Well of course. But is it likely the US will turn their nose up at this development?
Orbital is somewhat of a systems integrator and don't have the capability to do a lot of the vehicle. In addition, that is their vehicle and not a US government vehicle, so there is a difference there.
With respect to the ISS modules, those were funded by NASA (with the exception of COL and JEM).
It is my opinion we should take care of our own industry with government dollars when our own industry can do it and not just spin and paint a picture of the wonders of international cooperation.
3. ESA and their vendors are known to be late. This will impact cost and schedule.
Is the Orion CM going to be reusable if sent on an EML1/2 mission?IS it reusable if used for LEO missions?
I think this was a big piece of the puzzle NASA might have been waiting for in order to finalize their new, officially unannounced plans for a moon return. Who knows, maybe the Germans and Russians will hop on board to build the re-usable landers.
Quote from: Go4TLI on 11/21/2012 10:16 PMIt is my opinion we should take care of our own industry with government dollars when our own industry can do it and not just spin and paint a picture of the wonders of international cooperation.You're certainly not alone in your views. This thinking gave NASA SLS.
Quote from: RocketmanUS on 11/21/2012 11:29 PMIs the Orion CM going to be reusable if sent on an EML1/2 mission?IS it reusable if used for LEO missions?Good question.Note that Spacex were saying that NASA is saying every Dragon to ISS has to be factory fresh, *no* re-launches.But I *think* I saw something about re-using systems from returned capsules (can't remember if this MPCV or Dragon).
Face it: this whole, nonsensical and expensive activity has only one goal: to safeguard NASA's project against cancellation by the next administration 4 years from now or by the next congress two years from now. ESA just follows suit because it looks like a good opportunity to them to get aboard the program because they are doing NASA a favor.
Quote from: pippin on 11/21/2012 11:42 PMFace it: this whole, nonsensical and expensive activity has only one goal: to safeguard NASA's project against cancellation by the next administration 4 years from now or by the next congress two years from now. ESA just follows suit because it looks like a good opportunity to them to get aboard the program because they are doing NASA a favor.I thought the news, and Chris' article were pretty cool. Thanks, Chris!But I confess to cynical thoughts that this is a great way to a) decrease the odds of cancellation, as pippin noted, but also b) move the SM down the road without throwing another chunk of the NASA budget toward the SLS/Orion line item, assuming folks in NASA Admin foresee both being cancelled after a few flights of the Falcon Heavy and crewed Dragon.I also believe that were LockMart to do it, the budget for the SM would creep north of a billion.
No, total costs will go up and here is why:1. The CM will need to be redesigned since the SM is now "ATV-derived" The SM is not plug-and-play hardware. Software will also be impacted. That will increase cost to the CM beyond baseline and will also have some impact on schedule.2. Another possibility is that the SM will be built to LM specs. Therefore it is no longer "ATV-derived" and there will be significant cost and time importing those specs/requirements, etc into ESA and their European vendors. It will be essentially starting over, which of course impacts the CM because people (which costs money) will have to be kept busy why ESA accomplishes what has already been accomplished. This coupled together increases total cost and has a negative impact on schedule....
Obviously ESA is not going to build a one off, the idea is ludicrous.
The european space industry is not that different from the US nobody spends the development dollars/euros and then just builds one. There are thousands of jobs in this, paid by European money, so they'll keep it going.
I stand by my argument that because of this total cost will go up, schedule will move to the right and the risk of cancellation because of that has now just increased.
I agree with Go4TLI, and there is an additional point to be made:ESA wants to commit (although it is not in final form) to build *ONE* - yes ONE service module. For ONE flight. So the Orion program will just have to hope that ESA in a future decision will continue to fund more SMs, and not do what they did to the ATV line. And what happens if ESA does not want to continue after one SM?
This is such a terrible idea on so many levels.
Quote from: zodiacchris on 11/22/2012 05:11 AMObviously ESA is not going to build a one off, the idea is ludicrous.Is it? Budgets are tight everywhere. My point is that ESA has shown a history of not building more than they commit to initially - see ATV.
To me that statement is disingenuous. If you are against building a HLV than the American industry can still be strengthened by instead using the Falcon 9, Atlas V and Delta IV to supply fuel depots for missions beyond low earth orbit.
It was MPCV.