Is there any information about the dimensions of the Orion Service Module?? I am trying to make a 1\12 scale model of the system, for my collection, and I have only found a length, that says it is 15.8 feet long. This is a start, but, it does not give diameters of the inner cylinder and solar cell panels...etc... Can you help???Thank you so very much!!!
Here is a picture of the Service Module (the caption from ESA web site says model?) on the factory floor.
Here's a presentation on Orion's battery pack from that article.https://batteryworkshop.msfc.nasa.gov/presentations/01_Development%20of%20120V%20Batteries%20for%20ORION%20MPCV.pdfA Titanium spring was used as a solution to packing the batteries in a small volume.
Here are some more details on the service module from Mr. Bill Hill during the Human Exploration and Operations Committee of the NASA Advisory Council on July 28th:http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc/#.VcI93vmm2u8a PDF of ther power point from his talk is at:http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/2-Hill-Exploration-Systems-Development-Status-ESD-Status-NAC_Hill-July-28_Final.pdf Note that the Gant chart shows the integration of the SM with the CSM in February of 2017.and I posted pages 2, 7 and 8 from the presentation.
I know this is short notice, but I will be attending the event today and if anyone has any questions for me to ask, let me know.
Doesn't appear to be reading from a script. Very good speech by the lawmaker. Clearly a Plum Brook fan.
Quote from: Codemaster on 11/30/2015 01:23 PMI know this is short notice, but I will be attending the event today and if anyone has any questions for me to ask, let me know.Excellent. Okay, here's two questions to request offhand:1) Does ESA have a specific date when the service module for the Orion of EM-1 shall be built and ready?2) Is the delta-v budget capability for Orion's service module still roughly 1.4 km/s or has that changed?
Plum Brook Welcomes Orion’s PowerhousePublished on Nov 30, 2015An event on Nov. 30 at NASA’s Plum Brook Station facility in Sandusky, Ohio marked the arrival of a full-size test version of the service module provided by the European Space Agency (ESA) for NASA’s Orion spacecraft.
Quote from: catdlr on 11/30/2015 09:55 PMPlum Brook Welcomes Orion’s PowerhousePublished on Nov 30, 2015An event on Nov. 30 at NASA’s Plum Brook Station facility in Sandusky, Ohio marked the arrival of a full-size test version of the service module provided by the European Space Agency (ESA) for NASA’s Orion spacecraft.Maybe it's just the expected overhead that comes with government programs, but in the private sector I never remember having a ceremony when we received test equipment from a sub-contractor...
And here's Cody's article!http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/12/nasa-testing-orions-european-service-module/
They will be simulating sep and solar array deploy at the facility.
Orion won't be cancelled anyway, it's essential for going BEO.
Quote from: Oli on 12/02/2015 11:02 AMOrion won't be cancelled anyway, it's essential for going BEO.I am sure some would think you could do a very nice all-American BEO vehicle based on Dragon. Or CST-100.
Not sure why some people think the SM was outsourced to ESA to protect Orion from cancellation. The contract is only for EM-1.Orion won't be cancelled anyway, it's essential for going BEO.
Quote from: hektor on 12/02/2015 11:15 AMQuote from: Oli on 12/02/2015 11:02 AMOrion won't be cancelled anyway, it's essential for going BEO.I am sure some would think you could do a very nice all-American BEO vehicle based on Dragon. Or CST-100.... Or the fact that NASA organized commercial crew for access to LEO instead of using Orion.Sure NASA could organize a competition for a BEO capsule, but I'm sure Lockheed would win easily due to the headstart they have.
Quote from: Oli on 12/02/2015 12:17 PMQuote from: hektor on 12/02/2015 11:15 AMQuote from: Oli on 12/02/2015 11:02 AMOrion won't be cancelled anyway, it's essential for going BEO.I am sure some would think you could do a very nice all-American BEO vehicle based on Dragon. Or CST-100.... Or the fact that NASA organized commercial crew for access to LEO instead of using Orion.Sure NASA could organize a competition for a BEO capsule, but I'm sure Lockheed would win easily due to the headstart they have.Orion was not tasked for LEO transport because it was too big and too heavy. So NASA turned to the commercial world. *They had no choice* There was no American launch vehicle - that could be human rated - capable of lifting it. The hell of it is that Orion was originally designed just that way - so only the Ares could lift it, thus forcing Congress to pay for the Ares. That was Mike Griffin's doing.And if Lockheed could easily win, then why did they decline to bid?
