Author Topic: Orion Discussion Thread 2  (Read 235955 times)

Offline omelet1978

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #620 on: 03/10/2022 08:47 pm »
Just out of curiosity, what is the latest on re-use or turn-around time for an Orion Capsule?

I know that the Orion Capsule for Artemis 1 is going to be partially re-used. However, when you search around the details are a bit vague. Everything about the program seems geared towards 1 launch a year, so this is mostly a hypothetical question. I guess let's say the Artemis II or Artemis III Orion capsule...once it lands what would be the timeframe to turn it around and refurbish it if there was a SLS core stage and associated equipment "magically" available for a second launch.

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
  • Liked: 2805
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #621 on: 03/10/2022 09:39 pm »
Just out of curiosity, what is the latest on re-use or turn-around time for an Orion Capsule?

I know that the Orion Capsule for Artemis 1 is going to be partially re-used. However, when you search around the details are a bit vague.

Artemis 2 only reuses the avionics from Artemis 1.  It takes 20-21 months to turn those around.

Quote
The timing of the Artemis 1 launch will also affect the schedule for Artemis 2, the first flight with astronauts on board. The Orion spacecraft on Artemis 2 will reuse avionics flown on the Orion for Artemis 1. ďThis puts this iron bar of, Iíll say, 20, 21 months between the missions,Ē said Jim Free, NASA associate administrator for exploration systems development, in an Oct. 13 talk at the American Astronautical Societyís Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama. That means Artemis 2 could not launch any earlier than 20 to 21 months after Artemis 1...

https://spacenews.com/nasa-sets-artemis-1-launch-for-no-earlier-than-february/

Thatís why weíre now looking at early 2024 for Artemis 2. 

Thereís nothing really or easily reusable about Orion.  Even after almost a couple decades of development, the program is just so hardware poor that they have to reuse the avionics, and even that takes over a year-and-a-half to pull off.  Itís PR jabberwocky masquerading a severe program weakness as a technical benefit.

Offline omelet1978

  • Member
  • Posts: 55
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #622 on: 03/11/2022 02:39 pm »
Just out of curiosity, what is the latest on re-use or turn-around time for an Orion Capsule?

I know that the Orion Capsule for Artemis 1 is going to be partially re-used. However, when you search around the details are a bit vague.

Artemis 2 only reuses the avionics from Artemis 1.  It takes 20-21 months to turn those around.

Quote
The timing of the Artemis 1 launch will also affect the schedule for Artemis 2, the first flight with astronauts on board. The Orion spacecraft on Artemis 2 will reuse avionics flown on the Orion for Artemis 1. ďThis puts this iron bar of, Iíll say, 20, 21 months between the missions,Ē said Jim Free, NASA associate administrator for exploration systems development, in an Oct. 13 talk at the American Astronautical Societyís Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama. That means Artemis 2 could not launch any earlier than 20 to 21 months after Artemis 1...

https://spacenews.com/nasa-sets-artemis-1-launch-for-no-earlier-than-february/

Thatís why weíre now looking at early 2024 for Artemis 2. 

Thereís nothing really or easily reusable about Orion.  Even after almost a couple decades of development, the program is just so hardware poor that they have to reuse the avionics, and even that takes over a year-and-a-half to pull off.  Itís PR jabberwocky masquerading a severe program weakness as a technical benefit.

So would there be support on this forum for a Lunar Crew Dragon to supplement and eventually replace Orion? Or support to build a few more Orionís with a distributed launch profile?

From reading up on it an updated version of the Dragon would need a better heat shield, updated life support, more radiation shielding, and navigation that is not dependent on GPS satellites. Not a trivial list of items but imho given a few years it could be done and then launched on the Falcon Heavy.

My best guess for a distributed launch with Orion would be with the Vulcan Centaur and then rendezvous with another Vulcan Centaurs upper stage (the ACES 2 I believe). However I donít know if that has enough power for a Lunar injection.

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2006
  • California
  • Liked: 1560
  • Likes Given: 618
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #623 on: 03/11/2022 02:49 pm »
Just out of curiosity, what is the latest on re-use or turn-around time for an Orion Capsule?

