

 - Ed Kyle

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5030
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 3226
Orbital is somewhat of a systems integrator and don't have the capability to do a lot of the vehicle.  In addition, that is their vehicle and not a US government vehicle, so there is a difference there.
So if a winner of a NASA competition *chooses* to use foreign contractors for *substantial* parts of the work in order to save money, that's OK, but if NASA sees that option it's *not* OK?

Quote
With respect to the ISS modules, those were funded by NASA (with the exception of COL and JEM).
Merely pointing out that Europe is *far* from playing catchup in this area.

Quote
It is my opinion we should take care of our own industry with government dollars when our own industry can do it and not just spin and paint a picture of the wonders of international cooperation.

You're certainly not alone in your views. This thinking gave NASA SLS.
Time will tell how sensible an approach this proves.
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline pippin

  • Regular
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2454
  • Liked: 242
  • Likes Given: 35
3.  ESA and their vendors are known to be late.  This will impact cost and schedule.

Um, bless you, but this wasn't ESA's idea, it was NASA's.
NASA is also known to be late and also to cancel at least 50% of their project after they have worked on them for 5 years or so.

Face it: this whole, nonsensical and expensive activity has only one goal: to safeguard NASA's project against cancellation by the next administration 4 years from now or by the next congress two years from now. ESA just follows suit because it looks like a good opportunity to them to get aboard the program because they are doing NASA a favor.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5030
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 3226
Is the Orion CM going to be reusable if sent on an EML1/2 mission?
IS it reusable if used for LEO missions?
Good question.

Note that Spacex were saying that NASA is saying every Dragon to ISS has to be factory fresh, *no* re-launches.

But I *think* I saw something about re-using systems from returned capsules (can't remember if this MPCV or Dragon).
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline the_roche_lobe

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Now, who is going to stump up some cash for that reusable lunar lander? Hell, make it a nice cheap unpressurised one if you need to!...OK maybe not that second bit. :)

Russia? Japan?

P


Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5030
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 3226
I think this was a big piece of the puzzle NASA might have been waiting for in order to finalize their new, officially unannounced plans for a moon return. Who knows, maybe the Germans and Russians will hop on board to build the re-usable landers.
I'm a little hazy. Could you lay out the logic for this?
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 539
It is my opinion we should take care of our own industry with government dollars when our own industry can do it and not just spin and paint a picture of the wonders of international cooperation.

You're certainly not alone in your views. This thinking gave NASA SLS.
To me that statement is disingenuous. If you are against building a HLV than the American industry can still be strengthened by instead using the Falcon 9, Atlas V and Delta IV to supply fuel depos for missions beyond low earth orbit.

Is the Orion CM going to be reusable if sent on an EML1/2 mission?
IS it reusable if used for LEO missions?
Good question.

Note that Spacex were saying that NASA is saying every Dragon to ISS has to be factory fresh, *no* re-launches.

But I *think* I saw something about re-using systems from returned capsules (can't remember if this MPCV or Dragon).
It was MPCV.
« Last Edit: 11/22/2012 12:26 AM by manboy »
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline daveklingler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 420
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 9

Face it: this whole, nonsensical and expensive activity has only one goal: to safeguard NASA's project against cancellation by the next administration 4 years from now or by the next congress two years from now. ESA just follows suit because it looks like a good opportunity to them to get aboard the program because they are doing NASA a favor.

I thought the news, and Chris' article were pretty cool.  Thanks, Chris!

But I confess to cynical thoughts that this is a great way to

a) decrease the odds of cancellation, as pippin noted,

but also
 
b) move the SM down the road without throwing another chunk of the NASA budget toward the SLS/Orion line item, assuming folks in NASA Admin foresee both being cancelled after a few flights of the Falcon Heavy and crewed Dragon.

I also believe that were LockMart to do it, the budget for the SM would creep north of a billion.

Offline RocketmanUS


Face it: this whole, nonsensical and expensive activity has only one goal: to safeguard NASA's project against cancellation by the next administration 4 years from now or by the next congress two years from now. ESA just follows suit because it looks like a good opportunity to them to get aboard the program because they are doing NASA a favor.

