Author Topic: “Plan D for Outer Space” - NASA updates EM-2 mission baseline  (Read 11437 times)


Online Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4607
  • Liked: 1846
  • Likes Given: 1548
Are they intentionally cutting the reference to three previous plans to avoid this being Plan 9 From Outer Space or was this worded purposely to make that connection?

And everything is still done in nautical miles. (1450 nmi ~2850 km)
Isn’t that first apogee well into the lower Van Allen radiation belt?
« Last Edit: 12/15/2018 01:28 pm by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline david-moon

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
It is insane to fly a different profile in the uncrewed EM-1 test mission than will be flown in the EM-2 mission.  I hope astronauts don't die due to lack of testing the specific flight profile.
« Last Edit: 12/14/2018 08:42 pm by david-moon »

Offline rpapo

It is insane to fly a different profile in the uncrewed EM-1 test mission than will be flown in the EM-2 mission.  I hope astronauts don't die due to lack of testing the specific flight profile.
Though I agree with you, a young and impetuous NASA did exactly that once upon a time.  The mission was called Apollo 8.
An Apollo fanboy . . . fifty years ago.

Offline david-moon

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
I don't think Apollo CSM was flyable uncrewed.  Someone had to change the current program in the AGC.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9437
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3284
  • Likes Given: 9166
Thanks for great update Philip and renders Nathan! I just hope we actually get to go someplace before they run out of letters of the alphabet... ???
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline John Santos

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 22
I don't think Apollo CSM was flyable uncrewed.  Someone had to change the current program in the AGC.
Of course it was.  There were several unmanned flights before the planned Apollo 1, and  the first 2 Saturn 5 flights (Apollo 4 and 6) included an uncrewed Apollo CSM.

Flying a different trajectory is only a minor difference.  Every flight has a different trajectory, even "routine" Soyuz crew flights to the ISS are each somewhat different than any previous flight.

The details of the specific trajectory and new equipment not previously tested on EM-1 are the big issues to my mind.  The previous plan spent more time in LEO (3 orbits, according to the article), and it says the quick return from the 42 hour orbit isn't much slower than the previous 24 hour orbit (but how much slower?)  I think the previous plan had two 24 hour orbits before departing for the Moon, but I could be wrong about that.  Either allows about 2 days of soak-testing the spacecraft before committing to the Moon.

One 42 hour orbit means only 3 traversals of the Van Allen Belts during the out-bound phase of the mission.  (Once out, once back in and a second time out after TLI.)  Two 24 hour orbits would mean 5 traversals.  Apogee of the 42 hour orbit is well above the outer Van Allen Belt, whereas for the 24 hour orbit, I think it is within or only slightly above the belt.  (This depends on the orbital inclination, though.)  A highly eliptical orbit spends most of its time near apogee, so I suspect there will be significantly less radiation exposure using the new plan.  (Unless there are large solar flares or a CME, but that is independent of trajectory.)

One thing that worries me is the ECS, which would only have about 2 days of testing before departing for the Moon.  I vaguely remember plans to test some or all of it on the ISS.  I think it won't be ready for EM-1, which would fly without a complete or fully functional ECS, and in any case wouldn't have 4 humans consuming oxygen and emitting CO2, water and heat for 2 weeks.

Online freddo411

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 189
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 585

...
One 42 hour orbit means only 3 traversals of the Van Allen Belts during the out-bound phase of the mission. 

Flying a HEO loop stands out to me as a pointless stunt.   Might as well just do your TLI, or stay in LEO, going 1/2 way and coming back is not useful.

...

One thing that worries me is the ECS, which would only have about 2 days of testing before departing for the Moon.  I vaguely remember plans to test some or all of it on the ISS.  I think it won't be ready for EM-1, which would fly without a complete or fully functional ECS, and in any case wouldn't have 4 humans consuming oxygen and emitting CO2, water and heat for 2 weeks.

This is a poor program decision.   It shouldn't be hard to build ECS at this point.   It's unfathomable why this isn't done and built for EM-1.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8687
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 183
Many of the functions of the Orion's ECLSS can be tested on the Earth by locking people into a capsule on the ground for 2 weeks. Give then some books to read. Running the ECLSS in space in an empty capsule will show that nothing falls off during launch or re-entry.

Offline TaurusLittrow

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 108
  • Pennsylvania, USA
  • Liked: 76
  • Likes Given: 36
It is insane to fly a different profile in the uncrewed EM-1 test mission than will be flown in the EM-2 mission.  I hope astronauts don't die due to lack of testing the specific flight profile.
Though I agree with you, a young and impetuous NASA did exactly that once upon a time.  The mission was called Apollo 8.

I devoutly wish EM-2 could fly the Apollo 8 mission profile, but the selection of lunar orbits is constrained by the capability of the combined SLS and Orion system.

Access (orbit insertion plus return) to simple “Keplerian” orbits—such as low-lunar orbits, prograde circular orbits, and elliptical lunar orbits—is simply infeasible or only marginally achievable with the SLS/Orion system.

These orbits are essentially off the table since access from Earth is restricted by SLS’s performance margin and Orion/ESM’s limited propellant load.

That's why EM-2 is a circumlunar mission instead of a lunar orbital one like Apollo 8.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9039
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6431
  • Likes Given: 2197
I don't think Apollo CSM was flyable uncrewed.  Someone had to change the current program in the AGC.
Of course it was.  There were several unmanned flights before the planned Apollo 1, and  the first 2 Saturn 5 flights (Apollo 4 and 6) included an uncrewed Apollo CSM.

This.

It is astounding to see just how little some of the folks here seem to know about the older programs. The ignorami here would do themselves a huge service by reading up on spaceflight history first before making posts that only serve to embaress themselves.

Every single spacecraft in US history (with the exception of the space shuttle) first flew, or will fly, one-or-more unmanned missions: Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Orion, Starliner, Crew Dragon.

The Soviets (now Russia) did exactly the same. All of their manned vehicles (or intented to be manned vehicles) first flew one-or-more unmanned missions: Vostok, Voskhod, Soyuz, Zond, Buran.
« Last Edit: 12/17/2018 11:29 am by woods170 »

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2727
  • Canada
  • Liked: 466
  • Likes Given: 694
Many of the functions of the Orion's ECLSS can be tested on the Earth by locking people into a capsule on the ground for 2 weeks. Give then some books to read. Running the ECLSS in space in an empty capsule will show that nothing falls off during launch or re-entry.

There is the small matter of micro gravity and how does one simulated it on Earth for the dirtside ECLSS test results to be valid.  ::)

Offline niwax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 409
  • Germany
    • SpaceX Booster List
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 59
It is insane to fly a different profile in the uncrewed EM-1 test mission than will be flown in the EM-2 mission.  I hope astronauts don't die due to lack of testing the specific flight profile.
Though I agree with you, a young and impetuous NASA did exactly that once upon a time.  The mission was called Apollo 8.

I devoutly wish EM-2 could fly the Apollo 8 mission profile, but the selection of lunar orbits is constrained by the capability of the combined SLS and Orion system.

Access (orbit insertion plus return) to simple “Keplerian” orbits—such as low-lunar orbits, prograde circular orbits, and elliptical lunar orbits—is simply infeasible or only marginally achievable with the SLS/Orion system.

These orbits are essentially off the table since access from Earth is restricted by SLS’s performance margin and Orion/ESM’s limited propellant load.

That's why EM-2 is a circumlunar mission instead of a lunar orbital one like Apollo 8.

Which puts into question what EM-1 and EM-2 are about at all. They're testing a system that will not be able to actually perform a useful mission. Early Apollo at least was in preparation for a landing.
Which booster has the most soot? SpaceX booster launch history! (discussion)

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8687
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 183
Many of the functions of the Orion's ECLSS can be tested on the Earth by locking people into a capsule on the ground for 2 weeks. Give then some books to read. Running the ECLSS in space in an empty capsule will show that nothing falls off during launch or re-entry.

There is the small matter of micro gravity and how does one simulated it on Earth for the dirtside ECLSS test results to be valid.  ::)

You do not simulate micro gravity dirtside (other than by turning the equipment on its side). Flight testing the effects of micro gravity is an additional reason for the ECLSS to be switched on during EM-1. Ground test, unmanned flight test and manned flight test of Orion's ECLSS.