I know that the Orion Capsule for Artemis 1 is going to be partially re-used. However, when you search around the details are a bit vague.

Artemis 2 only reuses the avionics from Artemis 1.  It takes 20-21 months to turn those around.

Quote
The timing of the Artemis 1 launch will also affect the schedule for Artemis 2, the first flight with astronauts on board. The Orion spacecraft on Artemis 2 will reuse avionics flown on the Orion for Artemis 1. ďThis puts this iron bar of, Iíll say, 20, 21 months between the missions,Ē said Jim Free, NASA associate administrator for exploration systems development, in an Oct. 13 talk at the American Astronautical Societyís Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama. That means Artemis 2 could not launch any earlier than 20 to 21 months after Artemis 1...

https://spacenews.com/nasa-sets-artemis-1-launch-for-no-earlier-than-february/

Thatís why weíre now looking at early 2024 for Artemis 2. 

Thereís nothing really or easily reusable about Orion.  Even after almost a couple decades of development, the program is just so hardware poor that they have to reuse the avionics, and even that takes over a year-and-a-half to pull off.  Itís PR jabberwocky masquerading a severe program weakness as a technical benefit.

So would there be support on this forum for a Lunar Crew Dragon to supplement and eventually replace Orion? Or support to build a few more Orionís with a distributed launch profile?

From reading up on it an updated version of the Dragon would need a better heat shield, updated life support, more radiation shielding, and navigation that is not dependent on GPS satellites. Not a trivial list of items but imho given a few years it could be done and then launched on the Falcon Heavy.

My best guess for a distributed launch with Orion would be with the Vulcan Centaur and then rendezvous with another Vulcan Centaurs upper stage (the ACES 2 I believe). However I donít know if that has enough power for a Lunar injection.
This is the wrong thread for this question. If you want to replace Orion you should replace SLS/Orion and then rethink the entire Artemis  architecture.

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
  • Liked: 2805
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #624 on: 03/28/2022 03:41 am »
So would there be support on this forum for a Lunar Crew Dragon to supplement and eventually replace Orion? Or support to build a few more Orionís with a distributed launch profile?

From reading up on it an updated version of the Dragon would need a better heat shield, updated life support, more radiation shielding, and navigation that is not dependent on GPS satellites. Not a trivial list of items but imho given a few years it could be done and then launched on the Falcon Heavy.

My best guess for a distributed launch with Orion would be with the Vulcan Centaur and then rendezvous with another Vulcan Centaurs upper stage (the ACES 2 I believe). However I donít know if that has enough power for a Lunar injection.

Rather than picking a point solution (FH/ICPS, distributed launch, Grey Dragon, Starship, etc.) and contracting for that, Iíd advise going out with a competitive solicitation for lunar crew transport (Earth to lunar orbit), seeing what combination of industry proposals provide the best value with some measure of redundancy, and pursuing that.  Itís fun to think through specific technical options on forums like this.  But NASA is usually better off seeking the best industry has to offer for a capability competitively, rather than going the design bureau route as it has done with SLS and Orion.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2022 06:33 pm by VSECOTSPE »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11204
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 14679
  • Likes Given: 8705
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #625 on: 03/28/2022 08:32 am »
So would there be support on this forum for a Lunar Crew Dragon to supplement and eventually replace Orion? Or support to build a few more Orionís with a distributed launch profile?

From reading up on it an updated version of the Dragon would need a better heat shield, updated life support, more radiation shielding, and navigation that is not dependent on GPS satellites. Not a trivial list of items but imho given a few years it could be done and then launched on the Falcon Heavy.

My best guess for a distributed launch with Orion would be with the Vulcan Centaur and then rendezvous with another Vulcan Centaurs upper stage (the ACES 2 I believe). However I donít know if that has enough power for a Lunar injection.

Rather than picking a point solution (FH/ICPS, distributed launch, Grey Dragon, Starship, etc.) and contracting for that, Iíd advise going out with a competitive solicitation for lunar crew transport (Earth to lunar orbit), seeing what combination of industry proposals provide the best value with some measure of redundancy, and pursuing that.  Itís fun to think through specific technical options on forums like this.  But NASA is usually better off seeking the best industry has to offer for a capability competitively, rather than going to design bureau route as it has done with SLS and Orion.

