Orion (spacecraft)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the proposed replacement for the Space Shuttle. For other uses of the term, see Orion (disambiguation).

Orion is a manned spacecraft currently under development by the United States. Prior to receiving its current name Orion was known as the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV). The new spacecraft will replace the current Space Shuttle fleet after the shuttles are retired in 2010, and will be launched from Kennedy Space Center on the new Ares I crew launch vehicle. Orion will initially handle logistic flights to the International Space Station, but will be a key component for future missions to the Moon and Mars after 2015.

Together with the Earth Departure Stage (EDS), the Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM), and the Ares I and Ares V Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicles (SDLV), Orion is one of the elements of NASA's Project Constellation. ^[1]

Contents 1 Origin 2 Design 2.1 Crew Module (CM) 2.2 Service Module (SM) 2.3 July 2006 design revisions 2.4 Criticism 2.4.1 Hypergolics 2.4.2 Acquisition strategy 3 Exploration Systems Architecture Study 4 Competition 5 Proposals 5.1 Original designs 5.2 Changes to original bids 6 Schedule 7 Possibilities for future CEV development 7.1 Stage I 7.2 Stage II 7.3 Stage III 7.4 Summary 8 Funding 9 Nomenclature 9.1 Orion Nomenclature (October 2006) 10 See also 11 References 12 External links

[edit] Origin

The proposal to create the Orion spacecraft is partly a reaction to the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, the subsequent findings and report by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB), and the White House's review of the American space program. The Orion spacecraft effectively replaced the conceptual Orbital Space Plane (OSP), which itself was proposed after the failure of the Lockheed Martin X-33 program to produce a replacement for the shuttle.

On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush announced the Orion spacecraft, then known as the "Crew Exploration Vehicle," as part of the Vision for Space Exploration:

"Our second goal is to develop and test a new spacecraft, the Crew Exploration Vehicle, by 2008, and to conduct the first manned mission no later than 2014. The Crew Exploration Vehicle will be capable of ferrying astronauts and scientists to the Space Station after the shuttle is retired. But the main purpose of this spacecraft will be to carry astronauts beyond our orbit to other worlds. This will be the first spacecraft of its kind since the Apollo Command Module."^[2]

[edit] Design

The Orion Crew & Service Module (CSM) stack consists of two main parts: a conical Crew Module (CM), and a cylindrical Service Module (SM) which will hold the spacecraft's propulsion system and expendable onboard supplies. Both are based heavily on the Apollo Command & Service Modules (Apollo CSM) flown between 1967 and 1975, but include advances derived from the Space Shuttle program. "Going with known technology and known solutions lowers the risk," according to Neil Woodward, director of the integration office in the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate.^[3]

[edit] Crew Module (CM)

The Orion CM is similar in shape to Apollo Command Module (a 70° cone) and is capable of holding four to six crew members (in comparison with a maximum of three in the smaller Apollo Command Module, although a five-man version for the never-flown Skylab Rescue was produced). Although superficially resembling the 1960s-era Apollo, Orion's CM will boast significantly improved technology, including, but not limited to:

• "Glass cockpit" digital control systems derived from that of the Boeing 787, with provisions of the flight crew taking manual control of the vehicle in an emergency or in critical phases (such as docking with the ISS or the LSAM/EDS combination).^[4]
• Improved waste management collection systems (e.g., a miniaturized camping-style toilet and unisex urinal "relief tube" similar to that used on both the Soyuz and International Space Station) instead of the much-hated plastic bags used on Apollo.
• A nitrogen/oxygen (N₂/O₂) mixed atmosphere at either sea level (101.3 kPa; 14.7 psi) or slightly reduced (55.2 to 70.3 kPa; 8.0 to 10.2 psi) pressure.

An important feature that will be introduced in the Orion CM is a new system employing a combination of parachutes and airbags for capsule recovery. This will allow retrieval of the Orion CM on land, like the Russian Soyuz and Chinese Shenzhou descent module, and eliminate the expensive naval recovery fleet employed on all Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo flights. The CM will also have the capability of water recovery, but it would be limited to in-flight aborts in which the launch escape system must be employed to pull the CM away from a malfunctioning Ares I rocket, or in the case of a Gemini 8-type emergency if the reentry thrusters are activated. In the case of a launch abort, NASA will use either the M/V Freedom Star or M/V Liberty Star in conjunction with U.S. Coast Guard personnel who will then retrieve the capsule, while an emergency splashdown after launch will require the observance of the Outer Space Treaty signed in 1967.