Offline zodiacchris

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 193
  • Port Macquarie, Australia
  • Liked: 365
  • Likes Given: 407
But that’s the point, no ECLSS on EM1, it won’t be ready in time. Turning it upside down or sideways on earth is not a valid simulation for microgravity either...
Whatever happened to ‘test like you fly’?
« Last Edit: 12/17/2018 12:59 am by zodiacchris »

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4897
  • California
  • Liked: 4712
  • Likes Given: 2827
But that’s the point, no ECLSS on EM1, it won’t be ready in time. Turning it upside down or sideways on earth is not a valid simulation for microgravity either...
Whatever happened to ‘test like you fly’?

It is difficult and very time consuming to test as you fly when you have an anemic flight rate of one flight per 18-24 months.

Normally one would suggest another EFT flight on a Delta IV-H, but that’s also difficult if your backup launcher is also incredibly expensive and not mandated. Orion really could have used a Saturn I to its Saturn V (SLS) for LEO testing.

Although if Orion development is just as long pole as SLS (?) then the benefit of that is questionable. Such a mess.
« Last Edit: 12/17/2018 02:00 am by Lars-J »

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8687
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 183
But that’s the point, no ECLSS on EM1, it won’t be ready in time. Turning it upside down or sideways on earth is not a valid simulation for microgravity either...
Whatever happened to ‘test like you fly’?

Turning a piece of equipment upside down may not be a valid simulation of micro-gravity but it is not invalid since anything that will float apart will fall apart. It also verifies that fluids are pumped rather than gravity fed.

To flight test the ECLSS either delaying EM-1 or adding an extra unmanned flight may be advisable.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8687
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 183
But that’s the point, no ECLSS on EM1, it won’t be ready in time. Turning it upside down or sideways on earth is not a valid simulation for microgravity either...
Whatever happened to ‘test like you fly’?

It is difficult and very time consuming to test as you fly when you have an anemic flight rate of one flight per 18-24 months.

Normally one would suggest another EFT flight on a Delta IV-H, but that’s also difficult if your backup launcher is also incredibly expensive and not mandated. Orion really could have used a Saturn I to its Saturn V (SLS) for LEO testing.

Although if Orion development is just as long pole as SLS (?) then the benefit of that is questionable. Such a mess.

The Falcon Heavy may not be able to get the Orion spacecraft to the Moon but it can put a 26 tonne object in LEO.

We can all see the political problems.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9039
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6431
  • Likes Given: 2197
But that’s the point, no ECLSS on EM1, it won’t be ready in time. Turning it upside down or sideways on earth is not a valid simulation for microgravity either...
Whatever happened to ‘test like you fly’?

There is only a partial ECLSS on EM-1, specifically a rudimentary ECS.
The "Life Support" portion is still in development. Besides, even if a full-blown ECLSS was on EM-1 it could not be properly tested.
You see, there is nobody on board to breathe.

Breathing does four things for an ECLSS:
- Use up oxygen (which must be replenished by the ECLSS)
- Produce CO2 (which must be scrubbed by the ECLSS)
- Produce water vapour (which must be largely removed by the ECLSS)
- Produce particle effluent (which must be largely filtered by the ECLSS)

Other than the little detail of breathing, humans also shed a lot of other stuff into the atmosphere, mainly hairs and dead skin tissue (skin flaking). Both must be filtered from the cabin environment. That, again, is done by the ECLSS.

Simply put: testing an ECLSS on board an unmanned spacecraft is like testing the driving experience of a car without the car rolling so much as an inch: it is pointless.

Hence all the crap the ASAP was making about the original flight profile of EM-2. The first manned flight of Orion, with a brand-new, not-flight-tested ECLSS. And it was to go straight to the Moon. The compromise they have now come up with is not committing to TLI until more than 24 hours after launch. If the ECLSS throws a fit the crew will simply not perform the TLI burn and reenter as soon as possible.
« Last Edit: 12/17/2018 09:21 am by woods170 »

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8687
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 183
{snip}
Simply put: testing an ECLSS on board an unmanned spacecraft is like testing the driving experience of a car without the car rolling so much as an inch: it is pointless.

Hence all the crap the ASAP was making about the original flight profile of EM-2. The first manned flight of Orion, with a brand-new, not-flight-tested ECLSS. And it was to go straight to the Moon. The compromise they have now come up with is not committing to TLI until more than 24 hours after launch. If the ECLSS throws a fit the crew will simply not perform the TLI burn and reenter as soon as possible.

That is why the test sequence I gave in reply #8 starts with people locked up in an Orion for 2 weeks. All the parts of the ECLSS have to work, if something fails then it is easy to get them out. The second part of the test ensures that flying the ECLSS does not cause any problems without risking any lives. Even empty temperature controls and fans still have to work. The third part tests Orion and ECLSS with people inside.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9039
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6431
  • Likes Given: 2197
{snip}
Simply put: testing an ECLSS on board an unmanned spacecraft is like testing the driving experience of a car without the car rolling so much as an inch: it is pointless.

Hence all the crap the ASAP was making about the original flight profile of EM-2. The first manned flight of Orion, with a brand-new, not-flight-tested ECLSS. And it was to go straight to the Moon. The compromise they have now come up with is not committing to TLI until more than 24 hours after launch. If the ECLSS throws a fit the crew will simply not perform the TLI burn and reenter as soon as possible.

That is why the test sequence I gave in reply #8 starts with people locked up in an Orion for 2 weeks. All the parts of the ECLSS have to work, if something fails then it is easy to get them out. The second part of the test ensures that flying the ECLSS does not cause any problems without risking any lives. Even empty temperature controls and fans still have to work. The third part tests Orion and ECLSS with people inside.

The second part (all-up ECLSS on an uncrewed orbiting vehicle) will absolutely not happen on Orion: they go straight from people-in-the-loop testing on the ground to all-up manned test in orbit.

There is no in-between step in this case, given that EM-1 carries only a partial ECS, without most of the systems needed for an all-up ECLSS.

Which is fine btw. given that unmanned testing of a full-up ECLSS didn't happen either on Mercury, Gemini and Space Shuttle.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10754
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3080
  • Likes Given: 1242
The Falcon Heavy may not be able to get the Orion spacecraft to the Moon but it can put a 26 tonne object in LEO.

That is exactly what NASA should do. For all the brouhaha around the SLS, even if it does fly once or twice, it will not  - ever - be a major player in HSF going forward. It is so expensive to just own, even when not flying, and it's projected flight rate is so utterly anemic, that the only thing it would actually do is to hold back the progress we could otherwise be making.

Both Falcon Heavy and New Glenn will be capable of putting Orion into LEO. Orion is supposed to be launcher agnostic so NASA would do well to work with both companies and begin planning now for their launchers to be the Orion launch vehicles. NASA's HSF program going forward must include on-orbit refueling. It is such an utter no brainer that I can't even begin to fathom why NASA isn't already pursuing development and deployment of orbital refueling capability. With orbital refueling the Orion might actually stand a chance of fulfilling the dream of it being NASA's premere human spacecraft to ferry astronauts back and forth to the moon and other potential deeper spacecraft, such as the yet undefined MTV.

Uncouple Orion from the SLS and couple it instead to an orbital refueling station and NASA HSF will enter a new golden age. But so long as NASA's plans for Orion tie it to the SLS then that spacecraft is going absolutely nowhere in a hurry. But decouple it from the SLS and let the commercial launch providers put Orion into LEO for "refuel 'n go" missions and Orion could have a bright future for a long time to come. Otherwise it'll be just another failed program in NASA's long line of failed programs.

That's the key to Orion's survival and the survival of NASA's HSF program.
« Last Edit: 12/17/2018 12:01 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9039
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6431
  • Likes Given: 2197
Both Falcon Heavy and New Glenn will be capable of putting Orion into LEO. Orion is supposed to be launcher agnostic...

Throwing a wet towel on this:

The only US manned spacecraft, currently under development, that is launcher agnostic, is CST-100 Starliner.
Orion was permanently wedded to SLS quite a few years ago.

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4897
  • California
  • Liked: 4712
  • Likes Given: 2827
Both Falcon Heavy and New Glenn will be capable of putting Orion into LEO. Orion is supposed to be launcher agnostic...

Throwing a wet towel on this:

The only US manned spacecraft, currently under development, that is launcher agnostic, is CST-100 Starliner.
Orion was permanently wedded to SLS quite a few years ago.

Only permanently wedded to SLS by political will. It did after all launch on a Delta IV Heavy once, so if there is a will there is a way.

