Orion Service Module

[RocketDoc]

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!!!

[Jim]

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!!!

With the work going over to ESA, it is has not completed its design reviews.

[RocketDoc]

I thank you so very much!!!

[fregate]

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!!!

Did you try to look at ATV drawings - ESA may decide to re-use the same geometry

[simpl simon]

The ESM design is substantially different to ATV. ESM is designed for a completely different mission. See attached file, with the provisos that:
- as Jim said, ESM has not completed its design reviews. In fact, it is currently undergoing PDR.
- The formal industry proposal for the complete development (Phase C/D in ESA jargon) has not yet been submitted, so the technical baseline is still a bit fuzzy.
- the attached information is about 1 year old.
- with any luck, ESA might release more info after the Phase C/D contract is awarded.

[RocketDoc]

Those dimensions seem to be good for now... I thank you, andplease, keep us informed,a nd I will do the same if I acquire any more information!!

[BrightLight]

Here is a picture of the Service Module (the caption from ESA web site says model?) on the factory floor.

"23 May 2014
ESA is a step closer to building the future of human spaceflight and exploration in Europe by completing the preliminary design review of Europe’s Service Module for NASA’s Orion vehicle to send astronauts beyond low orbit. Europe is contributing the Service Module and expertise to the Orion multipurpose crew vehicle with flight-proven technology used on ESA’s series of Automated Transfer Vehicle supply spacecraft. "
from:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/ATV/European_Orion_milestone_leads_to_detailed_design

[RocketDoc]

Ok, Thanks for the info so far, I have managed to get the basic dimensions I need for the SM. Now, finding dimensions for the LAS are rather vague. I know it is 36" in diameter, but, I do not know the length of the powered portion, the escape jettison, the nose cone etc... I need a bit more details , so I can make an accurate scale model of that subsystem, along with my complete model.

Thanks again for all of your help. When I get this completed, I will take some pictures and upload them here. I may offer detailed plans sometime later, depending how they turn out.

Thanks Millions folks for your help!!!

Kim Currier

[Remes]

Here is a picture of the Service Module (the caption from ESA web site says model?) on the factory floor.

This is only a mock up for eft 1, build by nasa/LM. It is not a SM at all, as DIV/Orion is making all the propulsion, no life support, etc.

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2014/05/EFT-1_Service_Module

"A working service module is not required for this test so instead NASA contractor Lockheed Martin built an adapter derived from the structural design of the service module to attach the Orion test model to its launcher."

[Prober]

Didn't find a quick Orion updates this article covers a lot of material
just bumped into it today in the electronics newsletter.   Not seen some of these drawings 

NASA Orion electronics: Celestial “hunter” seeking our originhttp://tinyurl.com/ngjqxqc

[Steven Pietrobon]

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.pdf

A Titanium spring was used as a solution to packing the batteries in a small volume.

[woods170]

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.pdf

A Titanium spring was used as a solution to packing the batteries in a small volume.

With regards to this battery: it's located in the Crew Module, not in the Service Module.

[Downix]

I have now seen three different SM designs. The ESA module is, so I have been told, significantly different from the original SM design, so information I had on the other SM's is now effectively useless.

[eeergo]

5 November 2014
 ESA has awarded a contract to Airbus Defence and Space to develop and build the service module for Orion, NASA’s new crewed spacecraft. It is the first time that Europe will provide system-critical elements for a US space project.   
 To celebrate the signing of the contract, you are cordially invited to a press briefing on Monday 17 November at 14:00 CET at the State Representative Office of the Free Hanseatic City of Bremen, located at Hiroshimastrasse 24, 10785 Berlin, Germany.
 The press conference will feature:
 – Brigitte Zypries, Parliamentary State Secretary and Federal Govern-ment Coordinator of German Aerospace Policy,
 – Mark S. Geyer, NASA Orion Program Manager,
 – Martin Günthner, Senator for Business, Labour and Ports of the Free Hanseatic City of Bremen,
 – Thomas Reiter, ESA Director of Human Spaceflight and Operations,
 – Rolf Densing, Director of ESA Space Programmes at the German Aerospace Center (DLR) (invited),
 – Bart Reijnen, Head of Orbital Systems and Space Exploration at Airbus Defence and Space.
 Registration
 Please sign up for the press conference via Airbus Defence and Space by email: presse@astrium.eads.net or telephone: +49 421 539 5326 before 11 November.

http://www.esa.int/For_Media/Press_Releases/Call_for_Media_Signing_of_the_Orion_Service_Module_industrial_contract2

[jacqmans]

Translated from German:

Press Release dated November 17, 2014

ATV technology for the new Orion space capsule:
390 million euro contract secures expertise of German aerospace industry

The Russian cargo and drive module "Zarya" - German for "Sunrise" - began on 20 November 1998, the construction of the International Space Station. The ISS is now the largest and most complex research laboratory in space, a unique and
unique test environment for scientific and technological experiments in weightlessness.

Germany is about 40 percent of the development and operating costs largest European ISS partners. The ATV (Automated Transfer Vehicle) is the European supply vehicle for the ISS. All five are in ATV "Airbus Defence and Space"
been built in Bremen. The last room of this series freighter docked on August 12, 2014, the ISS, to leave the space station in February 2015 and then burn up in the Earth's atmosphere. But the developed technologies for the ATV
are not lost. They flow in the European Service Module ESM for the new US space capsule Orion, which is to explore space beyond low-Earth orbit and the ISS.

"NASA speaks to us with this offer from a great confidence We ask the ESM for the first time a critical component for future NASA missions -. And indeed for manned and unmanned missions," said Dr. Rolf Densing, ESA's Director of Programmes
in the space management of the Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR). Thus, the technical know-how in Germany remain not only maintained, but could even be expanded. "This is for us a clear option for the future. The ESM is
a meaningful continuation of the begun with the ISS cooperation with new accents ", so Densing on. In addition to scientific experiments could at longer exploration missions, technologies such as life-support systems are tested
- For planetary scientists to interesting new research areas and objectives could open for the astronautical space also.

With the development and construction of the service module for the Orion capsule, the European Space Agency ESA has commissioned the aerospace company "Airbus Defence and Space" on Nov. 17, 2014. The contract for 390 million Euros have, Thomas Reiter,
ESA Director of Human Spaceflight and Operations, and Bart Reijnen, head of Orbital Systems and Space Exploration at "Airbus Defence and Space" in Bremen, in the presence of Brigitte Zypries, Parliamentary State Secretary, Federal Ministry of Economics
and coordinator for the aerospace, signed in Berlin. The service module for propulsion, power supply, thermal control, and storage essential supplies such as water and oxygen for the American capsule
responsible.

The first flight of the Orion space capsule with the European service module is planned for 2017/2018. It is an unmanned flight to the moon and back. If the NASA exercise the option for a second ESM, should the second mission from 2020/2021
control a previously captured asteroid with astronauts on board and bring back specimens. After the release of system designs for the service module in May 2014. Now the detailed definition phase has begun, the first hardware is built.