Another feature will be the partial reusability of the Orion CM, which would be capable of being reused for up to ten flights, allowing NASA to build a fleet of both manned and unmanned Orion CMs. Both the CM and SM will be constructed of an aluminum/lithium (Al/Li) alloy that is as strong as the aircraft aluminum used on the Shuttle Orbiter's skin, but will make the spacecraft lighter than both its Apollo and Shuttle predecessors. The CM itself will be covered in the same nomex felt-like thermal protection blankets used on non-critical parts on the Shuttle (such as the payload bay doors) while the Thermal Protection System (TPS) will be made of a derivative of the Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator (PICA) heat shield previously developed for the Stardust return mission^{[citation needed]}. The heat shield, attached to the CM using an eight-point attachment system, will drop off after reentry to expose the airbags. The recovery parachutes, also reusable, will be based on the parachutes used on both the Apollo spacecraft and the Shuttle's SRBs, and will also use the same nomex cloth for construction.

To allow the Orion spacecraft to service the International Space Station (ISS), it will use a simplified version of the Russian-developed universal docking ring currently in use on the Shuttle fleet and based on the earlier system used on the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975. Both the spacecraft and docking adapter will employ a Launch Escape System (LES) like that used in Mercury and Apollo, along with an Apollo-derived fiberglass "Boost Protective Cover," to protect the Orion CM during ascent.

The Orion CM is projected to be around 5 meters (16.5 feet) in diameter, with a mass of about 25 tonnes. It is to be built by the Lockheed Martin Corporation. [1] It will have more than 2.5 times the volume of an Apollo capsule and can carry between four to six astronauts. [2]

[edit] Service Module (SM)

Like its Apollo predecessor, the Orion service module has a cylindrical shape, but the new Orion SM will be larger, shorter, and lighter. It too would be constructed from the same Al-Li alloy as the Orion CM, and will feature a pair of deployable circular or rectangular solar panels (a final decision on their design has not yet been made), eliminating the need to carry malfunction-prone fuel cells and the associated hardware (mainly tanks containing liquid hydrogen [LH₂]) needed for their operation. The spacecraft's main propulsion system is a Delta II upper stage engine using hypergolic propellants (nitrogen tetroxide and monomethyl hydrazine) drawn from spherical, helium-pressurized titanium tanks. The SM Reaction Control System (RCS -- the spacecraft's maneuvering thrusters) will also be pressure-fed, and will use the same propellants. NASA believes the SM RCS would be able to act as a backup for a trans-Earth injection (TEI) burn in case the main SM engine fails. The SM's twin spherical "slush" LOX tanks and a single tank of liquid nitrogen (LN₂) will provide the crew with breathing air during the majority of the mission, while a "surge tank" located in the Orion CM itself will provide the crew with 2 to 4 hours (depending upon the number of crew members) of the same breathing air after SM jettison. Lithium hydroxide (LiOH) cartridges will recycle the spacecraft's environmental system by "scrubbing" the carbon dioxide (CO₂) exhaled by the astronauts from ship's air and adding fresh oxygen and nitrogen, which is then cycled back out into the system loop. Because of the elimination of the fuel cells and LH₂ tanks, a large tank of potable water will be carried in both the CM and SM that will both provide drinking water for the astronauts and (mixed with glycol) cooling water for the electronics. A system identical to that used in the ISS will allow the astronauts to recycle both waste water and urine into glycol-mixed cooling water for the electronics.

The SM also mounts the spacecraft's waste heat management system (its radiators) and the aforementioned solar panels. These panels, along with backup batteries located in the Orion CM, will provide a total of 28 V (dc) in-flight power to the ship's systems.