The service module was outsourced to the ESA because NASA had priced itself out of the ability to build it themselves.Bottom line: NASA couldn't build it but without it there would be no Orion. ESA was the only way out of the corner they had painted themselves into.
Quote from: clongton on 12/02/2015 10:17 PMQuote from: Oli on 12/02/2015 12:17 PMQuote from: hektor on 12/02/2015 11:15 AMQuote from: Oli on 12/02/2015 11:02 AMOrion won't be cancelled anyway, it's essential for going BEO.I am sure some would think you could do a very nice all-American BEO vehicle based on Dragon. Or CST-100.... Or the fact that NASA organized commercial crew for access to LEO instead of using Orion.Sure NASA could organize a competition for a BEO capsule, but I'm sure Lockheed would win easily due to the headstart they have.Orion was not tasked for LEO transport because it was too big and too heavy. So NASA turned to the commercial world. *They had no choice* There was no American launch vehicle - that could be human rated - capable of lifting it. The hell of it is that Orion was originally designed just that way - so only the Ares could lift it, thus forcing Congress to pay for the Ares. That was Mike Griffin's doing.And if Lockheed could easily win, then why did they decline to bid?Orion is big and heavy because it goes to the Moon and back. A Dragon modified for that purpose would be equally big and heavy.
Quote from: Oli on 12/03/2015 01:04 AMQuote from: clongton on 12/02/2015 10:17 PMQuote from: Oli on 12/02/2015 12:17 PMQuote from: hektor on 12/02/2015 11:15 AMQuote from: Oli on 12/02/2015 11:02 AMOrion won't be cancelled anyway, it's essential for going BEO.I am sure some would think you could do a very nice all-American BEO vehicle based on Dragon. Or CST-100.... Or the fact that NASA organized commercial crew for access to LEO instead of using Orion.Sure NASA could organize a competition for a BEO capsule, but I'm sure Lockheed would win easily due to the headstart they have.Orion was not tasked for LEO transport because it was too big and too heavy. So NASA turned to the commercial world. *They had no choice* There was no American launch vehicle - that could be human rated - capable of lifting it. The hell of it is that Orion was originally designed just that way - so only the Ares could lift it, thus forcing Congress to pay for the Ares. That was Mike Griffin's doing.And if Lockheed could easily win, then why did they decline to bid?Orion is big and heavy because it goes to the Moon and back. A Dragon modified for that purpose would be equally big and heavy.Emphasis mine.Very bold assumption for someone who does not actually work for SpaceX.
Orion was built heavy on purpose but it wasn't actually necessary. NASA wanted a capsule that could be used in space for 3 weeks without a habitat. It's also larger than it needs to be which means that it can't be lifted by an Atlas V.
Let's not forget that NASA is not monolithic in thought, and that NASA was originally pursuing a completely different design for Orion when Lockheed Martin was awarded the contract for a delta-winged vehicle.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/03/2015 12:42 PMQuote from: Oli on 12/03/2015 01:04 AMQuote from: clongton on 12/02/2015 10:17 PMQuote from: Oli on 12/02/2015 12:17 PMQuote from: hektor on 12/02/2015 11:15 AMQuote from: Oli on 12/02/2015 11:02 AMOrion won't be cancelled anyway, it's essential for going BEO.I am sure some would think you could do a very nice all-American BEO vehicle based on Dragon. Or CST-100.... Or the fact that NASA organized commercial crew for access to LEO instead of using Orion.Sure NASA could organize a competition for a BEO capsule, but I'm sure Lockheed would win easily due to the headstart they have.Orion was not tasked for LEO transport because it was too big and too heavy. So NASA turned to the commercial world. *They had no choice* There was no American launch vehicle - that could be human rated - capable of lifting it. The hell of it is that Orion was originally designed just that way - so only the Ares could lift it, thus forcing Congress to pay for the Ares. That was Mike Griffin's doing.And if Lockheed could easily win, then why did they decline to bid?Orion is big and heavy because it goes to the Moon and back. A Dragon modified for that purpose would be equally big and heavy.Emphasis mine.Very bold assumption for someone who does not actually work for SpaceX.Why? Assuming equal requirements, is there something that would magically make Dragon less heavy?
You make the mistake of assuming that SpaceX would, under equal requirements, come up with the same behemoth vehicle that NASA forced onto LockMart.
