Author Topic: UK steps up, as ESA commit to ATV Service Module on NASA's Orion  (Read 375943 times)

Offline simpl simon

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 0
No.

The large engine nozzle in the centre (ex-Shuttle OMS engine) is for ascent abort situations. The smaller engines around the perimeter are for in-space delta-V manoeuvres (e.g. lunar orbit insertion, trans-Earth injection).

And anyway, ESA's lunar lander has been cancelled.

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 564
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 131
I know but I wonder how close the design is .

Offline simpl simon

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 0
I know but I wonder how close the design is .

All I can say is that the two design cases are in no way connected, so I'm not sure how the designs can be compared. If you mean are any components (e.g. engines) common to both vehicle concepts, I don't think so, but I could ask.

Candidate descent engine options were studied for the lunar lander, but no hardware was ordered. As I remember European engines were preferred, leading to the multi-engine configuration to enable descent thrust variation. I think the engines for the MPCV-ESM will be U.S.-provided.


Offline _INTER_

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 7
I thought the main engine would come from the Space Shuttle and the 8 auxiliary thruster are ATV derived.
Forgot where I heard that, it was in some slides. Maybe in one of those old ones:

(I had to refresh the page a couple of times until the pdf's loaded completely)
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120012885 (Source: @woods170, sorry for repost)
Note that 490 N is same as ATV.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20130013732.pdf

Though I'm pretty sure there were other slides floating around that went more into technical details, I just can't find them right now  ???

Another picture of the ILA model:
http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/bitrix/components/bitrix/forum.interface/show_file.php?fid=43927
« Last Edit: 05/30/2014 04:56 pm by _INTER_ »

Offline newpylong

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1499
  • Liked: 200
  • Likes Given: 343
No.

The large engine nozzle in the centre (ex-Shuttle OMS engine) is for ascent abort situations. The smaller engines around the perimeter are for in-space delta-V manoeuvres (e.g. lunar orbit insertion, trans-Earth injection).

And anyway, ESA's lunar lander has been cancelled.

Source for this? On the Lockmart SM the AJ-10 was going to be used for all insertions with the RCS being able to be used all at once as a backup.
« Last Edit: 05/31/2014 12:08 am by newpylong »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7704
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2457
  • Likes Given: 2287
Source for this?

I too would like to hear more about the Orion main engines being used for the two ESA-provided service modules. For CxP when Orion was launching on Ares-I there was a particular phase of abort during ascent to ISS-inclination orbit that would have required an engine with more thrust than a standard Shuttle OMS engine could provide (to avoid the North Atlantic Exclusion Zone).

SLS/Orion is required by law to provide a "backup" for commercial crew access to ISS. Will the ESA-provided SM for EM-2 somehow allow that if EM-2 is tasked with the "backup" role? Or by providing only an OMS-thrust engine for the EM-2 SM, is NASA implicitly saying SLS/Orion couldn't launch crew to ISS until its third flight?
« Last Edit: 05/31/2014 03:27 am by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline enkarha

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 151
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 60
Source for this?

I too would like to hear more about the Orion main engines being used for the two ESA-provided service modules. For CxP when Orion was launching on Ares-I there was a particular phase of abort during ascent to ISS-inclination orbit that would have required an engine with more thrust than a standard Shuttle OMS engine could provide (to avoid the North Atlantic Exclusion Zone).

SLS/Orion is required by law to provide a "backup" for commercial crew access to ISS. Will the ESA-provided SM for EM-2 somehow allow that if EM-2 is tasked with the "backup" role? Or by providing only an OMS-thrust engine for the EM-2 SM, is NASA implicitly saying SLS/Orion couldn't launch crew to ISS until its third flight?

From LAS separation to 550 seconds, Orion can land within 150 nm St. Johns using only changing its trajectory with its attitude. For 5 seconds thereafter, its SM, unable to perform a prograde burn to get it across the Atlantic, performs a Retrograde Targeted Abort Landing(RTAL), cancelling out some of the forward motion to still be able to land near St. Johns. I don't believe a more powerful engine was ever needed, and even if you had one, I think propellant load would be more the problem. After 550s, of course, Orion will push forward to splashdown near Shannon, Ireland.
Let me see what spring is like on Jupiter and Mars ♪

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7704
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2457
  • Likes Given: 2287
I don't believe a more powerful engine was ever needed

But see the paper mentioned in this prior post:

As regards using OMS for Orion, I want to link (again) to the 2007 paper by Falck and Gefert: "Crew Exploration Vehicle Ascent Abort Trajectory Analysis and Optimization."
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080006650_2008003962.pdf

The requirement that led to the Orion Main Engine (OME) differing from OMS was thrust during a TAL abort. OMS is rated at 6000 lbf; OME was to be 7500 lbf. I wish someone could ask Philippe Deloo, "chef d'étude" (study leader), if the Orion abort thrust requirement has been reduced!

Am I misreading that?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline enkarha

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 151
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 60
Am I misreading that?

No, you're not.
I don't believe a more powerful engine was ever needed

But see the paper mentioned in this prior post:

As regards using OMS for Orion, I want to link (again) to the 2007 paper by Falck and Gefert: "Crew Exploration Vehicle Ascent Abort Trajectory Analysis and Optimization."
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20080006650_2008003962.pdf

The requirement that led to the Orion Main Engine (OME) differing from OMS was thrust during a TAL abort. OMS is rated at 6000 lbf; OME was to be 7500 lbf. I wish someone could ask Philippe Deloo, "chef d'étude" (study leader), if the Orion abort thrust requirement has been reduced!

Am I misreading that?

No, you're not. I hadn't read carefully enough. I am confused about a lot of things now, though.  First, why isn't RTAL mentioned at all here? Were abort options still not solidified as of '07? Second, if it were, could that "gap" in coverage, calculated to be 1.5 sec. even with 7500 lbf, certainly larger with the max ~6880 lbf of 1 OMS engine + 8 ATV engines, be patched up with that mode of abort? Third, if ESA is using a refurbished OMS engine, they will certainly have to make some very significant changes to it. Could this include uprating the thrust?
« Last Edit: 05/31/2014 07:48 am by enkarha »
Let me see what spring is like on Jupiter and Mars ♪

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12435
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 19551
  • Likes Given: 13648
No, you're not. I hadn't read carefully enough. I am confused about a lot of things now, though.  First, why isn't RTAL mentioned at all here? Were abort options still not solidified as of '07? Second, if it were, could that "gap" in coverage, calculated to be 1.5 sec. even with 7500 lbf, certainly larger with the max ~6880 lbf of 1 OMS engine + 8 ATV engines, be patched up with that mode of abort? Third, if ESA is using a refurbished OMS engine, they will certainly have to make some very significant changes to it. Could this include uprating the thrust?

ESA will not be making any changes to the shuttle OMS engine. The OMS engine and it's associated gimballing hardware is NOT part of the ESA content of the ESM; it is part of the USA content of the ESM. The OMS will be supplied by NASA and is the sole responsibility of NASA. Any changes to the engine to uprate it's thrust (if there will be any) will be done by NASA, not ESA.

Offline AnalogMan

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3453
  • Cambridge, UK
  • Liked: 1638
  • Likes Given: 56
This presentation has just popped up on NTRS - its a little dated (September 2013) but has some interesting details.