[edit] July 2006 design revisions

In late July of 2006 NASA's second design review resulted in major changes to the spacecraft design. [3] Originally, NASA wanted to use liquid methane (LCH₄) as the SM fuel, as it could be "mined" (in situ) on the Moon, Mars, and other methane-rich bodies, but due to the infancy of oxygen/methane-powered rocket technologies and the need to launch the Orion by 2012, the switch to hypergolic propellants was mandated in late July 2006. This switch will allow NASA to man-rate the Orion and Ares I stack by no later than 2011 ^{[citation needed]}, and eliminate a possible delay between the Shuttle's retirement in 2010 and the first manned Orion flight scheduled for 2012 ^{[citation needed]}.

[edit] Criticism

See also: Exploration Systems Architecture Study#Criticism

[edit] Hypergolics

The switch to hypergolic fuels has not been welcomed by some critics of the Orion program. Unlike LOX/LH₂, LOX/RP-1, or even LOX/ethanol fuel mixtures, which require an ignition source to burn, hypergolic fuels spontaneously ignite when the components are mixed together in the rocket's combustion chamber. This allows for the reliable storage and ignition of such fuels (as used on the Titan II ICBM rocket, and later on both the Apollo Service Module and Apollo Lunar Module, Titan III rocket, and Titan IV-Centaur rocket), but provides a less-than-ideal thrust as compared to LOX/LH₂ or LOX/LCH₄. In addition, hypergolics are very corrosive and hazardous when humans are exposed. An incident during the landing phase on the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project flight exposed the crew to fumes, causing a form of chemical-induced pneumonia, and nearly killing one crew member (his life was saved by another astronaut when he placed an oxygen mask over his face). Another hazard occurred with the breakup of Columbia in 2003, when parts of the orbiter were exposed to the chemicals, causing chemical burns to those who handled the Shuttle debris without any protection. Even under normal conditions, Shuttle landing party crews must wear environmental "SCAPE" suits right after the Orbiter comes to a complete stop until the system is safed and purged before flight surgeons and technicians wearing white surgical smocks can enter the Orbiter to retrieve the crew. The reaction of cryogenic oxygen and hydrogen in the fuel cells in order to produce electricity , also produces pure water (which on Apollo and the Shuttle, was used as drinking and cooling water), while LCH₄, can be produced, shipped, and stored in the same fashon as commercial-use liquified natural gas (LNG).

Despite the switch to hypergolic fuels for the early-model ("Block I") Orion, experts think that LCH₄ propulsion will be utilized on later Orion variants, especially those intended for use on Mars; in some Martian mission models, fuel for Orion-derived ships could be produced on the Martian surface by means of equipment utilizing the Sabatier reaction. By "distilling" the thin carbon dioxide (CO₂) atmosphere of Mars into LCH₄. By using this fashion, the crew of an Orion Mars mission could vastly decrease the need to carry fuel for their return trip, thus increasing the amount of equipment and supplies they could carry for use in exploring the red planet. (See also the Mars Direct mission proposal).

[edit] Acquisition strategy

The Space Frontier Foundation has asserted that the $3.9 billion initial phase of the Orion contract essentially duplicates the functionality of NASA's $500 million Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program.^[5][6] Additionally, NASA's contract with Lockheed Martin is a cost-plus contract, a contracting method which has been criticized for being prone to cost overruns and delays, while contractors in the COTS only receive payment for successes.^[5]

[edit] Exploration Systems Architecture Study

Main article: Exploration Systems Architecture Study

[edit] Competition

The Draft Statement of Work for the CEV was issued by NASA on December 9, 2004, and slightly more than one month later, on January 21, 2005, NASA issued a Draft Request For Proposal. The Final RFP was issued on March 1, 2005,^[7] with the potential bidders being asked to answer by May 2, 2005.

NASA had planned to have a suborbital or an Earth orbit fly-off called Flight Application of Spacecraft Technologies between two teams' CEV designs before September 1, 2008. However, in order to permit an earlier date for the start of CEV operations, Administrator Griffin had indicated that NASA would select one contractor for the CEV in 2006. From his perspective, this would both help eliminate the currently planned four-year gap between the retirement of the Shuttle in 2010 and the first manned flight of the CEV in 2014 (by allowing the CEV to fly earlier), and save over $1 billion for use in CEV development.^[8]

