Author Topic: NASA RFI for Efficiency & Sustainability of Exploration Systems  (Read 14072 times)

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8104
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 99
I have lost track of the changing specifications of the Orion.

I assume that the Orion can act as a command module taking people to and returning them from lunar orbit and the Lagrange points.

Orion is too small to take people to and from Mars. Can Orion act as the cockpit of a Mars Transfer Vehicle? The astronauts could live in a habitat module based on a Deep Space Habitat (DSH) pushed by a propulsion module with large tanks. Using fly-by-wire connections via the docking port the Orion would do the navigation and propulsion control.

Offline jgoldader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 658
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 128
From what I can tell, the capability that would make Orion uniquely useful is a long-duration ELCSS, which isn't yet ready.  If that can't be made to work as per spec, Orion would be redundant.  When are they aiming at for that capability, 2021, 2023?
Recovering astronomer

Online okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 969
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 5020
  • Likes Given: 1204
From what I can tell, the capability that would make Orion uniquely useful is a long-duration ELCSS, which isn't yet ready.  If that can't be made to work as per spec, Orion would be redundant.  When are they aiming at for that capability, 2021, 2023?

According to a couple interviews, 2023 is the date if ESA pulls out and the SM needs to be re-competed domestically all over again.

Online TrevorMonty

From what I can tell, the capability that would make Orion uniquely useful is a long-duration ELCSS, which isn't yet ready.  If that can't be made to work as per spec, Orion would be redundant.  When are they aiming at for that capability, 2021, 2023?

According to a couple interviews, 2023 is the date if ESA pulls out and the SM needs to be re-competed domestically all over again.
Depends if ESA wants rides to DSH, a SM will most likely be their ticket price.

Offline jgoldader

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 658
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 128
From what I can tell, the capability that would make Orion uniquely useful is a long-duration ELCSS, which isn't yet ready.  If that can't be made to work as per spec, Orion would be redundant.  When are they aiming at for that capability, 2021, 2023?

According to a couple interviews, 2023 is the date if ESA pulls out and the SM needs to be re-competed domestically all over again.

Due to interface issues, I suppose?  Yeesh, that's 19 years for full capability, and even then, that assumes the ECLSS is all done (not some block 1/block 2 thing with short vs. long duration).
Recovering astronomer

Offline brickmack

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 227
  • USA
  • Liked: 68
  • Likes Given: 9
From what I can tell, the capability that would make Orion uniquely useful is a long-duration ELCSS, which isn't yet ready.  If that can't be made to work as per spec, Orion would be redundant.  When are they aiming at for that capability, 2021, 2023?

According to a couple interviews, 2023 is the date if ESA pulls out and the SM needs to be re-competed domestically all over again.

Source? <6 years (probably much less) to contract out, develop, build, test, and deliver a crew-rated SM seems... implausible. ESM will have taken 7 years to deliver an in-flight test article from initial conception, assuming they hold to schedule (ha!). Would such an SM have to go through an integrated test before flying a crew as well?

Online okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 969
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 5020
  • Likes Given: 1204
From January,
http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/human-spaceflight/sls-exploration-upper-stage-eus-and-etc/#KAGYkLsMAQC5Evk1.99

Hill: “I’m very confident we can make ’21. That was, the ’23 date, was based on a probabilistic model that models the probability of a certain risk occurring at a certain time. One of the things that the modelers put in that model, for ’23, was that Orion would have to, that the Europeans wouldn’t bring a European service module for EM-2, that we’d have to have Lockheed build it from scratch. It was about a three or four hundred million dollar hit, and because of that it pushed some of that out to ’23.


Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12012
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2625
  • Likes Given: 378
Source? <6 years (probably much less) to contract out, develop, build, test, and deliver a crew-rated SM seems... implausible. ESM will have taken 7 years to deliver an in-flight test article from initial conception, assuming they hold to schedule (ha!). Would such an SM have to go through an integrated test before flying a crew as well?

I believe Lockheed had already done quite a bit of work on their SM before the work was transferred to ESA. Using that head start would mean they could finish a lot quicker than starting from scratch.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Online RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2061
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 961
  • Likes Given: 736
Orion is too small to take people to and from Mars. Can Orion act as the cockpit of a Mars Transfer Vehicle? The astronauts could live in a habitat module based on a Deep Space Habitat (DSH) pushed by a propulsion module with large tanks. Using fly-by-wire connections via the docking port the Orion would do the navigation and propulsion control.

That's why some NASA plans take Orion all the way to Mars; it's the "bridge" for the rest of the ship.

