This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
SLS and Orion

Orion Gets a European Service Module

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
January 16, 2013
Filed under , , ,

ESA Workhorse to Power NASA’s Orion Spacecraft
“ESA agreed with NASA today to contribute a driving force to the Orion spacecraft planned for launch in 2017. Ultimately, Orion will carry astronauts further into space than ever before using a module based on Europe’s Automated Transfer Vehicle technology. Automated Transfer Vehicles (ATVs) have been resupplying the International Space Station since 2008. The fourth in the series, ATVAlbert Einstein, is being readied for launch next year from Kourou, French Guiana.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

56 responses to “Orion Gets a European Service Module”

  1. rktsci says:
    0
    0

    Is this agreement for all SMs or just the first? The original negotiations were for ESA to provide one SM, to  balance out debt for ISS ops.

    • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
      0
      0

      I think it might be for two (to as you said balance out the debt) since Orion isn’t funded/committed/planned beyond the 2021 crewed test flight.

    • Ralphy999 says:
      0
      0

      I *think* it is just the one although I could indeed be wrong. For further rmissions the service module would probably have to be custom built for what ever goal is to be accomplished. Just my thoughts.

      • Ralphy999 says:
        0
        0

        In an agreement NASA just discussed with ESA, ESA will provide “components” for a manned mission in 2021. What those components will be was not mentioned in the news report. The news report also assumed that continued coperation would be key between ESA and NASA over future Orion missions if the politics and funding continues to be favorable. This was noted as a great leap forward by ESA and they appear to be very avid about it.

  2. HyperJ says:
    0
    0

    In the future, when looking back at the Orion program, people will recognize today as the announcement that led to the cancellation of Orion. The straw that broke the camels back.

    • Johnhouboltsmyspiritanimal says:
      0
      0

      international partnership might be the only thing that keeps it going. it saved the ISS from the chopping block back in the day.

      • HyperJ says:
        0
        0

        Yes, it survived – barely. By one vote in Congress, right? And ISS had the benefit of a defined mission, and a constant reminder of its presence since its first component launch.

        Orion? It will be lucky to have 5 yrs between missions. And with international involvement, things will only get slower and more expensive. So when people are looking for things to cut from the budget, the Orion program (at $1+ billion/year) will look like low hanging fruit.

        Also… The moment a commercial crew vehicle flies, Orion is D.O.A.

        • porkfight says:
          0
          0

          Orion will likely be flying at least twice a year on exploration missions after the initial development phase is over.

          International cooperation should reduce America’s share of the development and recurring cost.

          Given that the program and related ones will actually be expanding the capabilities rather than endlessly circling in LEO, I would expect it to be last on the chopping block, unless we lose interest in exploring beyond earth orbit.

          The commercial vehicles under develoment are not suitable for flights beyond earth orbit in terms of radiation hardening, shielding, thermal, volume, or emergency return modes. Their successul development for ISS support will not have any relation to NASA’s exploration program.

          • HyperJ says:
            0
            0

            “Orion will likely be flying at least twice a year on exploration missions after the initial development phase is over.”
            Oh really? To where? With what hardware? What funded mission? No, look at the actual schedules. Orion will be *lucky* to fly every other year. The only place Orion can go with current funding is an Apollo 8 style mission. There are no funded landers. There are no funded deep space habitats for missions to asteroids. Missions like these require significant lead times.

            “International cooperation should reduce America’s share of the development and recurring cost.”

            It should, but it won’t. Sadly. We’ll still be spending more than a billion dollar per year on Orion. And now we only get a command module for that, instead of an entire spacecraft. Just wait and see.

            “The commercial vehicles under develoment are not suitable for flights beyond earth orbit in terms of radiation hardening, shielding, thermal, volume, or emergency return modes. Their successul development for ISS support will not have any relation to NASA’s exploration program.”

            True, the CC vehicles are not BEO ready. But CST-100 and Dragon could be adopted for BEO use for far less than we are spending on Orion. *THAT* comparison is what will kill Orion.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            “But CST-100 and Dragon could be adopted for BEO use for far less than we are spending on Orion.”

            Not to mention the possibility of developing a Bigelow module as a BEO habitat, leaving the capsule powered down or on standby during the BEO flight. And I believe the Commercial Crew providers are developing their capsules to have a long on-station lifetime, straight out of the box.

            (Weird, having lots of different options from lots of different companies gives you flexibility. Whodathunkit?)

          • chriswilson68 says:
            0
            0

            “Orion will likely be flying at least twice a year on exploration missions after the initial development phase is over.”

            I think you have to be pretty delusional to believe a flight rate of at least twice a year for Orion.  Just look at this SM announcement.  They’ve decided to build one SM with the ESA, and possibly a second.  Nobody is planning any other design for a SM.  If anyone had real plans for two Orion flights a year, they’d be trumpeting it in this press release.

            There are only two Orion missions currently scheduled, one without a crew and one with a crew.  After that, there are no concrete plans.  With the all current budget projections and the high costs of both SLS and Orion, there’s no way we can possibly do two SLS/Orion missions a year.  And, as others have pointed out, if you want other hardware, so you can actually go someplace or even land someplace, longer than a few days, that costs much more money, and flight rates have to come down even more.

          • chriswilson68 says:
            0
            0

            “I would expect it to be last on the chopping block”

            Clearly, you are very good at convincing yourself of what you want to believe, in spite of strong evidence to the contrary.

          • porkfight says:
            0
            0

            My statement was based on facts.  Please read the ASAP report that was just recently released. 

            http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asa

            Here’s a relevant excerpt about the state of Orion + SLS (ESD) vs. the commerical crew program (CCP): “ESD is a program with wide support,” “Unlike CCP, ESD funding levels have remained relatively constant,” 

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            In response to porkflight at 04:10 AM:

            You have no facts at all.  You’ve pulled a couple of short statements from the document completely out of context.  In essence, they add up to: ESD will probably continue to get the same level of NON-FUNDING that it is currently getting.  It is well-known and has been restated over and over again that no funding exists or is proposed for ANY of  the other hardware or operational elements necessary to fly even a single mission of any kind.  Retaining the current level of non-funding doesn’t change a thing.

            Also, please note that all of the ASAP report content relating to Orion pertains to testing and safety issues, not missions.  Orion may well “fly” twice a year — but only as part of its test program, not actually flying any missions, which seems to be what you are attempting to imply.  And, odds are, only with the final test flight, should it actually happen, are we likely to see a full-up configuration, as opposed to test flights of partial systems and test articles (and I’d be willing to bet that all of that will happen using an Atlas V instead of SLS).

            Finally, ASAP doesn’t decide what missions NASA flies.

        • porkfight says:
          0
          0

          The development cost & test flight schedule are totally different than the production cost & flight schedule. 
           
          The three scheduled test flights are each spaced 3 years apart because there is ongoing development work between each flight. Over this time period, NASA’s funding is spread between developing SLS, Orion, new spacesuits, CCDEV vehicles, and ISS support (which is more than Orion+SLS combined). 
           
          Without a lander, we are indeed limited to low gravity destinations like asteroids, Lagrange points, and perhaps Phobos/Deimos: the rigid hab structures planned for extra volume and supplies do not all require additional develpment cost.   
           
          But after the baseline Orion and SLS designs have been finished, and the ISS is decomissioned there should be sufficient budget for developing other elements like landers, inflatable habitats, and for executing multiple missions a year (depending on the missions and NASA’s future funding profile of course).
           
          As for your last comment about the possibility of adapting a CCDEV vehicle for BEO use, a NASA study team already looked into it.
           
          They found that modifying a commercial vehicle to meet their basic set of requirements would be designing Orion again, and they would end up spending a greater amount of money.

        • yg1968 says:
          0
          0

          The vote was on the predecessor of the ISS. It became the ISS with Russia’s involvement which happenned after the vote.   

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            The “predecessor” of ISS was Space Station Freedom.  Most of what comprises the US segment was originally designed by the SSF program. Indeed, we built the solar arrays that are in use up there.  The MPLM started out meaning the “mini-PLM” our redesigned version of the original, larger PLM i.e. Pressurized Logistics Module.  ISS is SS Freedom.

  3. Littrow says:
    0
    0

    Its interesting that big parts of the main vehicle and systems are being negotiated out of the US – the Europeans will design and build it and yet the US price and cost does not go down at all. 

    We continue to pay $$3+ billion per year. 

    What is it we are paying for if its the Europeans doing the work? 

    Of course we have already been asking this same question-ISS has been done the same way-we paid more for it than any previous piece of space hardware and yet the Europeans did the work the last 20 years. On Orion, we’ve been spending $$billion after $$billion for at least eight years now and yet we have just about nothing to show for it. 

    It sounds like another financial market debacle. Someone is making money on this deal and it is costing the US sorely in dollars, jobs and expertise.

    NASA management needs to be held accountable. They are not saving us any money and they are moving the American experience and knowledge base overseas.  

    • Stuyoung38 says:
      0
      0

      “the Europeans will design and build it and yet the US price and cost does not go down at all.”I wouldn’t be surprised, Littrow, if this is true.  However, my reading of the ESA announcement doesn’t necessarily lead me to this conclusion.  If ESA (as suggested in the post below) provides 2 SMs as “barter” for debt, doesn’t this mean that the NASA budget can be spared the expense of design/engineering/construction/testing of at least these 2 SMs?
      Beyond these 2 missions, if the Orion program continues, going this route might amortize to a lower per-unit launch cost out of the NASA coffers.  That’s comparing government-space to government-space apples, though.  Much MORE savings could have been had if NASA had contracted the SM – or better yet – the whole “Orion” spacecraft – on a fixed-cost basis, with a private company which doesn’t have Congresscritters in its pocket.

    • porkfight says:
      0
      0

      ESA won’t be performing much of the overall work.  The service module avionics, attitude control thrusters, and much of the SM structure will still be provided by NASA/LM. All of the crew module (where most of Orion’s systems & development cost are located) is provided by NASA/LM. The europeans will be providing the SM solar arrays, tankage, some structures, and possibly the main engine (per my understanding). 

      The details are still being worked out, but NASA will try to get as much out of the ~600 million owed under the ISS agreement as possible in order to save money for other the other things they need.

      The major significance of this agreement is that we are finally starting to work with ESA on real spacecraft architectures that will take explorers out into the solar system.  We are putting them in the critical path and they are excited about it (especially germany and the UK).     

      • Doug Booker says:
        0
        0

        Actually, NASA is providing Shuttle OMS engine for main engine.  This was the plan if LM was building it.  Listened to the press conference and that was said.

      • Ralphy999 says:
        0
        0

        IIRC, propulsion and guidance will be done by NASA/LM but I admit my memory is not that good.

  4. Brent Andrew Hawker says:
    0
    0

    How sad is that? We can no longer do what we where able to do in the 60″s? Sure we can, but there are no Patriots left?!

    • Bernhard Barkowsky says:
      0
      0

      It is a retro spam can which has no business being built. Re eneacting the 60’s is not a viable means of transport.

      • Ralphy999 says:
        0
        0

        It’s definitely not retro unless you call the new Covette Sting Ray automobile “retro” as well. The Orion will be the most advanced space craft in existence. That is one of the reasons why it is not cheap(plus the fact it is designed for BEO missions). Why would you think it is 1960’s technology?

        • chriswilson68 says:
          0
          0

          “The Orion will be the most advanced space craft in existence.”

          Being big and crammed with lots of features and requirements isn’t a very good definition of the word “advanced”.

          What’s much more advanced is to figure out the right trade-off of size, complexity, and performance versus cost.  That’s a lesson the parts of NASA that design human spacecraft seem perpetually unable to learn.

          In my opinion, Dragon and CST-100 are more advanced than Orion because they get people to and from orbit much more cheaply.  Kill Orion and use the money saved to build in-space-only vehicles for exploration.  Send people to the exploration vehicle in Dragon/CST-100 and back to Earth on Dragon/CST-100.  Then your exploration vehicle can be optimized for in-space use and not have to worry about re-entry and your re-entry vehicle can be optimized for that role (Dragon or CST-100).  You can also re-use your exploration vehicle over and over without having to pay the launch costs again.

          • porkfight says:
            0
            0

            The architecture you seem to be advocating would require the space-only vehicle to either use aerobraking (which can take months) or burn propellant to decelerate and insert itself back into earth orbit PRIOR to rendezvous with a reentry vehicle. Needless to say, this violates a fundamental safety requirement for direct return and would add considerable time (and cost) to the mission.If NASA were willing to ditch the direct return capability then I would agree with your position that there are other viable architectures that don’t require Orion. A CCDEV vehicle combined with Nautilus-X is one example.Big differences between Orion and any other spacecraft in development include sufficient radiation shielding to protect crews from X-class solar particle events, advanced radiation hardened avionics & sensors, long mission durations over extended temperatures & high radiation, and emergency survival capabilities.

          • Ralphy999 says:
            0
            0

            Here’s a suggestion:

            Why don’t you back your assertion that the Orion CEV won’t be the most advanced space craft in existence instead of dancing around trying to convince people some other approach to space is cheaper? Do try to use some facts instead of a non existent exploration vehicle that is not even on the drawing board, OK?

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            “Why don’t you back your assertion that the Orion CEV won’t be the most advanced space craft”

            Which is, of course, not what he said. He criticised the basis on which the claim of it being “advanced” is being measured.

            In the same way that you often saw the Space Shuttle described in PR as “the most complex machine ever built” as if it were a compliment, as if that was a good thing to be.

            Or that JWST is the “most advanced” telescope ever built. As if gaining that last decimal place of technology justifies consuming the budget of a dozen fractionally less advanced projects.

          • Ralphy999 says:
            0
            0

            Why not just buy rides on Soyuz at $51 million per seat and be done with it, Paul? There, I just proved the Orion CEV will not the most advanced space craft in existence by your and Chris Wilson’s standards.

          • Littrow says:
            0
            0

            Ralphy-You’ve been all gaga over Orion for months so lets see what evidence you can supply about your assertion that “Orion is the most advanced”? As I recall you’ve gotten lots of details wrong-about how the vehicle that flies next year will launch on an SLS, that it will be a complete mission-ready trans-lunar Orion…which tells me you don’t really know much about it. But if you do lets see how you characterize the advanced nature of the vehicle. 

          • Ralphy999 says:
            0
            0

            Read Porkfight’s response down below Littrow. It’s pretty good and to the point unlike Chris Wilson’s post. Glad to be of service to your enlightenment.

            And I never said it would be trans lunar mission ready on first shot. Don’t put words into my posts. Thanks.

          • Littrow says:
            0
            0

            Radiation or temperature shielding and radiation hardening of electronics is not advanced technology-its relatively simple stuff that has been done on every US manned and most unmanned vehicles for 40 years; each for its own operating environment. Its not yet incorporated on Dragon since they went for less expensive. 

            Now there is a lot less to be done on Orion since the Europeans are building so much of the spacecraft. 

            So tell us again about the advanced technology on the spacecraft? What is being developed. If you go to a recent statement to Congress by NASA’s Dan Dumbacher, he said there is nothing technically or technologically that is pacing any aspect of Orion, its a reasonably unsophisticated vehicle. The only things driving the delay to launch is time and money. 

          • rktsci says:
            0
            0

            The problem with your scenario is that you have to enter LEO with the in-space vehicle and rendezvous with the CCDEV vehicle. Costly in fuel for the in-space vehicle. Requires 2 CCDEV launches per trip.

          • Paul451 says:
            0
            0

            Given the launch schedule being proffered, and the budget, SLS looks like it will cost around $1.5b per launch, not including actually mission hardware.

            F9/Dragon launch is below $120m, but let’s call it $150m to allow for a bit of profit. So that’s approximately ten launches for the price of one SLS. So I think we can spring for two commercial launches instead. Hell, just using DIVH’s would be cheaper, and they are the most overpriced launchers on the market.

            And if you skip SLS, you can save the development costs entirely, put $2.7b PER YEAR directly into actually mission hardware. Bonus.

            I realise this is not going to happen, SLS is just too well protected, but we should at least be honest about what how much we are actually throwing away.

  5. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    Appears a given that Lockmart can
    not deliver complete Orion hardware given a Billion a year as far as the eye
    can see. No one seems to be making the observation, or talking about Lockmart
    giving NASA back the dollar difference. It was a given they could not, but that
    someone would figure out a way to assure the thing does not get canceled as a result
    – that’s quite a surprise.

     

    • porkfight says:
      0
      0

      The first Orion is scheduled to be delivered this year. Also, a significant chunk of the $1B per year goes to NASA.  This is generally true of major NASA programs. For instance, Boeing does not get the full $3B per year spent on supporting ISS (which does not even include transportation and supply costs).

  6. Georg Eickmeier says:
    0
    0

    Let’s wait and see, if Europe will fullfill its promise. If in Germany e.g. the governement changes, they might cancel their contribution again. As Nasa did with the ExoMars project.
    What I ask myself… where are the astronauts supposed to ‘live’ during their trip? In that capsule in the seat? For several weeks – when visiting an asteroid?

    • Littrow says:
      0
      0

      Its too late now since they are ‘so far along’ and have spent so much money and time designing what they have, but from the very outset making the biggest capsule thy could and placing no emphasis at all on the mission or habitat module never made any sense. They always needed both, and the capsule should have been designed as the crew ‘rescue pod’ whether for launch or entry, and therefore as small and as light as possible for the payload it needed to carry. It was really very shortsighted to do what they’ve done, in exactly the same way that they made Shuttle too big and heavy and never got over the expense involved in flying it, they now have exactly the same problem with Orion.

      • hikingmike says:
        0
        0

         From someone else’s comment above, it is a lighter setup than Apollo’s despite the much larger size. And most of the systems they would probably want to build in since it is the ‘rescue pod’ anyway. It makes sense to put the important stuff into the part that is meant to survive.

        Now if you’re going to have a ship that stays in space, that’s a different story.

        • Littrow says:
          0
          0

          “It is a lighter setup than Apollo”
          And why then did they have to reduce the crew size and eliminate the dropping heatshield or water landing? In fact unless the Europeans can fit some more impulse the Orion that flies in ten years will not be capable of flying into lunar orbit – only a  Zond or Apollo 13 like translunar fly by.

          I think you are talking about the entire command and service module. Orion has a minimally sized service module because of the stupidity in selection of the original Constellation Ares launch vehicle-which meant the altair lander had to be heavier in order perform all of the mission maneuvers. 

          The over sized command module capsule wieghs about 20000 lb for Orion (and actually they are still in the midst of a severe weight reduction program), as compared with 13000 lb for Apollo. And BTW Apollo carried fuel cells (much heavier and significantly more advanced than solar arrays) and all of the consumables and propellants which is why the SM weighed as much as it did.

          • hikingmike says:
            0
            0

            Yeah I don’t know, can you tell me? People only weigh 200lbs, come on. The chair? Extra food and water? I don’t think so.

    • Ralphy999 says:
      0
      0

      They can incorporate a habitat module if need be. The first version of the SLS rocket system will handle 150,000 lbs payload to LEO. The Orion capsule and service module will weigh about 50,000lbs. Thats less than the Apollo capsule and command module of 66,000 lbs. Eventually, if not ripped apart by budget problems the SLS payload could go up to 280,000 lb. in its final version.

      The SLS and Orion gives us practically an unlimited choice of options of how we could explore BEO. All in a single stack.

      Not only that, it is NASA’s intent to develop a universal coupling device so that other rockets can launch the Orion CEV, if IIRC. So let’s say a Falcon Heavy could launch the mission equipment and bigelow habitat in one launch and another rocket could launch just the Orion CEV.

      Plus, NASA is refurbishing the VAB with 10 moveable floors in order to handle *any* stack configuration from SLS  on down. So if SLS gets its budget cut, a Falcon Heavy launch won’t and we can still do BEO missions of various launch configurations.

      We, the lucky people of the US, have so many options and ways to achieve our space goals. It is indeed an UNPRECEDENTED time for space exploration.

      Now, somebody please, PICK A BEO MISSION AND STICK WITH IT!

      • hikingmike says:
        0
        0

         Wow that sounds fantastic. I hope it actually happens. That universal coupling device, or any kind of standardization of coupling should have been done long ago. Make rockets into commodities. Ok not likely but you get the idea.

      • Ben Russell-Gough says:
        0
        0

         The problem isn’t the lift mass to LEO, it’s the mass through to TLI.  The first-generation iCPS will be able to launch JUST the Orion through to TLI, nothing else.  That’s why the Boeing lunar plan needs three launches to put a fuelled lander and Orion as far as EML-2 and a fourth launch to put a work platform capable of putting the bits together to the same destination.

        SLS is hamstrung until it has an EDS that is capable of handling heavier payloads than the ~25t of iCPS.

    • porkfight says:
      0
      0

      An asteroid mission would likely take months.  Orion would be docked to a second Orion or some simpler hab structure for such a mission. 

  7. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    Frakenrocket any way you look at it. Ariane ‘on a stick’ with an ATV service module? Atlas V with Russian engines, centaur stage and ATV service module?

    Sounds like the ‘anything to beat those SpaceX bastards plan’ to me.

    Wasn’t the whole Constellation program started to give America an indigenous human space flight capability? Who signed off on this?

    tinker

    • porkfight says:
      0
      0

      Constellation was the architectural implementation of the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE).  It was intended to expand humanity out into the solar system. 

  8. Brent Andrew Hawker says:
    0
    0

    Not wanting to read through all that was said below, if this is just repayment to NASA for ISS services rendered, and it does not cost U.S. taxpayers money, and we are getting a “free” ride to lunar orbit, x’s 2, then I’m good with that. If the taxpayer’s have to pay for this, then that’s a whole other story, then I will have to contact my Congressman yet again to ventilate, as should you all. A nicely typed (print out), letter, in a real paper envelope sent via snail-mail, has more impact then you may think!

    • rktsci says:
      0
      0

      There will be substantial taxpayer costs. All the IRDs and ICDs between CM and SM have to be redone with ESA, all the subsystem IRDs and ICDs have to be redone if they touch the SM, etc.

      As I understand it, this is being forced on Orion by HQ.

      • Littrow says:
        0
        0

        A lot of people are convinced that the ONLY reason ISS survived was because it was international in scope, and so they decided they really needed international partners on Orion for it to survive regardless of whether NASA destroyed the ingdigenous US capability to produce a spacecraft (which LM appears to be demonstrating given their slow roll). ESA had talked 10 years ago about building a manned vehicle based on ATV. NASA has seen that the contractor does not deliver much for the billions it is spending so I guess they figure they could kill multiple birds with one stone-get around the lack of progress, make it international, give something to the Europeans to do. 

        If we are out to repeat an Apollo style mission, I guess it make some sense. Repeating Apollo makes no sense. Building spacecraft you throw away every time you use them makes no sense. Building a vehicle which is going to cruise to the planets and then throwing it away after a single mission makes no sense….Building a spacecraft that is so heavy that you cannot fill it with payload makes no sense. 

        But, as the recent reports from the National Research Council http://www.nap.edu/catalog….   and
        from the Space Foundation   http://www.spacefoundation…. identify, it is not like the leadership at NASA has any signs of brilliance, or even any kind of a vision, strategy or long term plan. A recent Houston newspaper article said that the Johnson Space Center leadership finally came to understand a few months ago that by relinquishing the Shuttle prematurely, they now understand the US no longer has a manned spaceflight program-I wonder where they were the last five years? 

  9. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    Question: How are they going to connect a Service Module designed and built in metric units to an Orion designed and built in US imperial units?  Is this history getting set to repeat itself?

    • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
      0
      0

       Concorde had that problem.  It flew OK.

      I believe everybody double checked. 1 inch = 25.4 mm

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        There have been several NASA programs where accidents or major losses occurred because one party used imperial units and another used metric.  One example was the Mars Climate Orbiter, which was lost because the Lockheed Martin spacecraft team used imperial units (like many at NASA still insist on using) when everyone else used metric units, like the rest of the planet.

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          I agree that NASA’s sticking to Imperial units is inexplicable. Nevertheless Spacelab (metric) did fly on Shuttle (imperial). A proposal to “soft-metricate” ISS many years ago failed due to (claimed) cost. Ironically I have heard approaches to ISS called out in metric. I don’t think the astronauts have any problems with it.

          Regarding the program’s survival, unlike with ISS, there isn’t any long-term commitment by the US to fly ESA personnel to the moon so at present this agreement does not seem to provide any guarantees for the program’s survival, but it does demonstrate that despite its extreme cost SLS/Orion still has its ardent supporters.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            I agree that it shows support for SLS/Orion, or at least Orion.  To be honest, though, I suspect that this “agreement” is entirely a political exercise, in several ways, and neither side would be too upset if it fell through before completion, since scores would be settled and both sides could save the money that they wouldn’t spend completing the program; and each side could blame it on lack of funding rather than having to blame one another.  That sounds convoluted, I realize, but no more so than some of the agreements that went into building Freedom/Alpha/ISS.  (Oh, what a tangled web we partially weave and then cancel.)