Orion and the European Service Module

The US space capsule Orion is designed for manned missions to the moon, asteroids and for missions in the depths of space. Developed for NASA and builds "Lockheed Martin Space Systems" the space capsule for four or
more astronauts. For the drive and the energy supply and storage of important supplies such as water and oxygen to the care based on ATV technology European Service Module ESM. Together form the capsule and the Orion
ESM the multifunction spacecraft MPCV (Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle). On December 4, 2014, a first suborbital test flight of an unmanned Orion capsule on a US Delta IV Heavy rocket is planned - with a dummy service module.
Using the ESM, the MPCV could the international space station ISS fly.

[BrightLight]

Components of Orion's Service Module are being tested:
crew module adapter structural test article:
https://blogs.nasa.gov/orion/2015/07/24/engineers-begin-testing-elements-for-orion-service-module/

[jacqmans]

August 04, 2015
MEDIA ADVISORY M15-116

NASA Invites Media to Orion Spacecraft Parachute Test in Arizona
 
NASA is inviting media to attend a test of the Orion spacecraft’s parachutes on Wednesday, Aug. 26 at the U.S. Army’s Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. An engineering model of the spacecraft will drop from an airplane 35,000 feet up to evaluate how it fares when the parachute system does not perform as expected.

During the test, Orion engineers will carry out a scenario in which one of the spacecraft’s two drogue parachutes and one of its three main parachutes fail. This high-risk assessment is the penultimate drop test of the scheduled engineering evaluations leading up to next year’s tests to qualify the parachute system for crewed flights.

Media will have the opportunity to interview Orion engineers, see the model up close and view the test from the drop zone. To attend, media must contact Rachel Kraft at rachel.h.kraft@nasa.gov by noon EDT Wednesday, Aug. 12.

Orion’s parachutes, critical to the safe return of the spacecraft to Earth, performed flawlessly during the spacecraft’s uncrewed flight test in December 2014, helping slow the capsule from its high-speed re-entry through Earth’s atmosphere from approximately 20,000 mph to about 20 mph when the spacecraft splashed down in the Pacific Ocean.

The Orion spacecraft is built to take humans farther than they’ve ever gone before, including to an asteroid and Mars. The spacecraft will serve as the exploration vehicle that carrier crews to space, provides emergency abort capabilities, sustains the crew during space travel, and provides safe re-entry from deep space. Orion will launch on NASA’s new heavy-lift rocket, the Space Launch System.

For more information about the Orion spacecraft, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/orion

[BrightLight]

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/#.VcI93vmm2u8

a 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.

[woods170]

Official ESA reporting (via ESA Bulletin) on ESM progress over the past two years is below.
These official reports are very scarce on detail. No images provided.


August 2013 (ESA Bulletin 155)
The contract proposal for Phase-B2 of the MPCV European
Service Module (ESM) was approved until close of the
PDR. The full contract proposal will be presented at the
end of 2013. The ESM system PDR will be conducted at the
beginning of November.


November 2013 (ESA Bulletin 156)
The PDR began in September. The PDR board will be
conducted in November. The updated MPCV-ESM contract
proposal will be presented in November. The second
financial slice of the MPCV-ESM project will be part of the
third Financial Binding Commitment to be approved at the
Ministerial Council in 2014. Technical exchanges were made
with NASA to identify concrete options for the extension of
the cooperation in Transportation Systems for Exploration
beyond the initial MPCV-ESM contribution, as foreseen by
the barter for the ISS Common Systems Operations Costs
(CSOC) compensation.


February 2014 (ESA Bulletin 157)
The PDR was postponed to May in order to give more time
to design trade-offs and to address the excess mass issue in
more detail. A new PDR schedule was agreed with all parties
and all milestones of this plan have been met. The mass was
reduced close to the requirement. The impact of the PDR delay
overall will be minimised by starting Phase-C/D activities
that do not depend on the system PDR. A fully consolidated
MPCV-level schedule will be agreed after the system PDR.


May 2014 (ESA Bulletin 158)
Recovery measures were implemented to get back on
track for FM1 shipment date of March 2017. The mass
non-compliance has been improved, and the remaining
over mass is considered manageable. Savings have been
identified with a new concept of a bellow water tank.
Deletion of a Command (and) Monitoring Unit should
allow a further saving. Clarification on Thermal Control
System mass increase and assessment of an alternative
radiator layout is under way. The MPCV mission data for
the ESM design and verification were baselined. The Crew
Module Adapter SM mechanical interface design was
agreed. The MPCV PDR is scheduled for 15 May with all
intermediate milestones achieved.


August 2014 (ESA Bulletin 159)
The PDR for the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle European
Service Module (MPCV-ESM) was held on 15 May. ESA and
NASA board members endorsed the project to proceed to
the CDR. The industrial Phase-C/D proposal was received
and the review started.


November 2014 (ESA Bulletin 160)
The system PDR for the MPCV-ESM was closed. Authorisation
to negotiate the Phase-C/D contract was granted after the
third Tender Evaluation Board on 25 August. Phase-C/D
contract negotiation is almost complete, with agreement
found on all major issues. NASA agreed to the ESM delivery
date of 29 January 2017.


1st Quarter 2015 (ESA Bulletin 161)
The industrial Phase-C/D contract between ESA and Airbus
was signed in November. Most sub-system PDRs took place,
with the last one to be concluded in April. NASA’s Orion
Exploration Test Flight 5 December 2014 was successful. The
next major milestone is the ESM system CDR in December (2015).


2nd Quarter 2015 (ESA Bulletin 162)
Almost all subsystem PDRs have been concluded, and several
important design changes on system level were agreed
with NASA. Among those changes is the manufacturing
of a second Structural Test Assembly that will recover the
schedule delay caused by other NASA change requests.
Manufacturing of equipment breadboards has made
progress and no issues were discovered. The schedule is still
very challenging.

[woods170]

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/#.VcI93vmm2u8

a 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.

Interesting to note from the EM-1 integrated mission milestones summary is that no less than three major  elements are on the critical path:
- Crew Module
- European Service Module
- Core Stage

On a further note: I'm getting messages that ESM CDR possibly will be delayed, by as much as several months into early 2016, on account of STA testing at the contractor's has run into some problems.

[Chris Bergin]

Good notes above! There's a teleconference today so I wonder if it's to mention that and then throw #JourneyToMars hashtags at us to try and dull the pain.

[woods170]

2016 will be VERY interesting from an ESM point-of-view. It quite literally is the year it all comes together: going from STA to fully equipped EM-1 flight article (assuming the schedule doesn't keep slipping to the right).

[woods170]

Recent press releases:

http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en/news-media/press-releases/Airbus-Group/Financial_Communication/2015/09/20150922_airbus_defence_and_space_orion.html

http://www.ohb.de/press-releases-details/antwerp-space-develops-test-system-for-european-service-module.html

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/space/press-release/thales-alenia-space-supply-thermomechanical-systems-orion-esm

Image: courtesy of Airbus Defense and Space
Image shows one of four (fuel)tanks intended for structural testing.
Next to follow are engineering articles.
The flight model tanks for the EM-1 ESM are planned for completion in mid-2016.