Emphasis mine.

THIS

NASA is better off telling industry:
"I want 20 tons of cargo moved to the ISS, go do it!"
than
"I want two brand new rockets, one capsule and a MPLM-derived disposable vehicle"

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35715
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 17820
  • Likes Given: 395
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #626 on: 03/28/2022 05:16 pm »
So would there be support on this forum for a Lunar Crew Dragon to supplement and eventually replace Orion? Or support to build a few more Orionís with a distributed launch profile?

From reading up on it an updated version of the Dragon would need a better heat shield, updated life support, more radiation shielding, and navigation that is not dependent on GPS satellites. Not a trivial list of items but imho given a few years it could be done and then launched on the Falcon Heavy.

My best guess for a distributed launch with Orion would be with the Vulcan Centaur and then rendezvous with another Vulcan Centaurs upper stage (the ACES 2 I believe). However I donít know if that has enough power for a Lunar injection.

Rather than picking a point solution (FH/ICPS, distributed launch, Grey Dragon, Starship, etc.) and contracting for that, Iíd advise going out with a competitive solicitation for lunar crew transport (Earth to lunar orbit), seeing what combination of industry proposals provide the best value with some measure of redundancy, and pursuing that.  Itís fun to think through specific technical options on forums like this.  But NASA is usually better off seeking the best industry has to offer for a capability competitively, rather than going to design bureau route as it has done with SLS and Orion.

Emphasis mine.

THIS

NASA is better off telling industry:
"I want 20 tons of cargo moved to the ISS, go do it!"
than
"I want two brand new rockets, one capsule and a MPLM-derived disposable vehicle"

Actually, it was ""I want two brand new rockets with spacecraft delivering cargo to the ISS, you can choose a one way trip or have a return capability."

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35715
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 17820
  • Likes Given: 395
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #627 on: 03/28/2022 05:18 pm »

So would there be support on this forum for a Lunar Crew Dragon

No.  No need to direct a design or a specific contractor.

to supplement and eventually replace Orion?

Why does it need to be supplemented or replaced?

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
  • Liked: 2805
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #628 on: 03/28/2022 06:53 pm »
Why does it need to be supplemented or replaced?

Too needlessly big/heavy for the job, which prevents some more elegant/cheaper launch solutions from being considered.

Too low production/flight rate if you want Artemis to be more than one flags-and-footprints mission every year or two.

Too expensive for the job at a minimum of a quarter-billion dollars per astronaut seat ó and probably more like a half-billion dollars per astronaut seat when they donít hit a mission per year ó just to get into lunar orbit.

In an ideal world, open up the trade space to allow Orion, other capsules, and Starship to compete for lunar crew transport.  I seriously doubt it, but if Orion is one of the best solutions, it will still float to the top.

Offline VSECOTSPE

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 779
  • Liked: 2805
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #629 on: 03/28/2022 06:54 pm »
Actually, it was ""I want two brand new rockets with spacecraft delivering cargo to the ISS, you can choose a one way trip or have a return capability."

Saying this as this first COTS PE... Criticism on the new LV requirement is valid.  But that was also forced on the program from above.  Itís not how I set it up.  The program lucked out with F9.

A nit, but itís important to note that COTS left the trade space on ISS cargo type (pressurized, unpressurized, upmass, downmass) and size wide open.  That aspect no one from above screwed up, thankfully.

« Last Edit: 03/28/2022 06:55 pm by VSECOTSPE »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35715
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 17820
  • Likes Given: 395
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #630 on: 03/28/2022 10:49 pm »
Why does it need to be supplemented or replaced?

Too needlessly big/heavy for the job, which prevents some more elegant/cheaper launch solutions from being considered.

Too low production/flight rate if you want Artemis to be more than one flags-and-footprints mission every year or two.

Too expensive for the job at a minimum of a quarter-billion dollars per astronaut seat ó and probably more like a half-billion dollars per astronaut seat when they donít hit a mission per year ó just to get into lunar orbit.

