-
Digging into the details of Orion's EM-1 test flight
by
Chris Bergin
on 13 Aug, 2018 18:36
-
-
#1
by
Stardust9906
on 13 Aug, 2018 20:38
-
Nice article enjoyed reading it.
-
#2
by
tesla
on 14 Aug, 2018 01:47
-
Great article. Thank you for the amazing renderings Nathan!
The 1000 day Orion could likely play an important role in future Mars missions.
-
#3
by
PaulL_CAL
on 14 Aug, 2018 02:42
-
Orion starting to find its legs. Have they solved the heatshield issue for returns over Moon return velocity? I heard they didn't have one that would cope with faster returns, such as Mars.
-
#4
by
CJ
on 14 Aug, 2018 04:46
-
Superb article, thank you!
It leaves me with some (hopefully unfounded) Orion concerns, though.
From what I can see, EM-1 will be the only flight of the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage. Starting with EM-2, it will reportedly be replaced by the Expedition Upper Stage. EM-2 will reportedly be a manned lunar orbital mission.
If such reports prove accurate, then EM-2 will be sending astronauts to the moon using a totally unflown stage for TLI, in a capsule that has never been in space with life support, crew displays, etc, so EM-1 won't be "rest as you fly" in at least those regards. The big problem I have with that (if true) is that in lunar orbit you're days from safety. Not a good place to be if the life support konks out.
Is it really that hard to test life support on a test flight (such as EM-1), at least somewhat? A bottle of CO2 with a remotely operated valve would at least be something of a test.
-
#5
by
TripleSeven
on 14 Aug, 2018 04:55
-
Superb article, thank you!
It leaves me with some (hopefully unfounded) Orion concerns, though.
From what I can see, EM-1 will be the only flight of the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage. Starting with EM-2, it will reportedly be replaced by the Expedition Upper Stage. EM-2 will reportedly be a manned lunar orbital mission.
If such reports prove accurate, then EM-2 will be sending astronauts to the moon using a totally unflown stage for TLI, in a capsule that has never been in space with life support, crew displays, etc, so EM-1 won't be "rest as you fly" in at least those regards. The big problem I have with that (if true) is that in lunar orbit you're days from safety. Not a good place to be if the life support konks out.
Is it really that hard to test life support on a test flight (such as EM-1), at least somewhat? A bottle of CO2 with a remotely operated valve would at least be something of a test.
you are correct
-
#6
by
CJ
on 14 Aug, 2018 06:14
-
Superb article, thank you!
It leaves me with some (hopefully unfounded) Orion concerns, though.
From what I can see, EM-1 will be the only flight of the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage. Starting with EM-2, it will reportedly be replaced by the Expedition Upper Stage. EM-2 will reportedly be a manned lunar orbital mission.
If such reports prove accurate, then EM-2 will be sending astronauts to the moon using a totally unflown stage for TLI, in a capsule that has never been in space with life support, crew displays, etc, so EM-1 won't be "rest as you fly" in at least those regards. The big problem I have with that (if true) is that in lunar orbit you're days from safety. Not a good place to be if the life support konks out.
Is it really that hard to test life support on a test flight (such as EM-1), at least somewhat? A bottle of CO2 with a remotely operated valve would at least be something of a test.
you are correct
I was seriously hoping to be wrong.
IMHO, EM-1, as the only test of SLS/Orion prior to a manned moon mission, should at least try to test-as-you-fly. Use similar guidelines to those for commercial crew - at least somewhat. For example, what would NASA say to a proposal that Dragon 2 or CST-100 fly its only unmanned test lacking major parts of its electrical and control system, and also lacking life support? Or if SpaceX wanted to fly its first crewed mission with an as-yet-unflown version of the upper stage?
-
#7
by
woods170
on 14 Aug, 2018 08:05
-
Superb article, thank you!
It leaves me with some (hopefully unfounded) Orion concerns, though.
From what I can see, EM-1 will be the only flight of the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage. Starting with EM-2, it will reportedly be replaced by the Expedition Upper Stage. EM-2 will reportedly be a manned lunar orbital mission.
If such reports prove accurate, then EM-2 will be sending astronauts to the moon using a totally unflown stage for TLI, in a capsule that has never been in space with life support, crew displays, etc, so EM-1 won't be "rest as you fly" in at least those regards. The big problem I have with that (if true) is that in lunar orbit you're days from safety. Not a good place to be if the life support konks out.
Is it really that hard to test life support on a test flight (such as EM-1), at least somewhat? A bottle of CO2 with a remotely operated valve would at least be something of a test.
you are correct
I was seriously hoping to be wrong.
IMHO, EM-1, as the only test of SLS/Orion prior to a manned moon mission, should at least try to test-as-you-fly. Use similar guidelines to those for commercial crew - at least somewhat. For example, what would NASA say to a proposal that Dragon 2 or CST-100 fly its only unmanned test lacking major parts of its electrical and control system, and also lacking life support? Or if SpaceX wanted to fly its first crewed mission with an as-yet-unflown version of the upper stage?
We've been through this before. It is the difference between NASA building the spacecraft and the rocket versus NASA not building the spacecraft and the rocket.
And this is really OT for this thread.
-
#8
by
ncb1397
on 14 Aug, 2018 09:08
-
If such reports prove accurate, then EM-2 will be sending astronauts to the moon using a totally unflown stage for TLI, in a capsule that has never been in space with life support, crew displays, etc, so EM-1 won't be "rest as you fly" in at least those regards. The big problem I have with that (if true) is that in lunar orbit you're days from safety. Not a good place to be if the life support konks out.
Initially, EM-2 will go into a roughly 24 hour elliptical orbit for exactly this reason and will have 1.2 km/s + to potentially shorten that orbit (all this will be tested on EM-1). It will also carry about 90 kg of oxygen which is enough to depress and repress the cabin at least 3 times to 1 ATM with 100% oxygen. CO2 is only life threatening when it reaches a few percentage points which will take about a day to saturate 90 kg of O2 with 4 crew. This article didn't note if the oxygen is plumbed in on this mission but I assume it is. And if anything is wrong with the displays, NASA will have telemetry that was tested on EM-1. As far as testing the controls, is EM-1 going to have a robot perform the mission first or something? Comparisons between CC and Orion really aren't 1:1. For instance, I could note that the CO2 system on Dragon and Starliner presumably (I haven't heard anything about a CO2 test load on either flight) won't be tested on orbit until manned flight while the Orion system will.
As far as EM-2 being on a new upper stage, I think EM-2 is now baselined for DCSS which performed without issue for 37 Delta IV missions which is a bit better than Falcon 9's 2 upper stage failures over 60 flights.
-
#9
by
LaunchedIn68
on 14 Aug, 2018 16:48
-
Thank you, great article. It answered my questions on why there is no full ECLSS on this flight. "There is no one on board to exhale CO2!" And I didn't know about the active testing on the ISS of it right now.
Also the part about the cameras, including those on the solar panel tips to take the moon selfie. I'm really looking forward for this flight! What is the latest realistic date now? IS it really 2020?
-
#10
by
envy887
on 14 Aug, 2018 17:00
-
Superb article, thank you!
It leaves me with some (hopefully unfounded) Orion concerns, though.
From what I can see, EM-1 will be the only flight of the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage. Starting with EM-2, it will reportedly be replaced by the Expedition Upper Stage. EM-2 will reportedly be a manned lunar orbital mission.
If such reports prove accurate, then EM-2 will be sending astronauts to the moon using a totally unflown stage for TLI, in a capsule that has never been in space with life support, crew displays, etc, so EM-1 won't be "rest as you fly" in at least those regards. The big problem I have with that (if true) is that in lunar orbit you're days from safety. Not a good place to be if the life support konks out.
Is it really that hard to test life support on a test flight (such as EM-1), at least somewhat? A bottle of CO2 with a remotely operated valve would at least be something of a test.
you are correct
I was seriously hoping to be wrong.
IMHO, EM-1, as the only test of SLS/Orion prior to a manned moon mission, should at least try to test-as-you-fly. Use similar guidelines to those for commercial crew - at least somewhat. For example, what would NASA say to a proposal that Dragon 2 or CST-100 fly its only unmanned test lacking major parts of its electrical and control system, and also lacking life support? Or if SpaceX wanted to fly its first crewed mission with an as-yet-unflown version of the upper stage?
EM-2 is currently baselined to fly on SLS Block 1 with iCPS, not EUS. This is a new development since NASA was funded for a second MLP recently. That will be the first flight of crew on Orion, and the first all-up Orion ECLSS, but it will be the second or third flight of iCPS depending where Europa Clipper falls in the schedule.
There may be a 4th flight of Block 1 before Block 1B is rolled out. Whether crew will fly on the first EUS is not clear anymore, that might be a cargo flight to support LOPG.
-
#11
by
A_M_Swallow
on 15 Aug, 2018 00:55
-
Thank you, great article. It answered my questions on why there is no full ECLSS on this flight. "There is no one on board to exhale CO2!" And I didn't know about the active testing on the ISS of it right now.
Also the part about the cameras, including those on the solar panel tips to take the moon selfie. I'm really looking forward for this flight! What is the latest realistic date now? IS it really 2020?
A candle could be burnt in a large Davy safety lamp if a source of CO
2 is required.
ECLSS process fluids. Simply turning the machine upside down does not realistically simulate fluid behaviour in a micro-gravity environment, see the problems the ISS has had. So this is a high risk area.
-
#12
by
CJ
on 15 Aug, 2018 02:32
-
Superb article, thank you!
It leaves me with some (hopefully unfounded) Orion concerns, though.
From what I can see, EM-1 will be the only flight of the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage. Starting with EM-2, it will reportedly be replaced by the Expedition Upper Stage. EM-2 will reportedly be a manned lunar orbital mission.
If such reports prove accurate, then EM-2 will be sending astronauts to the moon using a totally unflown stage for TLI, in a capsule that has never been in space with life support, crew displays, etc, so EM-1 won't be "rest as you fly" in at least those regards. The big problem I have with that (if true) is that in lunar orbit you're days from safety. Not a good place to be if the life support konks out.
Is it really that hard to test life support on a test flight (such as EM-1), at least somewhat? A bottle of CO2 with a remotely operated valve would at least be something of a test.
you are correct
I was seriously hoping to be wrong.
IMHO, EM-1, as the only test of SLS/Orion prior to a manned moon mission, should at least try to test-as-you-fly. Use similar guidelines to those for commercial crew - at least somewhat. For example, what would NASA say to a proposal that Dragon 2 or CST-100 fly its only unmanned test lacking major parts of its electrical and control system, and also lacking life support? Or if SpaceX wanted to fly its first crewed mission with an as-yet-unflown version of the upper stage?
EM-2 is currently baselined to fly on SLS Block 1 with iCPS, not EUS. This is a new development since NASA was funded for a second MLP recently. That will be the first flight of crew on Orion, and the first all-up Orion ECLSS, but it will be the second or third flight of iCPS depending where Europa Clipper falls in the schedule.
There may be a 4th flight of Block 1 before Block 1B is rolled out. Whether crew will fly on the first EUS is not clear anymore, that might be a cargo flight to support LOPG.
Thank you very much for the info. I'm utterly relieved to hear that NASA isn't planning of flying crew on an unflown stage (EUS on EM-2), and especially doing an departure burn with it. I do hope that later missions where that's listed as possible turn out to be not so.
I'm still shaking my head at the notion of doing a first flight of the ECLSS with a crew, to the moon. I know they've tested parts of it on ISS, but not the full system, and not integrated with Orion. Why can't they install the ECLSS for EM-1? A CO2 bottle with a remotely operated valve would serve to test the CO2 scrubbing. For things like water vapor extraction, that's harder to rig for a test source, but something akin to strapping a thick bundle of wet towels to a seat might suffice. More importantly, by running the system in space they could see if, and how, the system runs in space. IMHO, a manned lunar mission is not a good time to encounter a flaw in your life support.
Or, to really test the ECLSS in a realistic way, how about sending some animals on EM-1?
Aren't both Dragon 2 and CST-100 required, by NASA, to fly an unmanned full-up (ECLSS included) test flight prior to carrying crew? And that's just for taking crew to LEO, where safety is just an hour or so away. So why not for Orion, when it's going to be flying anyway, and its first crewed mission will be taking a crew days, rather than hours, from safety?
-
#13
by
brickmack
on 15 Aug, 2018 03:40
-
Orion starting to find its legs. Have they solved the heatshield issue for returns over Moon return velocity? I heard they didn't have one that would cope with faster returns, such as Mars.
No reason to bring Orion along to Mars. Thats the whole point of cislunar staging, so you can just use Orion to transfer to and from the deep space vehicle without tugging 20 tons of dead mass along.
-
#14
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 16 Aug, 2018 06:36
-
Why can't they install the ECLSS for EM-1?
Because it hasn't been developed yet! NASA is only spending money when it is actually needed, to minimise the maximum money spent per year. I personally don't think that is a good plan, but that is the way things are.
-
#15
by
woods170
on 16 Aug, 2018 08:06
-
Superb article, thank you!
It leaves me with some (hopefully unfounded) Orion concerns, though.
From what I can see, EM-1 will be the only flight of the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage. Starting with EM-2, it will reportedly be replaced by the Expedition Upper Stage. EM-2 will reportedly be a manned lunar orbital mission.
If such reports prove accurate, then EM-2 will be sending astronauts to the moon using a totally unflown stage for TLI, in a capsule that has never been in space with life support, crew displays, etc, so EM-1 won't be "rest as you fly" in at least those regards. The big problem I have with that (if true) is that in lunar orbit you're days from safety. Not a good place to be if the life support konks out.
Is it really that hard to test life support on a test flight (such as EM-1), at least somewhat? A bottle of CO2 with a remotely operated valve would at least be something of a test.
you are correct
No, he is not.
From the recent
ASAP meeting:
Recent programmatic decision to use the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) on EM-2:
The Program has issued a Decision Memorandum stating that the first crewed SLS/Orion mission, EM-2, will use the SLS Block 1 configuration and the current Block 1 Mobile Launch Platform (MLP).
That decision was made possible when Congress provided funding for construction of a second MLP. Therefore, NASA will now be using the ICPS rather than the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) on the first crewed mission.
In short: EM-2 will be flying on iCPS, not EUS.
-
#16
by
psloss
on 16 Aug, 2018 11:53
-
NASA leadership took Mr. Bridenstine on a tour of Michoud on Monday; what they are saying today to him and the media -- not for the first time -- is that EUS now will first fly on the
4th SLS flight.
Two more ICPS stages could fly on SLS after EM-1 and before EUS (and the separate Mobile Launcher for that) debuts. One ICPS is a definite for EM-2. The other is reserved in case Europa Clipper flies on SLS Block 1.
We did a long write-up of this three months ago around the time the ESD memo formalized this:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/05/sls-block-1-revival-plans-getting-mobile-launcher-money/
-
#17
by
woods170
on 16 Aug, 2018 12:25
-
Why can't they install the ECLSS for EM-1?
Because it hasn't been developed yet! NASA is only spending money when it is actually needed, to minimise the maximum money spent per year. I personally don't think that is a good plan, but that is the way things are.
NASA is actively, but slowly, developing the Orion ECLSS. Development funds are limited and will increase from EM-1 to EM-2.
The result, right now as of this moment, is that there are prototypes in multiple stages of development but there is nothing even remotely near a completed and operational ECLSS.
Flat-out stating that the ECLSS hasn't been developed yet is incorrect.
-
#18
by
envy887
on 16 Aug, 2018 13:00
-
Why can't they install the ECLSS for EM-1?
Because it hasn't been developed yet! NASA is only spending money when it is actually needed, to minimise the maximum money spent per year. I personally don't think that is a good plan, but that is the way things are.
NASA is actively, but slowly, developing the Orion ECLSS. Development funds are limited and will increase from EM-1 to EM-2.
The result, right now as of this moment, is that there are prototypes in multiple stages of development but there is noting even remotely near a completed and operational ECLSS.
Flat-out stating that the ECLSS hasn't been developed yet is incorrect.
That's exactly what Steven said. NASA can't install the ECLSS on EM-1 because it won't be finished ("been developed" means dev is done and it's ready to move to production and flight).
NASA leadership took Mr. Bridenstine on a tour of Michoud on Monday; what they are saying today to him and the media -- not for the first time -- is that EUS now will first fly on the 4th SLS flight.
Two more ICPS stages could fly on SLS after EM-1 and before EUS (and the separate Mobile Launcher for that) debuts. One ICPS is a definite for EM-2. The other is reserved in case Europa Clipper flies on SLS Block 1.
We did a long write-up of this three months ago around the time the ESD memo formalized this:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/05/sls-block-1-revival-plans-getting-mobile-launcher-money/
This doesn't address the question of whether crew will fly on the first EUS. As far as I've seen that is still open.
-
#19
by
psloss
on 16 Aug, 2018 13:42
-
This doesn't address the question of whether crew will fly on the first EUS. As far as I've seen that is still open.
Things are always subject to change, but until Congress started ML-2, EM-2 was first flight of both EUS and crewed Orion.
Right now, the one hypothetical alternative to Block 1B Crew is Europa Lander, but that requires multiple additional commitments and additional development.
(And there's at least one public comment from Mr. Lightfoot during his administrator tenure that it wasn't desirable to risk flying Clipper on an EUS test flight -- in contrast to the Europa spacecraft, Orion has an abort capability.)
-
#20
by
A_M_Swallow
on 17 Aug, 2018 00:32
-
Why can't they install the ECLSS for EM-1?
Because it hasn't been developed yet! NASA is only spending money when it is actually needed, to minimise the maximum money spent per year. I personally don't think that is a good plan, but that is the way things are.
The SLS may be able to survive as a cargo only launcher but a cargo only Orion will have too much competition. The Orion would not only be competing with the Dragon 2 and CST-100 but the Cygnus.