[woods170]

Summary description of the ESA from last year, mostly based on source material from ESA and the ESM main contractor (Airbus Defense and Space):

http://abhisheksinha13.tumblr.com/post/104327709567/esm-european-service-module-the-esa-service

[redliox]

It seems this thread was eclipsed by the UK Steps Up thread, which now has the majority of ESM info.

[jacqmans]

Aviation Week & Space Technology reports this in their recent issue:


NASA-Furnished Propulsion Slows Orion ESM Work At Airbus


Amy Svitak Frank Morring, Jr.

Wed, 2015-11-18 04:00

Work on a European service module (ESM) that will fly on NASA’s Orion crew capsule has slowed, due in part to the integration of a NASA-furnished propulsion system that flew on the space shuttle. The ESM development, underway at Airbus Defense and Space in Bremen, Germany, is facing challenges on several fronts: Finding background documentation at NASA necessary to qualify the customer-supplied propulsion systems, which date to the shuttle era; sharing the documentation with Airbus ...

http://aviationweek.com/space/nasa-furnished-propulsion-slows-orion-esm-work-airbus-0


(Not sure if I can post the complete article, if mods will ok, I will post it)

[jacqmans]

November 24, 2015
MEDIA ADVISORY M15-165

NASA TV to Air Event Marking Arrival of Test Orion Powerhouse

NASA Television will broadcast an event marking the arrival of a full-size test version of the service module provided by the European Space Agency (ESA) for NASA’s Orion spacecraft at 12:30 p.m. EST on Monday, Nov. 30 at the agency’s Plum Brook Station in Sandusky, Ohio.

Event participants will be:
•Jim Free, director of NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland
•Greg Williams, deputy associate administrator for Human Exploration and Operations at NASA Headquarters in Washington
•Mark Kirasich, manager for the Orion Program at the agency’s Johnson Space Center in Houston
•Mike Hawes, program manager for Orion at Lockheed Martin
•Nico Dettmann, development department head at ESA
•Oliver Juckenhoefel, vice president and head of the European Service Module program at Airbus Defence and Space

A brief question-and-answer session will take place during the event with media on site and by phone. Media that wish to ask questions on the phone must email their name, media affiliation and phone number to Jan Wittry at jan.m.wittry-1@nasa.gov by noon EST on Fri., Nov. 27. The public also can ask questions during the briefing on social media using #AskNASA.

The Orion spacecraft is being developed to help send astronauts to deep space destinations, such as an asteroid placed in lunar orbit and Mars. It will launch on the agency’s Space Launch System rocket. ESA, along with its contractor Airbus Defence and Space, is providing the service module for Orion’s next mission, a partnership that will bring international cooperation to the journey to Mars. The service module will supply power and propulsion to the Orion spacecraft for Exploration Mission-1.

ESA and Airbus also provided the structural representation of the service module so that NASA may conduct rigorous tests to ensure the module can withstand the trip to space. The multi-month test campaign will take place at Plum Brook’s Space Power Facility. Plum Brook is home to some of the largest testing structures in the world, including one of the world’s largest vacuum chamber, the world's most powerful spacecraft acoustic test chamber, and the world's highest capacity and most powerful spacecraft vibration table.

For NASA TV downlink information and schedules, and to view the news briefing, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/nasatv

[MattMason]

Here's a zinger:

Since the OSM is designed for deep-space missions, what is its expected consumables base? I would suspect it would be designed to be dormant for months on end, but isn't that an ageing challenge when months turn to years? Would its consumables be refuelable? Would the SM have repair options? There's only so much talk to fix something while in deep space well away from home.

I might be asking questions with no answer since Orion's missions aren't lined up, nor are the official specs defined yet, if I read correctly up-thread. There's also the matter of crew habitation and fuels from there.

[Codemaster]

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.

[redliox]

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.

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?

[Chris Bergin]

Q) Do ESA believe SM involvement with Orion places them in a good barter position for an ESA astronaut to ride on a future Orion mission?

Per:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/orions-atv-deal-esa-astro-em-2-mission/

[Chris Bergin]

Starting....pretty much all the guests are political.

[Chris Bergin]

[Chris Bergin]

Doesn't appear to be reading from a script. Very good speech by the lawmaker. Clearly a Plum Brook fan.

[Chris Bergin]

Shiny video. Not as good as Nathan's work

[Chris Bergin]

They will be simulating sep and solar array deploy at the facility.

[Chris Bergin]

NASA HQ guy getting very excited about things. Audience less so.

[Chris Bergin]

EM-1 CM will be complete by January at MAF.

[Chris Bergin]

ESA guy notes it's the first time ESA is working on a mission (human) that goes beyond LEO.

[Chris Bergin]

Airbus guy is well off script. Basically saying "you need us as much as we need you". Tries to joke about the cost of the phone bill over meetings between the partners.

[Chris Bergin]

Local reporter notes most locals don't know the facility exists and that the area is better known for a theme park.

[Chris Bergin]

44 minutes until "Mars" was mentioned for the first time and that came from a Dutch reporter. NASA HQ manager is very careful not to mention Orion and Mars in the same breath.

[Chris Bergin]

Airbus notes the Shuttle OME is a good call due to delays that could occur with new tech.

[Chris Bergin]

ESA starting the paperwork process for the second SM, but not signed yet.

[Chris Bergin]

The SM behind them won't be flying. SM for EM-1 is under construction.

[Chris Bergin]

Yay! Codemaster asks about ESA astro.

Camera didn't show him asking it though.

Answer is non-committal, but hopeful.

[Apollo-phill]

RocketDoc

Noticed your tag says you are based Houston,Texas ?

Why not pop along to NASA JSC and ask the media staff if they can help you in anyway with the info you need ?

Apollo Phill

[Chris Bergin]

NASA guys asked if they play Kerbal Space Program. NASA guy looks baffled, says he's heard of it, but doesn't have a clue about it.

Event over.

[Remes]

Interesting information bit: The pressure regulation for the fuel tanks will be done electronically (the Airbus guy said that, when asked what new technology will be used). Typically these pressure regulators are mechanically. The pressure difference acts on a piston which in turn acts on a valve (both parts are typically integrated into each other). Mechanically working regulators are very robust (close to no parts in it). But they change their regulation behaviour (dynamics) based on current pressure.

An electronic pressure regulators might allow to use more He (as the regulator will be stable even at low pressures). I wonder if they plan do depressurize the system in some conditions (e.g. when docked to a habitat, or for diagnostics reason).

[zubenelgenubi]

Doesn't appear to be reading from a script. Very good speech by the lawmaker. Clearly a Plum Brook fan.

side note re: Marcy Kaptur

Seeing Ms. Kaptur as the US Representative whose district encompasses Plum Brook was a surprise, until I re-familiarized myself with Ohio's congressional redistricting after the 2010 census.

Wow!

First, she's held this congressional seat since 1983.

