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?
Quote from: jgoldader on 11/30/2016 10:24 amFrom 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?
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.
From January, http://www.spaceflightinider.com/missions/human-spaceflight/sls-exploration-upper-stage-eus-and-etc/#KAGYkLsMAQC5Evk1.99Hill: “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.
Quote from: okan170 on 12/01/2016 03:21 amFrom January, http://www.spaceflightinider.com/missions/human-spaceflight/sls-exploration-upper-stage-eus-and-etc/#KAGYkLsMAQC5Evk1.99Hill: “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.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 11/30/2016 05:58 amOrion 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.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/17/2016 12:03 pmNo 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.
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.
Quote from: rayleighscatter on 12/17/2016 02:15 pmWhile 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 Law of Spacecraft Design#27: "Schedules only move in one direction." http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html
Quote from: Khadgars on 12/16/2016 06:50 pmQuote from: okan170 on 12/01/2016 03:21 amFrom January, http://www.spaceflightinider.com/missions/human-spaceflight/sls-exploration-upper-stage-eus-and-etc/#KAGYkLsMAQC5Evk1.99Hill: “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.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/17/2016 12:03 pmQuote from: Khadgars on 12/16/2016 06:50 pmQuote from: okan170 on 12/01/2016 03:21 amFrom January, http://www.spaceflightinider.com/missions/human-spaceflight/sls-exploration-upper-stage-eus-and-etc/#KAGYkLsMAQC5Evk1.99Hill: “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.
(which is likely to come inline with Congressional guidance now), and that 2021 is still achievable