LM winning proposal for CEV was based on a delta winged lifting body. http://www.space.com/1088-florida-hopes-host-cev-construction.html
Quote from: woods170 on 12/03/2015 06:26 PMYou make the mistake of assuming that SpaceX would, under equal requirements, come up with the same behemoth vehicle that NASA forced onto LockMart.I don't get it. So you think NASA forced the "behemoth" on Lockheed but would not force it on SpaceX? What's your argument again?The lunar Dragon from the Evolvable Lunar Architecture by the way is almost as heavy as Orion, all things included, and can only keep a crew of 4 alive for 14 days (not that I trust the study, but its the only one I know of).
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Orion
Quote from: hektor on 12/04/2015 01:39 PMhttp://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/OrionIt looks like they didn't get the memo about the shiny coating on the capsule.
Quote from: Oli on 12/03/2015 06:57 PMQuote from: woods170 on 12/03/2015 06:26 PMYou make the mistake of assuming that SpaceX would, under equal requirements, come up with the same behemoth vehicle that NASA forced onto LockMart.I don't get it. So you think NASA forced the "behemoth" on Lockheed but would not force it on SpaceX? What's your argument again?The lunar Dragon from the Evolvable Lunar Architecture by the way is almost as heavy as Orion, all things included, and can only keep a crew of 4 alive for 14 days (not that I trust the study, but its the only one I know of).Two major flaws with your argument:- Orion and Lunar Dragon cannot be compared as apples-to-apples: Orion does not carry it's LAS all the way to lunar orbit. That add's quite a bit of mass to Dragon.- No actual input for the Evolvable Lunar Architecture actually came from SpaceX, so all mass figures for the Lunar Dragon, including those of the required modifications are to be taken with quite a bit of salt.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/04/2015 08:06 AMTwo major flaws with your argument:- Orion and Lunar Dragon cannot be compared as apples-to-apples: Orion does not carry it's LAS all the way to lunar orbit. That add's quite a bit of mass to Dragon.- No actual input for the Evolvable Lunar Architecture actually came from SpaceX, so all mass figures for the Lunar Dragon, including those of the required modifications are to be taken with quite a bit of salt.- Dragon's LAS engines and fuel are used for LLO insertion/departure.- I agree, the cost projections are silly and they assume 324s of ISP for the SuperDracos, so I don't trust the study at all. Too "optimistic".
Two major flaws with your argument:- Orion and Lunar Dragon cannot be compared as apples-to-apples: Orion does not carry it's LAS all the way to lunar orbit. That add's quite a bit of mass to Dragon.- No actual input for the Evolvable Lunar Architecture actually came from SpaceX, so all mass figures for the Lunar Dragon, including those of the required modifications are to be taken with quite a bit of salt.
Quote from: Oli on 12/05/2015 04:18 PMQuote from: woods170 on 12/04/2015 08:06 AMTwo major flaws with your argument:- Orion and Lunar Dragon cannot be compared as apples-to-apples: Orion does not carry it's LAS all the way to lunar orbit. That add's quite a bit of mass to Dragon.- No actual input for the Evolvable Lunar Architecture actually came from SpaceX, so all mass figures for the Lunar Dragon, including those of the required modifications are to be taken with quite a bit of salt.- Dragon's LAS engines and fuel are used for LLO insertion/departure.- I agree, the cost projections are silly and they assume 324s of ISP for the SuperDracos, so I don't trust the study at all. Too "optimistic".Have you even bothered to read that study properly?- If you had you would have noticed that LLO insertion is not done by Dragon's LAS engines but by the still-attached Falcon 9 second stage.- LLO departure (aka Trans Earth Injection) is done by Dragon's LAS engines using propellants being drawn from a second attached trunk.- The propellants stored in the Dragon service module (Dragon's own, internal propellant supply) is exclusively reserved for LAS duties and Earth propulsive landing. So my point, that Dragon carries it's LAS systems (including the needed propellants) all the way to the moon and back to Earth again, stands. It also means that comparing lunar Orion and lunar Dragon on weight alone is not apples-to-apples.
- The propellants stored in the Dragon service module (Dragon's own, internal propellant supply) is exclusively reserved for LAS duties and Earth propulsive landing.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/07/2015 06:33 AM- The propellants stored in the Dragon service module (Dragon's own, internal propellant supply) is exclusively reserved for LAS duties and Earth propulsive landing.This is incorrect. Once launch is successful, what would have been used for LAS (all of it) is split up between mission propulsion needs (orbit/trajectory adjustment and attitude) and propulsive landing. There is no separate propellant supply for the Draco thrusters.