When I was a student at the University of Toledo (I haven't found an on-line map of the Congressional districts resulting from the 1980 census), I'm sure her district was more centrally located on Toledo.

(Ohio has lost 5 Congressional seats since the 1990 census.)

Secondly, now the 9th District stretches along the shores of Lake Erie, and not into the hinterlands, all the way from the western city limits of Toledo into central Cleveland!

Unlike some other amphibians, "gerrymanders" are thriving here in the USA!

ADD 12/1: Thank you, Cody, for attending the event and then writing the NSF article!

[Codemaster]

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.

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?

1) I asked this during our meet & greet before the event.  The current schedule has the the service module arriving to Kennedy Space Center in January of 2017.  During the facility tour it was brought up again and one of the Engineers from the Glenn Research station said that the current plan is to integrate Orion and the service module at KSC before shipping to the Space Power Facility for testing starting in March-April via the Super Guppy cargo plane.


2) I asked a couple people, and they couldn't get a good answer from anyone.  I tried asking Mr. Dettmann, but the European reporters had him tied up even after our tour started.  I'll follow up and see if I can find out.

[catdlr]

Plum Brook Welcomes Orion’s Powerhouse

Published on Nov 30, 2015
An 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. The module will supply the spacecraft’s power, in-space propulsion and air and water for astronauts onboard Orion, which is being developed to help send humans to deep space destinations, such as an asteroid placed in lunar orbit and Mars. A rigorous test campaign will be conducted at Plum Brook to ensure the module can withstand the trip to space.

[Coastal Ron]

Plum Brook Welcomes Orion’s Powerhouse

Published on Nov 30, 2015
An 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...

[Khadgars]

Plum Brook Welcomes Orion’s Powerhouse

Published on Nov 30, 2015
An 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...

If NASA was completely silent on all the internal progress people would be complaining too.  NASA can literally not win with some people.

[Chris Bergin]

And here's Cody's article!

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/12/nasa-testing-orions-european-service-module/

[BrightLight]

Great article Cody.  From the last available gant chart -  Re: Orion Service Module « Reply #17 on: 08/05/2015 04:56 PM » it appears the ESA-SM STA is about 3 months late, not too bad IMHO.

[Peter NASA]

Excellent work with the article Cody. Informative and technical as this site is. We'll be happy to see you at other Orion events!

[yg1968]

And here's Cody's article!

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/12/nasa-testing-orions-european-service-module/

Really like the article! Keep them coming!

[woods170]

They will be simulating sep and solar array deploy at the facility.

Added note: initial testing of the solar array deploy is already being done at the Airbus Defense&Space (former Dutchspace) in the Netherlands. The activities at Plum Brooke is testing the solar array deploy on the integrated vehicle.

[Bob Shaw]

Plum Brook Welcomes Orion’s Powerhouse

Published on Nov 30, 2015
An 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...

This is a political event, and the quid pro quo for European support is this sort of event. Remember, too, that the 'international' aspect is a hedge against cancellation in the US too.

[Oli]

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.

[hektor]

Orion won't be cancelled anyway, it's essential for going BEO.

See Wayne Hale's nightmare from his Von Braun Symposium speech. I am sure some would think you could do a very nice all-American BEO vehicle based on Dragon. Or CST-100.

[Oli]

Orion 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.

I only see evidence to the contrary. For example the fact that the Apollo CM/SM was a lot more expensive than Gemini, in fact almost as expensive as the Saturn V. 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.

[ThereIWas3]

"BEO" is not a mission.   The Moon is a mission;  Phobos is a mission;  Mars is a mission.  The requirements for crew transportation are quite different.

[yg1968]

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.

Some parts will be used for EM-2. Most expect the arrangement to continue for other missions.

[clongton]

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.

[clongton]

Orion 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?

[Rocket Science]

Thanks for the great article Cody, well done!

[Oli]

Orion 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.

There was no competition for a BEO capsule, only for LEO. The fact that Lockheed did not even bid with a stripped-down Orion only confirms my suspicion that its difficult to make a BEO capsule into a competitive LEO capsule and vice versa.

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.

Source? I seriously doubt those ~$400m ESA pays for the SM would have killed Orion if NASA would have had to pay for it.

[woods170]

Orion 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.

[Oli]

Orion 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?

[yg1968]

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.

[Oli]

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.

Who said 3 weeks aren't necessary? The transit from/to LDRO for example takes 10-12 days.

[Coastal Ron]

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.  Michael Griffin then took over as NASA Administrator and after he implemented the Exploration Systems Architecture Study Orion was changed to what we have now - which is a design that Griffin developed as part of a study for the Planetary Society.

So no, NASA did not originally want a capsule.  And what we have today is what one person in NASA, Michael Griffin, really thought NASA should have.  We'll never know which was the better choice, but we need to remember how we got to where we are today.

[Jim]

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.

LM was never on contract for delta-winged vehicle.

[hektor]

LM winning proposal for CEV was based on a delta winged lifting body.

http://www.space.com/1088-florida-hopes-host-cev-construction.html

[woods170]

Orion 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. You completely ignore the fact that SpaceX has a tendency to do things a tad different from the rest of the aerospace industry.

[Oli]

You 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).

[mike robel]

LM winning proposal for CEV was based on a delta winged lifting body.

http://www.space.com/1088-florida-hopes-host-cev-construction.html

As I recall, that Delta Winged Body was an initial proposal from LMCO and not the one they actually sent in.  In a similar fashion, NG/Boeing released a Soyuz Like vehicle as their product.  (Note:  At the time I worked for NG in an LMCO building on a battle simulation program.)

At the time, I asked the POC given on the NG blurb if there was any information available.  I did it from my LMCO e-mail, which made him suspicious, so I told him what my situation was and switched to my NG address.  essentially he said it was a deception plan.

When I watched the announcement, there was, again, no real difference to the casual eye between NG and LMCO, except the solar panels.  NG were long and rectangular and LMCOs were Compact and circular/stop sign shaped.  They both appeared to be the same size.

After the contract was awarded, NASA went to the incredible shrinking SM as they tried to make the program work.

Mind you, this is recollection on my part and I  no longer have the various released drawings of the various iterations, so I may be completely wrong.

[woods170]

You 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.

[hektor]

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Orion

[Nibb31]

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Orion

It looks like they didn't get the memo about the shiny coating on the capsule.

[jtrame]

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Orion

It looks like they didn't get the memo about the shiny coating on the capsule.

I wonder if the forward looking cockpit windows will retain the black covering in the recessed areas to prevent glare.  Latest NASA image shows them shiny like the rest of the spacecraft, but that could be artists license.

[bolun]

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Orion

And a blog, Orion Blog: http://blogs.esa.int/orion/

[Oli]

You 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.

- 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".

[woods170]

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.

- 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.

[Oli]

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.

- 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.

Fair enough, sustract ~1.4t of fuel for landing and an additional ~0.5t from the trunk. Doesn't change the big picture. You have a less capable vehicle weighting ~3t less than Orion.

