I am unclear on how commercial Orion could be made cheap enough to compete with Dragon for LEO missions, even with a different LV.
Sounds more like Axiom to me. It began with a few millionaires (Axiom 1), but soon shifted to countries—Saudi Arabia, Italy, India, and others. There’s clearly a market for wealthy nations eager to send their citizens to the Moon. Countries like the UAE or India could certainly afford it.
Quote from: catdlr on 10/02/2025 06:05 amThe announcement above is beyond the scope of the NASA Artemis project. Discussing how this new use of the Orion, what service module will support it, and what launch vehicle will be used to lift it to LEO and make this venture profitable may be beyond the scope of this "Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation" thread. If you want, I could create a new thread in the commercial section of the forum. Let me know.TonyIt is the "Orion and Exploration vehicles" section in the Beyond-LEO HSF subforum, for a crewed circumlunar mission utilizing Orion. Why wouldn't it be a good fit here? The rest of the Commercial section mostly, if not entirely, deals with launchers, some unmanned (mostly LEO) spacecraft, and a few crewed LEO initiatives...
The announcement above is beyond the scope of the NASA Artemis project. Discussing how this new use of the Orion, what service module will support it, and what launch vehicle will be used to lift it to LEO and make this venture profitable may be beyond the scope of this "Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation" thread. If you want, I could create a new thread in the commercial section of the forum. Let me know.Tony
[5:40] "We want to be launching multiple times per year".[5:50] Other sovereign nations can purchase the service.[6:20] Aiming to fly Orion for the next 2 decades.[7:00] Exploring all launch providers, including Europe. [7:20] "I'm not at liberty to say which ones yet but there are multiple launch vehicles that can perform the job."[7:40] Discusses using a transfer stage to the Moon for non SLS missions.[8:30] Looking at scenarios that use refuelling and storable propellants.
What is the minimum duration between two successive Vulcan launches ?
Interview with Tony Byers, Program Director for Orion Services:
Quote from: hektor on 10/05/2025 07:33 amWhat is the minimum duration between two successive Vulcan launches ?Information from public sources, (miss)interpreted by me:ULA is nearing completion of the second VIF SLC-41, including a second Vulcan mobile launcher platform. This means they can stack two Vulcans in parallel, so they can probably launch them in quick succession (hours, maybe) but not on the same launch opportunity on one day. with only the one pad, they are constrained by the propellant load time and probably a bunch of things I'm overlooking. They cannot launch a third Vulcan from SLC-41 in quick succession.They are also working on SLC-3 at Vandenberg, but to use it in a coordinated launch campaign with SLC-41, the orbit needs to be at a high inclination.
He also plans to request funding for the sixth European Service Module (ESM 6). While modules 4 and 5 will serve as Europe’s contribution to Gateway, the sixth will compensate ESA for past benefits from the International Space Station (ISS). “If we want to be a reliable partner, we must deliver ESM 6,” he said. However, ESA has not yet signed contracts for ESM 7–9, pending firm guarantees of benefits for Europe. Without such assurances from the U.S., Neuenschwander wants to repurpose the ESM for future European missions.
...It appears that the joint venture to commercialize the SLS rocket is defunct. Moreover, there are no plans to modify the rocket for reuse.This appears to be one reason Lockheed is exploring alternative launch vehicles for Orion. If the spacecraft is going to be competitive on price, it needs a rocket that does not cost in excess of $2 billion per launch.
Well, this is interesting:Once unthinkable, NASA and Lockheed now consider launching Orion on other rockets - Ars TechnicaStill, interesting to see what they are trying to do, even though my opinion is that the Orion represents the end of an evolutionary line of capsule spacecraft, and that we would be better off putting our money into building the next generation of fully reusable space-only vehicles.
Still, interesting to see what they are trying to do, even though my opinion is that the Orion represents the end of an evolutionary line of capsule spacecraft, and that we would be better off putting our money into building the next generation of fully reusable space-only vehicles.
Well, this is interesting:Once unthinkable, NASA and Lockheed now consider launching Orion on other rockets - Ars Technica
Wanted: a heavy lift rocketThis appears to be one reason Lockheed is exploring alternative launch vehicles for Orion. If the spacecraft is going to be competitive on price, it needs a rocket that does not cost in excess of $2 billion per launch.Orion has a launch mass, including its abort system, of 35 metric tons. The company has looked at rockets that could launch that much mass and boost it to the Moon, as well as alternatives that might see one rocket launch Orion, and another provide a tug vehicle to push it out to the Moon. So far, the company has not advanced to performing detailed studies of vibrations, acoustics, thermal loads, and other assessments of compatibility, said Kirk Shireman, Lockheed Martin’s vice president and program manager for Orion.[...]Orion is always going to be relatively expensive. However, officials said they are on track to trim the cost of producing an Orion by 50 percent from the Artemis II to Artemis V vehicles and in follow-on missions to bring this down by 30 percent further or more. Minimizing refurbishment will be key to this.