On June 13, 2005, NASA announced the selection of two consortia, Lockheed Martin Corp. and the team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and The Boeing Co. for further CEV development work.^[9] Each team had received a US$28 million contract to come up with a complete design for the CEV and its launch vehicle until August 2006, when NASA would award one of them the task of building the CEV^{[citation needed]}. The teams would also have to develop a plan for their CEV to take part in the assembly of a lunar expedition, either in EOR, LOR, or in a direct mode. The two teams were composed of:

• Northrop Grumman associated with Boeing as subcontractor for the Spiral One, Alenia Spazio, ARES Corporation, Draper Laboratory and United Space Alliance

• Lockheed Martin associated with EADS SPACE Transportation, United Space Alliance, Honeywell, Orbital Sciences, Hamilton Sundstrand, and Wyle Laboratories (awarded the contract August 31, 2006).

Another announced team was t/Space, a consortium including such groups as Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites, Elon Musk's SpaceX, and Red Whittaker[4] of the Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute^{[citation needed]}. Some news reports in mid-March 2005, stemming from an interview with New Scientist, had reported that t/Space intended to withdraw from the competition, citing a high paperwork burden; however, no announcement of a withdrawal had been made by t/Space^{[citation needed]}. NASA has not gone public about who did finally submit a bid. Therefore, either t/Space did not submit a bid, or its bid was not selected by NASA.

Each contractor-led team included subcontractors that provided the lunar expedition astronauts with equipment, life support, rocket engines, and onboard navigation systems. The planned orbital or suborbital fly-offs under FAST would have seen the competition of a CEV built by each team, or of a technology demonstrator incorporating CEV technologies.^[10] Under FAST, NASA would have chosen the winner to build the final CEV after actual demonstration of this hardware. Fly-offs are often used by the U.S. Air Force to select military aircraft; NASA has never used this approach in awarding contracts. However, as Administrator Griffin had indicated he would abandon the FAST approach, NASA pursued the more traditional approach of selecting a vehicle based on the contractors' proposals.[5]

On August 31, 2006, NASA announced that the contract to design and develop the Orion was awarded to Lockheed Martin Corp.^[11] According to Bloomberg News, five analysts it surveyed prior to the award announcement tipped the Northrop team to win.^[12] Marco Caceres, a space industry analyst with Teal Group, had projected that Lockheed would lose, partly because of Lockheed Martin's earlier failure on the $912 million X-33 shuttle replacement program; after the contract award he suggested that Lockheed Martin's work on the X-33 gave it more recent research and development experience in propulsion and materials, which may have helped it win the contract.^[12] According to an Aerospace Daily & Defense Report summary of a NASA document explaining the rationale for the contract award, the Lockheed Martin proposal won on the basis of a superior technical approach, lower and more realistic cost estimates, and exceptional performance on Phase I of the CEV program.^[13]

Lockheed Martin plans to manufacture the manned spacecraft at facilities in Texas, Louisiana, and Florida.^[14] The program manager is Cleon Lacefield.

[edit] Proposals

[edit] Original designs

Lockheed's proposed craft was a small shuttle-shaped lifting-body design, big enough for six astronauts and their equipment. Its airplane-shaped design made it easier to navigate during high-speed returns to Earth than the capsule-shaped vehicles of the past, according to Lockheed Martin. According to the French daily Le Figaro and the publication Aviation Week and Space Technology, EADS SPACE Transportation would be in charge of the design and construction of the associated Mission Module. The head of the Lockheed team was Cleon Lacefield. The Lockheed Martin design was quite similar to their OSP design, but has some slight changes, mainly the presence of the mission module [6].

The Lockheed Martin CEV design included several modules in the LEO (low earth orbit) and manned lunar versions of the spacecraft, plus an abort system. The abort system was an escape tower like that used in the Mercury, Apollo, Soyuz, and Shenzhou craft (Gemini, along with the Space Shuttles Enterprise and Columbia [until STS-4] used ejection seats). It would be capable of an abort during any part of the ascent phase of the mission. The crew would sit in the Rescue Module (RM) during launch. According to the publication Aviation Week and Space Technology, the RM would have an outer heat shield of reinforced carbon-carbon and a redundant layer of felt reusable surface insulation underneath in case of RCC failure. The RM comprised the top half of the Crew Module (CM), which comprised the RM and the rest of the lifting-body structure. The CM included living space for four crewmembers. In an emergency the RM separates from the rest of the CM. The RM would seat up to six crewmembers, with two to a row, and the CM has living space and provisions for four astronauts for 5–7 days. EVAs could be conducted from the CM, which could land on land or water and could be reused 5–10 times.[7]