Quote from: Lars-J on 12/07/2015 06:29 PMQuote from: woods170 on 12/07/2015 06:33 AM- The propellants stored in the Dragon service module (Dragon's own, internal propellant supply) is exclusively reserved for LAS duties and Earth propulsive landing.This is incorrect. Once launch is successful, what would have been used for LAS (all of it) is split up between mission propulsion needs (orbit/trajectory adjustment and attitude) and propulsive landing. There is no separate propellant supply for the Draco thrusters.No. In the quoted study it is assumed that the propellant in the service module is reserved for LAS and Earth landing duties.It does not matter if this not actually the case. What matters is what assumptions are made in the study.
Quote from: woods170 on 12/07/2015 09:11 PMQuote from: Lars-J on 12/07/2015 06:29 PMQuote from: woods170 on 12/07/2015 06:33 AM- The propellants stored in the Dragon service module (Dragon's own, internal propellant supply) is exclusively reserved for LAS duties and Earth propulsive landing.This is incorrect. Once launch is successful, what would have been used for LAS (all of it) is split up between mission propulsion needs (orbit/trajectory adjustment and attitude) and propulsive landing. There is no separate propellant supply for the Draco thrusters.No. In the quoted study it is assumed that the propellant in the service module is reserved for LAS and Earth landing duties.It does not matter if this not actually the case. What matters is what assumptions are made in the study.Then the assumptions are wrong, and the study is questionable. How can propellant be reserved for LAS duties when the launch has already happened?
Quote from: Lars-J on 12/08/2015 04:28 AMQuote from: woods170 on 12/07/2015 09:11 PMQuote from: Lars-J on 12/07/2015 06:29 PMQuote from: woods170 on 12/07/2015 06:33 AM- The propellants stored in the Dragon service module (Dragon's own, internal propellant supply) is exclusively reserved for LAS duties and Earth propulsive landing.This is incorrect. Once launch is successful, what would have been used for LAS (all of it) is split up between mission propulsion needs (orbit/trajectory adjustment and attitude) and propulsive landing. There is no separate propellant supply for the Draco thrusters.No. In the quoted study it is assumed that the propellant in the service module is reserved for LAS and Earth landing duties.It does not matter if this not actually the case. What matters is what assumptions are made in the study.Then the assumptions are wrong, and the study is questionable. How can propellant be reserved for LAS duties when the launch has already happened?Launch escape requires ~300m/s. Landing 200m/s according to the study and deorbiting probably ~100m/s. It does add up.
FINALLY! A decent shot of the ESM all buttoned-up. About time.
So far so good - at least the solar arrays from ESA work fine. If life support and thrusters can do as well the Orion will be nearly ready to fly.
“That broad movement meant we had to design the wing with thickened solar panels and reinforced hinges and beams, which required extensive testing,” says Arnaud de Jong, head of the Airbus Defence and Space Solar Array team in Leiden, the Netherlands. The wing tips are expected to deflect more than a metre. A camera on each wing tip, looking back at the spacecraft, will closely monitor the movement....http://blogs.esa.int/orion/2016/03/01/testing-solar-array/
What are those dark rectangular structures placed between the solar cells?
Quote from: Hobbes-22 on 05/21/2016 09:26 AMWhat are those dark rectangular structures placed between the solar cells? Its likely where the array is held together for launch
Quick question: Why do we call it the "European Service Module" instead of just the "Orion Service Module"? We don't say "American Orion Capsule" and "American SLS Upper Stage" or whatever.
Quote from: Arcas on 05/23/2016 05:21 PMQuick question: Why do we call it the "European Service Module" instead of just the "Orion Service Module"? We don't say "American Orion Capsule" and "American SLS Upper Stage" or whatever.I am guessing it is because I think there is only a contract to supply the ESM for just the first mission. While unlikely, this does leave the option open for for it to be replaced down the road with an American version. I suspect the ESM will continue to be supplied as needed for further missions once the details and timing of those get finalized.http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/mpcv/orion_feature_011613.html
Quote from: Arcas on 05/23/2016 05:21 PMQuick question: Why do we call it the "European Service Module" instead of just the "Orion Service Module"? We don't say "American Orion Capsule" and "American SLS Upper Stage" or whatever.The Orion Service Module design is based on ESA's Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) spacecraft, and is not a NASA design.So since it's based on a European design, it's called the European Service Module. No doubt if it was NASA designed and U.S. built, it would just be called the "Service Module".