But both SLS and Orion seem wedded to each other, but the relationship seems more like a suicide pact rather than a shotgun wedding. Both are highly dependent on each other.
« Last Edit: 12/17/2018 05:32 pm by Lars-J »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10754
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3080
  • Likes Given: 1242
Both Falcon Heavy and New Glenn will be capable of putting Orion into LEO. Orion is supposed to be launcher agnostic...

Throwing a wet towel on this:

The only US manned spacecraft, currently under development, that is launcher agnostic, is CST-100 Starliner.
Orion was permanently wedded to SLS quite a few years ago.

Only permanently wedded to SLS by political will. It did after all launch on a Delta IV Heavy once, so if there is a will there's a way.

But both SLS and Orion seem wedded to each other, but the relationship seems more like a suicide pact rather than a shotgun wedding. Both are highly dependent on each other.

The suicide pact has to change. You're correct Lars. It's only wedded by political will. Orion could be made launcher agnostic if NASA wanted it to be. If they don't do it then one of the preflight activities for Orion will be to remove the ton of dust that has accumulated on the spacecraft between flights. It's even entirely possible that a NASA astronaut may fly in Orion and then many years later their adult son or daughter will fly in the same spacecraft for it's next flight. NASA could build a fleet of 5 reusable spacecraft and 2 or 3 of them will never actually fly.

Meanwhile commercial crews will have built several permanently occupied bases all over the lunar globe and SpaceX will have over 1,000 settlers on the surface of Mars. That's how utterly ridiculous NASA's SLS/Orion plans are.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9039
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6431
  • Likes Given: 2197
Both Falcon Heavy and New Glenn will be capable of putting Orion into LEO. Orion is supposed to be launcher agnostic...

Throwing a wet towel on this:

The only US manned spacecraft, currently under development, that is launcher agnostic, is CST-100 Starliner.
Orion was permanently wedded to SLS quite a few years ago.

Only permanently wedded to SLS by political will. It did after all launch on a Delta IV Heavy once, so if there is a will there's a way.

But both SLS and Orion seem wedded to each other, but the relationship seems more like a suicide pact rather than a shotgun wedding. Both are highly dependent on each other.

The suicide pact has to change. You're correct Lars. It's only wedded by political will. Orion could be made launcher agnostic if NASA wanted it to be. If they don't do it then one of the preflight activities for Orion will be to remove the ton of dust that has accumulated on the spacecraft between flights. It's even entirely possible that a NASA astronaut may fly in Orion and then many years later their adult son or daughter will fly in the same spacecraft for it's next flight. NASA could build a fleet of 5 reusable spacecraft and 2 or 3 of them will never actually fly.

Meanwhile commercial crews will have built several permanently occupied bases all over the lunar globe and SpaceX will have over 1,000 settlers on the surface of Mars. That's how utterly ridiculous NASA's SLS/Orion plans are.

I understand your concerns Chuck.

But...

This is not another "SLS stinks, Orion sucks and NASA is bad"-thread.

Let's get back on topic shall we?

Thank you.
« Last Edit: 12/18/2018 06:43 am by woods170 »

Online Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Long Beach, California
  • Liked: 247
  • Likes Given: 698
Why does every single SLS thread have to turn into this?  I used to really enjoy reading through the posts, I felt privileged to be part of such a knowledgeable, civil community.  But even something as benign as the EM-2 mission profile turns into this mess of who's opinion can be heard the loudest.  I will always be part of NSF, but its quite sad  :'(

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9437
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3284
  • Likes Given: 9166
Why does every single SLS thread have to turn into this?  I used to really enjoy reading through the posts, I felt privileged to be part of such a knowledgeable, civil community.  But even something as benign as the EM-2 mission profile turns into this mess of who's opinion can be heard the loudest.  I will always be part of NSF, but its quite sad  :'(
Because we are measuring NASA against itself... Perhaps they set the bar "too-high" fifty years ago...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9039
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6431
  • Likes Given: 2197
Why does every single SLS thread have to turn into this?  I used to really enjoy reading through the posts, I felt privileged to be part of such a knowledgeable, civil community.  But even something as benign as the EM-2 mission profile turns into this mess of who's opinion can be heard the loudest.  I will always be part of NSF, but its quite sad  :'(
Because we are measuring NASA against itself... Perhaps they set the bar "too-high" fifty years ago...

In fact they did. Had the Space Race not come along, the first manned lunar landing would still be in the future IMO. Apollo was a brilliant achievement but also way ahead of its time. At least 5 to 6 decades too early.
« Last Edit: 12/19/2018 06:55 am by woods170 »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10754
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3080
  • Likes Given: 1242
I understand your concerns Chuck.
But...
This is not another "SLS stinks, Orion sucks and NASA is bad"-thread.
Let's get back on topic shall we?

Thank you.

I didn't mean for it to come across that way. It really was a "Plan-D" post. There is a world of difference between bashing NASA and SLS, which I did not and will not do, and honestly assessing the facts on the ground without artificially coloring them, which is what I did do. Believe it or not, as a LV I actually like the SLS. But Congress/NASA/Boeing are wasting it away to the point that it'll never amount to anything. In the meantime Orion actually can amount to a LOT - provided it flys on a different LV. It needs to fly - a LOT. And sadly that's not going to happen on SLS. Essentially what I'm saying is that EM-2, even if wildly successful, is an exercise in futility because it's launch vehicle cannot fly often enough, affordably enough, to allow Orion to even come close to realizing it's potential. NASA needs a new "Plan-D", and that is to uncouple Orion from SLS, make it launch vehicle agnostic, and develop, deploy and make operational on-orbit propellant resources. That's what Plan-D really needs to do.

I see no way to save the HLV that I actually helped to bring into being, and that saddens me more than I can express. But Orion CAN be saved. Plan-D needs to focus on saving Orion. If NASA does that then Orion will become the cadillac of spacecraft going forward instead of becoming just a memory.

The trajectory envisioned for Orion in the 1st post of this thread is about the best that Orion will be able to do because it's LV doesn't have the TLI capability to allow it to orbit the moon and get back safely. Orion is a better spacecraft than that and deserves to be able to live up to its potential. NASA has got to get away from it's Apollo-style glory vision of a super rocket that sends everything to the moon with its lander with a single launch. The political atmosphere that NASA MUST function in just won't let that happen. NASA needs to look honestly at what actually IS possible in this political atmosphere and adjust to it accordingly. That's why I am advocating for a revision to NASA's plans for Orion. I want to see Orion go out to the moon 3 or 4 times a year, not once every couple of years. The current direction of Orion/SLS is a dead end. NASA needs a new direction - a new Plan-D.
« Last Edit: 12/18/2018 07:00 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3607
  • Florida
  • Liked: 2060
  • Likes Given: 246
Why does every single SLS thread have to turn into this?  I used to really enjoy reading through the posts, I felt privileged to be part of such a knowledgeable, civil community.  But even something as benign as the EM-2 mission profile turns into this mess of who's opinion can be heard the loudest.  I will always be part of NSF, but its quite sad  :'(
Because we are measuring NASA against itself... Perhaps they set the bar "too-high" fifty years ago...

In fact they did. Had the Space Race not come along the first manned lunar landing would still be in the future IMO. Apollo was a brilliant achievement but also way ahead of its time. At least 5 to 6 decades too early.
Apollo was its own worst enemy. This is because in the beginning space launch was a shoestring operation funded within military budgets. Then along came NASA and Apollo and cost was no object. It was this mentality/policy shift that doomed follow-on programs.

This mentality still exists in US government space. We even exported it to other governments by example because they want to keep up with our accomplishments. But now there is so much bureaucracy that the ability to get anything accomplished is delayed and costs way more than it should. This why when d discussing SLS the comments keep drifting over to what commercial space projects are accomplishing faster and for less.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9437
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3284
  • Likes Given: 9166
Landing on the Moon was an aberration. Check out my thread from eight years back and look where we still are now... :(
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25469.0
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Online whitelancer64

Because we are measuring NASA against itself... Perhaps they set the bar "too-high" fifty years ago...

In fact they did. Had the Space Race not come along the first manned lunar landing would still be in the future IMO. Apollo was a brilliant achievement but also way ahead of its time. At least 5 to 6 decades too early.

Very true. IMO, without the Cold War and the Space Race, we may very well not have put a human into orbit yet.
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10754
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3080
  • Likes Given: 1242
Landing on the Moon was an aberration. Check out my thread from eight years back and look where we still are now... :(
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25469.0

This is a Plan-D post. Most of what I say below is context, but it is a Plan-D post.

