posted 07-09-2013 08:17 AM               

Please use this topic to discuss Artemis I, NASA's first flight of the Space Launch System with its Orion crew module.

posted 09-08-2015 06:03 PM               

The primary structure of Orion's crew module is made of seven large aluminum pieces that must be welded together in detailed fashion.

posted 05-11-2016 08:39 AM               

"The agency's baseline commitment is November of 2018," said Mike Bolger, manager of the GSDP program. "The September date we've talked internally about, and pressed them to see if we can make it by September. It gives us a little margin at the end."

His comments came after an earlier presentation by Mark Kirasich, the Orion program manager, who discussed preparations for the EM-1 launch, including photos of the pressure vessel of the spacecraft being assembled at the Kennedy Space Center.

"This is the pressure vessel that, about 28 months from now, will be on its way towards the moon and into a distant retrograde orbit around the moon," he said, a timeframe that corresponds to a September 2018 launch.

posted 07-29-2016 07:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
I just hope the next President doesn't cancel the program.

---

Crushed, but not the least bit surprised, that is.

posted 03-30-2017 08:02 AM               

The schedule for the launch of Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1), currently planned for late 2018, remains uncertain regardless of the technical issues as NASA studies the possibility of putting a crew on the flight, which would likely delay it by up to a year.

In a presentation to a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council's Human Exploration and Operations Committee here, Bill Hill, deputy associate administrator for exploration systems development, said service module delays and damage to the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans from a February tornado are running "kind of neck and neck" about being the biggest issue with the existing schedule for EM-1.

posted 04-27-2017 02:45 PM               

We agree with the GAO that maintaining a November 2018 launch readiness date is not in the best interest of the program, and we are in the process of establishing a new target in 2019. Many of the specific concerns referenced in this report are no longer concerns, and new ones have appeared. Caution should be used in referencing the report on the specific technical issues, but the overall conclusions are valid.

posted 11-08-2017 06:08 PM               

"While the review of the possible manufacturing and production schedule risks indicate a launch date of June 2020, the agency is managing to December 2019," said acting NASA Administrator Robert Lightfoot. "Since several of the key risks identified have not been actually realized, we are able to put in place mitigation strategies for those risks to protect the December 2019 date."

posted 03-29-2018 09:16 PM               

The Orion service module is considerably smaller than the Apollo service module. It has a fuel capacity of 9,000 kg. The Apollo service module had a fuel capacity twice that.

posted 03-30-2018 06:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Had it been built for LOR, Apollo would have taken 6 to 10 days to return to Earth, too.

---

posted 08-27-2018 03:51 PM               

And a chart of milestones leading up to the mission:

posted 11-07-2018 07:49 AM            

The European-built service module that will propel, power and cool during Orion flight to the Moon on Exploration Mission-1 arrived from Germany at the agency's Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Tuesday to begin final outfitting, integration and testing with the crew module and other Orion elements.

posted 03-13-2019 10:28 AM               

We are now understanding better how difficult this project is, and it's going to take some additional time. I want to be really clear. I think we as an agency need to stick to our commitment. If we tell you, and others, that we're going to launch in June of 2020 around the moon, I think we should launch around the moon in June of 2020. And I think it can be done. We should consider, as an agency, all options to accomplish that objective.

The mission would work something like this. A heavy-lift rocket would launch Orion and its service module into low-Earth orbit. Another rocket would launch a fully fueled upper stage into orbit, which would then dock with Orion. This upper stage would provide the propulsion needed to push Orion out of low Earth orbit and inject it into lunar orbit.

Bridenstine did not name the rockets under consideration...

posted 03-14-2019 01:09 PM               

A Message to the Workforce on SLS and Orion

Yesterday, I was asked by Congress about the schedule slip of the Space Launch System and plans to get NASA back on track. I mentioned that we are exploring the possibility of launching Orion and the European Service Module to low-Earth orbit on an existing heavy-lift rocket, then using a boost from another existing vehicle for Trans Lunar Injection. Our goal would be to test Orion in lunar orbit in 2020 and free up the first SLS for the launch of habitation or other hardware in 2021. This would get us back on schedule for a crewed lunar orbital mission in 2022 with the added bonus of a lunar destination for our astronauts.

We are studying this approach to accelerate our lunar efforts. The review will take no longer than two weeks and the results will be made available. Please know that NASA is committed to building and flying the SLS for the following reasons:

1. Launching two heavy-lift rockets to get Orion to the Moon is not optimum or sustainable.

2. Docking crewed vehicles in Earth orbit to get to the Moon adds complexity and risk that is undesirable.

3. SLS mitigates these challenges and allows crew and payloads to get to the Moon, and eventually to Mars, safer and more efficiently than any temporary solution used to get back on track.

I believe in the strength of our workforce and our ability to utilize every tool available to achieve our objectives. Our goal is to get to the Moon sustainably and on to Mars. With your focused efforts, and unmatched talent, the possibility of achieving this objective is real.

posted 03-15-2019 11:40 AM               

Good news: The NASA and Boeing teams are working overtime to accelerate the launch schedule of the Space Launch System. If achievable, this is the preferred option for our first exploration mission that will send the Orion capsule around the Moon. Still looking at options.

posted 03-26-2019 06:44 PM               

Earlier today I was also at Marshall Space Flight Center for an all-hands to reinforce our commitment to SLS with the workforce. We discussed my recent announcement that NASA would consider all options to fly Orion around the Moon on schedule. I shared the analysis we conducted to assess flying the Orion on different commercial options. While some of these alternative vehicles could work, none was capable of achieving our goals to orbit around the Moon for Exploration Mission-1 within our timeline and on budget. The results of this two-week study reaffirmed our commitment to the SLS. More details will be released in the future.

posted 04-01-2019 01:38 PM               

• Delta IV Heavy: alone it does not have the thrust to loft Orion and its service module around the moon, nor can it lift Orion, the service module and an Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS).

• Two Delta IV Heavy rockets: The limit then becomes launch pads; only one Delta IV Heavy pad per coast and a single pad cannot be turned around quick enough to support a single mission. Launching the ICPS from the west coast into polar orbit takes too long and too much fuel to change planes to rendezvous with an Orion and service module launched from the east coast.

• Delta IV Heavy and Falcon 9: Only U.S. vehicle capable of an autonomous docking right now is Crew Dragon, but it does not have the thrust to send Orion and its service module around the moon.

• Falcon Heavy: It can loft the Orion, its service module and an ICPS on a single launch but major modifications would be needed to the launch erector and launchpad, the latter to support hypergolic loading in the vertical, which rules out a launch in 2020. The Falcon Heavy would also result in a lower than desired lunar orbit.

With regards to launching EM-1 on the Space Launch System (SLS) in 2020, he said one of the ways in which the program is shaving off months is by removing the engine section from the critical path for integrating the rocket's other segments. The agency has now purchased hardware to allow for the other tanks and upper sections of the SLS to be integrated in the horizontal as work to qualify the engine section is completed.

posted 04-01-2019 10:30 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Bridenstine said that the Falcon Heavy could be a solution in the future, but was not capable of meeting the timeline and needs of the EM-1 mission.

---

Would the cost of using the Falcon Heavy center first stage through to fuel depletion, rather than perform the burn back and landing, be a cheaper option? Will sacrificing the centre rocket provide the desired loft?

posted 04-01-2019 10:40 PM               

Pad 39A is needed to support commercial crew. Taking the pad out of service to support EM-1 is not an option for NASA.

posted 04-01-2019 11:29 PM               

I get why the commitment to SLS exists, and I hope that the system becomes a huge success that can be used for great things. But between the adoption of the SLS, born out of the Constellation program and the demise of the space shuttle program, there have been some advancements in rocket reusability, efficiency and weight savings, especially with avionics and computing.

The Orion spacecraft and systems needs to be test flown, and crews need flight experience before some Hail Mary lunar landing mission can be achieved. This does not require SLS to achieve.

If Falcon Heavy exists today, can get the equipment to space, on station for the test requirements, why not work with SpaceX to achieve this, while continuing with the existing plans for SLS, without seeking additional funds that will be sunk into a Block 1 rocket that is planned to be superseded after a few flights?

There would have to be some concessions made by NASA, they would need to allow the use of flown rockets on manned flights, but this was what SpaceX designed them for anyway, and NASA is considering making concessions with the unproven SLS to achieve and earlier flight.

This would also be a good test for the new flight approval rules being introduced, in that more flights could be introduced into a pre-existing schedule without much hassle. SpaceX stated that their intention was for rapid turnaround, which is something that NASA and the US space industry could all benefit from.

It seems that either way, more money is required. investment into systems that promote reusability, increased flight rates, more and cheaper missions would be more prudent than investing in a system with very limited options. SLS resources are finite, the engines are limited in quantity, and to build more engines and solid rockets is a huge expense.

What happens if one of the SLS test flights has an issue that requires the complete mission to be re-flown, the number of subsequent missions drops by one unless more throw away engines and rockets parts are made.

I threw the Super Heavy option in to the mix because it is a system under development, that is designed to have a similar payload capability, and would benefit with a similar level of investment, but would be a better system once completed (because it could be re-used). NASA could also use the Super Heavy system to lift future space station or Hubble type rescue missions using Orion and some kind of maintenance platform, so the investment would be multi platform.

posted 04-26-2019 12:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
If NASA does decide to forgo the Green Run...

---

"Ultimately, it was my recommendation to the agency that we stay the course with the plan that we have had for many years," Gerstenmaier wrote in the memo, dated April 22, which Ars obtained. "Although there is no certainty in when we launch, I believe this is the best approach to achieving a successful EM-1 flight test and put NASA on the path to achieving an EM-2 crewed mission in 2022 and a Lunar Surface mission in 2024."

...in announcing his decision, Gerstenmaier also expressed the need for urgency.

"We must, however, have a higher degree of urgency in accomplishing EM-1 and beyond," Gerstenmaier wrote. "I ask the entire NASA/Industry community to diligently work toward the earliest EM-1 launch possible, to identify ways that we can be more efficient, and to continue to pay attention to detail to enable NASA [to have] a successful EM-1." He closed his letter by saying, "Urgency is our mantra and we must do it right."

The agency has not commented publicly on the memo. On Thursday, a spokeswoman told Ars of the green run decision, "We’re still assessing and no final decisions have been made."

posted 11-26-2019 01:06 PM               

I was at Lahm Airport for the arrival and offloading and took these photos.