I disagree. Arrays which can be canted during engine boosts are pretty non standard (see Orion EM-1 youtube video).
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 05/24/2016 02:08 AMQuote from: Arcas on 05/23/2016 05:21 PMQuick question: Why do we call it the "European Service Module" instead of just the "Orion Service Module"? We don't say "American Orion Capsule" and "American SLS Upper Stage" or whatever.The Orion Service Module design is based on ESA's Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) spacecraft, and is not a NASA design.So since it's based on a European design, it's called the European Service Module. No doubt if it was NASA designed and U.S. built, it would just be called the "Service Module".Yes, obviously, but why? Why does Europe and NASA have to specify it. If NASA isn't slapping "American" on the title of everything they build, why does Europe have to.
Quote from: Arcas on 05/23/2016 05:21 PMQuick question: Why do we call it the "European Service Module" instead of just the "Orion Service Module"? We don't say "American Orion Capsule" and "American SLS Upper Stage" or whatever.This is to differentiate the ESA-designed and -supplied module from the presumptive American Service Module that I'm guessing is supposed to fly from EM-3 onwards.
For people living in Ohio or nearby, NASA Plum Brook Station is having an open house this weekend. Visitors will be able to visit their test facilities and see directly the Orion STA Service Module currently being tested there.More information here: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-glenn-s-plum-brook-station-invites-the-public-to-visitSent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 06/01/2016 08:46 PMQuote from: Arcas on 05/23/2016 05:21 PMQuick question: Why do we call it the "European Service Module" instead of just the "Orion Service Module"? We don't say "American Orion Capsule" and "American SLS Upper Stage" or whatever.This is to differentiate the ESA-designed and -supplied module from the presumptive American Service Module that I'm guessing is supposed to fly from EM-3 onwards.Sorry, but no. That is not even remotely the case.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/11/2016 11:01 AMQuote from: Ben the Space Brit on 06/01/2016 08:46 PMQuote from: Arcas on 05/23/2016 05:21 PMQuick question: Why do we call it the "European Service Module" instead of just the "Orion Service Module"? We don't say "American Orion Capsule" and "American SLS Upper Stage" or whatever.This is to differentiate the ESA-designed and -supplied module from the presumptive American Service Module that I'm guessing is supposed to fly from EM-3 onwards.Sorry, but no. That is not even remotely the case.Okay, then; if I'm wrong, what's the right answer?
There is only one little issue with your nice scenario : that the real decision makers, the ESA member states, go along. They are notorious for preferring development to recurring production. See ATV which died after the fifth copy.
Europe’s Orion service module shipment to U.S. delayed by three months
>Quote from: hektor on 06/19/2016 09:28 AMEurope’s Orion service module shipment to U.S. delayed by three months Oh, for the love of...
Prior to the ATV, ESA had no experience with man-rated craft, so this was actually a really important development for them (which has served to generate knowledge useful for the ESV).
Quote from: Jet Black on 06/20/2016 09:33 AMPrior to the ATV, ESA had no experience with man-rated craft, so this was actually a really important development for them (which has served to generate knowledge useful for the ESV). Though they got some knowledge about man-rating from Spacelabs, no?
Quote from: hektor on 06/12/2016 07:04 PMThere is only one little issue with your nice scenario : that the real decision makers, the ESA member states, go along. They are notorious for preferring development to recurring production. See ATV which died after the fifth copy.Prior to the ATV, ESA had no experience with man-rated craft, so this was actually a really important development for them (which has served to generate knowledge useful for the ESV).
It is good to see ESA and Airbus are taking their job seriously. It is great to see the ESM taking shape.A thought: how greatly will the service module for the crewed EM-2 mission differ from this initial EM-1 module?
Quote from: redliox on 09/02/2016 09:16 PMIt is good to see ESA and Airbus are taking their job seriously. It is great to see the ESM taking shape.A thought: how greatly will the service module for the crewed EM-2 mission differ from this initial EM-1 module?Great question, one that I am interested in as well.
Flight experience will likely account for additional modifications to the EM-2 flight model.