I'm still waiting for a technical argument why a lunar Dragon/CST-100 should be less heavy given equal requirements.

[Lars-J]

- 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.

[woods170]

- 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.

[Lars-J]

- 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?

[woods170]

- 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?

Reserved for LAS duties during launch. The added trunk is left behind when a launch escape is required. The added trunk also is not there when a propulsive landing is performed. That's what was meant with the propellants in the Dragon service section being reserved (as in: set aside) for LAS or propulsive landing duties.
Only propellants from the added trunk are used for the TEI burn.

[Oli]

- 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.

[Lars-J]

- 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.

Yes, *I* know it adds up. The Dragon 2 propellant is either used for LAS *OR* in-space/deorbit + landing. I'm merely correcting the impression that once in space, a portion of the propellant remains set aside for LAS, which is not true.

[bolun]

http://blogs.esa.int/orion/2015/12/19/orion-backstage-with-tobias-fricke/

[AnalogMan]

Orion European Service Module Flight Model-1 logo
Posted on 21 Jan 2016 by julien   

The first mission with ESA's service module is Exploration Mission-1. This logo shows the Orion spacecraft exploring our Solar System, with the rear view highlighting the service module. The logo includes stylised depictions of Earth, the Moon and Mars – some of Orion’s destinations.

The border includes the abbreviation ESM for European Service Module. Between the distinctive solar wings on the right are the characters “fm-1”, denoting the first Flight Model of the maiden mission.

http://blogs.esa.int/orion/2016/01/21/orion-european-service-module-flight-model-1-logo/

[jacqmans]

The patch

[jacqmans]

Inside a rocket’s belly
 

An unusual view of a spacecraft – looking from below, directly into the thruster nozzles. This is a test version of ESA’s service module for NASA’s Orion spacecraft that will send astronauts further into space than ever before.
 
The European Service Module provides electricity, water, oxygen and nitrogen, and thermal control as well as propelling the spacecraft.
 
The large cone is the spacecraft’s main engine, the same model that was used on the Space Shuttle for orbital manoeuvres. The surrounding red cones are auxiliary thrusters. The engines will provide almost 30 kN of thrust, only one-tenth that of a Jumbo Jet engine, but enough to manoeuvre in space. More thrusters are carried on the module’s sides.
 
This structural test model is used for testing purposes before installing the real thing. It is as close to the flight version as possible while keeping costs and development time manageable. The structure and weight are the same, while mass equivalents stand in for electronics boxes not needed for the series of tests.
 
The model was installed under a test version of the Crew Module Adapter, and sits on the Spacecraft Adapter that will attach Orion to its launch vehicle. This is the first time the European hardware has been physically connected to NASA’s elements.
 
The service module will be shaken at NASA’s Plum Brook station in Sandusky, Ohio, USA, to recreate the vibrations of launch, as well as being subjected to acoustic and shock environments.

[b0objunior]

Hello,
Just to show a couple images from : https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasaorion/

I don't think they've been posted here sooooooo here we go.

[AnalogMan]

Propulsion Module arrives in Stockholm
Posted on 18 Feb 2016

Another important part of the service module for the Orion spacecraft is getting ready for testing. The Propulsion Qualification Module will ensure that Orion’s thrusters and fuel system work, used to orient the spacecraft and send it back to Earth.

OHB Sweden and Airbus DS will do the final integration of this part of the spacecraft test module in Stockholm, Sweden. The pictures show the distinctive fuel tanks that will hold mixed oxides of nitrogen (MON) and monomethyl hydrazine (MMH) – two tanks for each propellant. The tanks were built in Bremen and delivered to Sweden to be put in the Propulsion Qualification Module.

The qualification module will be shipped to NASA's White Sands test facility in the USA this summer with the engines being fired up for firsts in September.

Meanwhile in Switzerland RUAG, delivered the Solar Array Drive Electronics unit is now available for testing. The qualification model Solar Array is also complete, built by Airbus DS in The Netherlands.

ESA’s Service Module is a true collaboration involving companies from all over Europe with Airbus DS as main contractor.

http://blogs.esa.int/orion/2016/02/18/propulsion-module-arrives-in-stockholm/

[AnalogMan]

Orion Test Hardware in Position for Solar Array Test
Last Updated February 25, 2016 - Kelly Heidman

Engineers and technicians at NASA Glenn's Plum Brook Station in Sandusky, Ohio, are preparing for the first major test in the campaign to verify the structural integrity of Orion’s service module for Exploration Mission-1, the spacecraft’s first flight atop the agency’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket. Orion’s service module, which will power and propel the vehicle and supply it with air and water, is being provided by ESA and built by Airbus Defence and Space. The solar array wing deployment test will verify that the qualification model wing unfurls as expected. On Saturday, Feb. 20, an international team of engineers and technicians lifted and tilted the service module test article -- which includes structural representations of the service module, crew module adapter, and spacecraft adapter -- to a 90 degree angle to position it for the deployment test of one of Orion’s four solar arrays. The next step in preparation for the test is attaching the solar array before the Feb. 29 deployment test. This is the first in a series of crucial tests to verify the service module’s structural integrity and ability to withstand the dynamic launch environment atop the SLS rocket.

http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/orion-test-hardware-in-position-for-solar-array-test

Image credit: NASA, Christopher J. Lynch (Alcyon Technical Services)

[woods170]

FINALLY! A decent shot of the ESM all buttoned-up. About time.

More at https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasaorion/

[AnalogMan]

FINALLY! A decent shot of the ESM all buttoned-up. About time.

View from the forward end.

[SgtPoivre]

Full article from Airbus-DS:
https://airbusdefenceandspace.com/newsroom/news-and-features/orion-spacecrafts-solar-array-successfully-put-to-the-test/

[redliox]

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.

[woods170]

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.

Not even close. Remember, what you are seeing here are the structural test articles of the ESM and the solar arrays. They will be in all kinds of test for the next year. By that time the actual flight hardware will have arrived in the USA for yet another round of testing, lasting nearly 10 months. NASA and ESA will be lucky if the complete Orion (CM + CMA + ESM) are ready for EM-1 in late 2018. But right now the planning is cutting it extremely tight.

Images below courtesy of Airbus Defense and Space

[AnalogMan]

Testing solar array
1 Mar 2016 - julien

On 29 February a test model of Orion’s solar array was unfolded at NASA’s Plum Brook Station test facility in Sandusky, Ohio to check everything works as expected. The solar panels were made by Airbus Defence and Space in the Netherlands for the ESA module that will supply power and life support for up to four astronauts.

Each wing stretches more than 7 m, folded inside the Space Launch Systems rocket that will launch the spacecraft on its first unmanned mission in 2018. Orion sports four wings of three panels with 1242 cells per panel to provide 11.1 kW of power – enough to run two typical European households. The distinctive X-wings are an evolution and improvement of ESA’s Automated Transfer Vehicle.

The test was passed with flying colours as the 260 kg array unfurled into its flight configuration. The stresses of flying to the Moon and beyond – and back again – mean the array is designed to bend up to 60º forward and backward, much like a bird in flight.

“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.

Further tests will look at how the solar array handles acoustic shocks, vibrations and other shock tests in the following months.

http://blogs.esa.int/orion/2016/03/01/testing-solar-array/

[okan170]

“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/

I had read about this in an NTRS article last year and hoped that this would make it into the final vehicle... should be some really unique photos from those cameras!

[jacqmans]

On 29 February a test model of Orion’s solar array was unfolded at NASA’s Plum Brook Station test facility in Sandusky, Ohio to check everything works as expected. The solar panels were made by Airbus Defence and Space in the Netherlands for the ESA module that will supply power and life support for up to four astronauts.
 
Each wing stretches more than 7 m, folded inside the Space Launch Systems rocket that will launch the spacecraft on its first unmanned mission in 2018. Orion sports four wings of three panels with 1242 cells per panel to provide 11.1 kW of power – enough to run two typical European households. The distinctive X-wings are an evolution and improvement of ESA’s Automated Transfer Vehicle.
 
The test was passed with flying colours as the 260 kg array unfurled into its flight configuration. The stresses of flying to the Moon and beyond – and back again – mean the array is designed to bend up to 60º forward and backward, much like a bird in flight.
 
“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.
 
Further tests will look at how the solar array handles acoustic shocks, vibrations and other shock tests in the following months.

[SgtPoivre]

https://twitter.com/NASA_Orion/status/719514541013483520

[woods170]

Original image added via the .orig extension.

This shows the integrated Orion service module stack, consisting of the Spacraft Adapter (SA), European Service Module (ESM), Crew Module Adapter (CMA) and the Spacecraft Adapter Jettisoned Panels (SAJP), being lowered onto the Orion Spacecraft Adapter inside the Reverberant Acoustic Test Facility.

[AnalogMan]

Orion [SM] update March-April
Posted on 26 Apr 2016 by julien

In February we reported on Orion spacecraft’s propulsion test qualification model main elements arriving in Sweden for assembling – time for an update. Although the Propulsion Qualification Module (PQM) will not go to space the model serves an important role in development: ensuring everything works as planned.

The model has four stainless-steel tanks 2000 litres each with walls 1 cm thick. The tanks will hold the propellants at a pressure of 25 bar with a total capacity of nine tonnes . Other elemenst of the PQM  include two high-pressure helium tanks; pressure-control systems; the sensing and command system with drive electronics; the propellant lines with shut-off valves; filters; and of course engines that will propel and orient Orion.

The engines that are part of the propulsion system include a US Space Shuttle engine as main engine, eight auxiliary thrusters and 12 smaller thrusters for the Reaction Control System, made by Airbus DS in  Lampoldshausen (Germany).

The integration of these parts for testing is taking place in Sweden with delivery planned for July/August 2016. The model will be tested in end 2016 or early 2017 including  firing the engines at White Sands Test Facility in New Mexico, USA.

Meanwhile the Solar Array Wing will start its acoustic testing to recreate the intense sounds and vibrations of launch in Plum Brook, USA, in April. The Exploration Mission-1 flight structure ­– the actual chassis that will be launched into space in 2018 – is scheduled to arrive end of April in Bremen, Germany as well.

From April 11 to June 16 an important Critical Design Review is happening a moment when any concerns about the spacecraft’s design are reviewed before fixing the design once and for all. A cutoff point in all spacecraft design, from this moment no more changes can easily be made…

http://blogs.esa.int/orion/2016/04/26/orion-update-march-april/

Photo Captions:

Top: PQM Integration Readiness Review 1 (IRR1) at OHB Sweden, held on 22nd of March.

Bottom: Propulsion Qualification Model (PQM), currently including the structure and the propellant tanks, ready for the start of integration activities at OHB Sweden.

[AnalogMan]

First flight module arrives in Bremen
Posted on 26 Apr 2016 by julien

The first flight module of the Orion European Service Module was delivered by Thales Alenia Space to the Airbus DS site in Bremen, Germany on 25 April 2016.

The Service Module will for now rest in Building 43 where first integration steps will take place. Later on it will be transported to the cleanroom in building 41, for integration and test in the clean environment.

http://blogs.esa.int/orion/2016/04/26/first-flight-module-arrives-in-bremen/

[SgtPoivre]

Short NASA video somewhat related to the on-going Orion SM acoustic tests.


Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

[AnalogMan]

The Exploration Mission-1 Service Module primary structure arrives at the Airbus Defence and Space facility in Bremen, Germany.  Photo taken 25 April 2016

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasaorion/26634564681

[jacqmans]

Call for Media: Integration of Orion’s European Service Module

Contracted by ESA, Airbus Defence and Space is building the European Service Module for NASA’s Orion spacecraft. Integration of the module’s flight model for
Orion’s first deep-space  mission has begun at the company’s Bremen site, Germany, where media representatives are invited to attend a press briefing on 19 May.


ESA and Airbus are playing a major role in the next step in human spaceflight by developing the European Service Module for Orion, NASA’s next-generation exploration
spacecraft that will send astronauts on missions beyond the Moon. 

The module sits below the crew capsule, and provides propulsion, power, thermal control, water and air.

The first full Orion mission, Exploration Mission-1, will be an uncrewed flight more than 64 000 km beyond the Moon in 2018 to demonstrate the vehicle’s performance
before a crewed flight. 

Based on decisions from the ESA Ministerial Council meeting in November 2012, the European industrial team led by Airbus Defence and Space is developing and
building the European Service Module for Exploration Mission-1, drawing on extensive experience gained from building the five Automated Transfer Vehicle supply
ferries for the International Space Station.

Provisional programme

Hall 43, Airbus Defence and Space, Bremen, Germany

10:30 Doors open and welcome
11:00 Start of the event. On podium:
– Jan Wöerner, ESA Director General 
– Jim Free, NASA Deputy Associate Administrator for Technical, Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate 
– Philippe Deloo, ESA head of Orion ESM programme
– Tbd, DLR 
– Bart Reijnen, Airbus DS Head of On-Orbit-Services and Exploration 
– Walter Cugno, Thales Alenia Space, Vice President Exploration and Science
– Michael Hawes, Lockheed Martin: Vice President & Orion Program Manager 
11:50 Q&A
12:15 Individual interviews
12:45 Refreshments
13:30 End of event, more photo opportunities, ‘tour’ of the flight model

How to apply 

Media with valid press credentials should contact Airbus by 16 May 2016 at: visits.bremen@airbus.com.

IMPORTANT: security regulations mean that a valid identity card / passport is required to enter the premises. Press cards are not recognised for access to the
premises. 

For further information, please contact:

ESA Media Relations Office
Tel: +33 1 53 69 72 99
Email: media@esa.int

Airbus Defence and Space Media Relations Office
Tel: +49 89 607 33971
Email: ralph.heinrich@airbus.com

[donaldp]

The BBC have published a short article with an update of the service module progress.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36343542

[Hobbes-22]

What are those dark rectangular structures placed between the solar cells?

[Jim]

What are those dark rectangular structures placed between the solar cells?

Its likely where the array is held together for launch

[woods170]

What are those dark rectangular structures placed between the solar cells?

Its likely where the array is held together for launch

Correct. In the stowed configuration each array is supported by four posts sticking out of the ESM outher shell. A wire runs from each wire-end on the outermost panel of an array, through the holes in the center and inner panels into the support post. This is how the panels are held in their stowed configuration.
The support post contains a thermal knife that cuts the wire and releases the array. Springs in the array hinges do the actual work to deploy the arrays.
So, each array is secured for launch by four wires. It thus requires four thermal knifes to function perfectly for a single array to deploy, 16 thermal knifes for the full set of four solar arrays. Naturally, the thermal knifes are fully redundant. Each knife consists of actually two independantly powered thermal cutters. If one fails, the other will still be able to cut the wire.
On the flight arrays most of the black rectangular structures will actually be covered with photovoltaic cells. The single array shown on the images and footage of the deployment test is a structural model and holds only a handful of instrumented actual photovoltaic cells.
With regards to stowage and deployment these arrays for ESM are identical to the ones on ATV. They are better known as flatpack arrays and have been used on a good number of ESA and commercial satellites. With regards to the basic design the ESM solar arrays are largely standard.

[hektor]

I disagree. Arrays which can be canted during engine boosts are pretty non standard (see Orion EM-1 youtube video).

[Arcas]

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.

[Eric Hedman]

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.

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

[the_other_Doug]

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.

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

Well, it's not like the service module can be re-used, it is totally an expendable piece of the Orion spacecraft.  So, yeah, either NASA needs to let a contract for an American firm to build service modules for future flights, or the ESM can't be a one-off...

[Coastal Ron]

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.

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".

[Arcas]

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.

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.

[woods170]

I disagree. Arrays which can be canted during engine boosts are pretty non standard (see Orion EM-1 youtube video).

I was talking about the solar arrays themselves. The canting feature is in a separate system known as the solar array drive assembly. It's the set of hinge-motors that structurally connect the solar array to the main body of the ESM.
The hinge was always going to have a motor to allow the solar array to rotate through the long-axis of the deployed array. Now a second motorized hinge has been added to allow the solar array to also cant upwards and downwards.
But with regards to the solar arrays themselves: they are pretty much standard constructions. Only the solar cells attached to them differ in that they are suitable for deep-space use. Much like the ones on the Rosetta solar arrays.

[woods170]

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.

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.

Wrong assumption. Europe is not slapping the European title on to it. NASA did in fact.
Orion has a Service Module. That Service Module consist of four major components:

1. Crew Module Adaptor (CMA).
This is the 'cradle' that the CM is nesting in and forms the wide top part of the Service Module. This component is the structural 'bridge' between the CM and the ESM. It remains attached to the CM until just shortly before re-entry. The CMA is constructed in the USA.

2. European Service Module (ESM).
This is the Service Module component that attaches to the other end of the CMA. It provides the CM with electrical power, the gases and fluids for ECLSS, via an umbilical running thru and outside the CMA. It also provides (amongst others) attitude control, active thermal control, passive thermal control and propulsion for the entire Orion spacecraft. However, it is important to note that the ESM is only one (but rather important) component of the Service Module. It does NOT constitute the entire Service Module. The ESM is constructed in Europe. The main propulsion system is US-made however given that it consists of a re-purposed space shuttle OMS engine.

3. Spacecraft Adaptor (SA)
The backside of the ESM interfaces with the top-ring of the SA. The bottom-ring of the SA interfaces with the launch vehicle adaptor. The SA is one of two parts of the Service Module that is discarded during launch into orbit. Orion separates from the launch vehicle at the SA-ESM separation-plane, leaving the SA attached to the launcher. The SA is constructed in the USA.

4. Spacecraft Adaptor Jettisoned Panels (SAJP)
The SA, bottomside of the CMA and outside of the ESM are protected, during launch, from the effects of high-speed flight thru the lower part of Earth atmosphere. This is done by encapsulting the SA and ESM in a barrel-like construction. This barrel consists of three jettisonable panels. The panels interface at the top with the bottom-outer-ring of the CMA and they interface at the bottom with the bottom-ring of the SA. The SAJP are constructed in the USA.

So, as you can see, the ESM is only part of the entire Service Module for Orion. The component needed a name. NASA chose to name it the ESM because it is the only one of the four major components that is not produced in the USA, but in Europe in stead.

[Ben the Space Brit]

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.

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.

[SgtPoivre]

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-visit

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[woods170]

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.

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.

[hektor]

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-visit

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

ESA is there as well

[Ben the Space Brit]

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.

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?

[woods170]

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.

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?

Under current negotiations EM-3 will fly with an ESM. There are currently no concrete plans to invest in "doing" an American Service Module (although LockMart really would have loved to have one..but that station has passed). My sources also states that the IP for the ESM will not be passed to NASA. ESA knows they are holding the golden eggs. ESM gives them a golden opportunity to stay "in" the US Exploration program. "In" as in participating in the planned missions. Not just with the ESM, but with crew participation as well. ESM is no longer about bartering for "just" continued participation in ISS.

[hektor]

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.

[woods170]

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.

No problem there IMO. The second ESM (for EM-2) is significantly more developed than the first one (for EM-1). Preliminary studies are already being performed into the capabilities required for the third one and beyond. Besides, one example (ATV) makes for lousy predictions.

[hektor]

Europe’s Orion service module shipment to U.S. delayed by three months 

[MATTBLAK]

 >

Europe’s Orion service module shipment to U.S. delayed by three months 

Oh, for the love of... 

[woods170]

>

Europe’s Orion service module shipment to U.S. delayed by three months 

Oh, for the love of... 

You should not even remotely be surprised. Building and integrating your flight hardware BEFORE the CDR is "in the bag" is THE guarantee that things will get delayed. ESA and Airbus knew this and took the gamble anyway. So, it bit them in the behind. I'm surprised the delay is "only" three months.

[Jet Black]

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.

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).

[_INTER_]

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).

Though they got some knowledge about man-rating from Spacelabs, no?

[Eric Hedman]

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).

Though they got some knowledge about man-rating from Spacelabs, no?

The man rating includes propulsion systems reliability in the service module.

[john smith 19]

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.

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).

You mean in the same way SX had no man rated experience?

Both ATV and Dragon had to meet full human rating rules in order to berth with the ISS. While Spacelab flew in the payload bay of the Shuttle. While Dragon 2 looks like it's structure has diverged quite a lot from Dragon 1 I'd expect internally it's basic systems are close to identical.

[jacqmans]

[hektor]

Orion’s Service Module Completes Critical Design Review

Critical design milestone for Orion’s European service module

[bolun]

The real thing

The European Service Module that will power NASA’s Orion spacecraft to the Moon and beyond is taking shape in the assembly hall at Airbus Defence and Space,  Bremen, Germany. The spacecraft module will provide propulsion, electricity, water, oxygen and nitrogen and thermal control.

Seen here is the primary structure that provides rigidity to the European Service Module much like the chassis of a car. It absorbs the vibrations and energy from launch while a secondary structure protects the module from micrometeoroids and space debris.

Assembly of the thousands of components needed to build the advanced spacecraft started on 19 May with the arrival of the primary structure that was shipped from Turin, Italy, by Thales Alenia Space. In 2018 this structure will be an element of the European Service Module that will be launched into space, as part of the Orion spacecraft, on its first mission to fly more than 64 000 km beyond the Moon and back.

In the background is a poster of ESA’s Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) that was also assembled in this hall in Bremen. Five ATVs flew to the International Space Station to deliver supplies and raise its orbit.  Developing ATV provided the experience necessary to develop the European Service Module in Europe.

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2016/08/The_real_thing

Image credit: Airbus DS

[catdlr]

Orion ESM being moved into cleanroom in Bremen

Airbus Defence and Space

Published on Aug 31, 2016
2018 is the launch year for NASA's first Orion mission – which will be uncrewed and powered by the European Service Module built by Airbus Defence and Space for ESA. The service module fulfils the role of a power plant. It drives the capsule and provides fuel and energy. It is also equipped with oxygen tanks to supply the crew.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NMzadk3JRk?t=001

[jacqmans]

[redliox]

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?

[SgtPoivre]

New pictures of on-going Service Module vibration tests are available on NASA Orion Flickr account:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasaorion/

[SgtPoivre]

There is also a video on Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1055797864489945&id=129562970446777

[Khadgars]

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?

Great question, one that I am interested in as well.

[woods170]

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?

Great question, one that I am interested in as well.

And you are not likely to get a detailed answer soon. The SM for EM-1 is already different from the STA as a result of the recently completed CDR. For EM-2, the lessons learned from EM-1 will most likely be incorporated, but they will have to fly EM-1 first. It's not just lessons learned from building and integrating the (E)SM. Flight experience will likely account for additional modifications to the EM-2 flight model.

[SgtPoivre]

Flight 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...

[redliox]

Flight 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, which is 5 years after EM-1, that's a lot of time.  I'd say the ESM is more likely to be in the early assembly stages, not late, in 2018...and that's assuming ESA doesn't delay assembly or NASA request changes.

I would assume the EM-1 ESM would prioritize propulsion and navigation, and the EM-2 ESM adds full life support on top of that going by bare essentials.  Aside from tweaking life support, wouldn't it be in NASA/ESA's best interests to keep the 2 modules as similar as possible to minimize R&D?

[ncb1397]

Flight 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....

NASA officials have said that more funding could move the 2023 date to the left. But the question is, more funding compared to what? They can only be referring to the president's out-year funding profile which has a pretty low chance of being passed. There is no other document that they could be using to forecast funding. For instance, the PBR cuts SLS and Orion by 800 million over 2016 levels in 2017. Any chance of that cut actually happening? There is no cut in the house or senate bill and a continuing resolution will fund the programs at 2016 levels.

[woods170]

Flight 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...

Don't agree. IMO, given that there is a three-to-five year gap between EM-1 and EM-2 it is much more likely that work on EM-2 has not even begun yet by the time EM-1 flies. Even at NASA's snails pace it does not take three years to build another flight vehicle and that particularly applies to the (E)SM. It is relatively simple compared to Crew Module.

[AnalogMan]

Gearing up for Orion propulsion subsystem tests
Posted on 21 Sep 2016 by julien

Engineers are preparing for tests to qualify the propulsion subsystem, including the main engine, for Orion’s European-built service module that will propel the spacecraft during its flight in deep space.

They will test engineering units, fully representative of the engines that will equip the spacecraft that will fly with NASA’s Space Launch System rocket in late 2018.

The tests of the propulsion qualification model include tests of the engines, propellant feed systems, and propulsion control avionics. The tests will start at NASA’s White Sands Test Facility in New Mexico, USA, in spring 2017.

Orion’s service module main engine is a modified Orbital Manoeuvring System engine used before on the Space Shuttle that is being repurposed for use in the European service module.

The propulsion qualification model that will be used for testing will be shipped from Sweden to White Sands November 2016. It consists of two helium tanks (to pressurise the propellant tanks), propellant tanks, thrusters, piping, electronics, pressure control assemblies, a pressure regulation unit and propellant isolation equipment (valves).

Data from the testing at White Sands will verify the proper operation of the service module propulsion subsystem.

While the main engine and test facilities for the Propulsion Qualification Model are prepared for firing up, the main engine has been refurbished and tested at White Sands, and was shipped to NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston for vibration testing. The vibration testing is helping to ensure the engine can withstand the loads induced by the rocket during launch. After testing at the Johnson Space Center, the flight engine will be sent to Europe so ESA can integrate it into the Orion service module before delivery to NASA.

http://blogs.esa.int/orion/2016/09/21/gearing-up-for-orion-propulsion-subsystem-tests/

The video below shows testing of the 220 N engines built by Airbus used for attitude control:
http://download.esa.int/mpeg/3hzfiringlunarlander_H264.mp4?_=1

Photo Captions:

Top:      Propulsion testing in Sweden. Credits: OHB
Middle:  NASA's White Sands Test Facility. Credits: NASA
Bottom: Propulsion Qualification Model (PQM), including the structure and the propellant tanks,
              ready for the start of integration activities at OHB Sweden. Credits: OHB

[catdlr]

Orion Test Article on the Move

NASA Glenn Research Center

Published on Oct 31, 2016
Time-lapse video shows the move of Orion’s service module from the vibration table to the assembly high bay area in Plum Brook’s Space Power Facility. (no sound)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00Xs3XnXvg0?t=001

[FutureSpaceTourist]

#orionesm's propellant tank successfully underwent vibration test! Find out more about @NASA_Orion on the blog: http://orionesm.airbusdefenceandspace.com @esa

https://twitter.com/airbusspace/status/842714980462026752

[FutureSpaceTourist]

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

[psloss]

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

Mr. Hill said it's September and that's "red" (meaning the schedule is not improving).

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Jeff Foust‏ @jeff_foust 7m7 minutes ago

Hill says Airbus having problems getting vendors to supply components for the service module on time; that’s contributing to overall delay.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/847061747953418240

Jeff Foust‏ @jeff_foust 6m6 minutes ago

Hill: software being delivered on time, but some functionality deferred from one version to the next.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/847062169938210816

[Steven Pietrobon]

Orion and the European Service Module

Published on Apr 6, 2017

NASA’s Orion spacecraft will take astronauts to destinations at or beyond low Earth orbit. In January 2013, it was announced that ESA would provide the European Service Module (ESM) for Orion’s first uncrewed mission. Derived from ESA’s Automated Transfer Vehicle cargo spacecraft, the ESM will provide life support, propulsion and structural functions for Orion. In February 2017, a contract was signed for a second ESM to be used on Orion’s first crewed flight, which will carry astronauts beyond the Moon and back.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

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.

http://www.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2017/06/Orion_frame_work