To answer the question you posed at the end of your opening post there,
Quote
Absent of this [international competition], what is going to urge the country on a commitment?
absent that competition only commercial opportunity is going to actually enable the kind of lunar development all of us, when we were much younger and wildly idealistic, envisioned. Absent that competition there is no reason any government on earth would dedicate that much capital and time, especially any elected government, which completely changes its vision every 2 years.

Lewis and Clark, while federally financed, were able to explore and catalog the Louisiana Purchase only because they could live off the land for months while doing it, being guided by persons native to the region. Today's explorers and opportunists have no such advantage. So it takes a tremendous vision and investment on the part of the federal government to create the means for entrepreneurs to go there and see what can be accomplished in that faraway place.

The relevance of that thread and this post to this topic is that today's government and its agencies need to execute plans that face the challenges of opening this new frontier head on and not waste time and money doing things that may be good for the American ego but contribute little to the only concretely justifiable reason there is to actually go there - commercial opportunity. Absent the competition for national supremacy only commerce offers that potential and NASA's current Plan-D does not contribute to that because what they are doing is not repeatable often enough and affordably enough. Plan-D needs to refocus on what resources (Orion) and capabilities (Propellant Depots and Commercial LVs) we actually have or soon could have. The plan needs to optimize those and not waste time and effort. The current Plan-D does not do that and that's what I have been trying to say. Plan-D needs to change because in the grand scheme of things it is irrelevant in its current form.
« Last Edit: 12/19/2018 12:42 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Online freddo411

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 189
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 585
{snip}
Simply put: testing an ECLSS on board an unmanned spacecraft is like testing the driving experience of a car without the car rolling so much as an inch: it is pointless.

Hence all the crap the ASAP was making about the original flight profile of EM-2. The first manned flight of Orion, with a brand-new, not-flight-tested ECLSS. And it was to go straight to the Moon. The compromise they have now come up with is not committing to TLI until more than 24 hours after launch. If the ECLSS throws a fit the crew will simply not perform the TLI burn and reenter as soon as possible.

That is why the test sequence I gave in reply #8 starts with people locked up in an Orion for 2 weeks. All the parts of the ECLSS have to work, if something fails then it is easy to get them out. The second part of the test ensures that flying the ECLSS does not cause any problems without risking any lives. Even empty temperature controls and fans still have to work. The third part tests Orion and ECLSS with people inside.

The second part (all-up ECLSS on an uncrewed orbiting vehicle) will absolutely not happen on Orion: they go straight from people-in-the-loop testing on the ground to all-up manned test in orbit.

There is no in-between step in this case, given that EM-1 carries only a partial ECS, without most of the systems needed for an all-up ECLSS.

Which is fine btw. given that unmanned testing of a full-up ECLSS didn't happen either on Mercury, Gemini and Space Shuttle.

I'm of the opinion it is not FINE.   Building out and integrating the ECLSS and then flying it in zero G would be a good test.   We just don't know what problems might turn up.   You are correct that it would be a good idea to have something consuming the the LSS ... dog? monkey? a small custom built test rig?

It's wasteful to fly a couple billion dollar test without, ahem, testing things.

Offline CJ

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 912
  • Liked: 684
  • Likes Given: 180
Edit, OOPS! I somehow lost the quote tags, and thus inadvertently plagiarized - apologies to Woods170, and also to anyone who read this post in unfixed form.

   
There is only a partial ECLSS on EM-1, specifically a rudimentary ECS.
The "Life Support" portion is still in development. Besides, even if a full-blown ECLSS was on EM-1 it could not be properly tested.
You see, there is nobody on board to breathe.

Breathing does four things for an ECLSS:
- Use up oxygen (which must be replenished by the ECLSS)
- Produce CO2 (which must be scrubbed by the ECLSS)
- Produce water vapour (which must be largely removed by the ECLSS)
- Produce particle effluent (which must be largely filtered by the ECLSS)

Other than the little detail of breathing, humans also shed a lot of other stuff into the atmosphere, mainly hairs and dead skin tissue (skin flaking). Both must be filtered from the cabin environment. That, again, is done by the ECLSS.

Simply put: testing an ECLSS on board an unmanned spacecraft is like testing the driving experience of a car without the car rolling so much as an inch: it is pointless.

Hence all the crap the ASAP was making about the original flight profile of EM-2. The first manned flight of Orion, with a brand-new, not-flight-tested ECLSS. And it was to go straight to the Moon. The compromise they have now come up with is not committing to TLI until more than 24 hours after launch. If the ECLSS throws a fit the crew will simply not perform the TLI burn and reenter as soon as possible.

What if the ECLSS has a fit just after the TLI burn? Or near the moon? Unlike LEO, they can't abort back to earth fast enough to matter.

So, why not test it on EM-1? The claim is it won't be ready, but why not? If it's mainly hardware tested on ISS, as claimed, it should be possible to get it ready in two years.

You raise some good points regarding breathing's impact on ECLSS, so let's go down your list:

1 Oxygen depletion: fill a few cloth bags (perhaps a couple of layers of pillow cases) with iron filings, sized as needed. The filings will oxidize, thus using O2. If control from the ground is needed, wrap them in plastic and feed them via a valve-controlled air hose. Alternatively, use O2 scavenging paper packets from the food industry. Any controllable O2 scavenger would do.   
2 CO2: a CO2 tank on slow bleed. Could be controlled from the ground if needed.
3: water vapor: This one is harder... perhaps a tiny ultrasonic humidifier fed by a very small pump, hooked to a bag of distilled water, and run on a timer to mimic human output ranges.
4: particle effluent (detritus, dead skin cells, dust, hair, etc). That one is even harder to mimic. However, the ECLSS should have a filter, much akin to an air conditioning filter, that's easily accessible and changeable by the crew, so my guess is this is not likely to be a lethal failure source. But, to make sure... use hard water instead of distilled in the ultrasonic humidifier from #3, which will create some fine mineral dust.     

Obviously,  an actual spacecraft engineer could come up with far better versions of what I propose above, I was going for simplicity, plus what I knew off the top of my head.

Alternatively, keep the first crewed mission in LEO, so a speedy abort is possible.

The mission scenario outlined in "Plan D" bothers me greatly; why risk a crew by sending it around the moon (where a speedy abort is impossible) with unflown hardware? At least use EM-1 to test actual flight hardware, so it's a real test. They've got about two years, at least, to install the ECLSS before EM-1 launches, which ought to be possible if, as claimed, the ECLSS consists of components already tested on ISS. If not, that's even more reason to require an in-space test before entrusting it to take a crew to the moon and back.
« Last Edit: 12/20/2018 06:09 am by CJ »

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11657
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8759
  • Likes Given: 7376
A man sized bag of rats[1] or two might not get past PETA but seems like it would test the ECLSS fairly well.

1 - with provisions to feed and water them.
« Last Edit: 12/19/2018 04:48 am by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8687
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 183
Carbon dioxide and water vapour can be produced by burning methane. There are things that will give off dust if heated. This sounds like a modern version of the Davy Safety Lamp.

As for rats/mice the Rodent Research Facility can be used to transport them. I do not know if this can work unmanned.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/1209.html



Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9039
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6431
  • Likes Given: 2197
{snip}
Simply put: testing an ECLSS on board an unmanned spacecraft is like testing the driving experience of a car without the car rolling so much as an inch: it is pointless.

Hence all the crap the ASAP was making about the original flight profile of EM-2. The first manned flight of Orion, with a brand-new, not-flight-tested ECLSS. And it was to go straight to the Moon. The compromise they have now come up with is not committing to TLI until more than 24 hours after launch. If the ECLSS throws a fit the crew will simply not perform the TLI burn and reenter as soon as possible.

That is why the test sequence I gave in reply #8 starts with people locked up in an Orion for 2 weeks. All the parts of the ECLSS have to work, if something fails then it is easy to get them out. The second part of the test ensures that flying the ECLSS does not cause any problems without risking any lives. Even empty temperature controls and fans still have to work. The third part tests Orion and ECLSS with people inside.

The second part (all-up ECLSS on an uncrewed orbiting vehicle) will absolutely not happen on Orion: they go straight from people-in-the-loop testing on the ground to all-up manned test in orbit.