In an ideal world, open up the trade space to allow Orion, other capsules, and Starship to compete for lunar crew transport.  I seriously doubt it, but if Orion is one of the best solutions, it will still float to the top.


Oh, I agree but not in the context of the question.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35715
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 17820
  • Likes Given: 395
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #631 on: 03/28/2022 10:51 pm »
Actually, it was ""I want two brand new rockets with spacecraft delivering cargo to the ISS, you can choose a one way trip or have a return capability."

Saying this as this first COTS PE... Criticism on the new LV requirement is valid.  But that was also forced on the program from above.  Itís not how I set it up.  The program lucked out with F9.

A nit, but itís important to note that COTS left the trade space on ISS cargo type (pressurized, unpressurized, upmass, downmass) and size wide open.  That aspect no one from above screwed up, thankfully.


yes, I was just pointing out that capsule and MPLM type module were not dictated

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11204
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 14679
  • Likes Given: 8705
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #632 on: 03/29/2022 08:16 am »
So would there be support on this forum for a Lunar Crew Dragon to supplement and eventually replace Orion? Or support to build a few more Orionís with a distributed launch profile?

From reading up on it an updated version of the Dragon would need a better heat shield, updated life support, more radiation shielding, and navigation that is not dependent on GPS satellites. Not a trivial list of items but imho given a few years it could be done and then launched on the Falcon Heavy.

My best guess for a distributed launch with Orion would be with the Vulcan Centaur and then rendezvous with another Vulcan Centaurs upper stage (the ACES 2 I believe). However I donít know if that has enough power for a Lunar injection.

Rather than picking a point solution (FH/ICPS, distributed launch, Grey Dragon, Starship, etc.) and contracting for that, Iíd advise going out with a competitive solicitation for lunar crew transport (Earth to lunar orbit), seeing what combination of industry proposals provide the best value with some measure of redundancy, and pursuing that.  Itís fun to think through specific technical options on forums like this.  But NASA is usually better off seeking the best industry has to offer for a capability competitively, rather than going to design bureau route as it has done with SLS and Orion.

Emphasis mine.

THIS

NASA is better off telling industry:
"I want 20 tons of cargo moved to the ISS, go do it!"
than
"I want two brand new rockets, one capsule and a MPLM-derived disposable vehicle"

Actually, it was ""I want two brand new rockets with spacecraft delivering cargo to the ISS, you can choose a one way trip or have a return capability."

Emphasis mine.
No Jim, it wasn't.

From the original 2006 COTS Announcement, and the amended 2007 COTS announcement:

Quote from: Commercial Crew/Cargo Project Office
This announcement solicits proposals from industry for Earth to orbit space flight demonstrations
of the following capabilities:
- Capability A: External cargo delivery and disposal
- Capability B: Internal cargo delivery and disposal
- Capability C: Internal cargo delivery and return
- Capability D: Crew transportation

The scope of the demonstrations involves the development and operation of an end-to-end space transportation system of services including ground operations and integration, launch, rendezvous, proximity operations, docking or berthing, orbital operations, reentry, and safe disposal or return.

It is therefore very clear what NASA, by voice of the responsible program office, originally asked for: end-to-end transportation system of services. They specifically did NOT ask for new rockets to be developed; offerers were free to use existing ones.

The new LV thing was later forced on C3PO by outside operators, as already explained by VSECOTSPE. But NASA originally did NOT ask for new rockets to be developed.
« Last Edit: 03/29/2022 08:41 am by woods170 »

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1692
  • Orange County, California
  • Liked: 1063
  • Likes Given: 2658
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Thomas Jefferson

Online Conexion Espacial

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1695
  • Liked: 2277
  • Likes Given: 1633
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #634 on: 03/31/2022 09:47 pm »

Full-scale static test concludes qualification testing for Orion spacecraft abort motor


Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) and Lockheed Martin successfully performed the final full-scale ground test of the abort motor for NASAís Orion spacecraft Launch Abort System (LAS) at Northrop Grummanís Promontory test facility. The 17-foot-tall abort motor is one of three motors comprising the LAS that sits atop the Orion spacecraft aboard NASAís Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and is designed to increase astronaut safety on the pad and through initial ascent.

