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

[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?