I thought the news, and Chris' article were pretty cool.  Thanks, Chris!

But I confess to cynical thoughts that this is a great way to

a) decrease the odds of cancellation, as pippin noted,

but also
 
b) move the SM down the road without throwing another chunk of the NASA budget toward the SLS/Orion line item, assuming folks in NASA Admin foresee both being cancelled after a few flights of the Falcon Heavy and crewed Dragon.

I also believe that were LockMart to do it, the budget for the SM would creep north of a billion.
Would not decrease the chances of cancellation. It might even increase it do to many factors ( private crew moon landing, economical or natural disaster, political change on either side ).
Would give ESA a step up in SM for a CM.
If the U.S. did cancle after there was a contract ( would most likely have a cancellation clause ), them ESA might just go ahead and develop their own CM.
Mars and beyond, human exploration
The grass is always greener on the other side. When you stand on top of the hill you see both sides!

Offline Go4TLI

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 0
It is my opinion we should take care of our own industry with government dollars when our own industry can do it and not just spin and paint a picture of the wonders of international cooperation.

You're certainly not alone in your views. This thinking gave NASA SLS.

This is an ignorant statement and shows why some around here cannot be taken seriously....

I have clearly put my views out there on why I believe both total cost will go up and integrated schedule will go to the right. 

I admit I could be wrong but my experience says I doubt that is the case and instead of making ignorant statements perhaps someone can point out why my rationale is wrong and those possibilities are irrelevant. 

Assuming I am right if anyone believes cost increases and schedule delays will go without notice because we are playing "international cooperation" then that person is also being naive. 

I strongly feel it is a mistake to take one small vehicle and make it a multi-national effort across a dozen or so governments.  There were ample other opportunities that made more strategic sence for international partnerships that did not increase total cost of one element and opportunities that could have provided increased capabilities so that we can stop pretending we as a people are actually going to do something someday. 

Offline Riley1066

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 341
  • Upstate New York
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 2
This is a very disappointing development that NASA can't build an entire spacecraft by itself anymore. I've lost quite a bit of respect for Bill Gersteinmaier.
« Last Edit: 11/22/2012 04:38 AM by Riley1066 »
Go at Throttle Up!

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
No, total costs will go up and here is why:

1.  The CM will need to be redesigned since the SM is now "ATV-derived"  The SM is not plug-and-play hardware.  Software will also be impacted.  That will increase cost to the CM beyond baseline and will also have some impact on schedule.

2.  Another possibility is that the SM will be built to LM specs.  Therefore it is no longer "ATV-derived" and there will be significant cost and time importing those specs/requirements, etc into ESA and their European vendors.  It will be essentially starting over, which of course impacts the CM because people (which costs money) will have to be kept busy why ESA accomplishes what has already been accomplished.  This coupled together increases total cost and has a negative impact on schedule.
...

I agree with Go4TLI, and there is an additional point to be made:

ESA wants to commit (although it is not in final form) to build *ONE* - yes ONE service module. For ONE flight. So the Orion program will just have to hope that ESA in a future decision will continue to fund more SMs, and not do what they did to the ATV line. And what happens if ESA does not want to continue after one SM?

This is such a terrible idea on so many levels.


Offline zodiacchris

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 116
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 120
  • Likes Given: 244
Obviously ESA is not going to build a one off, the idea is ludicrous. This is a great opportunity for ESA to get a foot in the door of MSF, and the SM will be an asset they can develop and continue to build and sell/barter. The european space industry is not that different from the US nobody spends the development dollars/euros and then just builds one. There are thousands of jobs in this, paid by European money, so they'll keep it going.
BTW, it is nt that the UK is going to build the SM on it's own, it's going to be the ususal joint venture, with a bit more UK involvement. If you look at Ariane the European system works, even if it is not super fast. But they do cancel less than NASA...

Overall a great development, but then I am Australian, and the national perspective is not that important to me. As long as we get out there and finaly get back to the moon!