There is no in-between step in this case, given that EM-1 carries only a partial ECS, without most of the systems needed for an all-up ECLSS.

Which is fine btw. given that unmanned testing of a full-up ECLSS didn't happen either on Mercury, Gemini and Space Shuttle.

I'm of the opinion it is not FINE.   Building out and integrating the ECLSS and then flying it in zero G would be a good test.   We just don't know what problems might turn up.   You are correct that it would be a good idea to have something consuming the the LSS ... dog? monkey? a small custom built test rig?

It's wasteful to fly a couple billion dollar test without, ahem, testing things.

Quite frankly I don't understand what gets you ticked off on this one. It is very simple: NASA doesn't plan on testing its full-up ECLSS system for Orion on unmanned missions.

That's it.

What you think of it is completely irrelevant. So is what I think of it.

But here is some additional information: the requirements for Orion ECLSS state that it needs to operate for (at most) 3 weeks per missions. That puts it in the operating range of the space shuttle ECLSS, which was also untested in orbit, prior to its first manned mission.

And what to think of the Spacelab ECLSS? Many people don't realize this but Spacelab had its own independent ECLSS. The first all-up on-orbit test of that system was on the first manned Spacelab mission.

Same for the Skylab ECLSS.
Same for the Salyut ECLSS.
Same for the Mir ECLSS.
Same for the ISS ECLSS.

Simply put: there is no need for unmanned, on-orbit test of the full-up Orion ECLSS.

Even Apollo had only a partial test of its ECLSS on unmanned missions. The reason was the same: no-one to breathe was present on those flights.

Offline Nibb31

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 265
  • France
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 8
The difference with Shuttle or Apollo ECLSS is that they were first tested for days in LEO where the mission could abort at any time if there was a malfunction. For Apollo, there had been several LEO flights to certify the system before Apollo 8.

If there is an ECLSS malfunction after the Earth departure burn, there is no abort capability.

An EM-1.5 long-duration manned flight to LEO to test not only  ECLSS, but also other human factors (equipment interaction, waste management, manned operations, user interface, EVA, comms, and so on) seems like a no-brainer to me before committing to a BEO shakedown cruise. It could even dock with the ISS for safety and to test RV and docking procedures.
« Last Edit: 12/19/2018 11:32 am by Nibb31 »

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11657
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8759
  • Likes Given: 7376
Also the backup plan for SpaceLab? Close the door and stay in the Shuttle. So, not quite the same thing.

NASA can do what it wants... subject to the orders from its paymasters, which don't include (almost all of) us. But some of the decisions do seem a bit hypocritical. This has been pointed out before so not sure how much value rehashing that actually is. We do have a lot of threads that seem to cover some of the same ground re SLS.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9039
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6431
  • Likes Given: 2197
The difference with Shuttle or Apollo ECLSS is that they were first tested for days in LEO where the mission could abort at any time if there was a malfunction. For Apollo, there had been several LEO flights to certify the system before Apollo 8.

Emphasis mine.

Incorrect. Before Apollo 8 there had been only one LEO flight to certify the system: Apollo 7.

The Apollo 4 and Apollo 6 missions don't count as they didn't carry a representative ECLSS environment. Courtesy of no humans being aboard on those missions.
« Last Edit: 12/19/2018 12:36 pm by woods170 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9039
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6431
  • Likes Given: 2197
Also the backup plan for SpaceLab? Close the door and stay in the Shuttle. So, not quite the same thing.

NASA can do what it wants... subject to the orders from its paymasters, which don't include (almost all of) us. But some of the decisions do seem a bit hypocritical. This has been pointed out before so not sure how much value rehashing that actually is. We do have a lot of threads that seem to cover some of the same ground re SLS.

Emphasis mine:

Minor nit: the alternative was close the door and terminate the mission. Without the payload being available there was no purpose in remaining on orbit. The mission would be cut short.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9039
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6431
  • Likes Given: 2197
The difference with Shuttle or Apollo ECLSS is that they were first tested for days in LEO where the mission could abort at any time if there was a malfunction. For Apollo, there had been several LEO flights to certify the system before Apollo 8.

If there is an ECLSS malfunction after the Earth departure burn, there is no abort capability.

An EM-1.5 long-duration manned flight to LEO to test not only  ECLSS, but also other human factors (equipment interaction, waste management, manned operations, user interface, EVA, comms, and so on) seems like a no-brainer to me before committing to a BEO shakedown cruise. It could even dock with the ISS for safety and to test RV and docking procedures.


That maybe a no-brainer to you but given the available funding and the projected SLS flight-rate there is not going to be such a mission. So, there is only the current EM-2 compromise: stay in Earth Orbit for the first roughly 36 hours, before committing to TLI.

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11657
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8759
  • Likes Given: 7376
Also the backup plan for SpaceLab? Close the door and stay in the Shuttle. So, not quite the same thing.

NASA can do what it wants... subject to the orders from its paymasters, which don't include (almost all of) us. But some of the decisions do seem a bit hypocritical. This has been pointed out before so not sure how much value rehashing that actually is. We do have a lot of threads that seem to cover some of the same ground re SLS.

Emphasis mine:

Minor nit: the alternative was close the door and terminate the mission. Without the payload being available there was no purpose in remaining on orbit. The mission would be cut short.
well yeah. but the point being that if there was a fail the shuttle ECLSS itself was still working and the mission could return safely. If there is a fail in Orion and you're 3 days out, not much you can do, is there? Is there enough spare mass and volume to take a full blown rebreather system or similar to allow people to stay suited?

There are those that argue that  BFS has so much spare mass/volume that you can take enough supplies that the ECLSS doesn't have to work, or work well. backup systems and bottled oxygen and scrubber canisters can take up the slack, even for months. Please don't start talking about BFS, it's a throwaway comment to point out that spare mass gives you a lot more freedom of action.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8687
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 183
If either of the unmanned flights of Dragon 2 or CST-100 have the ECLSS switched on then EM-2 needs to go without any problems with life support. The general public knows the hypocritical saying "Do as I say not do as I do".

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19587
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 7445
  • Likes Given: 994
As pointed out by Lar, the lack of ECLSS testing in microgravity before committing to the Moon has been discussed before. I agree that it is a risk, with the EM-2 profile only partly mitigating that risk. A simple solution is to launch Orion uncrewed on a Delta 4 Heavy to ISS. Crew board it and then it spends two weeks in LEO testing all the systems out.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Online freddo411

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 189
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 585
{snip}
Simply put: testing an ECLSS on board an unmanned spacecraft is like testing the driving experience of a car without the car rolling so much as an inch: it is pointless.

Hence all the crap the ASAP was making about the original flight profile of EM-2. The first manned flight of Orion, with a brand-new, not-flight-tested ECLSS. And it was to go straight to the Moon. The compromise they have now come up with is not committing to TLI until more than 24 hours after launch. If the ECLSS throws a fit the crew will simply not perform the TLI burn and reenter as soon as possible.

That is why the test sequence I gave in reply #8 starts with people locked up in an Orion for 2 weeks. All the parts of the ECLSS have to work, if something fails then it is easy to get them out. The second part of the test ensures that flying the ECLSS does not cause any problems without risking any lives. Even empty temperature controls and fans still have to work. The third part tests Orion and ECLSS with people inside.

The second part (all-up ECLSS on an uncrewed orbiting vehicle) will absolutely not happen on Orion: they go straight from people-in-the-loop testing on the ground to all-up manned test in orbit.

There is no in-between step in this case, given that EM-1 carries only a partial ECS, without most of the systems needed for an all-up ECLSS.

Which is fine btw. given that unmanned testing of a full-up ECLSS didn't happen either on Mercury, Gemini and Space Shuttle.

I'm of the opinion it is not FINE.   Building out and integrating the ECLSS and then flying it in zero G would be a good test.   We just don't know what problems might turn up.   You are correct that it would be a good idea to have something consuming the the LSS ... dog? monkey? a small custom built test rig?

It's wasteful to fly a couple billion dollar test without, ahem, testing things.

Quite frankly I don't understand what gets you ticked off on this one. It is very simple: NASA doesn't plan on testing its full-up ECLSS system for Orion on unmanned missions.

That's it.

What you think of it is completely irrelevant. So is what I think of it.

...snip ...

Granted, my humble opinion is just that.  Also, I don't worry about the system too much, as I expect that engineering will have lots of heritage, and undergone lots of on the ground testing.   We probably agree broadly on that.

My big beef is with the test launch theatre.   Why bother to have an EM-1 if you aren't testing/flying (most|all) real components?   It's a very expensive missed opportunity for no good reason that I can fathom.   There's a small chance there will a flaw in the design, construction or integration of the system that might become apparent on this flight.   

Hubble's mirror troubles come to mind as an example of missing the chance to do all up testing....   

Offline niwax

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 409
  • Germany
    • SpaceX Booster List
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 59
My big beef is with the test launch theatre.   Why bother to have an EM-1 if you aren't testing/flying (most|all) real components?   It's a very expensive missed opportunity for no good reason that I can fathom.   There's a small chance there will a flaw in the design, construction or integration of the system that might become apparent on this flight.

Now don't start making logical arguments and asking questions here, this is SLS we're talking about. If you want an example of how NASA would like to do testing, look at commercial crew. Drop tests, abort tests, full uncrewed mission with the final design. I don't doubt they'd do the same on SLS if they could. That would require a system that they'd actually finished designing and building before flying though.
Which booster has the most soot? SpaceX booster launch history! (discussion)

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10754
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3080
  • Likes Given: 1242
As pointed out by Lar, the lack of ECLSS testing in microgravity before committing to the Moon has been discussed before. I agree that it is a risk, with the EM-2 profile only partly mitigating that risk. A simple solution is to launch Orion uncrewed on a Delta 4 Heavy to ISS. Crew board it and then it spends two weeks in LEO testing all the systems out.

But, but, but Steven - everybody says that Orion is not launch vehicle agnostic, that only the SLS can launch it. So that is not a correct statement?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9039
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6431
  • Likes Given: 2197
As pointed out by Lar, the lack of ECLSS testing in microgravity before committing to the Moon has been discussed before. I agree that it is a risk, with the EM-2 profile only partly mitigating that risk. A simple solution is to launch Orion uncrewed on a Delta 4 Heavy to ISS. Crew board it and then it spends two weeks in LEO testing all the systems out.

Not only is that solution not simple, it is also very expensive and politically dangerous given that it would show (again) that Orion can launch on something other than SLS (when given enough money to modify it to be able to fly on a non-SLS launch vehicle).
« Last Edit: 12/20/2018 12:32 pm by woods170 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9039
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6431
  • Likes Given: 2197
I'm of the opinion it is not FINE.   Building out and integrating the ECLSS and then flying it in zero G would be a good test.   We just don't know what problems might turn up.   You are correct that it would be a good idea to have something consuming the the LSS ... dog? monkey? a small custom built test rig?

It's wasteful to fly a couple billion dollar test without, ahem, testing things.

Quite frankly I don't understand what gets you ticked off on this one. It is very simple: NASA doesn't plan on testing its full-up ECLSS system for Orion on unmanned missions.

That's it.

What you think of it is completely irrelevant. So is what I think of it.

...snip ...

Granted, my humble opinion is just that.  Also, I don't worry about the system too much, as I expect that engineering will have lots of heritage, and undergone lots of on the ground testing.   We probably agree broadly on that.

My big beef is with the test launch theatre.  Why bother to have an EM-1 if you aren't testing/flying (most|all) real components?  It's a very expensive missed opportunity for no good reason that I can fathom.   There's a small chance there will a flaw in the design, construction or integration of the system that might become apparent on this flight.   

Hubble's mirror troubles come to mind as an example of missing the chance to do all up testing....   

Emphasis mine.
That's the whole point. Almost ALL systems of Orion will be tested on EM-1. The exception being the crew instrument panel and the full-up ECLSS. But those constitute only a very small portion of all systems on Orion. EM-1 will carry a rudimentary ECS.

EM-1 is comparable in nature to the Apollo 6 mission, with the difference being that Apollo 6 remained in Earth Orbit, while EM-1 goes all the way to the Moon. As such, EM-1 is a much more ambitious unmanned test mission than any of the unmanned Apollo missions ever was.

Online llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2171
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1358
  • Likes Given: 1600
Many of the functions of the Orion's ECLSS can be tested on the Earth by locking people into a capsule on the ground for 2 weeks. Give then some books to read. Running the ECLSS in space in an empty capsule will show that nothing falls off during launch or re-entry.

There is the small matter of micro gravity and how does one simulated it on Earth for the dirtside ECLSS test results to be valid.  ::)


We do have a manned orbital laboratory somewhere out there.  I forget what it's called...
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9437
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3284
  • Likes Given: 9166
Testing Orion on anything else but SLS defeats the purpose of ordering more SLS hardware...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11657
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8759
  • Likes Given: 7376
As pointed out by Lar, the lack of ECLSS testing in microgravity before committing to the Moon has been discussed before. I agree that it is a risk, with the EM-2 profile only partly mitigating that risk. A simple solution is to launch Orion uncrewed on a Delta 4 Heavy to ISS. Crew board it and then it spends two weeks in LEO testing all the systems out.
That's just crazy talk. WAY too logical, and also undercuts the "we must have SLS" narrative.

Testing Orion on anything else but SLS defeats the purpose of ordering more SLS hardware...

Exactly!
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8687
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 183
To make EM-2 into a full flight test of both Orion and SLS.

Launch an unmanned Orion on the SLS to the ISS.
Dock to the ISS, astronauts board and spend a week checking out all the Orion's systems.
Refill the Orion's consumables.
Manned Orion goes on its Moon trip.
Astronauts return to Earth's surface in the Orion.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19587
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 7445
  • Likes Given: 994
But, but, but Steven - everybody says that Orion is not launch vehicle agnostic, that only the SLS can launch it. So that is not a correct statement?

Considering that Orion has already flown on Delta IV Heavy, albeit with a dummy SM, that's about as incorrect as it gets. CST-100 also couldn't fly on Atlas-V, but the payload and vehicle was adapted to make it work (the shroud at the base of the CST-100 SM). The same adaption could be done for Falcon Heavy, Ariane V and Proton!
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Online freddo411

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 189
  • Liked: 169
  • Likes Given: 585
My big beef is with the test launch theatre.   Why bother to have an EM-1 if you aren't testing/flying (most|all) real components?   It's a very expensive missed opportunity for no good reason that I can fathom.   There's a small chance there will a flaw in the design, construction or integration of the system that might become apparent on this flight.

Now don't start making logical arguments and asking questions here, this is SLS we're talking about. If you want an example of how NASA would like to do testing, look at commercial crew. Drop tests, abort tests, full uncrewed mission with the final design. I don't doubt they'd do the same on SLS if they could. That would require a system that they'd actually finished designing and building before flying though.

I hear the sarcasm.   And I'm in sympathy with it too.

However, let's be serious here for a minute.    Is it a wise idea to *not* all up test a complete Orion?   Can I get an opinion on that from Bridenstine?  from the ASAP committee?    All up testing seems to be the gold standard as applied to both CC vehicles.

I've referred specifically to the lack of ECLSS, but I also understand that EM-1 won't fly a working LAS.   

Anyone else like to mention other things that are different on EM-1 vs. EM-2 and other manned Orion flights?

Test like you fly, fly like you test.   
« Last Edit: 12/21/2018 06:20 am by freddo411 »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9039
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6431
  • Likes Given: 2197
My big beef is with the test launch theatre.   Why bother to have an EM-1 if you aren't testing/flying (most|all) real components?   It's a very expensive missed opportunity for no good reason that I can fathom.   There's a small chance there will a flaw in the design, construction or integration of the system that might become apparent on this flight.

Now don't start making logical arguments and asking questions here, this is SLS we're talking about. If you want an example of how NASA would like to do testing, look at commercial crew. Drop tests, abort tests, full uncrewed mission with the final design. I don't doubt they'd do the same on SLS if they could. That would require a system that they'd actually finished designing and building before flying though.

I hear the sarcasm.   And I'm in sympathy with it too.

However, let's be serious here for a minute.    Is it a wise idea to *not* all up test a complete Orion?   Can I get an opinion on that from Bridenstine?  from the ASAP committee?    All up testing seems to be the gold standard as applied to both CC vehicles.

I've referred specifically to the lack of ECLSS, but I also understand that EM-1 won't fly a working LAS.   

Anyone else like to mention other things that are different on EM-1 vs. EM-2 and other manned Orion flights?

Test like you fly, fly like you test.   

On the differences between EM-1 and EM-2
- Partial ELCSS only on EM-1 (ECS).
- No crew provisions on EM-1, such as the instrument panel, waste management system (toilet), personal hygiene facilities. Most crew seats are lacking as well as well as most of the crew storage lockers.
- No working LAS on EM-1, only a working LAS jettison engine for nominal jettison of the LAS tower.
- Only partial ECLSS tankage on the ESM (such as no tank for potable water and only one crew oxygen tank)
- Single fault tolerance on many ESM tank valves in stead of dual fault tolerance.
- Single fault tolerance on many ESM electronic systems in stead of dual fault tolerance.
- Zero fault tolerance on a limited number of ESM systems in stead of single fault tolerance.
- No docking hardware present (won't likely be there either on EM-2).

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10754
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3080
  • Likes Given: 1242
On the differences between EM-1 and EM-2
- Partial ELCSS only on EM-1 (ECS).
- No crew provisions on EM-1, such as the instrument panel, waste management system (toilet), personal hygiene facilities. Most crew seats are lacking as well as well as most of the crew storage lockers.
- No working LAS on EM-1, only a working LAS jettison engine for nominal jettison of the LAS tower.
- Only partial ECLSS tankage on the ESM (such as no tank for potable water and only one crew oxygen tank)
- Single fault tolerance on many ESM tank valves instead of dual fault tolerance.
- Single fault tolerance on many ESM electronic systems instead of dual fault tolerance.
- Zero fault tolerance on a limited number of ESM systems instead of single fault tolerance.
- No docking hardware present (won't likely be there either on EM-2).

Wow, I was not aware that much was missing/incomplete. As far as I am concerned that is unacceptable - as in not flyable. I would have expected the Delta-IV launch to be carrying that incomplete a spacecraft, not EM-1. That pretty much turns the whole flight into a very bad joke.
« Last Edit: 12/21/2018 03:38 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10754
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3080
  • Likes Given: 1242
But, but, but Steven - everybody says that Orion is not launch vehicle agnostic, that only the SLS can launch it. So that is not a correct statement?

Considering that Orion has already flown on Delta IV Heavy, albeit with a dummy SM, that's about as incorrect as it gets. CST-100 also couldn't fly on Atlas-V, but the payload and vehicle was adapted to make it work (the shroud at the base of the CST-100 SM). The same adaption could be done for Falcon Heavy, Ariane V and Proton!

Steven, oh the heresy! To insinuate that Orion can fly on anything other than the Holy SLS is blasphemy! Thou shalt be excommunicated post hense!
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline hektor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1422
  • Liked: 90
  • Likes Given: 3


On the differences between EM-1 and EM-2
- Partial ELCSS only on EM-1 (ECS).
- No crew provisions on EM-1, such as the instrument panel, waste management system (toilet), personal hygiene facilities. Most crew seats are lacking as well as well as most of the crew storage lockers.
- No working LAS on EM-1, only a working LAS jettison engine for nominal jettison of the LAS tower.
- Only partial ECLSS tankage on the ESM (such as no tank for potable water and only one crew oxygen tank)
- Single fault tolerance on many ESM tank valves in stead of dual fault tolerance.
- Single fault tolerance on many ESM electronic systems in stead of dual fault tolerance.
- Zero fault tolerance on a limited number of ESM systems in stead of single fault tolerance.
- No docking hardware present (won't likely be there either on EM-2).

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have never seen such info any where else.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4655
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 3353
  • Likes Given: 4580


On the differences between EM-1 and EM-2
- Partial ELCSS only on EM-1 (ECS).
- No crew provisions on EM-1, such as the instrument panel, waste management system (toilet), personal hygiene facilities. Most crew seats are lacking as well as well as most of the crew storage lockers.
- No working LAS on EM-1, only a working LAS jettison engine for nominal jettison of the LAS tower.
- Only partial ECLSS tankage on the ESM (such as no tank for potable water and only one crew oxygen tank)
- Single fault tolerance on many ESM tank valves in stead of dual fault tolerance.
- Single fault tolerance on many ESM electronic systems in stead of dual fault tolerance.
- Zero fault tolerance on a limited number of ESM systems in stead of single fault tolerance.
- No docking hardware present (won't likely be there either on EM-2).

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have never seen such info any where else.

Far from extra-ordinary claims, since most of these can't be tested or used in space without humans. Toilets, docking hardware, etc. All of that would be wasted money.

In every test you decide what the test is testing, and then build your test article accordingly. Adding superfluous equipment is wasteful, and in some cases can pollute the test results.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5456
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 2845
  • Likes Given: 1
>
Far from extra-ordinary claims, since most of these can't be tested or used in space without humans. Toilets, docking hardware, etc. All of that would be wasted money.

In every test you decide what the test is testing, and then build your test article accordingly. Adding superfluous equipment is wasteful, and in some cases can pollute the test results.

The next logical questions are;

1) what items will be missing from Crew Dragon DM-1 and Starliner OFT, and

2) how do they align with EM-1's MIA list?

Not really expecting a satisfactory answer....
« Last Edit: 12/21/2018 04:37 pm by docmordrid »
DM

Online whitelancer64

>
Far from extra-ordinary claims, since most of these can't be tested or used in space without humans. Toilets, docking hardware, etc. All of that would be wasted money.

In every test you decide what the test is testing, and then build your test article accordingly. Adding superfluous equipment is wasteful, and in some cases can pollute the test results.

The next logical questions are;

1) what items will be missing from Crew Dragon DM-1 and Starliner OFT, and

2) how do they align with EM-1's MIA list?

Not really expecting a satisfactory answer....

One visible difference I know of is that the DM-1 crew Dragon will only have 2 windows.

DM-2 will have 4, maybe 5 (I've seen some disagreement on whether or not the hatch will have a window).
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 220
  • Home
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 21
Isn't the full mass of Orion+SM dangerously close to the upper mass limit on Delta 4 Heavy? CST-100 needs a 2-engine Centaur to fly special safer trajectory; doing something similar for Orion+D4H might really be extremely expensive. It gets worse when you consider that Delta IV is planned for retirement and changes to the Service Module need to be negotiated with ESA.

This program is a political mess, and the mess is deliberate.

Offline M129K

There is no need to have the full 8.6 tonne propellant load on Orion for a hypothetical LEO test run, so Delta IV Heavy might even be excessively large for launching Orion to the ISS.

Online RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2720
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1488
  • Likes Given: 1127
There is no need to have the full 8.6 tonne propellant load on Orion for a hypothetical LEO test run, so Delta IV Heavy might even be excessively large for launching Orion to the ISS.

Add orbital refueling and you get a mission architecture that doesn't need SLS. So, we won't see another test on DIV.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10754
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3080
  • Likes Given: 1242
Add orbital refueling and you get a mission architecture that doesn't need SLS.

Heresy.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9039
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6431
  • Likes Given: 2197


On the differences between EM-1 and EM-2
- Partial ELCSS only on EM-1 (ECS).
- No crew provisions on EM-1, such as the instrument panel, waste management system (toilet), personal hygiene facilities. Most crew seats are lacking as well as well as most of the crew storage lockers.
- No working LAS on EM-1, only a working LAS jettison engine for nominal jettison of the LAS tower.
- Only partial ECLSS tankage on the ESM (such as no tank for potable water and only one crew oxygen tank)
- Single fault tolerance on many ESM tank valves in stead of dual fault tolerance.
- Single fault tolerance on many ESM electronic systems in stead of dual fault tolerance.
- Zero fault tolerance on a limited number of ESM systems in stead of single fault tolerance.
- No docking hardware present (won't likely be there either on EM-2).

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have never seen such info any where else.
Go look it up. All of this comes from public sources, such as NASA.gov, ESA.int, NAC heo reports, GAO reports, OIG reports, ASAP reports, etc.

The information is there, in bits and pieces. All you need to do is take the time to digest and follow all the various sites where this stuff can be found.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8687
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 183
On the differences between EM-1 and EM-2
- Partial ELCSS only on EM-1 (ECS).
- No crew provisions on EM-1, such as the instrument panel, waste management system (toilet), personal hygiene facilities. Most crew seats are lacking as well as well as most of the crew storage lockers.
- No working LAS on EM-1, only a working LAS jettison engine for nominal jettison of the LAS tower.
- Only partial ECLSS tankage on the ESM (such as no tank for potable water and only one crew oxygen tank)
- Single fault tolerance on many ESM tank valves instead of dual fault tolerance.
- Single fault tolerance on many ESM electronic systems instead of dual fault tolerance.
- Zero fault tolerance on a limited number of ESM systems instead of single fault tolerance.
- No docking hardware present (won't likely be there either on EM-2).

Wow, I was not aware that much was missing/incomplete. As far as I am concerned that is unacceptable - as in not flyable. I would have expected the Delta-IV launch to be carrying that incomplete a spacecraft, not EM-1. That pretty much turns the whole flight into a very bad joke.

What is the purpose of EM-1?
Is it to test the SLS with a partial Orion acting as a dummy test load?

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11657
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8759
  • Likes Given: 7376
What is the purpose of EM-1?
Spend money.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online Markstark

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 176
  • Liked: 166
  • Likes Given: 40
On the differences between EM-1 and EM-2
- Partial ELCSS only on EM-1 (ECS).
- No crew provisions on EM-1, such as the instrument panel, waste management system (toilet), personal hygiene facilities. Most crew seats are lacking as well as well as most of the crew storage lockers.
- No working LAS on EM-1, only a working LAS jettison engine for nominal jettison of the LAS tower.
- Only partial ECLSS tankage on the ESM (such as no tank for potable water and only one crew oxygen tank)
- Single fault tolerance on many ESM tank valves instead of dual fault tolerance.
- Single fault tolerance on many ESM electronic systems instead of dual fault tolerance.
- Zero fault tolerance on a limited number of ESM systems instead of single fault tolerance.
- No docking hardware present (won't likely be there either on EM-2).

Wow, I was not aware that much was missing/incomplete. As far as I am concerned that is unacceptable - as in not flyable. I would have expected the Delta-IV launch to be carrying that incomplete a spacecraft, not EM-1. That pretty much turns the whole flight into a very bad joke.

What is the purpose of EM-1?
Is it to test the SLS with a partial Orion acting as a dummy test load?

Hey A_M. If you’re genuinely interested in learning the purposes of EM-1, I will gladly lay that out to the best of my ability. If it’s just a rhetorical question and you’re already familiar with the test objectives, then disregard my post.

Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8687
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 183

What is the purpose of EM-1?
Is it to test the SLS with a partial Orion acting as a dummy test load?

Hey A_M. If you’re genuinely interested in learning the purposes of EM-1, I will gladly lay that out to the best of my ability. If it’s just a rhetorical question and you’re already familiar with the test objectives, then disregard my post.

I do not need the details just the 2 line description that allows me to understand what is being tested. With all those parts missing it obviously not the Orion that is being tested.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9039
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6431
  • Likes Given: 2197

What is the purpose of EM-1?
Is it to test the SLS with a partial Orion acting as a dummy test load?

Hey A_M. If you’re genuinely interested in learning the purposes of EM-1, I will gladly lay that out to the best of my ability. If it’s just a rhetorical question and you’re already familiar with the test objectives, then disregard my post.

I do not need the details just the 2 line description that allows me to understand what is being tested. With all those parts missing it obviously not the Orion that is being tested.

Crew Module main system were tested briefly on EFT-1.
EM-1 is there to test the new SM, as well as the CM main systems, and the lunar flight profile on a long duration mission of 21 days.

Offline MaxTeranous

  • Member
  • Posts: 77
  • Liked: 67
  • Likes Given: 18

What is the purpose of EM-1?
Is it to test the SLS with a partial Orion acting as a dummy test load?

Hey A_M. If you’re genuinely interested in learning the purposes of EM-1, I will gladly lay that out to the best of my ability. If it’s just a rhetorical question and you’re already familiar with the test objectives, then disregard my post.

I do not need the details just the 2 line description that allows me to understand what is being tested. With all those parts missing it obviously not the Orion that is being tested.

Your're being very black and white. Probably 95% of the Orion's systems are to be tested on EM-1. Sure you can say it's not ideal that the full set of systems won't be ready, and i tend to agree that they've had long enough that all systems should be in place regardless, but it is what it is and it doesn't detract from the many, many other things that will be tested on Orion during EM-1.
« Last Edit: 12/22/2018 11:20 am by MaxTeranous »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10754
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3080
  • Likes Given: 1242
On the differences between EM-1 and EM-2
- Partial ELCSS only on EM-1 (ECS).
- No crew provisions on EM-1, such as the instrument panel, waste management system (toilet), personal hygiene facilities. Most crew seats are lacking as well as well as most of the crew storage lockers.
- No working LAS on EM-1, only a working LAS jettison engine for nominal jettison of the LAS tower.
- Only partial ECLSS tankage on the ESM (such as no tank for potable water and only one crew oxygen tank)
- Single fault tolerance on many ESM tank valves instead of dual fault tolerance.
- Single fault tolerance on many ESM electronic systems instead of dual fault tolerance.
- Zero fault tolerance on a limited number of ESM systems instead of single fault tolerance.

- No docking hardware present (won't likely be there either on EM-2).

<snip>EM-1 is there to test the new SM, ...</snip>


Emphasis mine.
It seams to me that the Service Module (ESM) is not ready to be tested yet.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Jeff Lerner

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 436
  • Toronto, Canada
  • Liked: 87
  • Likes Given: 51
How much of EM-1 has to be successful before a manned EM-2 can be commited ??..with such a low number of flights planned , there is a lot riding on each and every flight that has to work...


Online A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8687
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 183
How much of EM-1 has to be successful before a manned EM-2 can be commited ??..with such a low number of flights planned , there is a lot riding on each and every flight that has to work...



The same criteria as used for Commercial Crew - preferably all of the capsule and launch vehicle. Definitely all the mission critical systems.

This is a cost argument. The US Government is trying to avoid paying for an unmanned complete Orion being launched on a complete SLS.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9039
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6431
  • Likes Given: 2197
On the differences between EM-1 and EM-2
- Partial ELCSS only on EM-1 (ECS).
- No crew provisions on EM-1, such as the instrument panel, waste management system (toilet), personal hygiene facilities. Most crew seats are lacking as well as well as most of the crew storage lockers.
- No working LAS on EM-1, only a working LAS jettison engine for nominal jettison of the LAS tower.
- Only partial ECLSS tankage on the ESM (such as no tank for potable water and only one crew oxygen tank)
- Single fault tolerance on many ESM tank valves instead of dual fault tolerance.
- Single fault tolerance on many ESM electronic systems instead of dual fault tolerance.
- Zero fault tolerance on a limited number of ESM systems instead of single fault tolerance.

- No docking hardware present (won't likely be there either on EM-2).

<snip>EM-1 is there to test the new SM, ...</snip>


Emphasis mine.
It seams to me that the Service Module (ESM) is not ready to be tested yet.

Tell me Chuck...

Why would you need a full set of ECLSS tanks on an UNmanned spaceflight when those extra tanks and plumbing are mirror copies of the single set that is present on the EM-1 Service Module?
Not to mention that the single tank set that is present on EM-1 is basically pointless given that there is no crew on board to consume oxygen and water. It is just there to fill up a structural space and add some weight to the ESM.

Why would you need full redundancy sets of valves and electronics on an UNmanned spaceflight?

[/sarcasm]

This is what you get when you develop a new deep space spacecraft, government-style, without an associated R&D funding bump: the initial spacecraft is a bare-bones version of the real thing, where costs have been cut, for all the wrong reasons.

Both NASA and US Congress have accepted this. The only ones who haven't are ASAP and some folks here.

If and when this approach causes trouble on EM-2 (or subsequent missions) than NASA and US Congress will (predictably) start blaming each other once the memorial services for the dead astronauts are over.

But it will never stop the pork barrel from rolling.
« Last Edit: 12/23/2018 10:18 am by woods170 »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10754
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3080
  • Likes Given: 1242
Tell me Chuck...

Why would you need ....

It's the engineer in me. Perfection was drilled deeply into my soul from when I was first a freshman. If I EVER delivered an incomplete product for real life testing I would have been fired so fast that it would be as if I had never had a career at all. I have always prided myself on delivering the best product I possibly could, that conformed to or exceeded the specs, on time and always either on or under budget. It goes right up my backside to see others getting away with such utter sloppiness and not only not being reprimanded for it but actually being thanked for the delivery. It's the reason I have so little hair left; I've pulled it all out in utter frustration watching the slow train wreck that NASA has become, and yet I'm so addicted to this that I can't look away.
« Last Edit: 12/23/2018 01:15 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2185
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 55
Well said Chuck.  I share much of your view point.

Tags: