UK steps up, as ESA commit to ATV Service Module on NASA's Orion

[M129K]

Those negotiations seem like they've been going on forever   

TBF however doubling the life span of the ISS is not to be taken lightly. I know they have another 7 years left but really, do they have to take all of it to negotiate it? 

There are times when it seems that way.
<sigh>

I don't think they're literally sitting around a table discussing it for the full seven years. Besides, politics is slow, especially with such projects. They will almost certainly reach the deadline, even if it will take until 2019.

Also, I think Woods forgot something...

[woods170]

Those negotiations seem like they've been going on forever   

TBF however doubling the life span of the ISS is not to be taken lightly. I know they have another 7 years left but really, do they have to take all of it to negotiate it? 

There are times when it seems that way.
<sigh>

I don't think they're literally sitting around a table discussing it for the full seven years. Besides, politics is slow, especially with such projects. They will almost certainly reach the deadline, even if it will take until 2019.

Also, I think Woods forgot something...

Nah... got my quotes messed up. Fixed in the original post.

[Steven Pietrobon]

Report from ESA Bulletin 156:

"Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle European Service Module (MPCV-ESM)

The PDR began in September. The PDR board will be conducted in November. The updated MPCV-ESM contract proposal will be presented in November. The second financial slice of the MPCV-ESM project will be part of the third Financial Binding Commitment to be approved at the Ministerial Council in 2014. Technical exchanges were made with NASA to identify concrete options for the extension of the cooperation in Transportation Systems for Exploration beyond the initial MPCV-ESM contribution, as foreseen by the barter for the ISS Common Systems Operations Costs (CSOC) compensation."

[Proponent]

Agreements are being put in place to have ESA produce the Service Modules of all MPCV's from EM-1 forward. The limitation to just the two for EM-1 and EM-2 is already outdated.

And one advantage is that it mean almost all of the stack -- except for Orion, the Launch Escape system, and (maybe) the 5-segment SRB's, are all flight-proven off-the shelf hardware.  Hopefully that would help with costs, as opposed to building the whole thing entirely from scratch.

Unfortunately, the European service module (ESM) will not be a flight-proven unit when if first flies on SLS.

[Proponent]

... a US built SM means NASA has to pay for it with real budget dollars.

At present NASA gets an SM (more or less) for free.

Whatever people may think that's a pretty compelling argument for continuing with ESA to build further SM's given NASA's current (and foreseeable) budget situation. 

The European SM is unlikely likely to save any money:

"Using the European-designed module 'does not save money for NASA,' Gerstenmaier said, but it does allow NASA to incorporate a pre-tested design, without going through the time and effort of testing a new system on its own."

I would guess that the advantages of the ESM are that it might reduce peak (though not overall) funding requirements.  It might make the program harder to cancel.  It might offers the slim hope of getting more money out of ESA in the future, the argument being, "Look, ESA, if you don't pony up for a deep-space hab or a lander, than Orion will have nowhere to go and we'll just can it, and you'll have no more ESM business."

Regarding hoped-for cost savings, recall JWST.  It was moved from a US launch vehicle to Ariane 5 to save money, but the delay entailed by doing so ate up the savings.

[woods170]

Agreements are being put in place to have ESA produce the Service Modules of all MPCV's from EM-1 forward. The limitation to just the two for EM-1 and EM-2 is already outdated.

And one advantage is that it mean almost all of the stack -- except for Orion, the Launch Escape system, and (maybe) the 5-segment SRB's, are all flight-proven off-the shelf hardware.  Hopefully that would help with costs, as opposed to building the whole thing entirely from scratch.

Unfortunately, the European service module (ESM) will not be a flight-proven unit when if first flies on SLS.

About the only things on SLS that will be flight-proven, off-the-shelf hardware will be the RS-25's, the Saturn V paintjob, NASA meatball decal on the side and the SRB casings and nose-cones. As for the rest:
Core stage....new. Interstage....new. Spacecraft- and stage adapters....new. Orion CM....new. Orion SM....new. SRB's propellant and nozzle...new. LAS....new. Avionics....all new. ICPS....new (well, sort of...).

[newpylong]

The nose cones will be new on the SRBs. The RS-25 will even be different. Up-rated to over 500,000 lbs thrust with new J-2X controllers. This is why I tend to get irritated when the ill-informed claim that SLS is cobbled together STS parts. Obviously, it is not.

Regarding Gerst saying the ESA SM will not save NASA money - that quote has been taken out of context numerous times. He is saying the unit price is not going to be cheaper than the LM SM. What he did not go into depth about is that NASA will not have to pay development costs. They have given ESA their requirements, will be heavily involved in the PDR and obviously work hand in hand with them. Overall, subcontracting this out will ultimately save NASA money whether they continue to have ESA build them after EM-2 or take the design over.

[Khadgars]

The nose cones will be new on the SRBs. The RS-25 will even be different. Up-rated to over 500,000 lbs thrust with new J-2X controllers. This is why I tend to get irritated when the ill-informed claim that SLS is cobbled together STS parts. Obviously, it is not.

Regarding Gerst saying the ESA SM will not save NASA money - that quote has been taken out of context numerous times. He is saying the unit price is not going to be cheaper than the LM SM. What he did not go into depth about is that NASA will not have to pay development costs. They have given ESA their requirements, will be heavily involved in the PDR and obviously work hand in hand with them. Overall, subcontracting this out will ultimately save NASA money whether they continue to have ESA build them after EM-2 or take the design over.

Excellent, thank you.

[john smith 19]

He is saying the unit price is not going to be cheaper than the LM SM.

True. SM done by a group of European "Big Aerospace" contractors is unlikely to be any cheaper than one done by LM or any US contractor.

What he did not go into depth about is that NASA will not have to pay development costs. They have given ESA their requirements, will be heavily involved in the PDR and obviously work hand in hand with them. Overall, subcontracting this out will ultimately save NASA money whether they continue to have ESA build them after EM-2 or take the design over.

Exactly. 

This is not about making the development bill smaller, it's about who pays it.

Right now that's not NASA, it's the ESA, offset against their contribution to the ISS.

In principle a bigger development bill would mean a bigger offset against ISS but I'm not sure if those are real ISS operating costs or notional accounting costs to (in principal) recoups the cost of building ISS and prepare for ISS 2.0l

If the former then NASA still have to meet the costs from some budget, but that's one that's already running.

OTOH if it's a "notional" cost then NASA really has created space hardware out of thin air.

Which is pretty clever 

[edkyle99]

Report that ATV/SM is overweight and behind schedule.  Could it also slip the first scheduled SLS launch?
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1401/15mpcvesm/#.UthUePt0lpF

 - Ed Kyle

[woods170]

Report that ATV/SM is overweight and behind schedule.  Could it also slip the first scheduled SLS launch?
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1401/15mpcvesm/#.UthUePt0lpF

 - Ed Kyle

Old news. Both the overweight thingy and the PDR delay were known several months ago. Anybody with a right mind could have figured back then that the PDR delay would endanger the December 2017 launchdate for ESM-1. The schedule for the ESM had been an extreme tight fit from the get-GO. Doing your PDR six months later will only serve to stress the schedule even more.
ESA knows this and that's why I really cannot appreciate the sweet-talking by mr. Reiter in the SFN article. My industry sources say they have lost confidence in the December 2017 date and have communicated this to ESA. But ESA and NASA will not announce the delay until after the conclusion of the PDR. Until that time arrives, the rumours about a delay will continue to build.

[newpylong]

Rumors I hear is 6 month slip on PDR is acceptable within current time frame. Anything more than that, there will be an EM-1 delay.

This better be one nice Service Module.

[M129K]

Rumors I hear is 6 month slip on PDR is acceptable within current time frame. Anything more than that, there will be an EM-1 delay.

This better be one nice Service Module.

I don't know how to tell you this....

[manboy]

Report that ATV/SM is overweight and behind schedule.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1401/15mpcvesm/#.UthUePt0lpF

 - Ed Kyle

I'm not surprised. I'm just waiting for someone to tell me it's going to be significantly over budget.

[woods170]

Report that ATV/SM is overweight and behind schedule.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1401/15mpcvesm/#.UthUePt0lpF

 - Ed Kyle

I'm not surprised. I'm just waiting for someone to tell me it's going to be significantly over budget.

Well I'm telling you now. Because it already is. ESA will not be confirming it if you would bother to ask them, but the same industry sources telling me that a delay to EM-1 is more-or-less inevitable have also told me that the budget (450 million Euros up till the first flight ESM and spares for the second) has already been broken. Currenct estimates (and we're still nearly four years away from first launch) is that it will go overbudget at least 10 percent.

[Khadgars]

Report that ATV/SM is overweight and behind schedule.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1401/15mpcvesm/#.UthUePt0lpF

 - Ed Kyle

I'm not surprised. I'm just waiting for someone to tell me it's going to be significantly over budget.

Well I'm telling you now. Because it already is. ESA will not be confirming it if you would bother to ask them, but the same industry sources telling me that a delay to EM-1 is more-or-less inevitable have also told me that the budget (450 million Euros up till the first flight ESM and spares for the second) has already been broken. Currenct estimates (and we're still nearly four years away from first launch) is that it will go overbudget at least 10 percent.

This article would say differently, though I am in no position to refute any side

ESA Promises NASA Orion Service Module Delay Won't Hold Up 2017 launch
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39138esa-promises-nasa-that-orion-service-module-delay-won%E2%80%99t-hold-up-2017-launch

[woods170]

Report that ATV/SM is overweight and behind schedule.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1401/15mpcvesm/#.UthUePt0lpF

 - Ed Kyle

I'm not surprised. I'm just waiting for someone to tell me it's going to be significantly over budget.

Well I'm telling you now. Because it already is. ESA will not be confirming it if you would bother to ask them, but the same industry sources telling me that a delay to EM-1 is more-or-less inevitable have also told me that the budget (450 million Euros up till the first flight ESM and spares for the second) has already been broken. Currenct estimates (and we're still nearly four years away from first launch) is that it will go overbudget at least 10 percent.

This article would say differently, though I am in no position to refute any side

ESA Promises NASA Orion Service Module Delay Won't Hold Up 2017 launch
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39138esa-promises-nasa-that-orion-service-module-delay-won%E2%80%99t-hold-up-2017-launch

Industry sources and the ESA chief are two different entities. Industry sources usually have no political agenda to stick to, unlike the ESA chief.

[pippin]

Industry sources and the ESA chief are two different entities. Industry sources usually have no political agenda to stick to, unlike the ESA chief.

Of course not :rolleyes:
C'mon. Everybody making statements has an agenda.

Budget discussions always have two sides to them, one claiming costs and one having to foot the bill.
Will they be over budget? Sure! How much? Well...?
Same goes for schedules.

[woods170]

From the latest ESA Bulletin (issue 157):

Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle European Service Module
(MPCV-ESM)

The PDR was postponed to May in order to give more time
to design trade-offs and to address the excess mass issue in
more detail. A new PDR schedule was agreed with all parties
and all milestones of this plan have been met. The mass was
reduced close to the requirement. The impact of the PDR delay
overall will be minimised by starting Phase-C/D activities
that do not depend on the system PDR. A fully consolidated
MPCV-level schedule will be agreed after the system PDR.

To put things in perspective: in January 2012 it was estimated that PDR for the ESA SM would take place in mid-2013. It has now shifted over 10 months to the right, to May 2014.
Never mind the fluff about the impact of PDR delay being minimised in  the quote above. I have it on good authority that the ESA SM will not be ready to support EM-1 in December 2017.

[redliox]

To put things in perspective: in January 2012 it was estimated that PDR for the ESA SM would take place in mid-2013. It has now shifted over 10 months to the right, to May 2014.
Never mind the fluff about the impact of PDR delay being minimised in  the quote above. I have it on good authority that the ESA SM will not be ready to support EM-1 in December 2017.

*gives a heavy groan and shakes head*

I'm feeling bad vibes, but I hope ESA steps up even if it means delaying to 2018.  I suspect politics, now that NASA has confirmed an ESA partnership with the SM, will keep us from pulling out at least for the first few flights beyond EM-1 & 2.  This marriage with Orion between ESA and NASA will certainly have it's rocky moments; we can only hope it smooths out after May...otherwise yeah...