-
#120 by Arcas on 23 May, 2016 17:21
-
Quick question: Why do we call it the "European Service Module" instead of just the "Orion Service Module"? We don't say "American Orion Capsule" and "American SLS Upper Stage" or whatever.
-
#121 by Eric Hedman on 23 May, 2016 17:58
-
Quick question: Why do we call it the "European Service Module" instead of just the "Orion Service Module"? We don't say "American Orion Capsule" and "American SLS Upper Stage" or whatever.
I am guessing it is because I think there is only a contract to supply the ESM for just the first mission. While unlikely, this does leave the option open for for it to be replaced down the road with an American version. I suspect the ESM will continue to be supplied as needed for further missions once the details and timing of those get finalized.
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/mpcv/orion_feature_011613.html -
#122 by the_other_Doug on 23 May, 2016 19:09
-
Quick question: Why do we call it the "European Service Module" instead of just the "Orion Service Module"? We don't say "American Orion Capsule" and "American SLS Upper Stage" or whatever.
I am guessing it is because I think there is only a contract to supply the ESM for just the first mission. While unlikely, this does leave the option open for for it to be replaced down the road with an American version. I suspect the ESM will continue to be supplied as needed for further missions once the details and timing of those get finalized.
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/mpcv/orion_feature_011613.html
Well, it's not like the service module can be re-used, it is totally an expendable piece of the Orion spacecraft. So, yeah, either NASA needs to let a contract for an American firm to build service modules for future flights, or the ESM can't be a one-off... -
#123 by Coastal Ron on 24 May, 2016 02:08
-
Quick question: Why do we call it the "European Service Module" instead of just the "Orion Service Module"? We don't say "American Orion Capsule" and "American SLS Upper Stage" or whatever.
The Orion Service Module design is based on ESA's Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) spacecraft, and is not a NASA design.
So since it's based on a European design, it's called the European Service Module. No doubt if it was NASA designed and U.S. built, it would just be called the "Service Module". -
#124 by Arcas on 24 May, 2016 04:44
-
Yes, obviously, but why? Why does Europe and NASA have to specify it. If NASA isn't slapping "American" on the title of everything they build, why does Europe have to.Quick question: Why do we call it the "European Service Module" instead of just the "Orion Service Module"? We don't say "American Orion Capsule" and "American SLS Upper Stage" or whatever.
The Orion Service Module design is based on ESA's Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) spacecraft, and is not a NASA design.
So since it's based on a European design, it's called the European Service Module. No doubt if it was NASA designed and U.S. built, it would just be called the "Service Module". -
#125 by woods170 on 24 May, 2016 08:24
-
I disagree. Arrays which can be canted during engine boosts are pretty non standard (see Orion EM-1 youtube video).
I was talking about the solar arrays themselves. The canting feature is in a separate system known as the solar array drive assembly. It's the set of hinge-motors that structurally connect the solar array to the main body of the ESM.
The hinge was always going to have a motor to allow the solar array to rotate through the long-axis of the deployed array. Now a second motorized hinge has been added to allow the solar array to also cant upwards and downwards.
But with regards to the solar arrays themselves: they are pretty much standard constructions. Only the solar cells attached to them differ in that they are suitable for deep-space use. Much like the ones on the Rosetta solar arrays. -
#126 by woods170 on 24 May, 2016 08:46
-
Wrong assumption. Europe is not slapping the European title on to it. NASA did in fact.
Yes, obviously, but why? Why does Europe and NASA have to specify it. If NASA isn't slapping "American" on the title of everything they build, why does Europe have to.Quick question: Why do we call it the "European Service Module" instead of just the "Orion Service Module"? We don't say "American Orion Capsule" and "American SLS Upper Stage" or whatever.
The Orion Service Module design is based on ESA's Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) spacecraft, and is not a NASA design.
So since it's based on a European design, it's called the European Service Module. No doubt if it was NASA designed and U.S. built, it would just be called the "Service Module".
Orion has a Service Module. That Service Module consist of four major components:
1. Crew Module Adaptor (CMA).
This is the 'cradle' that the CM is nesting in and forms the wide top part of the Service Module. This component is the structural 'bridge' between the CM and the ESM. It remains attached to the CM until just shortly before re-entry. The CMA is constructed in the USA.
2. European Service Module (ESM).
This is the Service Module component that attaches to the other end of the CMA. It provides the CM with electrical power, the gases and fluids for ECLSS, via an umbilical running thru and outside the CMA. It also provides (amongst others) attitude control, active thermal control, passive thermal control and propulsion for the entire Orion spacecraft. However, it is important to note that the ESM is only one (but rather important) component of the Service Module. It does NOT constitute the entire Service Module. The ESM is constructed in Europe. The main propulsion system is US-made however given that it consists of a re-purposed space shuttle OMS engine.
3. Spacecraft Adaptor (SA)
The backside of the ESM interfaces with the top-ring of the SA. The bottom-ring of the SA interfaces with the launch vehicle adaptor. The SA is one of two parts of the Service Module that is discarded during launch into orbit. Orion separates from the launch vehicle at the SA-ESM separation-plane, leaving the SA attached to the launcher. The SA is constructed in the USA.
4. Spacecraft Adaptor Jettisoned Panels (SAJP)
The SA, bottomside of the CMA and outside of the ESM are protected, during launch, from the effects of high-speed flight thru the lower part of Earth atmosphere. This is done by encapsulting the SA and ESM in a barrel-like construction. This barrel consists of three jettisonable panels. The panels interface at the top with the bottom-outer-ring of the CMA and they interface at the bottom with the bottom-ring of the SA. The SAJP are constructed in the USA.
So, as you can see, the ESM is only part of the entire Service Module for Orion. The component needed a name. NASA chose to name it the ESM because it is the only one of the four major components that is not produced in the USA, but in Europe in stead.
-
#127 by Ben the Space Brit on 01 Jun, 2016 20:46
-
Quick question: Why do we call it the "European Service Module" instead of just the "Orion Service Module"? We don't say "American Orion Capsule" and "American SLS Upper Stage" or whatever.
This is to differentiate the ESA-designed and -supplied module from the presumptive American Service Module that I'm guessing is supposed to fly from EM-3 onwards. -
#128 by SgtPoivre on 10 Jun, 2016 21:37
-
For people living in Ohio or nearby, NASA Plum Brook Station is having an open house this weekend.
Visitors will be able to visit their test facilities and see directly the Orion STA Service Module currently being tested there.
More information here: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-glenn-s-plum-brook-station-invites-the-public-to-visit
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
-
#129 by woods170 on 11 Jun, 2016 11:01
-
Sorry, but no. That is not even remotely the case.Quick question: Why do we call it the "European Service Module" instead of just the "Orion Service Module"? We don't say "American Orion Capsule" and "American SLS Upper Stage" or whatever.
This is to differentiate the ESA-designed and -supplied module from the presumptive American Service Module that I'm guessing is supposed to fly from EM-3 onwards. -
#130 by hektor on 12 Jun, 2016 06:13
-
For people living in Ohio or nearby, NASA Plum Brook Station is having an open house this weekend.
Visitors will be able to visit their test facilities and see directly the Orion STA Service Module currently being tested there.
More information here: http://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-glenn-s-plum-brook-station-invites-the-public-to-visit
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
ESA is there as well
-
#131 by Ben the Space Brit on 12 Jun, 2016 11:52
-
Quick question: Why do we call it the "European Service Module" instead of just the "Orion Service Module"? We don't say "American Orion Capsule" and "American SLS Upper Stage" or whatever.
This is to differentiate the ESA-designed and -supplied module from the presumptive American Service Module that I'm guessing is supposed to fly from EM-3 onwards.
Sorry, but no. That is not even remotely the case.
Okay, then; if I'm wrong, what's the right answer? -
#132 by woods170 on 12 Jun, 2016 14:16
-
Under current negotiations EM-3 will fly with an ESM. There are currently no concrete plans to invest in "doing" an American Service Module (although LockMart really would have loved to have one..but that station has passed). My sources also states that the IP for the ESM will not be passed to NASA. ESA knows they are holding the golden eggs. ESM gives them a golden opportunity to stay "in" the US Exploration program. "In" as in participating in the planned missions. Not just with the ESM, but with crew participation as well. ESM is no longer about bartering for "just" continued participation in ISS.Quick question: Why do we call it the "European Service Module" instead of just the "Orion Service Module"? We don't say "American Orion Capsule" and "American SLS Upper Stage" or whatever.
This is to differentiate the ESA-designed and -supplied module from the presumptive American Service Module that I'm guessing is supposed to fly from EM-3 onwards.
Sorry, but no. That is not even remotely the case.
Okay, then; if I'm wrong, what's the right answer? -
#133 by hektor on 12 Jun, 2016 19:04
-
There is only one little issue with your nice scenario : that the real decision makers, the ESA member states, go along. They are notorious for preferring development to recurring production. See ATV which died after the fifth copy.
-
#134 by woods170 on 12 Jun, 2016 20:50
-
There is only one little issue with your nice scenario : that the real decision makers, the ESA member states, go along. They are notorious for preferring development to recurring production. See ATV which died after the fifth copy.
No problem there IMO. The second ESM (for EM-2) is significantly more developed than the first one (for EM-1). Preliminary studies are already being performed into the capabilities required for the third one and beyond. Besides, one example (ATV) makes for lousy predictions. -
#135 by hektor on 19 Jun, 2016 09:28
-
#136 by MATTBLAK on 19 Jun, 2016 09:37
-
#137 by woods170 on 19 Jun, 2016 14:37
-
>
You should not even remotely be surprised. Building and integrating your flight hardware BEFORE the CDR is "in the bag" is THE guarantee that things will get delayed. ESA and Airbus knew this and took the gamble anyway. So, it bit them in the behind. I'm surprised the delay is "only" three months.Europe’s Orion service module shipment to U.S. delayed by three months
Oh, for the love of...
-
#138 by Jet Black on 20 Jun, 2016 09:33
-
There is only one little issue with your nice scenario : that the real decision makers, the ESA member states, go along. They are notorious for preferring development to recurring production. See ATV which died after the fifth copy.
Prior to the ATV, ESA had no experience with man-rated craft, so this was actually a really important development for them (which has served to generate knowledge useful for the ESV). -
#139 by _INTER_ on 20 Jun, 2016 18:46
-
Prior to the ATV, ESA had no experience with man-rated craft, so this was actually a really important development for them (which has served to generate knowledge useful for the ESV).
Though they got some knowledge about man-rating from Spacelabs, no?