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 912
  • Long Beach, California
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 452
From January,
http://www.spaceflightinider.com/missions/human-spaceflight/sls-exploration-upper-stage-eus-and-etc/#KAGYkLsMAQC5Evk1.99

Hill: “I’m very confident we can make ’21. That was, the ’23 date, was based on a probabilistic model that models the probability of a certain risk occurring at a certain time. One of the things that the modelers put in that model, for ’23, was that Orion would have to, that the Europeans wouldn’t bring a European service module for EM-2, that we’d have to have Lockheed build it from scratch. It was about a three or four hundred million dollar hit, and because of that it pushed some of that out to ’23.

Thanks Orkan for sharing this.  Puts a complete different light on EM-2 schedule that everyone here swears will not happen before 2023. 

« Last Edit: 12/17/2016 02:05 AM by Khadgars »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26575
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6468
  • Likes Given: 4694
From January,
http://www.spaceflightinider.com/missions/human-spaceflight/sls-exploration-upper-stage-eus-and-etc/#KAGYkLsMAQC5Evk1.99

Hill: “I’m very confident we can make ’21. That was, the ’23 date, was based on a probabilistic model that models the probability of a certain risk occurring at a certain time. One of the things that the modelers put in that model, for ’23, was that Orion would have to, that the Europeans wouldn’t bring a European service module for EM-2, that we’d have to have Lockheed build it from scratch. It was about a three or four hundred million dollar hit, and because of that it pushed some of that out to ’23.


Thanks Orkan for sharing this.  Puts a complete different light on EM-2 schedule that everyone here swears will not happen before 2023.
No it doesn't. It bolsters my stance. The probabilistic model supports my claim.

The guy hopes it will go by 2021. Well, good. I've talked with people involved, and they agree the 2023 date is probably the most likely at this point.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 891
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 388
  • Likes Given: 183
No it doesn't. It bolsters my stance. The probabilistic model supports my claim.

The guy hopes it will go by 2021. Well, good. I've talked with people involved, and they agree the 2023 date is probably the most likely at this point.
While your vague unknown source says 2023 is still the likely date numerous public sources have said the rightward drivers would be the SM (which is resolved) and the anemic White House funding guidance up to this point (which is likely to come inline with Congressional guidance now), and that 2021 is still achievable.

And as for how the probabilistic model supporting your claim you're going to have to fill me in on how that works. The interview states that model "basically says is if all those risks occur, yeah, you’re going to be out there. What it doesn’t account for is we have management that manages against those risks, that mitigate those risks."

Losing a few months here or there on an aerospace project wouldn't be surprising as an unknown challenge pops up, but assuming every conceivable problem will pop up is just disingenuous.

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 855
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 1
Orion is too small to take people to and from Mars. Can Orion act as the cockpit of a Mars Transfer Vehicle? The astronauts could live in a habitat module based on a Deep Space Habitat (DSH) pushed by a propulsion module with large tanks. Using fly-by-wire connections via the docking port the Orion would do the navigation and propulsion control.

That's why some NASA plans take Orion all the way to Mars; it's the "bridge" for the rest of the ship.
Apollo 13 is an example of how the capsule was abandoned during an emergency, so there is no clear rationale on why anyone would take a 10mT, 20 day, capsule to Mars and further risk its heat shield, not to mention it has SPE radiation protection only, with NO GCR protection(2 mT vs 20mT required).  Simply leave the capsule at L2, its dead mass othewise.

MARS DRM  incoherently takes Orion all the way to Mars, in the incredibly expendable architecture, because folks are trying to make others believe that "the moon prepares NASA for Mars", one of the three flaws in the VSE.

Congress must change the apartheid architecture, which excludes IPs and the existing DOD fleet at the cost of $10sB more, with 100% probability. 

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26575
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6468
  • Likes Given: 4694
No it doesn't. It bolsters my stance. The probabilistic model supports my claim.

The guy hopes it will go by 2021. Well, good. I've talked with people involved, and they agree the 2023 date is probably the most likely at this point.
While your vague unknown source says 2023 is still the likely date numerous public sources have said the rightward drivers would be the SM (which is resolved) and the anemic White House funding guidance up to this point (which is likely to come inline with Congressional guidance now), and that 2021 is still achievable.

And as for how the probabilistic model supporting your claim you're going to have to fill me in on how that works. The interview states that model "basically says is if all those risks occur, yeah, you’re going to be out there. What it doesn’t account for is we have management that manages against those risks, that mitigate those risks."

Losing a few months here or there on an aerospace project wouldn't be surprising as an unknown challenge pops up, but assuming every conceivable problem will pop up is just disingenuous.
Akin's Law of Spacecraft Design
#27: "Schedules only move in one direction." http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12012
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2625
  • Likes Given: 378
While your vague unknown source says 2023 is still the likely date numerous public sources have said the rightward drivers would be the SM (which is resolved) and the anemic White House funding guidance up to this point (which is likely to come inline with Congressional guidance now), and that 2021 is still achievable.

The long pole in the tent is probably the Exploration Upper Stage. At limited funding levels, that could take seven years to be ready.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Online okan170

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 969
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 5020
  • Likes Given: 1204
While your vague unknown source says 2023 is still the likely date numerous public sources have said the rightward drivers would be the SM (which is resolved) and the anemic White House funding guidance up to this point (which is likely to come inline with Congressional guidance now), and that 2021 is still achievable.

The long pole in the tent is probably the Exploration Upper Stage. At limited funding levels, that could take seven years to be ready.

I was under the impression per the latest NSF articles, that the biggest danger for 2021 would be the time needed for MLP modifications.  EUS has been decently funded for the last budget or so.
« Last Edit: 12/18/2016 07:04 PM by okan170 »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10259
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2020
  • Likes Given: 620
Akin's Law of Spacecraft Design
#27: "Schedules only move in one direction." http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

Someone needs to tell that to the President Elect.
(ducking now)
« Last Edit: 12/19/2016 04:02 PM by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 912
  • Long Beach, California
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 452
From January,
http://www.spaceflightinider.com/missions/human-spaceflight/sls-exploration-upper-stage-eus-and-etc/#KAGYkLsMAQC5Evk1.99

Hill: “I’m very confident we can make ’21. That was, the ’23 date, was based on a probabilistic model that models the probability of a certain risk occurring at a certain time. One of the things that the modelers put in that model, for ’23, was that Orion would have to, that the Europeans wouldn’t bring a European service module for EM-2, that we’d have to have Lockheed build it from scratch. It was about a three or four hundred million dollar hit, and because of that it pushed some of that out to ’23.


Thanks Orkan for sharing this.  Puts a complete different light on EM-2 schedule that everyone here swears will not happen before 2023.
No it doesn't. It bolsters my stance. The probabilistic model supports my claim.

The guy hopes it will go by 2021. Well, good. I've talked with people involved, and they agree the 2023 date is probably the most likely at this point.

Your analysis isn't based on data, but your inside source.  The 2023 date was mainly based on NASA having to scarp the ESM after EM-1 and design, test and build a completely new SM for Orion, which as we now know, the ESM has been confirmed for EM-2.



« Last Edit: 12/19/2016 04:16 PM by Khadgars »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26575
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6468
  • Likes Given: 4694
From January,
http://www.spaceflightinider.com/missions/human-spaceflight/sls-exploration-upper-stage-eus-and-etc/#KAGYkLsMAQC5Evk1.99

Hill: “I’m very confident we can make ’21. That was, the ’23 date, was based on a probabilistic model that models the probability of a certain risk occurring at a certain time. One of the things that the modelers put in that model, for ’23, was that Orion would have to, that the Europeans wouldn’t bring a European service module for EM-2, that we’d have to have Lockheed build it from scratch. It was about a three or four hundred million dollar hit, and because of that it pushed some of that out to ’23.


Thanks Orkan for sharing this.  Puts a complete different light on EM-2 schedule that everyone here swears will not happen before 2023.
No it doesn't. It bolsters my stance. The probabilistic model supports my claim.

The guy hopes it will go by 2021. Well, good. I've talked with people involved, and they agree the 2023 date is probably the most likely at this point.

Your analysis isn't based on data, but your inside source.  The 2023 date was mainly based on NASA having to scarp the ESM after EM-1 and design, test and build a completely new SM for Orion, which as we now know, the ESM has been confirmed for EM-2.
So some guy's opinion (who has incentive to have rose colored glasses) versus another guy's opinion and probabilistic analysis. There are many things that go into such analyses.

How about we bet on it?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26575
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 6468
  • Likes Given: 4694
(which is likely to come inline with Congressional guidance now), and that 2021 is still achievable
1) Coming from a President Elect who talks about taking care of potholes before space exploration, who just strongly criticized both Boeing (threatening cancellation of AirForce One) and Lockheed (threatening F35), who supports those who want a federal govt hiring freeze and generally reduced budget except for defense, actually has plenty of friction with Congress, and for goodness sake look at the title of this thread if you think the funding tap for SLS/Orion will be opened up

2) Your sort of unfounded speculation belongs in the Space Policy section.

3) Even if I granted "still achievable," that's still a far cry from what's /most likely/ to occur.
« Last Edit: 12/22/2016 01:36 AM by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Tags: