First Orion European Service Module to be Delivered Next Week
Airbus Delivers First European Service Module for NASA’s Orion Spacecraft, Airbus Defence and Space
“Airbus will deliver the first European Service Module (ESM) for NASA’s Orion spacecraft from its aerospace site in Bremen, Germany on 5 November 2018.”
“An Antonov cargo aircraft will fly the ESM to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, USA. This is the result of four years of development and construction, and represents the achievement of a key milestone in the project. ESA selected Airbus as the prime contractor for the development and manufacturing of the first ESM in November 2014.”
Note: Includes the video of the Orion ESM delivery ceremony from Bremen, Germany. (In German and English)
Now if only they could deliver a service module that has enough propellant capabilities to get an Orion to low lunar orbit it might be useful for a lunar architecture. A limited SM means an out of the way rest stop delays the goals of lunar exploration until 2030.
Since the SLS has some extra payload capacity, why not simply stretch the fuel tanks? The Apollo service module was huge, because it was originally designed to launch the command module off the lunar surface.
This would probably require a costly ($1 billion?!) redesign of the Service Module to do that. Wish they would, though…
You left a zero off your estimate. Remember that is a government space contractor, not SpaceX you are talking about.
It isn’t clear that this service module will part of any lunar architecture. This is the European-build and ATV-derived service vehicle. They have signed up to build two, as partial payment for their share of ISS operations costs through 2024. Unless something changes (e.g. ISS operations beyond 2024, with Europe needing to pay in kind), the ATV-based service module will only be used for EM-1 and EM-2. It is not at all clear what sort of service module EM-3 and later missions will use (if and when they fly.)
Edit: after writing the above comment, I read a BBC article on the subject. It seems ESA is interested in building more service modules, and the company building the first two have started buying long lead time parts. But there was no mention of funding for more that two service modules or anything about commitments or contracts.
There is practically a standing army on this at ESA with no other activity on the horizon. So my money says it will go on. If they need more propellant lift there are a couple of quadrants that could carry additional tanks. And FWIW this is no more based on ATV than SLS is based on the shuttle. I do believe that the only equipment in common with the ATV are the solar arrays and the reaction control thrusters. I understand that the auxiliary engines were to be from the ATV spares stock originally but they needed the other dash number. Maybe the star trackers and sun sensors are also ATV.
The real killer is the main engine. It is an OMS shuttle engine. There aren’t a lot of those left. I can’t see Aerojet being able to reopen that line.
Is there an SLS upper stage to inject this thing into trans lunar orbit?
I’m sure the people working on it would be perfectly happy to build more than two service modules. But, so far, ESA has only been willing to pay in exchange for their contribution to ISS operations. I haven’t seen any indication they’re willing to pay on their own.
I’m not sure about the AJ10 being dead. As well as being used by the Shuttle, it was also the used by the Delta II’s upper stage, and the final Delta II flight was only two months ago. In any case, I also suspect that standing army at ESA you mentioned would be more than happy to redesign the service module around a different engine. They already redesigned the ATV around the AJ10… (And I suspect there is more commonality with the ATV than you suggest. Avionics, guidance, navigation, control, communications, etc.)
Since EM-1 and EM-2 are going to translunar orbits, yes, it looks like the Block 1 upper stage is good for translunar orbital injections. But getting into orbit once at the Moon would be up to the service module.
That and I wouldn’t imagine that the AJ10 is particularly hard to build. It uses hypergolic propellants, so no pumps of any kind are involved. It’s pretty much valves, a combustion chamber, and a nozzle.
Problems could obviously arise if suppliers for parts don’t exist anymore or if any tooling was “lost”. Aerojet Rocketdyne would know better than anyone.
The AJ10 is a complex beastie. IIRC it has a platelet injector and rather agricultural dual seat pneumatically controlled valve. So huge parts count and labor. Very much of its time. Money no issue just get it done with margin. Also the dash numbers varied a lot on this thing and I have no idea of the commonalities but Delta was Aerozine and OMS was MMH. Therefore at the very least the mixture ratio and trimmings are going to be off.
So would it be economic for Aerojet to do now? I suspect not.
As it happens Europe has a perfectly usable engine of the same class: The Aestus. It too has little to do in the future. In truth it should have been pitched for the original SM as it would have simplified things but it required a few redesigns and a requalification. Outside the cost perimeter back then and with two other tastier follow on ATV activities in prospect, it wasn’t a priority. Now with only this and the A5 being pensioned off…? I wouldn’t be surprised to see some push on this. However that thing has a troublesome dome design and rather than fixing that they came up with the usual sunk cost fallacy, operational kludges that probably wouldn’t pass muster. So it would have to have the feed system refresh and then be requalified specifically for manned flight with the ESM; a heavier challenge than its original mission. Bound to run off to the right on schedule and budget. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
FWIW there is no GUIDO, COMS, NAV or even an OBC on the ESM, it doesn’t need them. They are all in the CM. The ESM is a dumb truck. As it should be. Can you imagine the interface control problems if the ESM had a separate data handling and control system? I guess you would sink the kings portion of the budget into software for such a system. I think they only need the star tracker and sun sensor for when the CM units are occluded. I am not even sure of that as I haven’t seen any in the photos. They were mentioned a few times though so I suspect they are still there. As a dumb truck with instrument data pass through only, your control problem with the CM software reduces to essentially a lookup table for the control parameters in particular configurations. About as simple a Validation and Verification problem as you can get in that domain.
The ESM should continue as either ESA’s continued payment for the ISS into the 2020’s or a buy in to any follow on. Either way I expect CMIN19 to bless future units.
I keep an informal list of words and phrases that I call “NASA Speak” (which could use a better name, for sure.
I’ve not run across new ones in some time, but “cost perimeter” certainly has a place on the list.
Thanks!…
:-)… FWIW it is a distinct concept to a budget… an almost meaningless number tossed together at the proposal stage. Not sure I have heard NASA heads using it though I am sure they probably do. In this context, “cost perimeter” is used to refer to the actual (not necessarily public) size of the pockets available prior to a proposal being fielded. In other words an internal numerical expression of the Agency’s pain threshold on a given project. oops sorry; here endeth the lesson.
This is not just an ESA build ATV derived but it limits the mission capability of Orion and the ESA has already gone on record they do not want to be building these things in the future, and keep in mind this SM was gratis because the ESA still owed the US for ISS costs they had not paid. So what does it mean-NASA has been soaked by Lockheed for a spacecraft Lockheed did not build, the US has a design that does not meet mission requirements, so NASA has created a mission that has
nothing to do with the long term goal, and now NASA has to come up with a replacement for the ESA SM. What is that going to cost? The entire NASA/Exploration/Orion leadership[ has led the US taxpayer on a costly diversion.
The Orion design team was NOT happy when NASA decided on this course.
For NASA the PM and technical nightmare was more than offset by increased political protection for the overall program (Orion/SLS) by internationalizing it ( can’t let our partners down now can we?.. that argument didn’t prevailed when JWST ate everything) and removing a line item from the US budget (Figleaf of taxpayer value). In effect the SM was designed initially (Phase A) by LM and implemented by Airbus (Phases B and C). Fair play to LM they were there to support it. Yes it was kind of silly and most definitely a clash of cultures that tripped all the bogosity detectors but think of all those NASA trips to Europe….!
The political protection was unneeded. From what I have gathered, it increased program costs more than the attributed savings. It was a giveaway to the ESA.
I am sure at the working level they were not happy with it. Who would be? The perception was that it couldn’t hurt to have some external hooks in, at least that was the way it was explained to me when I put your exact question way back then. True that could have been biting down and saluting the flag but that wasn’t the feeling I got then. We were all only a couple of years from the melt down. NASA had killed a few ESA programs by bailing out to save JWST, many already contracted. ESA had bills to pay on ISS and this was going to be the best way to do it. ESA can’t write checks and NASA can’t cash em. Even at that the ATV evolution work had higher cachet. As I mentioned in other posts here there were better design options but that would have required more money than was slated by Europe and NASA to pay this bill. Hence all the GFI on the thing. ATV work dried up as did a lot of NASA work (JWST effect again I guess). Then you had ESA and every center get their under utilized engineers in the mix on transatlantic T/Cs. Consequence: 300+ RIDs on COTs items. At 1.5 hour average to write and 20 minutes average processing time, you can do the FTE math right there and get your head around where the money went.
Sounds to me like the program delivered EXACTLY what congress has voted on funding since 2005 ..a never ending pork wagon.
Wow! Already!
Airbus has to fly it across the pond on an Antonov ?
It is almost certainly the Ukrainian Antonov, not a Russian owned plane.
I’m not sure that was the point. Airbus is a major aircraft manufacturer. It’s a bit ironic they couldn’t ship their EM-1 service module on one of their own aircraft. To be fair, they did have good reasons for canceling the cargo version of the A380. Without that, I don’t think there is an Airbus which can accommodate a 4-m diameter payload. But it is ironic.
The Airbus Beluga should be able to easily accommodate the service module as far as size and weight. The issue I would assume is range. Beluga is used to transport Airbus assemblies between the manufacturing centers in Europe. Flying to the U.S. might be possible but presumably would require several stops along the way so they probably decided it was better to put it on an Antonov, even though I don’t think an Antonov can make the trip nonstop either.
Yes, the Antonov should be able to make it non-stop. But it should also fit in a C-130. But I guess they want to give some business to the Russians.
I assume these service modules are entirely disposable, like the rest of SLS?
Of course. All you will get is the charred capsule to display in a museum, just like Project Apollo. I assume there is already a waiting list with the first going to the Smithsonian for display. Yes, this is your grandparents space program.
I hope the Smithsonian isn’t at the front of the line. Where would they put the Orion EM-2 capsule? I really wouldn’t like to see them put Friendship 7 or Apollo 11/Columbia in storage to make room for it.
Hah, I doubt it. I just saw Columbia at the St. Louis Science Center this summer. I believe the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum is building a completely new exhibit for it. It’s still on the road until next September, with stretches at 4 cities total.
As a guy who worked Spacelab for a long time, and then some on Columbus – this is probably the same crew that built the Spacelab modules, etc. They did a great job and it was easy working with them. The Spacelab hardware that I tested at KSC (for STS-40) was well built.