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

[hektor]

Second ESM confirmed to be provided by ESA (ESA Ministerial conference).

[Khadgars]

Second ESM confirmed to be provided by ESA (ESA Ministerial conference).

Excellent news, even though we all knew it was just a matter of time.  I remember when this was a major talking point against SLS/Orion 

[sdsds]

Also formal ESA extension of its ISS participation through 2024, right? Does that make it likely ESA would want to provide more than two Orion SM flight articles?

[Coastal Ron]

Also formal ESA extension of its ISS participation through 2024, right? Does that make it likely ESA would want to provide more than two Orion SM flight articles?

The budget they approved only goes thru 2022, whereas the U.S. is supporting the ISS thru 2024, and considering how long it takes to build a Service Module that kind of puts a crimp on how often the Orion will be able to fly.

Maybe this is a short-term win for Orion fans, but it just kicks the can down the road for the Orion's manufacturing future.

[rayleighscatter]

and considering how long it takes to build a Service Module that kind of puts a crimp on how often the Orion will be able to fly.

How long are you expecting it to take to build a service module?

[jtrame]

and considering how long it takes to build a Service Module that kind of puts a crimp on how often the Orion will be able to fly.

How long are you expecting it to take to build a service module?

That's what I was thinking.  Considering the test article and first flight ready SM are basically pathfinders, wouldn't the follow on SMs move along on a faster pace?

[Khadgars]

Also formal ESA extension of its ISS participation through 2024, right? Does that make it likely ESA would want to provide more than two Orion SM flight articles?

The budget they approved only goes thru 2022, whereas the U.S. is supporting the ISS thru 2024, and considering how long it takes to build a Service Module that kind of puts a crimp on how often the Orion will be able to fly.

Maybe this is a short-term win for Orion fans, but it just kicks the can down the road for the Orion's manufacturing future.

Ron, this is exactly how ESA works.  You are not going to get a contract/commitment that goes through 2028 or something of the like that you are requesting. 

[woods170]

Also formal ESA extension of its ISS participation through 2024, right? Does that make it likely ESA would want to provide more than two Orion SM flight articles?

The budget they approved only goes thru 2022, whereas the U.S. is supporting the ISS thru 2024, and considering how long it takes to build a Service Module that kind of puts a crimp on how often the Orion will be able to fly.

Maybe this is a short-term win for Orion fans, but it just kicks the can down the road for the Orion's manufacturing future.

Building a CM actually takes considerably longer than it takes to build an ESM.

[sdsds]

Building a CM actually takes considerably longer than it takes to build an ESM.

Maybe the important question though is which gets started first. Has there been any planning yet for a third ESM? I would bet LM has at least reasonably solid plans for a third Orion CM! Contract options with vendors, maybe?

[woods170]

Building a CM actually takes considerably longer than it takes to build an ESM.

Maybe the important question though is which gets started first. Has there been any planning yet for a third ESM? I would bet LM has at least reasonably solid plans for a third Orion CM! Contract options with vendors, maybe?

No solid planning for a third ESM, simply because ESA has (not yet) sought a barter for the ISS period beyond 2022. Currently, the ESM's are bartered one at a time. Not much of a problem given the extremely low projected flight-rate for Orion.

[hektor]

ESA to supply Service Module for first crewed Orion mission

[redliox]

Building a CM actually takes considerably longer than it takes to build an ESM.

Maybe the important question though is which gets started first. Has there been any planning yet for a third ESM? I would bet LM has at least reasonably solid plans for a third Orion CM! Contract options with vendors, maybe?

No solid planning for a third ESM, simply because ESA has (not yet) sought a barter for the ISS period beyond 2022. Currently, the ESM's are bartered one at a time. Not much of a problem given the extremely low projected flight-rate for Orion.

Still makes me debate what would happen if ESA says "no" after EM-2. 

[Eric Hedman]

Building a CM actually takes considerably longer than it takes to build an ESM.

Maybe the important question though is which gets started first. Has there been any planning yet for a third ESM? I would bet LM has at least reasonably solid plans for a third Orion CM! Contract options with vendors, maybe?

No solid planning for a third ESM, simply because ESA has (not yet) sought a barter for the ISS period beyond 2022. Currently, the ESM's are bartered one at a time. Not much of a problem given the extremely low projected flight-rate for Orion.

Still makes me debate what would happen if ESA says "no" after EM-2.

If they say "no" to a barter, they would probably say this is what it will cost NASA.  Then NASA/White House/Congress has to decide whether or not to pay it, accept the delay for developing our own, or cancel Orion and the plans that go with it.

[sdsds]

Is it clear ESA will provide the ESM for EM-2 in exchange for their obligation to ISS? If so, the reason why they would provide the ESM for EM-3 would be in exchange for a crew seat on EM-2.... Etc. Etc. Ad infinitum?

[redliox]

If they say "no" to a barter, they would probably say this is what it will cost NASA.  Then NASA/White House/Congress has to decide whether or not to pay it, accept the delay for developing our own, or cancel Orion and the plans that go with it.

It would be interesting to see those negotiations.  It is fortunate ESA's been a compliant partner towards NASA but, especially in a situation where it's bartering to essentially "pay of ISS debt," once the current barter is completed (i.e. ISS deorbited whenever) it doesn't have any obligations.  Hypothetically they could turn it into a similar deal Russia formerly had supplying rides, in this case of course ESA providing hardware Lockheed Martin/NASA lacked.

Is it clear ESA will provide the ESM for EM-2 in exchange for their obligation to ISS? If so, the reason why they would provide the ESM for EM-3 would be in exchange for a crew seat on EM-2.... Etc. Etc. Ad infinitum?

If the situation turns from them being indebted to NASA to NASA being indebted for their ESMs...possibly.  Likewise they could request the SLS to co-manifest their own payloads to bring to Lunar orbit as a further example.  NASA would probably be happy to bring a European astronaut along just as a polite "thank you" for EM-1 and EM-2.

[woods170]

Building a CM actually takes considerably longer than it takes to build an ESM.

Maybe the important question though is which gets started first. Has there been any planning yet for a third ESM? I would bet LM has at least reasonably solid plans for a third Orion CM! Contract options with vendors, maybe?

No solid planning for a third ESM, simply because ESA has (not yet) sought a barter for the ISS period beyond 2022. Currently, the ESM's are bartered one at a time. Not much of a problem given the extremely low projected flight-rate for Orion.

Still makes me debate what would happen if ESA says "no" after EM-2. 

Highly unlikely. But in case this scenario plays out there are several options. Easiest is for LockMart to buy additional ESM's via ESA. Another would be for NASA to obtain the ESM IP and have production moved to the US. And yet another would be to complete development of the 607 design of the original US-made service module.

[BrightLight]

Building a CM actually takes considerably longer than it takes to build an ESM.

Maybe the important question though is which gets started first. Has there been any planning yet for a third ESM? I would bet LM has at least reasonably solid plans for a third Orion CM! Contract options with vendors, maybe?

No solid planning for a third ESM, simply because ESA has (not yet) sought a barter for the ISS period beyond 2022. Currently, the ESM's are bartered one at a time. Not much of a problem given the extremely low projected flight-rate for Orion.

Still makes me debate what would happen if ESA says "no" after EM-2. 

Highly unlikely. But in case this scenario plays out there are several options. Easiest is for LockMart to buy additional ESM's via ESA. Another would be for NASA to obtain the ESM IP and have production moved to the US. And yet another would be to complete development of the 607 design of the original US-made service module.

What is the major costs in the ESM - can NASA or LM  buy the tooling and IP directly from ESA or does NASA and/or LM have to buy the individual corporations?

[SgtPoivre]

Building a CM actually takes considerably longer than it takes to build an ESM.

Maybe the important question though is which gets started first. Has there been any planning yet for a third ESM? I would bet LM has at least reasonably solid plans for a third Orion CM! Contract options with vendors, maybe?

No solid planning for a third ESM, simply because ESA has (not yet) sought a barter for the ISS period beyond 2022. Currently, the ESM's are bartered one at a time. Not much of a problem given the extremely low projected flight-rate for Orion.

Still makes me debate what would happen if ESA says "no" after EM-2. 

Highly unlikely. But in case this scenario plays out there are several options. Easiest is for LockMart to buy additional ESM's via ESA. Another would be for NASA to obtain the ESM IP and have production moved to the US. And yet another would be to complete development of the 607 design of the original US-made service module.

What is the major costs in the ESM - can NASA or LM  buy the tooling and IP directly from ESA or does NASA and/or LM have to buy the individual corporations?

Airbus Defense & Space is ESA prime contractor for ESM, so in this case LM or NASA could directly negotiate a contract with Airbus to buy subsequent ESMs.

[redliox]

Still makes me debate what would happen if ESA says "no" after EM-2. 

Highly unlikely. But in case this scenario plays out there are several options. Easiest is for LockMart to buy additional ESM's via ESA. Another would be for NASA to obtain the ESM IP and have production moved to the US. And yet another would be to complete development of the 607 design of the original US-made service module.

What is the major costs in the ESM - can NASA or LM  buy the tooling and IP directly from ESA or does NASA and/or LM have to buy the individual corporations?

Airbus Defense & Space is ESA prime contractor for ESM, so in this case LM or NASA could directly negotiate a contract with Airbus to buy subsequent ESMs.

One reason I brought this up is because the incoming U.S. administration is likely to favor American-made industrialism.  While a partnership with Europe might not be unwelcome, the ESM could be interpreted as a liability.  For a more blunt point that touches politics...the same guy whose going to appoint the next NASA admin ranted about breaking up NATO.  The ESM might be only a phase just as Block 1 for SLS only has a single flight.

[woods170]

Still makes me debate what would happen if ESA says "no" after EM-2. 

Highly unlikely. But in case this scenario plays out there are several options. Easiest is for LockMart to buy additional ESM's via ESA. Another would be for NASA to obtain the ESM IP and have production moved to the US. And yet another would be to complete development of the 607 design of the original US-made service module.

What is the major costs in the ESM - can NASA or LM  buy the tooling and IP directly from ESA or does NASA and/or LM have to buy the individual corporations?

Airbus Defense & Space is ESA prime contractor for ESM, so in this case LM or NASA could directly negotiate a contract with Airbus to buy subsequent ESMs.

One reason I brought this up is because the incoming U.S. administration is likely to favor American-made industrialism.  While a partnership with Europe might not be unwelcome, the ESM could be interpreted as a liability.  For a more blunt point that touches politics...the same guy whose going to appoint the next NASA admin ranted about breaking up NATO.  The ESM might be only a phase just as Block 1 for SLS only has a single flight.

Your reasoning is now the other way around. Your initial point was: "what if ESA says no after EM-2". Your point is now: "what if Trump says no".
Two very different things IMO.