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Obviously ESA is not going to build a one off, the idea is ludicrous.

Is it? Budgets are tight everywhere. My point is that ESA has shown a history of not building more than they commit to initially - see ATV.

The european space industry is not that different from the US nobody spends the development dollars/euros and then just builds one. There are thousands of jobs in this, paid by European money, so they'll keep it going.

Like ATV? Orion - if a successful program - will fly for decades. But it cannot have a partner on a crucial component pull out anytime when they find something "new" that they prefer to barter with instead.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6665
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2112
  • Likes Given: 613
I stand by my argument that because of this total cost will go up, schedule will move to the right and the risk of cancellation because of that has now just increased.
Members of this forum who have taken the time to read this thread and the (now locked) previous thread will have noticed that you have given your above statement at least five times now.

Those members will also be aware of the fact that I countered your arguments on more than one occasion. My main point being that your statement is based on assumption at best.

In short: How you think about this business is well known by now. I could consider your statement to be over-cooked by this time.
Repeating yourself over-and-over is not adding anything constructive to this thread, neither was it adding anything constructive to the previous one. Also: it will not change things happening around Orion right now.

Online Hyperion5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 1009
  • Likes Given: 195

I agree with Go4TLI, and there is an additional point to be made:

ESA wants to commit (although it is not in final form) to build *ONE* - yes ONE service module. For ONE flight. So the Orion program will just have to hope that ESA in a future decision will continue to fund more SMs, and not do what they did to the ATV line. And what happens if ESA does not want to continue after one SM?

I don't know if I'd be quite that pessimistic about the ESA's commitment.  When they committed to the ISS, they didn't build just one ATV.  Given the fact that the ESA eats up less budget percent-wise in Europe than NASA does in the US, it might actually be safer to have the ESA do this.  NASA currently is facing the prospect of the fiscal cliff and negotiations surrounding it.  The ESA's funding may be more stable in contrast. 


This is such a terrible idea on so many levels.

As opposed to what, adding to NASA's budget to fund a service module when everyone's focused on deficit reduction in the budget?  That would look like a rather tempting target to some Congressman and Senators who like to raid other parts of the NASA budget to fund their pet projects or other priorities like commercial space programs.  Both sides are facing tough fiscal times, but some of the ESA's supporters like Germany are facing far smaller deficits than the US is currently.  I'd have to say the fiscal risk is thus ironically probably greater if this were a US-funded service module. 

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6665
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2112
  • Likes Given: 613
Obviously ESA is not going to build a one off, the idea is ludicrous.

Is it? Budgets are tight everywhere. My point is that ESA has shown a history of not building more than they commit to initially - see ATV.
Your post goes to show just how ignorant you are. Originally ESA committed to only 3 ATV's. They upped that to five. Originally ESA committed to only 20 Ariane-4 launches. That skyrocketed to 113 Ariane-4 launches. Originally ESA committed to only two versions of Ariane-5 and 20 launches. There have been at least five versions of Ariane-5 now, with a sixth version coming, and over 60 launches. Originally ESA committed to only 2 Meteosats. There have now been more than ten. Originally ESA committed to only two environmental monitoring satellites. By now ESA has flown al whole fleet of those with new ones being developed and produced as we speak. And the list goes on.
One example from you, and badly interpreted at that, does not show "a history of not building more than they (ESA) commit to initially". 

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5030
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 3226
To me that statement is disingenuous. If you are against building a HLV than the American industry can still be strengthened by instead using the Falcon 9, Atlas V and Delta IV to supply fuel depots for missions beyond low earth orbit.
Absolutely. I think that was pretty much the 2nd Augustine commission view as well. But as we know this development path was the one *required* by Congress and written into law.
Quote
It was MPCV.
Noted. I hope that Spacex will recover *all* returned cargo Dragons and  succeed in convincing NASA to allow at least *some* reuse of the whole capsule.
"Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry Spencer 1/28/11  Averse to bold? You must be in marketing."It's all in the sequencing" K. Mattingly.  STS-Keeping most of the stakeholders happy most of the time.

Tags: