LIVE: ESA and NASA Announcement on Orion SM - Jan 16, 2013

[Chris Bergin]

NASA and ESA will brief media at 17:30 CET (11:30am Eastern) on Wednesday, 16 January, on the details for ESA to provide the Service Module for the first Orion spacecraft mission in 2017.

Briefing participants include: William H. Gerstenmaier, NASA Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations, Thomas Reiter, ESA Director of Human Spaceflight and Operations, Mark Geyer, NASA Orion Program Manager, and Bernardo Patti, ESA Manager of International Space Station Operations.

Resources:

Live Coverage: NTV or - http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Watch_live_ESA_NASA_media_briefing_16_January

NSF Orion articles (lots and lots):
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/orion/

L2 Orion Section (huge):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=tags&tags=Orion

[Chris Bergin]

Here we go:

[Chris Bergin]

[Chris Bergin]

Gerst outlining....

Confirms ESA will develop the SM for Orion.

"Pretty amazing activity. A lot of engineering behind the scenes on integration/technical interfaces."

Everyone met today, NASA, ESA, LM, Contractors....

"This is part of ISS. Some of the funding is coming from the Station partnership. The experience from the ISS helped with the technical problems and gaining the trust".

"ISS is the first step for exploration, but it helped on the cooperation."

[Chris Bergin]

Thomas - top man.

"This is remarkable. We're opening a new page in trans-Atlantic cooperation for building space transportation for BEO."

"LEO will remain a destination for us, to the end and beyond this decade. But the goal is to go BEO."

"We're building on ATV. The fourth will be launched in April. The last next year.

"ESA has been working since 2008 on the technical side to prepare the work for the decision at the recent conference.

"It was endorsed by the US State Dept, EU and now we can go ahead. "

[Chris Bergin]

Mark Geyer - with slides.

[Chris Bergin]

Grey remains with NASA. Rest is ESA.

[Chris Bergin]

EM-1 will debut the combined hardware. EFT-1 is all NASA.

Working towards a PDR stage.

EFT-1 is flying in 20 months.

[Chris Bergin]

Bernardo:

Now placing industrial contracts. The schedule is very challenging, but exciting.

Making good progress to PDR.

[Lars_J]

Have they mentioned when EM-1 is scheduled?

[Chris Bergin]

Hi res slides going to nasa.gov if someone can look out for them.

Question time already - notes of interest:

Gerst: We were pretty smart about the interfaces on the primary load path. The contractors helped with those interfaces. Experience from ISS helped the cooperation.

This is the first step for international BEO exploration.

Thomas: I want to stress exploration will becoming more and more an international endeavour. ESA has proven to be a reliable partner. This is a good way to exploit synergies to reach common objectives.

[Chris Bergin]

Gerst said he wasn't 100 percent comfortable for some reason. Question asked about that.

Gerst: They are my words. In our world we're really pushing challenges. If I told you I was comfortable with the entire path to Mars people would say I was foolish. We need to evaluate that everything is there, with a very tight schedule. PDR late this year is really fast for development. All that works, but I'm a realist that I know this won't be easy.

[Lars_J]

Gerst is stepping carefully around a Q about his confidence in this ESA collaboration for Orion. A very odd answer.

[Chris Bergin]

Have they mentioned when EM-1 is scheduled?

Dec, 2017 as it always has been (Not that it means it WILL launch then)

[Chris Bergin]

On multiple destinations - Gerst: "You don't design a car that can just go to the grocery store."

The team understand the requirements.

Mark Geyer adds about the flexibility. Notes EM-1 and EM-2, but admits they are still talking about the exploration roadmap.

[Robotbeat]

Not terribly happy about this, personally. But oh well. Still will be cool, and should force the project to continue.

[Chris Bergin]

Visual note that the arrays will be like ATV, as we know - but important to note. Not shown in this graphic.

[yg1968]

Visual note that the arrays will be like ATV, as we know - but important to note. Not shown in this graphic.

The solar arrays will look like ATV but not actually done by ESA, right?

[Chris Bergin]

More notes that they really are only concentrating on EM-1 and EM-2 - with spares for EM-2.

No agreement with ESA with missions past EM-2.

[ThereIWas3]

Considering that NASA backed out of its commitment to partner with ESA in Mars exploration, this is probably a sensitive topic.

Gerst is stepping carefully around a Q about his confidence in this ESA collaboration for Orion. A very odd answer.

[Rocket Science]

Contract for one unit and a spare...

[Chris Bergin]

ESA are going to look at possibilities for an ESA astronaut on EM-2. Laughs on the panel suggest this is going to be the case.

Thomas kinda skips by saying it is a conversation he will have with Gerst, but they are looking at the technical side first.

[Chris Bergin]

Gerst says he has no personal preference on the exploration roadmap, but they are still looking at the options.

[Lars_J]

Hmmm, Gerst just seemed to imply that EM-1 would be unmanned? Has this always been the case? Or perhaps I misunderstand.

[Chris Bergin]

Hmmm, Gerst just seemed to imply that EM-1 would be unmanned? Has this always been the case? Or perhaps I misunderstand.

EM-1 has always been unmanned. It's always been the case. EM-2 is the crewed mission.

I've reported this enough times....

EM-1:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/02/exploration-mission-1-sls-orion-debut-mission-moon-outlined/

EM-2:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/10/em-2-orion-crew-spend-four-days-lunar-orbit/

[Rocket Science]

No ESA hardware for EFT-1, will be for EM-1...

[Chris Bergin]

Whoops. NASA TV cut out to this:

[Chris Bergin]

And back. End of the year EFT-1 Orion will be sent to the launch vehicle (ULA).

Going to use doublers over the small cracks. Heh, ET Stringer redux.

[do1jkb]

[yg1968]

Was the guy from ESA talking about using Orion an Ariane 5. I didn't fully follow that.

[Rocket Science]

Crack in Orion pressure vessel was caused by material being too thin near a weld but no pressure vessel penetration. Will be repaired by a load doubler...

[Chris Bergin]

ESA budget number questions at the moment.

[Chris Bergin]

Orion overmass question.

4,000 lbs over if you take EFT-1 Orion and add all the crew and equipment to EM-1 Orion. "But we're not flying EM-1 Orion tomorrow. So we now what we need to get lighter.

"Mass is going to be a challenge".

Sounds like Constellation all over again, this time Orion being the pain.

[Chris Bergin]

Main engine (OME), and some other elements like network cards will be from NASA for integration.

Still a bit shocked by Mark's almost defeatist answer on Orion mass. "Got to be aggressive. It's not easy."

They've had years and years on this vehicle, and it was too heavy for Ares 1. Now it's currently too heavy for EM-2 on SLS?

[Lars_J]

They've had years and years on this vehicle, and it was too heavy for Ares 1. Now it's currently too heavy for EM-2 on SLS?

It's not too heavy for SLS, the primary problem is the parachute load, AFAIK.

[Chris Bergin]

"Once we start picking destinations" we'll need to look at long duration habs - Gerst.

[Chris Bergin]

They've had years and years on this vehicle, and it was too heavy for Ares 1. Now it's currently too heavy for EM-2 on SLS?

It's not too heavy for SLS, the primary problem is the parachute load, AFAIK.

Ahh, very good. Still worrying, but I was wondering if they were launching it with lead bricks as the TPS at one point

[Chris Bergin]

Presser over. Will do an article later.

[yg1968]

Main engine (OME), and some other elements like network cards will be from NASA for integration.

Still a bit shocked by Mark's almost defeatist answer on Orion mass. "Got to be aggressive. It's not easy."

He also said that they would learn more about what they can they substract to Orion's mass after the EFT-1 test flight.

Mass is a problem for EM2 but not for EM1? Because EM1 is unmanned, I suppose?

[IRobot]

ESA budget number questions at the moment.

Anyone got the figure?

[manboy]

More notes that they really are only concentrating on EM-1 and EM-2 - with spares for EM-2.

No agreement with ESA with missions past EM-2.

This plan sounds awful.

[IRobot]

Mass is a problem for EM2 but not for EM1?

No crew and no internal equipment...

[yg1968]

ESA budget number questions at the moment.

Anyone got the figure?

He said that $450M was the correct figure. 60% of the amount is already budgeted. The remaining 40% should be allocated when they have their 2014 ministerial meeting.

[Chris Bergin]

Cool video, thanks!

[Chris Bergin]

Orion overmass question.

4,000 lbs over if you take EFT-1 Orion and add all the crew and equipment to EM-1 Orion. "But we're not flying EM-1 [EM-2] Orion tomorrow. So we now what we need to get lighter.

"Mass is going to be a challenge".

Sounds like Constellation all over again, this time Orion being the pain.

He actually said that mass was a problem for EM-2 but not for EM-1.

Yep. Not sure why I wrote EM-1. Always can happen with transcribing, but there's the correction.

[Rocket Science]

I too will add my voice that I find the weight issue kind of strange having watched Orion from its conception as a Lunar spacecraft and it’s down scoping (mods) in order to fly on Ares-1. It was always going to be able to return from the Moon under three chutes... What exactly increased it mass, are they bringing a mini-van to Lunar orbit?

[yg1968]

I remember that there were plans to reduce the weight of Orion under Constellation which included getting rid of the toilet. Were these plans ever implemented?

[Lars_J]

Yes. Orion has not had a toilet for a while. (if it ever did)

[Rocket Science]

There were versions with toilet, without toilet, crew of 7, 6, 4 etc...

[jacqmans]

ESA workhorse to power NASA’s Orion spacecraft

16 January 2013

ESA agreed with NASA today to contribute a driving force to the Orion spacecraft planned for launch in 2017. Ultimately, Orion will carry astronauts further into space than ever before using a module based on Europe’s Automated Transfer Vehicle technology.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Research/ESA_workhorse_to_power_NASA_s_Orion_spacecraft

[mr. mark]

This is really a problem. Not sure if it's bad foresight or engineering but clearly this should have been thought out long ago. You can't simply design a spacecraft on the fly. Orion seems to be whatever a current administration or agency wants it to be and that's no way to design a spacecraft.

[John44]

NASA/ESA Orion Partnership News Conference
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8029

[majormajor42]

in the video, Orion is not airlifted by a helicopter after splashdown. It is recovered in the bay of an amphibious Naval vessel. The astronauts have already disembarked to one of the boats or a helicopter, yes?

How were the Apollo capsules recovered? If by helicopter, then perhaps Orion is too heavy to be airlifted?

I vaguely recall a Roger Moore Bond film where a deep sea capsule, with a nice bed inside, is recovered by a ship in a similar fashion as this video.

Oh, and is that another Orion capsule already in the bay? Or a stand to put the Orion on to for stowage?

[Star One]

in the video, Orion is not airlifted by a helicopter after splashdown. It is recovered in the bay of an amphibious Naval vessel. The astronauts have already disembarked to one of the boats or a helicopter, yes?

How were the Apollo capsules recovered? If by helicopter, then perhaps Orion is too heavy to be airlifted?

I vaguely recall a Roger Moore Bond film where a deep sea capsule, with a nice bed inside, is recovered by a ship in a similar fashion as this video.

Oh, and is that another Orion capsule already in the bay? Or a stand to put the Orion on to for stowage?

You're talking about the Spy Who Loved Me, yes the sea capsule at the end of that was winched aboard a ship by a crane at the end.

[Lars_J]

Sadly, I think this announcement is a significant nail in the coffin of Orion. (not the first) I am doubtful that EM-1 will ever fly.

[AnalogMan]

Presentation slides from the presser:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/mpcv/images/orion_sm_011613.html

[Star One]

Sadly, I think this announcement is a significant nail in the coffin of Orion. (not the first) I am doubtful that EM-1 will ever fly.

That's a very pessimistic statement to make at this stage?

[yg1968]

Image of the day on NASA.gov:

[IRobot]

Sadly, I think this announcement is a significant nail in the coffin of Orion. (not the first) I am doubtful that EM-1 will ever fly.

Why? The ATV is proven tech, better than the cracked hull of Orion! Can you substantiate your vision?

[Ben the Space Brit]

Regarding overmass on EM-2:

IIRC, the problem Orion had during the final months of Project Constellation was that the capsule was too heavy, with all life-support supplies for six crew on a standard-duration mission, to be safely recovered by parachute in the event of a launch abort.  The mass was too high to give margin if one 'chute failed (I believe one did on one of the lunar Apollos so it isn't an unprecedented failure mode).  There is insufficient room in the Apollo-geometry capsule for a fourth parachute.

What this announcement is saying is that, even with the reduction of crew to four and the CxP-era cutting Orion's mass down to the bone, there may still be issues with parachute capacity in the event of a launch abort.  This is alarming, as is the team's clear uncertainty if they can hit the budgeted mass.

[Lars_J]

Sadly, I think this announcement is a significant nail in the coffin of Orion. (not the first) I am doubtful that EM-1 will ever fly.

Why? The ATV is proven tech, better than the cracked hull of Orion! Can you substantiate your vision?

It is not a technology issue, mostly a political one. With Orion being such a mismanaged project, adding foreign contributors adds cost and complexity which will make it even more likely that Orion will be cancelled before first manned flight. My opinion only, but quite a few share it. See the discussion in this thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30427.0

[mr. mark]

After having been around for the NASA moon missions as a youngster, I was hoping that this press event would be the opening salvo toward BEO exploration. Reading some of the reports as to the weight issue with Orion, I am deeply saddened. Of course, the space program is not about me or my dreams. Here's hoping that NASA can come up with something to remedy this situation.

[sdsds]

[EFT-1 Orion will] use doublers over the small cracks

Good to have this mentioned! Of course they will complete the pressure vessel testing (up to the full pressure originally planned) once the repair is in place, right? Was there any mention of how this changes costs or schedule for EFT-1?

[ChileVerde]

At the start of the presentation, Mr. Gerstenmaier said that the Europeans would develop the first Service Module and portions of the second Service Module.

Portions?

[Lars_J]

At the start of the presentation, Mr. Gerstenmaier said that the Europeans would develop the first Service Module and portions of the second Service Module.

Portions?

[Lando Calrissian]This deal is getting worse all the time![/Lando Calrissian] 

[Khadgars]

After having been around for the NASA moon missions as a youngster, I was hoping that this press event would be the opening salvo toward BEO exploration. Reading some of the reports as to the weight issue with Orion, I am deeply saddened. Of course, the space program is not about me or my dreams. Here's hoping that NASA can come up with something to remedy this situation.

I don't know, but to me the weight issue doesn't seem like a big problem.  EFT-1 will fly as scheduled as well as EM-1.  EM-2 isn't scheduled until 2021, 7 years after the first test flight of EFT-1 which should provide most of the information they need to shed the excess weight.  Just my opinion of course.

[yg1968]

At the start of the presentation, Mr. Gerstenmaier said that the Europeans would develop the first Service Module and portions of the second Service Module.

Portions?

They explained that the spare parts for EM-1 that are not used for that mission would be incorporated in EM-2.

[ChileVerde]

At the start of the presentation, Mr. Gerstenmaier said that the Europeans would develop the first Service Module and portions of the second Service Module.

Portions?

They explained that the spare parts for EM-1 that are not used for that mission would be incorporated in EM-2.

OK, so ESA will develop and build all of the EM-1 and EM-2 SMs, but portions of the EM-2 SM will be developed and built where left-over spare parts from the EM-1 SM aren't available. I think I've got that.

[Chris Bergin]

Day job got in the way, so only was able to start writing in the last hour.

Article for this:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/orions-atv-deal-esa-astro-em-2-mission/

[Rocket Science]

Nice article Chris!   Who knows if having ESA on board will have any influence in a more aggressive flight schedule for Orion on SLS in the future...

[AbeJ]

After having been around for the NASA moon missions as a youngster, I was hoping that this press event would be the opening salvo toward BEO exploration. Reading some of the reports as to the weight issue with Orion, I am deeply saddened. Of course, the space program is not about me or my dreams. Here's hoping that NASA can come up with something to remedy this situation.

I don't know, but to me the weight issue doesn't seem like a big problem.  EFT-1 will fly as scheduled as well as EM-1.  EM-2 isn't scheduled until 2021, 7 years after the first test flight of EFT-1 which should provide most of the information they need to shed the excess weight.  Just my opinion of course.

Yea, that's basically what Geyer said.  He compared it to Apollo starting out on the heavy side and evolving into being able to carry a buggy to the moon on later missions.

Its a good thing all the pessimistic naysayers on this forum don't work on my team or we'd never get anything done!

[Lar]

OK, so ESA will develop and build all of the EM-1 and EM-2 SMs, but portions of the EM-2 SM will be developed and built where left-over spare parts from the EM-1 SM aren't available. I think I've got that.

Am I the only person who finds that a bit... whacky?

[Fuji]

ATV 2.0
http://blogs.esa.int/atv/2013/01/16/atv-2-0/

To push Orion through space, NASA will supply the ATV service module with an extra engine, none other than a recycled Space Shuttle thruster. This engine will supply around 26 kN of thrust in addition to eight smaller engines as backup. The smaller engines will supply a total of 490 N, enough to get Orion back to Earth.

Attitude control will be done by yet more thrusters for which the design needs to be finalised, but think in terms of 20+ small engines working together.

Although ATV’s solar panel configuration will remain, ESA will give them a significant upgrade. Slightly shorter but wider, Orion’s solar panels will use Gallium Arsenide technology and supply more electricity, ­up to 11 kW, or enough to power the energy needs of a typical household. These newer solar panels offer 30% efficiency converting solar energy; ATV’s current solar panels only manage around 17%.

[ChileVerde]

OK, so ESA will develop and build all of the EM-1 and EM-2 SMs, but portions of the EM-2 SM will be developed and built where left-over spare parts from the EM-1 SM aren't available. I think I've got that.

Am I the only person who finds that a bit... whacky?

Certainly not me. It seems all so clear...

[wkann]

Not to go of topic, but since this video shows Orion’s new ATV Service Module, it can't be that old. So why does NASA keep showing SLS with a painted core stage? I thought they were going to keep the tank orange like on shuttle and Delta IV. Is it still a dumb publicity stunt?

[Lars_J]

Yes, still a publicity invention to invoke Saturn V.

BTW, that video (nice BTW) does highlight the incredible complexity of the parachute system... Here are the steps
1) Drogues
2) Bigger Drogues
3) Tiny drogues to pull out...
4) ... The main parachutes.

Wow, four different drogue/chute systems!?!? At some point with that many systems you are just increasing the odds of a part failing instead of increasing robustness.

[woods170]

All images: Credit NASA. Supplied by ESA

Orion and notional mission module on NEA mission.

[woods170]

All images: credit NASA. Supplied by ESA

[woods170]

All images: credit NASA. Supplied by ESA

[woods170]

All images: credit NASA. Supplied by ESA

[sarod]

Apollo was recovered the same way. Crew via helicopter, CM by crane onto the ship. CM was too heavy to be lifted by helicopter.

Sorry for off-topic, but... The Apollo CM weighed 5.8 metric tons, and several helicopters can easily carry this load: CH-47 Chinook has payload of 12.7 tonnes, CH-53E Super Stallion 14.5 tonnes for external payload, CH-54 9 tonnes and so on. Of course this doesn't mean that operating them from a carrier would be easy or that for example the wind loads would allow lifting a capsule from the sea. The weight shouldn't be a problem however.

[Lar]

OK, so ESA will develop and build all of the EM-1 and EM-2 SMs, but portions of the EM-2 SM will be developed and built where left-over spare parts from the EM-1 SM aren't available. I think I've got that.

Am I the only person who finds that a bit... whacky?

Certainly not me. It seems all so clear...

Clear BUT whacky?

[Jim]

Yes, still a publicity invention to invoke Saturn V.

BTW, that video (nice BTW) does highlight the incredible complexity of the parachute system... Here are the steps
1) Drogues
2) Bigger Drogues
3) Tiny drogues to pull out...
4) ... The main parachutes.

Wow, four different drogue/chute systems!?!? At some point with that many systems you are just increasing the odds of a part failing instead of increasing robustness.

The first set take the forward heat shield away.
The chutes pulling out larger ones are called pilot chutes and very common place.  That is the only way to get the larger ones deployed.

[Lars_J]

All images: credit NASA. Supplied by ESA

I find it strange that they keep insisting on rending Orion "upside down".

(Yeah, I know, there is no "up" in space... but I'm thinking of the Astronaut orientation inside)

[pippin]

I find it strange that they keep insisting on rending Orion "upside down".

(Yeah, I know, there is no "up" in space... but I'm thinking of the Astronaut orientation inside)

Earth/moon/asteroid facing looks correct to me.

[IW1DGG]

Guys,
don't you think there is something missing in these models?


The antennas!
I do not think low gain antennas are sufficient for the data rates and distances that they will have.
So I would think a combination of LGAs plus at leat one high gain antenna is needed.

Any opinion?

[wkann]

Guys,
don't you think there is something missing in these models?


The antennas!
I do not think low gain antennas are sufficient for the data rates and distances that they will have.
So I would think a combination of LGAs plus at leat one high gain antenna is needed.

Any opinion?

Interesting point, some of the older images of Orion show an antenna mounted on the sm.

[A_M_Swallow]

OK, so ESA will develop and build all of the EM-1 and EM-2 SMs, but portions of the EM-2 SM will be developed and built where left-over spare parts from the EM-1 SM aren't available. I think I've got that.

Am I the only person who finds that a bit... whacky?

I just read that as the official way of saying EAS will not be producing the SM for EM-3.  With full plausible denialability of course.

[Lobo]

OK, so ESA will develop and build all of the EM-1 and EM-2 SMs, but portions of the EM-2 SM will be developed and built where left-over spare parts from the EM-1 SM aren't available. I think I've got that.

Am I the only person who finds that a bit... whacky?

I just read that as the official way of saying EAS will not be producing the SM for EM-3.  With full plausible denialability of course.

Maybe this is just a way for NASA to defer the cost of developing the SM until after SLS and Orion are developed and in production.  And at really no cost to NASA, as ESA will bear the development costs for modified ATV/SM for the first two Orion flights at least (with an option for more if desired).  Just bartering away a single seat on EM-2. 

Seems like it could be a decent way for NASA to spread their overall development costs out over enough time to help with budget constraints.  And it's based on existing hardware, so it's not like this is a new proposal from scratch and NASA is opening itself up to too many variables.  Maybe NASA could also develop Block 1B upper stage with the up front funds they'd have otherwise had to spend on the SM? 
If the first few ATV/CM's work well and are delivered on time and without hassle, they could extend the contract for a few more, and also start working on a EMLP platform, DSH, lunar lander, etc, while continuing to defer the cost of the "normal" Orion SM. 

I'm not sure how much the thing will cost to develop, but maybe they are viewing it as a way to work on other things and keep a constrained budget in mind, while only having to give up a seat, or a few seats (if they keep it beyond EM-2) to the ESA.  And it's not something that would jeopardize NASA's overall architecture in case there was a problem with ESAS, as NASA would still have the plans for their current PoR SM (model 606 I think??) and develop and build it.  It would create a delay in manned BEO flight while that was going on, but all of the other pieces would still be in place.

Not to mention, by the time EM-2, or 3 or 4 was done, and NASA might be looking to not use the ATV/SM any more, there might be some more interesting options out there than either ATV/SM or SM model 606.
Boeing and/or SpaceX’s pusher LAS systems could be developed and proven by then.  A Service module with superdraco’s or RS-88’s, could possibly be used with a CST-100 type pusher LAS system.  And in case of a successful launch, the unused LAS propellant would then act as the SM RCS and SMME propellant.  (although, that would probably mean superdracos as they use hypergolics like the RCS thrusters, and RS-88’s use LOX/alchohol, which may be a problem for a long duration mission). 
 Something like that could increase SLS’s lift capacity because it’s not lifting the extra LAS tower in addition to the SM propellant.  The same fuel performs either function.  On a LEO mission like CST-100, there’s not much for the unused LAS fuel to do if there’s not abort, but for BEO, it can perform the TEI burn, and supply all the RCS requirements for long duration.

Anyway, maybe not.  Just a speculation.  But the tower LAS system was sort of a CxP relic like the 5-seg boosters, with it already in development when CxP was cancelled, and NAA2010 was passed.  It would need to be used early on, just like the 5-seg boosters, to get the system going by 2017.  But, if SpaceX and/or Boeing prove the concept and develop the hardware for a pusher LAS, they could actually compete for a new SM contract if NASA decided not to continue to use ATV/SM. 
Boeing would already have a working SM with LAS, but they’d probably have to convert it to storable propellant. 
SpaceX would have the hypergolic LAS engines…which could be used for the SMME’s, and the hypergolic RCS engines already.  They’d just have to make their trunk into an actual service module. 

[IRobot]

I think it is a great deal for both.

ESA keeps their development team active and expands knowledge. They also get a free ride on EM-2. And possible supply contract for further SM, habitat and support modules.

NASA reduce the risk as the SM is ATV proven. It also reduces immediate costs, reduces schedule risks and maintain their options open after EM-2. It also allows them to focus properly on the other parts of the project.

[ChileVerde]

OK, so ESA will develop and build all of the EM-1 and EM-2 SMs, but portions of the EM-2 SM will be developed and built where left-over spare parts from the EM-1 SM aren't available. I think I've got that.

Am I the only person who finds that a bit... whacky?

Certainly not me. It seems all so clear...

Clear BUT whacky?

Thinking about it, it does seem odd that Mr. Gerstenmaier should have made a point about "portions" if by that he just meant that ESA might use left-over parts from SM-1 on SM-2.  That would not seem to be particularly worth mentioning, and, in any case, it really isn't NASA's business how ESA chooses to build the service modules as long as they meet specifications and schedule.

Edit: This is a bit OT, but it seemed to me that Mr. G was somewhat nervous.  Is that just the way he is on camera?

[yg1968]

OK, so ESA will develop and build all of the EM-1 and EM-2 SMs, but portions of the EM-2 SM will be developed and built where left-over spare parts from the EM-1 SM aren't available. I think I've got that.

Am I the only person who finds that a bit... whacky?

Certainly not me. It seems all so clear...

Clear BUT whacky?

Thinking about it, it does seem odd that Mr. Gerstenmaier should have made a point about "portions" if by that he just meant that ESA might use left-over parts from SM-1 on SM-2.  That would not seem to be particularly worth mentioning, and, in any case, it really isn't NASA's business how ESA chooses to build the service modules as long as they meet specifications and schedule.

I understood that the agreement only covered EM-1 and a portion of EM-2 (because of the EM-1 left over parts that will be incorporated in EM-2).

[ChileVerde]

I understood that the agreement only covered EM-1 and a portion of EM-2 (because of the EM-1 left over parts that will be incorporated in EM-2).

I find myself in a state of metaconfusion: I'm confused as to whether I should be confused or not.

If ESA can save money by using left-overs from SM-1 in SM-2, good for them. But why does that need to be part of the bilateral agreement? Will availability of spare parts somehow affect ESA's ability to deliver SM-2 on schedule?

Is the actual language of the agreement available?

[sdsds]

I agree that without seeing the actual terms of the agreement it is difficult to know what options are being preserved for each side. Is it generally understood that final assembly of SM-1 will be in Europe? Is it possible NASA has preserved the option of bringing some European-produced components of SM-2 to the United States for final assembly here?

[ChileVerde]

This from Space Policy Online, the redoubtable Marcia Smith.  I still don't have a totally warm feeling that I know what's actually been agreed.

Where, for example, would I go in 2016/17 to look at the SM-1 being assembled? France? California? I'm good with either of those, but would like to know how to plan the trip.

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-esa-agreement-on-orion-service-module-is-for-only-one-unit-plus-spares

NASA-ESA Agreement on Orion Service Module is For Only One Unit Plus Spares
Marcia S. Smith
Posted: 16-Jan-2013
Updated: 17-Jan-2013 12:00 AM

NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) provided more details today of their agreement for ESA to provide the service module for NASA's Orion spacecraft.

<snip>

Under this new agreement, ESA will compensate NASA for future common systems operating costs by using ATV hardware for the service module for one of NASA's Orion spacecraft.  The service module provides electrical power, propulsion and storage for consumables.

<snip>

The agreement is for ESA to provide some of the service module systems for the 2017 flight.  It will also provide spare parts.  If the spare parts are not required, they will be used for the 2021 flight. That is the extent of the agreement at this point.   NASA will be provided with the intellectual property to enable U.S. companies to build whatever systems are needed for Orion service modules after that.

<snip>

[Lars_J]

One argument that has been put forth by many is how this international cooperation will provide a stronger protection against cancellation for Orion.

But... Since this barter agreement only provides one SM, plus parts for another - after those flights (EM-1 and EM-2), there is no agreement in place. Any partner can walk, and we are back to square one. A very short-term benefit.

[yg1968]

The agreement can be renewed in exchange for ESA astronauts, etc.

[Lars_J]

The agreement can be renewed in exchange for ESA astronauts, etc.

Of course it can. But as the current agreement is only for two SM's, the "safety" of international cooperation ends after that. They can renew/extend the agreement but do not have to. ESA can bail out, no hard feelings. NASA can cancel Orion, no hard feelings. That's my point.

[A_M_Swallow]

The agreement can be renewed in exchange for ESA astronauts, etc.

Of course it can. But as the current agreement is only for two SM's, the "safety" of international cooperation ends after that. They can renew/extend the agreement but do not have to. ESA can bail out, no hard feelings. NASA can cancel Orion, no hard feelings. That's my point.

EM-1 is 2017, so gives 4 years of cover.
EM-2 is 2019-2021, giving up to 8 years of cover.

This covers all of the Obama presidential term and into the second term of his successor.

[docmordrid]

Stability based on political whim? Surely you jest?

[yg1968]

Here is the press conference on YouTube:

[Blackstar]

This is only the first step. Just wait, there will be more announcements like this.

[mr. mark]

I see nothing wrong with ESA astronauts. We are not in the middle of a cold war and NASA is no longer a USA prestige interest. Combining forces as we have on ISS is long term the best way to go. On a side note, keeping Russia out the conversation is in my opinion a bad deal.

[Rugoz]

Whatever one thinks of this cooperation, the x-wing fighter layout of the solar panels makes for a cool looking spaceship.

[ChileVerde]

This is only the first step. Just wait, there will be more announcements like this.

A Russian-supplied Lagrange station/protoDSH would not surprise me too much. (Well, maybe a little.) NASA really needs to get a few more pieces lined up before it can seriously claim to have an exploration program.  Being somewhat squeezed for money to do it indigenously, getting a little help from its friends makes sense.

[clongton]

NASA is no longer a USA prestige interest.

Sorry but you couldn't be more wrong. Go ANYWHERE around the world, say "NASA" and the hearer will immediately think "America".

[Khadgars]

NASA is no longer a USA prestige interest.

Sorry but you couldn't be more wrong. Go ANYWHERE around the world, say "NASA" and the hearer will immediately think "America".

Agreed.  I'm curious Clongton about your opinions regarding the ESA SM and the fact that NASA will be providing all of the fairings and other load bearing structures for it.  NASA will also have, according to the presser, all the information from the SM should they want to create it themselves.

[clongton]

NASA is no longer a USA prestige interest.

Sorry but you couldn't be more wrong. Go ANYWHERE around the world, say "NASA" and the hearer will immediately think "America".

Agreed.  I'm curious Clongton about your opinions regarding the ESA SM and the fact that NASA will be providing all of the fairings and other load bearing structures for it.  NASA will also have, according to the presser, all the information from the SM should they want to create it themselves.

Since you asked: Personally I believe the whole thing is a disastrous mistake. NASA decided not to build a common sense Shuttle derived HLV for an amount of money we could actually afford. Instead they went for the biggest baddest HLV possible for a price tag that will be the death of it, leaving no money to pay for the MPCV's Service Module. Because they are now committed to a path that is so expensive that it almost guarantees project cancellation, they are unable to ask Congress for additional funding for the SM and are forced to look elsewhere and make deals with the ESA. The ESA has agreed to build only one SM and provide parts for another partial build and then it is done. It really doesn't matter whether or not the US can then take over SM production because it won't happen. There's no money left in the till to pay for it. Instead of going to Europe for the SM, NASA should have taken a step back, reduced the size of the SLS to an affordable vehicle. Then the SM could have been built domestically and we would still have money left over to execute missions with.

But hey, who am I? I'm just a guy with a little experience on a team that designed an HLV that actually made sense within available budgets.

[spectre9]

Always loved the way clongton tells it like it is 

Lockheed Martin could've built their own Orion launch vehicle, the Atlas V Phase II Heavy. This would also have commonality with the rockets NASA and DoD use for unmanned payloads and given them greater capability for those missions.

The price tag was good. The NASA jobs created weren't so shuttle derived was the compromise.

SLS is required to launch "the multipurpose crew vehicle" it doesn't need to be as big as it is to do that.

There's no other pressing requirement (70-130mt doesn't matter too much) initially just make sure it can launch the MPCV like Ares 1 wasn't able to do.

[Rugoz]

Even with a cheaper launcher there is still no mission. For some reason nasa thinks its better to fly it twice than never  .

[Blackstar]

This is only the first step. Just wait, there will be more announcements like this.

A Russian-supplied Lagrange station/protoDSH would not surprise me too much. (Well, maybe a little.)

Heh heh heh...

Maybe that. Maybe something else. Just wait...

[HappyMartian]

This is only the first step. Just wait, there will be more announcements like this.

A Russian-supplied Lagrange station/protoDSH would not surprise me too much. (Well, maybe a little.)

Heh heh heh...

Maybe that. Maybe something else. Just wait...

OK. But maybe the American taxpayers are just a bit tired of waiting for a sensible BLEO plan.

The whole point of ESA building a SM for the Orion seems to be an attempt at making the Lunar SLS/Orion missions both affordable and politically sustainable through international cooperation and cost sharing of critical spaceflight hardware.

Japan, Germany, or Russia, could build the upper stage for the SLS.

Russia, China, India, or Golden Spike could build the Lander.

Russia, China, India, or Bigelow could build the Low Lunar Orbit Space Station that could be launched by the SLS.

And the SLS could launch an Orion or Russia's PTK NP spacecraft with an ESA SM.

If Congress likes it, perhaps this ESA SM is just the beginning of how BLEO missions will be done in the future.


Edited.

[ChileVerde]

Meditating on SM-1 and portions of SM-2 just now, the obvious occurred to me: EM-1 and EM-2 are very different missions. In particular, EM-2 will have a crew and EM-1 won't and therefore SM-1 will not need to have functioning ECLSS-related equipment, whereas SM-2 will.  So perhaps ESA will deliver SM-1 with a mass mock-up of the ECLSS stuff and SM-2 will have real ECLSS (and perhaps other mission-specific equipment) added by NASA?

Just a thought.

[woods170]

Meditating on SM-1 and portions of SM-2 just now, the obvious occurred to me: EM-1 and EM-2 are very different missions. In particular, EM-2 will have a crew and EM-1 won't and therefore SM-1 will not need to have functioning ECLSS-related equipment, whereas SM-2 will.  So perhaps ESA will deliver SM-1 with a mass mock-up of the ECLSS stuff and SM-2 will have real ECLSS (and perhaps other mission-specific equipment) added by NASA?

Just a thought.

Most of the ECLSS systems are located in the Crew Module (CM) and Crew Module Adaptor (CMA), not in the Service Module (SM). The SM only has to provide power, water and gases for the ECLSS systems inside the CM and CMA.
Power it will need to provide for EM-1 anyway, so no sence in leaving that out. Gases for a sustained pressurization of the CM will be needed on EM-1 also, despite no crew being present. So, no sense to leave those tanks out.
My guess is that most systems on the SM for support of the ECLSS will be present on SM-1.

[simpl simon]

It would be interesting to know whether the Implementing Agreement governing this cooperation addresses the possibility that the EM-1 mission objectives cannot be achieved because of a failure of the SM. For example if it fails to provide a required burn and the Orion spacecraft is stranded, and cannot return to Earth.
Will ESA then be required to provide a second SM?

[spectre9]

I don't doubt the capability of ESA.

Of all the hardware NASA needs for useful exploration the SM is down very low on the list.

ATV fuel tanker or DSH would be much better.

Perhaps they'll provide that too in time 

[Ben the Space Brit]

For example if it fails to provide a required burn and the Orion spacecraft is stranded, and cannot return to Earth.
Will ESA then be required to provide a second SM?

That's one failure mode that couldn't be laid at the ESA's door - the MPS on the service module will be a reconditioned shuttle OMS engine.

[simpl simon]

For example if it fails to provide a required burn and the Orion spacecraft is stranded, and cannot return to Earth.
Will ESA then be required to provide a second SM?

That's one failure mode that couldn't be laid at the ESA's door - the MPS on the service module will be a reconditioned shuttle OMS engine.

I was hoping someone could answer the question rather than just quibble with the example. And I'm surprised you would assume that the fault would lie with the OMS engine rather than with the control electronics, the power supply or with some other sub-system or component.

[sdsds]

In the United States, the Freedom of Information Act provides the right to obtain access to federal agency records. (Except there are nine exemptions that sometimes protect such records from public disclosure.) Although in theory those requesting records might need to go to court to enforce their FOIA rights, President Obama has directed agencies to apply a presumption of openness in responding to FOIA requests. So it should be possible to find out what the Implementing Agreement actually says.

http://www.foia.gov/about.html

Just sayin'.

[ChileVerde]

Jeff Foust over at The Space Review, which I esteem greatly, has just posted this take on what the Orion SM deal includes. I pass it on for consideration and with the recommendation that the whole article be read.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2222/1

The benefits (and limitations) of space partnerships
by Jeff Foust
Monday, January 21, 2013

<snip>

[The ESA/NASA service module] cooperation, though, has its limitations. One aspect not immediately clear from the agency announcements about the agreement is that it covers only one service module. That module will be flown on the EM-1 mission, the first Orion/SLS mission planned for launch in 2017. Production of service modules for later missions, including the first crewed Orion mission, EM-2 in 2021, remains undecided.

ESA will provide spare parts for the EM-1 module that could be used for later missions, said NASA Orion program manager Mark Geyer. However, Gerstenmaier said no decision has been made on who will produce the service module for the EM-2 and later missions, raising the possibility that the component could revert back to NASA.

“We really haven’t defined that at this point,” Gerstenmaier said. “We’re protected both ways.” That includes maintaining ownership of the relevant intellectual property regarding the service module so that NASA could manufacture future modules if needed. “We’ve really made no decisions about those future flights. We think it’s important to set this up on the first flight and then plan for that transition” for the second and future flights.

<snip>

[docmordrid]

http://www.spacenews.com/article/german-space-chief-confident-europe-will-keep-building-orion-prop-modules-for-nasa#.UQNg1L-9LTo

German Space Chief Confident Europe Will Keep Building Orion Prop Modules for NASA

Jan. 24, 2013

Woerner said NASA is ready to let Europe build all future Orion propulsion modules.
>
<hits paywall>

[Ben the Space Brit]

FWIW,  I don't really think that there has been any real thought, let alone a decision about what happens after EM-2.  That said, unless EADS makes a complete hash of things, I doubt that there will be much pressure to change manufacturers of the SM after the first few test flights.

The only possible competition would be if the ATV-derived SM is only an interim design and, after EM-2, will be directly evaluated against the LM unit to see what will be the 'production' model used.

[john smith 19]

http://www.spacenews.com/article/german-space-chief-confident-europe-will-keep-building-orion-prop-modules-for-nasa#.UQNg1L-9LTo

German Space Chief Confident Europe Will Keep Building Orion Prop Modules for NASA

Jan. 24, 2013

Woerner said NASA is ready to let Europe build all future Orion propulsion modules.
>
<hits paywall>

Given that the ATV thrusters are from Aerojet and the main engine will be supplied by NASA that's only part of the module.

[john smith 19]

The only possible competition would be if the ATV-derived SM is only an interim design and, after EM-2, will be directly evaluated against the LM unit to see what will be the 'production' model used.

Which begs the question "How much work has LM done on the SM?"

[yg1968]

Asked if NASA-ESA deal is intended to be for the long term, Williams says it "points in that direction"; current one limited by ISS contract

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/298459080874422272

A couple of other tweets of interests:

Dumbacher: gap between 1st 2 SLS flights (2017 and 2021) driven by budget to get crew systems in Orion. "It is not a desirable situation."

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/298470915673554944

Dumbacher: current long-term plans (post-2021) call for 1 SLS/Orion launch every 2 years. Subject to change as plans and budgets evolve.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/298472907837935617

[Lars_J]

Dumbacher: current long-term plans (post-2021) call for 1 SLS/Orion launch every 2 years. Subject to change as plans and budgets evolve.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/298472907837935617

On SLS/Orion every two years. Now that's what I call exploration! 

[pippin]

aka "Chinese flight rates"

[Rugoz]

On SLS/Orion every two years. Now that's what I call exploration!

Maybe a la mars one, slowly building a colony

[ChileVerde]

A couple of other tweets of interests:

Dumbacher: gap between 1st 2 SLS flights (2017 and 2021) driven by budget to get crew systems in Orion. "It is not a desirable situation."

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/298470915673554944

If "crew systems" means ECLSS, this may have appeared last July:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30050.0

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/675947main_HEOC%20Minutes%20July%202012-508.pdf

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    Washington, DC
    NASA ADVISORY COUNCIL
    Human Exploration and Operations Committee
    July 23-24, 2012 Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD
    MEETING MINUTES

    In response to a question from Mr. Malow, Mr. Hill indicated that the 2017 mission is included in the out-year profile; however, the 2021 mission is not in the profile yet because NASA is assuming flat-funding. The “tall pole” for Orion is the ECLSS, and the 2017 mission will have some of that.

[ChileVerde]

Dumbacher: current long-term plans (post-2021) call for 1 SLS/Orion launch every 2 years. Subject to change as plans and budgets evolve.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/298472907837935617

It would have been nice if there had been an additional sentence like "The flat budget assumption we're currently operating under would allow for 1 SLS/Orion launch every year, but we're planning to use the money saved for developing other necessary exploration systems."

But there wasn't, it seems, so perhaps one every two years really is all that the projected budget can support.

Edit: expanded last sentence.

[Khadgars]

Dumbacher: current long-term plans (post-2021) call for 1 SLS/Orion launch every 2 years. Subject to change as plans and budgets evolve.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/298472907837935617

On SLS/Orion every two years. Now that's what I call exploration! 

I find it ironic that people love to praise the Chinese for their accomplishments and use it as fear mongering when their flight rate is worse than that with much less capabilities.