NASA managers "serious" about ATV role as Orion Service Module

[Jim]

I voted in favor of ESA building the Orion SM.

I couldn't find any solid arguments to back up the perception that this will increase the costs or delay the development of Orion program.

I believe having it fulfill multiple roles (SM and space tug) would be beneficial for future architectures.

If not too much off topic, I have a wishful thinking question: What are the chances that this design will drive the need for fuel depots, a step forward on the Re-usability path?

No, about the depots.  And no about the SM being a tug.  There are no avionics or rendezvous sensors on the SM, so it can not be readily adapted to a tug.

[Atlan]

I voted in favor of ESA building the Orion SM.

I couldn't find any solid arguments to back up the perception that this will increase the costs or delay the development of Orion program.

I believe having it fulfill multiple roles (SM and space tug) would be beneficial for future architectures.

If not too much off topic, I have a wishful thinking question: What are the chances that this design will drive the need for fuel depots, a step forward on the Re-usability path?

And no about the SM being a tug. 

Then why is the tug mentioned as a possible use in the pdf?
I think the ATV SM is a great project if handled right:

For the NASA it could be saving cost by letting ESA pay for the SM....and even if an US-SM is needed later, it still could be developed when money is avaible. For now its better to have the same amount of money for less to do.
This international cooperation is nice in the perspective of standartisation of interfaces and technology for space flight. Now ESA has to adapt for NASAs requirements without NASA having to adapt anything. I think this is a win win for us all in the mid and long-term.
And for ESA its a good possibility to keep the ATV know-how while doing something useful with it. And it makes an ESA space ship more financially viable by having developed at least the SM already.

I urge you to stop this senseless nationalism in space flight. In my oppinion least this industry should be free of this narrowminded struggles. The US-job crisis is systemic and is not gonna be solved by clawing on some jobs by denying international cooperation and just loosing opportunities in the mid term.

[Garrett]

This was probably posted in this thread or elsewhere on this forum, but I haven't been able to find it:
A video by Boeing entitled "Enabling Exploration to Mars":
http://bcove.me/ez0mad9d
(it's undated, so it would be nice if somebody could figure out when Boeing put this together).

Of interest to this thread is the ATV-like module (shorter, but with the tell-tale 4-wing solar panels) visible in the CGI.

Maybe this belongs more in the "Missions to Mars" thread?

[Go4TLI]

I from the USA..what does it get us???

Not a whole lot actually. On the other hand, it does not cost you whole lot either.

Basically this is about out-sourcing the SM to ESA. But, ESA also coughs-up the money for it. NASA gets to set al the requirements, and ESA develops and builds (well not ESA, but it's contractors) the SM according to those requirements.

ESA pays the bills for this SM, so it does not cost the American taxpayer any money, other than the money that was already spent on the original US-design of the Orion SM.

Unfortunately, it also gets the USA no SM-related jobs. Well, almost no jobs. Most of the SM work will be done in Europe, meaning jobs in Europe. But hey, since ESA is paying for that work... then it's no more than fair.

Some components for the SM will still come from the USA, such as the SM main engine, TVC and other components. ESA will pay for those, but those components will be made in the USA. Meaning that ESA will actually pay for jobs in the USA.

So, what does it get you? International co-operation, some ESA payed jobs in the USA, more ESA-payed jobs in Europe and an SM that is up to NASA-specs.

"it does not cost you a whole lot either".  Gee, thanks.

It costs the money that has been spent on the SM, as you noted.

It costs the money required to redesign the CM as necessary

It costs the money that will have to be spent because schedule will almost surely slide to the right.

It costs the money that will have to be paid by NASA if and when ESA decides they no longer want to do this, just like how they abandoned the ATV after saying how much they want ISS around until at least 2020. 

It "costs" the USA a capability that instead we will be "paying" for the Europeans to develop, a potential tug which could impact more than just NASA-based plans but also impact commercial applications. 

Programatically, it makes little sense to have ESA build an element of a vehicle that has already been in development for 6 years.  Build something else that will compliment Orion and then celebrate what we can do with that as "international cooperation". 

[Lars_J]

Having a European-made SM on Orion is like putting a giant "CANCEL ME" sign on the spacecraft.

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
If not too much off topic, I have a wishful thinking question: What are the chances that this design will drive the need for fuel depots, a step forward on the Re-usability path?

A space tug would been docking and navigation hardware adding.

The SM will use chemical propulsion, so it will be going on one way trips.  The fuel required for the return trip would be enormous.  Areobraking is a possibility but requires a specially designed spaceship, an SM is the wrong shape.

[woods170]

"it does not cost you a whole lot either".  Gee, thanks.

You're welcome   

It costs the money that has been spent on the SM, as you noted.

It costs the money required to redesign the CM as necessary

Oh really? What if NASA sets down the requirements in such a way that a CM re-design is not necessary? And mind you, according to the document, NASA does get to set the requirements for the SM.

It costs the money that will have to be spent because schedule will almost surely slide to the right.

Yep, I agree, schedule will likely slip. But since ESA is paying for the SM, any additional cost should land on the shoulders of ESA, not NASA.

It costs the money that will have to be paid by NASA if and when ESA decides they no longer want to do this, just like how they abandoned the ATV after saying how much they want ISS around until at least 2020. 

ESA did not abandon ATV. Five ATV's were procured from the get-go. Any additional ATV's needed additional approval. That approval never came, hence only the original five were built and will be flown.
And may I remind you that it was NASA that recently decided they no longer wanted to do a cooperative Mars program with ESA. Who is setting the "bad" example here?

It "costs" the USA a capability that instead we will be "paying" for the Europeans to develop, a potential tug which could impact more than just NASA-based plans but also impact commercial applications. 

That's not how I read the document on NTRS. It clearly states that ESA will do the SM and pay for it, freeing up time and resources for the USA to concentrate on the CM. If ESA wishes to combine the development of the SM with the development of a tug, than that's their choice. Does not "cost" the USA anything.
Listening to how Jim talks about the SM, it will not really be a capability lost to the USA. The SM is basically a set of tanks, with an engine stuck underneath and a couple of solar arrays stuck in the sides. The CM is the real technologically challenging part of Orion.

Programatically, it makes little sense to have ESA build an element of a vehicle that has already been in development for 6 years.  Build something else that will compliment Orion and then celebrate what we can do with that as "international cooperation". 

Wholeheartedly agree. That's my main point why I am against ESA building the Orion SM. It seems like a huge waste of money-already-spent, and schedule slips are almost inevitable. Astrium, the main contractor for the ESA SM (and ATV for that matter), does not exactly have a good reputation for on-time, and on-budget delivery.

[Go4TLI]

"it does not cost you a whole lot either".  Gee, thanks.

1.  You're welcome   

It costs the money that has been spent on the SM, as you noted.

It costs the money required to redesign the CM as necessary

2.  Oh really? What if NASA sets down the requirements in such a way that a CM re-design is not necessary? And mind you, according to the document, NASA does get to set the requirements for the SM.

It costs the money that will have to be spent because schedule will almost surely slide to the right.

3.  Yep, I agree, schedule will likely slip. But since ESA is paying for the SM, any additional cost should land on the shoulders of ESA, not NASA.

It costs the money that will have to be paid by NASA if and when ESA decides they no longer want to do this, just like how they abandoned the ATV after saying how much they want ISS around until at least 2020. 

4.  ESA did not abandon ATV. Five ATV's were procured from the get-go. Any additional ATV's needed additional approval. That approval never came, hence only the original five were built and will be flown.
And may I remind you that it was NASA that recently decided they no longer wanted to do a cooperative Mars program with ESA. Who is setting the "bad" example here?

It "costs" the USA a capability that instead we will be "paying" for the Europeans to develop, a potential tug which could impact more than just NASA-based plans but also impact commercial applications. 

5.  That's not how I read the document on NTRS. It clearly states that ESA will do the SM and pay for it, freeing up time and resources for the USA to concentrate on the CM. If ESA wishes to combine the development of the SM with the development of a tug, than that's their choice. Does not "cost" the USA anything.
Listening to how Jim talks about the SM, it will not really be a capability lost to the USA. The SM is basically a set of tanks, with an engine stuck underneath and a couple of solar arrays stuck in the sides. The CM is the real technologically challenging part of Orion.

Programatically, it makes little sense to have ESA build an element of a vehicle that has already been in development for 6 years.  Build something else that will compliment Orion and then celebrate what we can do with that as "international cooperation". 

6.  Wholeheartedly agree. That's my main point why I am against ESA building the Orion SM. It seems like a huge waste of money-already-spent, and schedule slips are almost inevitable. Astrium, the main contractor for the ESA SM (and ATV for that matter), does not exactly have a good reputation for on-time, and on-budget delivery.

1.  You're the one who said that so you get the

2.  Then what is the point of having an "ATV-derived" SM then?  It's not like we could slap the ATV and the CM now and get an integrated Orion.  And if NASA's requirements dictate they build what is essentially the baseline version now, why not just have LM continue it?

3.  If schedule slips because on an ATV-derived SM, the people working Orion need to do something, so there is that additional cost for keeping the workforce busy with something while waiting.  Will ESA reimburse NASA for that?  Never going to happen, which of course means NASA's costs go up. 

4.  Your explanation makes it sound like they did and you avoided my question.  NASA does not approve additional ATVs.  Who was missing in that approval, especially when logistics was such a concern with retirement of STS?  Why did ESA want ISS to at least 2020 and then not provide additional vehicles for supply?

5.  LM has proposed using the SM as a tug as well.  If that happens, that capability has been given ceded to ESA, who could then turn around and let European contractors use it commercially, which in turn hurts US interests.  All because we outsourced a major element to a US vehicle. 

6.  So why are you arguing what you did above?

[woods170]

1.  You're the one who said that so you get the

Fair enough.

2.  Then what is the point of having an "ATV-derived" SM then?  It's not like we could slap the ATV and the CM now and get an integrated Orion.  And if NASA's requirements dictate they build what is essentially the baseline version now, why not just have LM continue it?

That is exactly what I was pointing at in my (previous) point 5. It does not make sense to have an ATV-derived SM. That is why I'm against it. They should let LM continue.

3.  If schedule slips because on an ATV-derived SM, the people working Orion need to do something, so there is that additional cost for keeping the workforce busy with something while waiting.  Will ESA reimburse NASA for that?  Never going to happen, which of course means NASA's costs go up. 

You make that assumption based on what? Fact is that neither you nor me know what the deal is between NASA and ESA. Your assumption is as bad as mine.

4.  Your explanation makes it sound like they did and you avoided my question.  NASA does not approve additional ATVs.  Who was missing in that approval, especially when logistics was such a concern with retirement of STS?  Why did ESA want ISS to at least 2020 and then not provide additional vehicles for supply?

Why do you think there is CRS? NASA has known for many years now that ATV-5 was the final ATV. They knew for a long time the shuttle would stop flying. They accepted that. NASA figures HTV, CRS and Progress can do the job.
Approval for additional ATV's does not come from NASA, it comes from ESA. But ESA never approved, let alone funded, additional ATV's. 
So, that left open a substantial amount of money in the barter agreement. All ESA and NASA had to do was figure out a way for ESA to fullfill the barter. Apparently, they have found a way, by having ESA provide an SM for Orion. And clearly, you don't like that at all.
For the record: neither do I, but for different reasons.

5.  LM has proposed using the SM as a tug as well.  If that happens, that capability has been given ceded to ESA, who could then turn around and let European contractors use it commercially, which in turn hurts US interests.  All because we outsourced a major element to a US vehicle.

To quote Jim: no rendez-vous sensors and avionics on the SM.
That tug thing is just as remote from being realised, by Astrium, as it was by LockMart. Ideas for space tugs have been around for decades. The only thing that has ever come close to being a space tug was a modified Progress freighter. We have yet to see if an SM based space tug ever comes into existence, let alone hurt US interests.

6.  So why are you arguing what you did above?

I'm not. Go back up the thread and read the previous messages again.

[FinalFrontier]

I honestly don't see a problem with ESA building and providing the SM for Orion.

I just don't. Its both technically and economically feasible, and it means NASA doesn't have to pay for it (or rather pay as much, perhaps, as it would if NASA had to develop and supply the thing themselves and it was all new instead of based on an existing system).

[Go4TLI]

3.  If schedule slips because on an ATV-derived SM, the people working Orion need to do something, so there is that additional cost for keeping the workforce busy with something while waiting.  Will ESA reimburse NASA for that?  Never going to happen, which of course means NASA's costs go up. 

You make that assumption based on what? Fact is that neither you nor me know what the deal is between NASA and ESA. Your assumption is as bad as mine.

4.  Your explanation makes it sound like they did and you avoided my question.  NASA does not approve additional ATVs.  Who was missing in that approval, especially when logistics was such a concern with retirement of STS?  Why did ESA want ISS to at least 2020 and then not provide additional vehicles for supply?

Why do you think there is CRS? NASA has known for many years now that ATV-5 was the final ATV. They knew for a long time the shuttle would stop flying. They accepted that. NASA figures HTV, CRS and Progress can do the job.
Approval for additional ATV's does not come from NASA, it comes from ESA. But ESA never approved, let alone funded, additional ATV's. 
So, that left open a substantial amount of money in the barter agreement. All ESA and NASA had to do was figure out a way for ESA to fullfill the barter. Apparently, they have found a way, by having ESA provide an SM for Orion. And clearly, you don't like that at all.
For the record: neither do I, but for different reasons.

5.  LM has proposed using the SM as a tug as well.  If that happens, that capability has been given ceded to ESA, who could then turn around and let European contractors use it commercially, which in turn hurts US interests.  All because we outsourced a major element to a US vehicle.

To quote Jim: no rendez-vous sensors and avionics on the SM.
That tug thing is just as remote from being realised, by Astrium, as it was by LockMart. Ideas for space tugs have been around for decades. The only thing that has ever come close to being a space tug was a modified Progress freighter. We have yet to see if an SM based space tug ever comes into existence, let alone hurt US interests.

3.  Seriously?  It's simple logic that if ESA delays the program that the workforce becomes idle and needs something for them to do.  That costs money and you and I both know that ESA is not going to fund all of Orion, the whole program, because of it.

4.  That's a really bad explanation and it shows ESA is a shakey partner in my opinion and sets up the possibility that NASA may have to fund Europe directly in the future if ESA "does not approve" SMs in the future.  They did not approve additional ATVs even when at the same time pushing for additional life of the station.  They owed the USA money through "barter" and according to you, said NASA can pay even more through CRS.  CRS was meant to try to fill the void STS retirement created.

5.  What Jim says is not relevant to the point I am making.  LM has also proposed using the SM as a tug.  Regardless or not if it happens, that's not the point right now.  The point is that it could and ESA is proposing it and means that ESA could have an additional capability all because the USA outsourced something that gets us little in return beyond increased cost and schedule delays.

[Prober]

No, No, No, No way, this country is fully capable of building it's own spacecraft, besides congress will never go for it

No basis for the comment about congress.  They are already letting NASA astronauts fly on Russian vehicles and soon Russian powered boosters

whats the famious saying " two wrongs don't make a right" ?
Not saying anything other than this idea should be killed.

[Prober]

I honestly don't see a problem with ESA building and providing the SM for Orion.

I just don't. Its both technically and economically feasible, and it means NASA doesn't have to pay for it (or rather pay as much, perhaps, as it would if NASA had to develop and supply the thing themselves and it was all new instead of based on an existing system).

I do......the ISS needs upgrades to extend its life.  Just in the electrical system; The Solar Panels, batteries etc.

If we want to add that 7th person, node 4 etc. these should be the concerns of the ESA & NASA.

Getting the ESA as the contractor for the Service Modules (USA would need to pay for others).

[Jim]

No, No, No, No way, this country is fully capable of building it's own spacecraft, besides congress will never go for it

No basis for the comment about congress.  They are already letting NASA astronauts fly on Russian vehicles and soon Russian powered boosters

whats the famious saying " two wrongs don't make a right" ?
Not saying anything other than this idea should be killed.

who said they are wrongs in the first place

[woods170]

3.  Seriously?  It's simple logic that if ESA delays the program that the workforce becomes idle and needs something for them to do.  That costs money and you and I both know that ESA is not going to fund all of Orion, the whole program, because of it.

4.  That's a really bad explanation and it shows ESA is a shakey partner in my opinion and sets up the possibility that NASA may have to fund Europe directly in the future if ESA "does not approve" SMs in the future.  They did not approve additional ATVs even when at the same time pushing for additional life of the station.  They owed the USA money through "barter" and according to you, said NASA can pay even more through CRS.  CRS was meant to try to fill the void STS retirement created.

5.  What Jim says is not relevant to the point I am making.  LM has also proposed using the SM as a tug.  Regardless or not if it happens, that's not the point right now.  The point is that it could and ESA is proposing it and means that ESA could have an additional capability all because the USA outsourced something that gets us little in return beyond increased cost and schedule delays.

You've begun to repeat yourself. Done argueing over those points.

[woods170]

A little more about the 'tug'-variant of the Orion SM:

- Tug has a (concept) name: VAC (Versatile Autonomous Concept)
- The MPCV-SM has a new acronym: Multi Purpose Concept Versatile Service Module

Details:
- Usable for barter
- Valuable for future European space activities
- Versatile applications (human space activities and robotic missions)
- Versatile package for European missions, including cooperative missions
- Versatile for different future developments (service module, robotic actions, debris, exploration…)
- Sensors + GNC package to be tested in the MPCV-SM demo mission [Note to Jim: there you go!]
- European solution (avoidance of ITAR restrictions)

More views of the proposed Orion SM from ESA below. Images are from ESA/Astrium

[BrightLight]

How much commonality is there between the existing ATV and this iteration?

[woods170]

How much commonality is there between the existing ATV and this iteration?

From my source:
- Solar panels (modified)
- Radiators (modified for different external layout)
- Same kind of tankage and plumbing (modified for different dimensions - basically resulting in a complete re-design)
- Pressurization system (basically the same as on ATV)
- Auxiliary engines are the same as the 'main engines' on ATV, but 8 of them, in stead of 4 on ATV.
- RCS thrusters (same as on ATV - but different clustering)
- Partial re-use of ATV avionics hardware.
- MLI (same type)
- Launch vehicle interface ring (compatible with standard Ariane 5 adaptors - similar as on ATV)

[BrightLight]

Some pros and cons
Pros
Doesn't look much like the ATV to me (But what do I know)
Multinational helps defray some costs
Multinational reduces the likelihood of cancellation (sometimes)
Will have to address all interface control protocols

Cons
Multinational might induce unforeseen costs
Multinational might induce schedule slip to the right
Will have to address all interface control protocols (in my experience with terrestrial payloads, dissimilar system mating from different science\engineering cultures is a problem).

Overall I think it will be a wash.

Does "wash" mean that US spends the money it saved on the SM integrating the ATVSM with the CM, and ESA spends additional funds producing ATVSM? IE it will cost more overall?

cheers, Martin

Thats my thinking, the "savings" by having ESA do the Sm will be eaten by the additional cost to communicate and integrate a "new" system.

[BrightLight]

How much commonality is there between the existing ATV and this iteration?

From my source:
- Solar panels (modified)
- Radiators (modified for different external layout)
- Same kind of tankage and plumbing (modified for different dimensions - basically resulting in a complete re-design)
- Pressurization system (basically the same as on ATV)
- Auxiliary engines are the same as the 'main engines' on ATV, but 8 of them, in stead of 4 on ATV.
- RCS thrusters (same as on ATV - but different clustering)
- Partial re-use of ATV avionics hardware.
- MLI (same type)
- Launch vehicle interface ring (compatible with standard Ariane 5 adaptors - similar as on ATV)

I am not surprised by the re-build, in one sense this is good in that the product will fit the mission needs better and will accommodate the MPCV well, but I think the cost to NASA will be about what they would have had to spend on the LM SM.