The Multi-purpose Crew Vehicle European Service Module: a European Contribution to Human Exploration

Abstract
This paper provides an overview of the system and subsystem configuration of the MPCV European Service Module (ESM) at Preliminary Design Review (PDR) stage as well as its perspectives of utilisation within the global space exploration endeavour. The MPCV ESM is a cylindrical module with a diameter of 4500 mm and a total length - main engine excluded - of 2700 mm. It is fitted with four solar array wings with a span of 18.8 m. Its dry mass is 3.5 metric tons and it can carry 8.6 tons of propellant. The main functions of the European Service Module are to bring the structural continuity between the launcher and the crew module, to provide propulsion to the MPCV, to ensure its thermal control as well as electrical power and to store water, oxygen and nitrogen for the mission. The current agreement foresees the development and production by Europe of one flight model, with an option for a second one. This module will be assembled in Europe and delivered to NASA in 2016. It will be used for a flight of the MPCV Orion in December 2017.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140008543.pdf

(copy also attached)

Offline M129K

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 823
    • "a historian too many" blog.
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 290
Thanks for the presentation, very glad to see some updated mass figures for the Orion SM.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12435
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 19551
  • Likes Given: 13648
Thanks for the presentation, very glad to see some updated mass figures for the Orion SM.
Updated? Heck, those mass numbers are 10 months old by now and represent the mass as it should be, not what it really is.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7704
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2457
  • Likes Given: 2287
I hadn't seen the "SAW repositioning" concept before this (attached) image. The associated text reads, "Repositioning of the SAW to reduce the loads during Orion orbital manoeuvres (TLI, LOI, TEI)."
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12435
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 19551
  • Likes Given: 13648
I hadn't seen the "SAW repositioning" concept before this (attached) image. The associated text reads, "Repositioning of the SAW to reduce the loads during Orion orbital manoeuvres (TLI, LOI, TEI)."


It was already in the 2012 ESM document on NTRS. It just wasn't labeled as such, but similar images were in the document. And the same feature is shown in some of the simulation movies released for EM-1 on YouTube.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12435
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 19551
  • Likes Given: 13648
Recent news:

http://www.spacenews.com/article/features/41554news-from-aiaa-space-2014-nasa-officials-orion-%E2%80%98challenged%E2%80%99-to-make-2017

Quote
DAN LEONE, SAN DIEGO — Adapting the European Space Agency’s Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) into a service module for NASA’s Orion deep-space capsule is threatening to push the craft’s first mission to lunar space beyond its notional December 2017 launch date, a NASA official said here.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18276
  • Liked: 7887
  • Likes Given: 3303
On a more positive note (from the same article), it looks like ESA has resolved the SM's excess weight issue:
Quote
ESA’s assurances followed a May 19 preliminary design review where Airbus officials showed they had resolved the module’s excess weight.

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 678
  • Likes Given: 195
On a more positive note (from the same article), it looks like ESA has resolved the SM's excess weight issue:
Quote
ESA’s assurances followed a May 19 preliminary design review where Airbus officials showed they had resolved the module’s excess weight.

I thought the main issue was with the command module weight and its parachutes. How much overweight was the SM?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18276
  • Liked: 7887
  • Likes Given: 3303
On a more positive note (from the same article), it looks like ESA has resolved the SM's excess weight issue:
Quote
ESA’s assurances followed a May 19 preliminary design review where Airbus officials showed they had resolved the module’s excess weight.

I thought the main issue was with the command module weight and its parachutes. How much overweight was the SM?

The command module is still an issue but the SM was also overweight. I don't know by how much.

Offline JasonAW3

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2447
  • Claremore, Ok.
  • Liked: 410
  • Likes Given: 14
No.

The large engine nozzle in the centre (ex-Shuttle OMS engine) is for ascent abort situations. The smaller engines around the perimeter are for in-space delta-V manoeuvres (e.g. lunar orbit insertion, trans-Earth injection).

And anyway, ESA's lunar lander has been cancelled.

The OMS Engine?  For Ascent Abort?  Holy cats, anybody thought about what that's going to do to the oxidixer tank right beneith that thing?  I guess they want to save a bit of money on the self destruct of teh stack if they have to do an ascent abort.  Use the OMS engine to start a chain reaction explosion as it tries to get away from the rocket!  Did they at LEAST put a flame deflector on top of the tank to avoid the inevitable BOOM?
My God!  It's full of universes!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1