Approximately 250 measurement channels assessed the abort motor as the four exhaust nozzles pointing skyward produced nearly 400,000 pounds of thrust over its two-second firing time. Todayís test concludes the verification of a new insulation formulation and completes qualification testing for the Orionís LAS.


ďThis impressive, high-impulse motor burns three times faster than a typical motor of this size, and if needed, the reverse-flow nozzles pull the crew capsule away from the launch vehicle and to safety,Ē said Wendy Williams, vice president, propulsion systems, Northrop Grumman. ďTogether, the three solid rocket motors of the LAS equip the SLS with the highest human-rated thrust and acceleration safety system possible.Ē


The first active LAS system will be integrated into the Orion spacecraft for Artemis II, the first crewed flight of SLS.


Northrop Grumman also produces the attitude control motor (ACM) to directionally control the LAS. The ACM orients the crew capsule for parachute deployment and is manufactured at Northrop Grummanís Elkton, Maryland, facility.



The company further supports NASAís Artemis program producing the twin solid rocket boosters for the SLS rocket and was recently awarded a contract to support Artemis missions with flight sets through 2031. Northrop Grumman is also providing the Habitation and Logistics Outpost module for NASAís Lunar Gateway and internally developing a Lunar Terrain Vehicle that supports human and robotic exploration of the Moon and beyond.


Northrop Grumman is a technology company, focused on global security and human discovery. Our pioneering solutions equip our customers with capabilities they need to connect, advance and protect the U.S. and its allies. Driven by a shared purpose to solve our customersí toughest problems, our 90,000 employees define possible every day.
I publish information in Spanish about space and rockets.
www.conexionespacial.com

Online Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7674
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 8871
  • Likes Given: 10702
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #635 on: 04/02/2022 12:04 am »
Moved from the HLS Option B and the Sustaining Lunar Development Phase (Appendix P) thread.
From what I saw, the Orion production contract covers Artemis III to V and VI to VIII. After that, Orion is supposed to become fixed price but the price hasn't been negotiated yet.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-commits-to-long-term-artemis-missions-with-orion-production-contract
If you read the press release, the Orion Production and Operations Contract (OPOC) is an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract that includes a commitment to order a minimum of six and a maximum of 12 Orion spacecraft, with an ordering period through Sept. 30, 2030.

No new contracts for the first 12 Orion need to be negotiated, assuming no major changes are made.

That doesn't contradict anything that I said.

You implied that a contract for Orion #4 and beyond had not been negotiated. The NASA announcement was clear that an IDIQ contract had been negotiated for Orion #1-12.

Quote
The press release also says this: "Furthermore, the cost incentives on the cost-plus-incentive-fee orders are designed to motivate favorable cost performance during early OPOC production and drive substantially lower prices for any subsequent firm-fixed-price orders issued under this contract."

But Space News added this: "The contract includes the option for up to six additional Orion spacecraft ordered through September 2030. Those will be ordered under firm-fixed-price contracts, with the price set based on cost data from the previous six Orion spacecraft."

https://spacenews.com/nasa-awards-long-term-orion-production-contract-to-lockheed-martin/

The FY23 Budget says this (on page 235): "The first six spacecraft (Artemis III through VIII) will be acquired by cost-plus-incentive fee orders. NASA will negotiate firm-fixed-price orders for future missions to take advantage of the anticipated spacecraft production cost decreases."

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy23_nasa_budget_request_full_opt.pdf

OK. But that doesn't change the fact that while costs can go down on future purchases, costs are not prohibited from going up.

Remember that the Orion MPCV has not even flown yet, so no one knows if the current design can be human-rated. Nor will we know what needs to be changed until after the Orion MPCV does a complete mission with humans onboard, which won't happen until at least Artemis II, or no earlier than 2024.

And if the launch schedule gets stretched out, Lockheed Martin will have to charge NASA for the factory downtime they experience, which will likely increase costs (same with Boeing and the SLS).

In other words, don't count your savings until the accountants close the books...  ;)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14891
  • Liked: 5501
  • Likes Given: 2411
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #636 on: 04/02/2022 12:54 am »
Moved from the HLS Option B and the Sustaining Lunar Development Phase (Appendix P) thread.
From what I saw, the Orion production contract covers Artemis III to V and VI to VIII. After that, Orion is supposed to become fixed price but the price hasn't been negotiated yet.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-commits-to-long-term-artemis-missions-with-orion-production-contract
If you read the press release, the Orion Production and Operations Contract (OPOC) is an indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract that includes a commitment to order a minimum of six and a maximum of 12 Orion spacecraft, with an ordering period through Sept. 30, 2030.

No new contracts for the first 12 Orion need to be negotiated, assuming no major changes are made.

That doesn't contradict anything that I said.

You implied that a contract for Orion #4 and beyond had not been negotiated. The NASA announcement was clear that an IDIQ contract had been negotiated for Orion #1-12.

I said that the price hadn't been negotiated and I gave you the citation from the FY23 budget that says exactly that (see below). I didn't say anything about a new contract.

You, on the other, are guessing that the prices are going to go up. That seems unlikely given that the goal of the contract is to gradually reduce prices and to transition to fixed prices for missions after Artemis VIII.

The FY23 Budget says this (on page 235): "The first six spacecraft (Artemis III through VIII) will be acquired by cost-plus-incentive fee orders. NASA will negotiate firm-fixed-price orders for future missions to take advantage of the anticipated spacecraft production cost decreases."

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy23_nasa_budget_request_full_opt.pdf
« Last Edit: 04/02/2022 04:09 am by yg1968 »

Offline shintoo

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Kennedy Space Center, FL
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 307
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #637 on: 07/27/2022 01:13 am »
A bit late to the party, but is anyone else surprised (... or skeptical) of the language regarding reuse of this June 10th article: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/06/orion-status-update/

Quote
After returning the Artemis 3 crew to Earth, the current plan is to take the capsule, refurbish it, and fly it again on Artemis 6.

There are no direct quotes from the source (Jules Schneider, Director of Orion Assembly, Test, and Launch Operations at Lockheed Martin) about reuse in the article, but it does make it sound like that information is coming from him.

I was very much under the impression, from a number of things including discussions in this thread, and from what I read regarding the Orion Production and Operations Contract, that all Orions for future missions would be produced anew. I had thought that the reuse plans were tossed years ago.

Offline Markstark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 330
  • Liked: 407
  • Likes Given: 80
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #638 on: 07/27/2022 01:50 am »
A bit late to the party, but is anyone else surprised (... or skeptical) of the language regarding reuse of this June 10th article: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2022/06/orion-status-update/

Quote
After returning the Artemis 3 crew to Earth, the current plan is to take the capsule, refurbish it, and fly it again on Artemis 6.

There are no direct quotes from the source (Jules Schneider, Director of Orion Assembly, Test, and Launch Operations at Lockheed Martin) about reuse in the article, but it does make it sound like that information is coming from him.

I was very much under the impression, from a number of things including discussions in this thread, and from what I read regarding the Orion Production and Operations Contract, that all Orions for future missions would be produced anew. I had thought that the reuse plans were tossed years ago.
Reuse of most of the Crew Module is still the plan for OPOC. Thereís varying degrees of reuse:
ďLightĒ - major components/subsystems installed on new pressure vessel hardware + new heatshield
ďHeavyĒ - most the of the CM is reused including the pressure vessel + a new heatshield

The Artemis 6 scenario described above  is ďHeavyĒ reuse.

Offline shintoo

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
  • Kennedy Space Center, FL
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 307
Re: Orion Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #639 on: 07/27/2022 02:10 am »
<snip />
Reuse of most of the Crew Module is still the plan for OPOC. Thereís varying degrees of reuse:
ďLightĒ - major components/subsystems installed on new pressure vessel hardware + new heatshield
ďHeavyĒ - most the of the CM is reused including the pressure vessel + a new heatshield

The Artemis 6 scenario described above  is ďHeavyĒ reuse.

Brilliant, thanks for the clarification. Also thanks for cluing me into the official terms for the types of reuse :) I can't believe I hadn't run into this before, but it does leave me ecstatic. Thanks again.

Tags: propellant 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1