NASA releases Request For Information for new Orion Service Module engine

[brickmack]

IIRC the master program plan document or whatever it was called explicitly said only 6 ATVs were planned, before the first had even flown. Then that got dropped to 5 later on.

There was a gap in the SM to allow a docking tunnel to be added there in the future with only minimal mods. One of a ton of ATV derivatives proposed

[woods170]

IIRC the master program plan document or whatever it was called explicitly said only 6 ATVs were planned, before the first had even flown. Then that got dropped to 5 later on.

There was a gap in the SM to allow a docking tunnel to be added there in the future with only minimal mods. One of a ton of ATV derivatives proposed

ATV was, from the very beginning, conceived as a technology demonstration program. And it did exactly that. It proved that ESA and its contractors had the expertise to independently develop and fly (cargo) spacecraft. And it is correct that, from the onset, only six ATVs were planned. ESA stuck to that plan simply because, at the time, ISS was expected to be de-orbited in the 2019-2020 timeframe. But events overtook this and ISS was extended, first to 2022, and than to 2024. But based on the original estimated ISS lifetime, the ATV production line had been shut down. So, when it became apparent that ISS would continue beyond 2022 ESA needed something different to barter for their continued presence on the station. NASA pitched an idea, based on ATV, and ESA went for it.
You see, development of the Orion ESM fits perfectly as a follow-on to the original technology demonstration program that ATV was.

[Archibald]

Something I never quite understood is why Japan kept building HTVs ?

[woods170]

Something I never quite understood is why Japan kept building HTVs ?

Because NASA asked them to and, unlike ESA, JAXA complied with the request.

[deruch]

IIRC the master program plan document or whatever it was called explicitly said only 6 ATVs were planned, before the first had even flown. Then that got dropped to 5 later on.

There was a gap in the SM to allow a docking tunnel to be added there in the future with only minimal mods. One of a ton of ATV derivatives proposed

ATV was, from the very beginning, conceived as a technology demonstration program. And it did exactly that. It proved that ESA and its contractors had the expertise to independently develop and fly (cargo) spacecraft. And it is correct that, from the onset, only six ATVs were planned. ESA stuck to that plan simply because, at the time, ISS was expected to be de-orbited in the 2019-2020 timeframe. But events overtook this and ISS was extended, first to 2022, and than to 2024. But based on the original estimated ISS lifetime, the ATV production line had been shut down. So, when it became apparent that ISS would continue beyond 2022 ESA needed something different to barter for their continued presence on the station. NASA pitched an idea, based on ATV, and ESA went for it.
You see, development of the Orion ESM fits perfectly as a follow-on to the original technology demonstration program that ATV was.

ATV also competed as a COTS vehicle in partnership with Boeing as lead and commercial launch provider.

[woods170]

IIRC the master program plan document or whatever it was called explicitly said only 6 ATVs were planned, before the first had even flown. Then that got dropped to 5 later on.

There was a gap in the SM to allow a docking tunnel to be added there in the future with only minimal mods. One of a ton of ATV derivatives proposed

ATV was, from the very beginning, conceived as a technology demonstration program. And it did exactly that. It proved that ESA and its contractors had the expertise to independently develop and fly (cargo) spacecraft. And it is correct that, from the onset, only six ATVs were planned. ESA stuck to that plan simply because, at the time, ISS was expected to be de-orbited in the 2019-2020 timeframe. But events overtook this and ISS was extended, first to 2022, and than to 2024. But based on the original estimated ISS lifetime, the ATV production line had been shut down. So, when it became apparent that ISS would continue beyond 2022 ESA needed something different to barter for their continued presence on the station. NASA pitched an idea, based on ATV, and ESA went for it.
You see, development of the Orion ESM fits perfectly as a follow-on to the original technology demonstration program that ATV was.

ATV also competed as a COTS vehicle in partnership with Boeing as lead and commercial launch provider.

More specifically: Boeing entered round 1 of COTS, in late 2005, with a proposal to launch ATV on a Delta IV Heavy.
So, Boeing would be the COTS contractor. The ATV vehicle would be built by its prime contractor (EADS Astrium) and supplied to Boeing via Arianespace (as a middleman). Prime launch site would be CCAFS. Backup would be ATV on Ariane 5 from CSG.
COTS-use of ATV would be completely separate from ESA-ordered ATV missions.

COTS-use of ATV would see no ESA involvement, but the contractors would have been obliged to reimburse ESA for use of the ATV design.

Mind you, this proposal never survived round 1 of COTS (obviously) and the proposal was entered into the COTS contest two (2) years before the very first (ESA-ordered) ATV was launched.

[brickmack]

Bumping. A new RFI was posted for this a few weeks ago https://govtribe.com/opportunity/federal-contract-opportunity/orion-main-engine-80jsc019ome Includes a new quite detailed technical requirements specification (attached). Responses are due by july 22