Quote from: woods170 on 09/14/2016 07:35 AMFlight experience will likely account for additional modifications to the EM-2 flight model.Except that when EM-1 will fly, the EM-2 ESM will most probably be in late assembly stage.No room for design changes at that point, except for small local tweaks...
Quote from: SgtPoivre on 09/14/2016 09:05 AMQuote from: woods170 on 09/14/2016 07:35 AMFlight experience will likely account for additional modifications to the EM-2 flight model.Except that when EM-1 will fly, the EM-2 ESM will most probably be in late assembly stage.No room for design changes at that point, except for small local tweaks...Hmm good point, but hard to say. Considering EM-2 is scheduled for 2023....
#orionesm's propellant tank successfully underwent vibration test! Find out more about @NASA_Orion on the blog: http://orionesm.airbusdefenceandspace.com @esa
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 1m1 minute ago[Billl] Hill: delivery date for European Service Module for Orion “continues to erode”.
Quote Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 1m1 minute ago[Billl] Hill: delivery date for European Service Module for Orion “continues to erode”.https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/847058569635774464
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 7m7 minutes agoHill says Airbus having problems getting vendors to supply components for the service module on time; that’s contributing to overall delay.
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust 6m6 minutes agoHill: software being delivered on time, but some functionality deferred from one version to the next.
Set to be shipped to the USA around the New Year, ESA’s contribution to NASA’s Orion spacecraft is taking shape at Airbus in Bremen, Germany. This is no test article: the service module pictured here will fly into space by 2020, past the Moon and farther than any other human-rated spacecraft has ever flown before.The service module will supply electricity, water, oxygen and nitrogen, propulsion and temperature control.The blue circular frame is the support structure that holds the module as technicians work to get it ready. Yellow ties keep the 11 km of wiring in place as the thousands of components are installed and connected – the ties will be removed before flight. Behind the red support covers are the eight 490 N R-4D-11 thrusters, built by Aerojet.Technicians are working in three shifts a day to assemble the components that are being shipped from all over Europe to complete this service module in just a few months’ time. In December it will be taken by road to Bremen airport and flown to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida to meet its crew capsule.
https://twitter.com/AirbusSpace/status/898455783930834945
European Service Module StructureIn a series of blog posts based on images taken at the Thales Alenia Space facility in Turin, Italy, we will now have a look at part of Orion’s structure.This tank bulkhead made of aluminium forms the top platform of the second European Service Module – the one that will fly with astronauts. It is almost 5 metres in diameter.These pictures show work on the top bulkhead that is located inside the Crew Module Adapter directly under the Crew Module Heat Shield of Orion’s second exploration missionThe bulkhead is a key part of the primary structure providing structural rigidity to the Orion spacecraft much like the chassis of a car. It absorbs the vibrations and energy from launch.The round holes in the bulkhead allow for tanks to poke through. The four larger holes are for tanks that each hold 2000 l of propellant while the four smaller holes are for three oxygen tanks, and one nitrogen tank.In the middle of the structure is a square opening for cabling, and helium tanks, more on this part in another blog entry tomorrow…
5 Dec 2017Orion’s European Service Module “Wall” PanelsIn a series of blog posts based on images taken at Thales Alenia Space building facility in Turin, Italy, we will have a look at the vertical panels that form part of Orion’s European Service Module primary structure, these images show work on the second service module that will propel astronauts beyond the Moon and provide essentials such as water, air, electricity and power.The black panels are prepared on a table before being installed into the Service Module vertically. They are made of a lightweight composite material known as carbon-fibre reinforced-plastic. The honeycomb structure provides rigidity while keeping weight down.The large holes when installed keep the weight down even more but also allow the technicians and engineers access to the mass of meticulously laid cables to be installed – over 11 km in total! The silver circles are mounting points for equipment and cables. Most of these will be installed in Bremen, Germany, at the Airbus integration hall where the complete service module is assembled.Inside the four panels two helium tanks will be installed that will be used to push propellant to Orion’s engines during its mission.Brackets for holding the tank bulkheads (discussed in this blog post) are already attached to the bottom bulkhead and ready for installing the top bulkhead. In the photo below the engineers are standing in the hole that allows room for the propellant tanks.These images show the beginnings of the spacecraft structure that will send human beings further from Earth than ever before – we will keep you updated in more blog posts.
6 Dec 2017Orion Service Module-2 Structure CompleteWrapping up our blog entries on the frame of the second European Service module for Orion, these pictures show the completed internal structure for Flight Model-2. It will support up to four astronauts and send them further than any human being has ever been from Earth in a few years.The pictures show the two circular tank bulkheads in place, bolted to the vertical panels. The top ring will attach to the Crew Module Adapter that connects the Orion capsule to the service module.The pictures were taken at the Thales Alenia Space facility in Turin, Italy, in November 2017.This structure can be seen as the chassis of the Orion spacecraft, providing structural rigidity while absorbing vibrations and energy from launch.The holes are to save weight and accommodate future payloads. It will also hold all the other elements together such as the spacecraft’s thrusters, water tanks, fuel tanks, gas tanks, electronics and wires.The top bulkhead is thicker as it handles more loads. Orion’s storage tanks are supported from the top bulkhead which distributes the forces from 9 tonnes of propellant between the European Service Module structure and NASA structures such as the Crew Module Adapter and the launcher fairing, while the lower platform “only” provides support to prevent the tanks from swinging.
European Service Module (ESM)Shipment of ESM-1 to the US is scheduled not earlier than March 2018 with a risk of further delays mainly because of delayed supplier deliveries. There are no margins in the ESM schedule so any problems in manufacturing, integration and test activities on the critical path may result in further delay. The critical path is driven by the high-pressure gas valves delivery from a US supplier but several other pieces of equipment are just behind them. The functional test model was delivered and accepted in May by NASA/Lockheed Martin.The procurement and manufacturing of ESM-2 hardware was authorised to maintain the schedule, while the qualification of the design is not complete and waivers are not all processed. This risk is controlled by the project through risk assessment at each of the equipment Manufacturing Readiness Reviews. For ESM-3, studies are ongoing to assess the design upgrades requested by NASA.
http://www.esa.int/About_Us/ESA_Publications/ESA_Bulletin_171_3rd_quarterFrom ESA Bulletin 171 (3rd quarter 2017) page 66QuoteEuropean Service Module (ESM)Shipment of ESM-1 to the US is scheduled not earlier than March 2018 with a risk of further delays mainly because of delayed supplier deliveries. There are no margins in the ESM schedule so any problems in manufacturing, integration and test activities on the critical path may result in further delay. The critical path is driven by the high-pressure gas valves delivery from a US supplier but several other pieces of equipment are just behind them. The functional test model was delivered and accepted in May by NASA/Lockheed Martin.The procurement and manufacturing of ESM-2 hardware was authorised to maintain the schedule, while the qualification of the design is not complete and waivers are not all processed. This risk is controlled by the project through risk assessment at each of the equipment Manufacturing Readiness Reviews. For ESM-3, studies are ongoing to assess the design upgrades requested by NASA.
For ESM-3, studies are ongoing to assess the design upgrades requested by NASA.
QuoteFor ESM-3, studies are ongoing to assess the design upgrades requested by NASA.Is this the first time we officially here of ESM-3 or did I miss something?
Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle/European Service Modules (ESMs)Shipment of ESM1 to the US is scheduled for April 2018 despite issues with supplier deliveries. The propulsion qualification test campaign was interrupted by the damage of the test article (two reaction control thrusters). The anomaly is being investigated and a recovery plan developed. There is no impact to the FM integration activity schedule.A challenge to the delivery of equipment for ESM2 by dates committed to by the subcontractor is being resolved. NASA moved the ESM2 on-dock at Kennedy Space Center to September 2019.The Phase-A for the design upgrades began on 1 September. The design consolidation review is planned for early 2018.Studies to inform the identification of the Complementary Barter and the potential ESA contributions to the NASA Deep Space Gateway are continuing.
The 4⃣ tanks for @NASA_Orion service module in our cleanroom for integration into the ESM. 🚀🛢️🛢️🛢️🛢️@esaspaceflight @esa #BehindTheScenesorionesm.airbusdefenceandspace.com
ESM propellant tank integration is currently taking place in our cleanroom in Bremen 🇩🇪.#DYK each tank 🛢️ can contain about 2.000 litres of propellant.
Quote from: _INTER_ on 01/21/2018 12:42 PMQuoteFor ESM-3, studies are ongoing to assess the design upgrades requested by NASA.Is this the first time we officially here of ESM-3 or did I miss something?No, was mentioned in L2 posts, as well as in ESA bulletin, several months ago.
Not to worry. Without the plungers, they are harmless.