The mission module would be added to the bottom of the CEV for a lunar mission, and would be able to hold extra consumables and provide extra space for a mission of lunar duration. It would also provide extra power and communications capabilities, and include a docking port for the LSAM. On the bottom of the lunar CEV stack would be the Propulsion or Trans-Earth Injection Module would provide for return to Earth from the Moon. It would probably incorporate (according to Aviation Week) 2 Pratt & Whitney RL-10 engines. Together, the RM/CM, MM, and TEIM made up the Lockheed Martin lunar stack. The original idea was to launch the CM, MM, and TEIM on three separate EELVs, with one component in each launch. This vehicle would need additional modules to reach lunar orbit and to land on the Moon. However, this plan was to be altered according to the CFI (Call for Improvements), described below.

Unlike the well-publicized Lockheed Martin CEV design, virtually no information was publicly available on the Boeing/Northrop Grumman CEV design. However, it is instructive to note that most publicly released Boeing designs for the cancelled Orbital Space Plane resembled the Apollo capsule. Given that Lockheed Martin's CEV design was in many ways a derivative of their OSP, it was possible that the Boeing CEV is a capsule rather than a lifting body or plane design. [8]

[edit] Changes to original bids

Sean O'Keefe's strategy would have seen the CEV development in two distinct stages, or Phases. Phase I would have involved the design of the CEV and a demonstration by the potential contractors that they could safely and affordably develop the vehicle. Phase I would have run from bid submissions in 2005 to FAST and downselect to one contractor. Phase II would have begun after FAST and involved final design and construction of the CEV. However, this schedule was unacceptably slow to Mike Griffin, and the plan was changed such that NASA will issue a "Call for Improvements" (CFI) after the release of the ESAS for Lockheed Martin and Boeing to submit Phase II proposals.[9] NASA chose Lockheed Martin's consortium as the winning consortium on August 31, 2006.[10] Therefore, the CEV bids submitted and described above are not necessarily representative of the final CEV design, as they will be changed in accordance with the CFI and any findings of the ESAS that are put into the CFI.

[edit] Schedule

NASA hopes to follow this schedule in development of the CEV:

• 2006–2007 — Engineering review of selected CEV design
• 2009 (April) — First suborbital flight of a CEV-mock-up
• 2009 (May) — AA-1 unmanned ascent abort system test (transonic)
• 2010 (August) — AA-2 unmanned ascent abort system test (Max-Q)
• 2011 (February) — AA-3 unmanned ascent abort system test (low-altitude)
• 2011 (September) — AA-4 unmanned ascent abort system test (high altitude)
• 2012 — First unmanned flight of CEV in Earth orbit. [11]
• 2014 (September) — First manned flight of CEV in Earth orbit.
• 2015–2018 — First unmanned flight of Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM).
• 2016–2018 — First manned flight of LSAM.
• 2020 — First manned lunar landing with CEV/LSAM system.
• 2020 — Start of planning for Mars missions

It has been rumored that the ESAS will support a phased retirement of the Space Shuttle, which would begin by retiring one orbiter (probably Atlantis), as early as 2008. Under this plan, Discovery would likely be retired in late 2009, followed by the retirement of Endeavour prior to September 30, 2010 (the last day of fiscal year (FY) 2010). In the meantime, NASA engineers would work to upgrade the current launch facilities to work with the next generation shuttle-derived launch vehicles. [12] Such a plan would allow lunar mission development to begin much earlier than currently planned, as additional funding will be available earlier.

[edit] Possibilities for future CEV development

After the replacement of Sean O'Keefe, NASA's procurement schedule and strategy has completely changed, as described above. In July 2004, before he was named NASA administrator, Michael Griffin participated in a study called "Extending Human Presence Into the Solar System"[13] for The Planetary Society, as a co-team leader. The study offers a strategy for carrying out Project Constellation in an affordable and achievable manner. Since Griffin was one of the leaders of the study, it can be assumed that he agrees with its conclusions, and it is therefore instructive to review the study to gain insight into possible future developments regarding the CEV. Indeed, as described below, the actions he has taken thus far as administrator support the goals of the plan.

According to the executive summary, the study is built around "a staged approach to human exploration beyond low Earth orbit (LEO)." [14] It recommends that Project Constellation be carried out in three distinct phases, called "Stages." These are:

• Stage 1 - "Features the development of a new crew exploration vehicle (CEV), the completion of the International Space Station (ISS), and an early retirement of the Shuttle Orbiter. Orbiter retirement would be made as soon as the ISS U.S. Core is completed (perhaps only 6 or 7 flights) and the smallest number of additional flights necessary to satisfy our international partners’ ISS requirements. Money saved by early Orbiter retirement would be used to accelerate the CEV development schedule to minimize or eliminate any hiatus in U.S. capability to reach and return from LEO." [15]

• Stage 2 - "Requires the development of additional assets, including an uprated CEV capable of extended missions of many months in interplanetary space. Habitation, laboratory, consumables, and propulsion modules, to enable human flight to the vicinities of the Moon and Mars, the Lagrange points, and certain near-Earth asteroids." [16]

• Stage 3 - "Development of human-rated planetary landers is completed in Stage 3, allowing human missions to the surface of the Moon and Mars beginning around 2020." [17]

[edit] Stage I

Rather than designing a CEV solely for the earliest lunar landing possible, the report recommends developing the CEV in two Blocks. The Block I CEV would be suitable for LEO missions only and would be developed as quickly as possible to avoid the gap between the currently scheduled Shuttle retirement in 2010 and CEV flights starting in 2014. It would carry a crew of 4–6 astronauts. The report recommends the development of a shuttle-derived CEV launch vehicle based on the "Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor with a new liquid propellant upper stage" [18] for CEV launch, rather than man-rating an EELV. This approach would allow the advantages of using a proven, man-rated design (the Solid Rocket Motor), plus the ability to continue using Shuttle infrastructure to support CEV operations.

Indeed, as described above, the upcoming Exploration Systems Architecture Study is thought to contain an endorsement of exactly this option — the construction of an SRM-based SDLV, plus a heavy-lift launch vehicle derived from the Shuttle, in addition to options for expediting CEV development to permit earlier manned flight. [19] Therefore, the idea that the Planetary Society report could shed light on future CEV development is supported by these new developments. In other words, the very recommendations contained in the report for the beginning of Stage I — namely, the expedited CEV development and the SRM-derived launch vehicle — appear to have materialized.

Under the rest of Stage I, the Shuttle would be retired as soon as possible after completing the "U.S. Core Complete" configuration of the International Space Station, an option that also appears to have gained support within NASA and the Bush administration [20]. The report makes no specific mention of a manned Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission, although Administrator Griffin has instructed Hubble managers at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center to make preparations for such a mission [21], and the report refers to Hubble as "world-class astronomy". [22] The report suggests the use of expendable launchers, either foreign vehicles such as the Ariane and Proton, or a new Shuttle-derived, heavy-lift launch vehicle to complete the ISS after Shuttle retirement. The Block I CEV could also act as an ISS Crew Return Vehicle, allowing crews of more than three to be supported. Stage I is to be implemented by 2010.

[edit] Stage II

Under Stage II, a new Block II CEV would be developed, suitable for interplanetary flight. The report states that the new CEV should keep the same mold lines as the Block I, making the selection of an appropriate Block I CEV extremely important to the successful implementation of the plan. The report states that the Block II CEV would need to have capability to conduct interplanetary cruises of at least several months in duration. It suggests the development of other modules, specifically modules called "Hab," "Lab," "Propulsion," and "Consumables" to support longer-duration flights. The use of ISS module derivatives for the Hab and Lab modules is suggested but not explicitly endorsed.

Four destinations are suggested for CEV exploration in Stage II. They are (probably, although not necessarily) in the order that they would be visited:

• The Moon
• Sun-Earth Lagrange point 2 (SEL₂)
• A Near-Earth Object (NEO)
• Mars orbit / Martian moons

The goal would be to conduct flights to each of these destinations but without a human-rated lander for the Moon and Mars. The use of SEL₂ is described as important to demonstrate the capability of servicing future space telescopes (such as the James Webb Space Telescope) there and also for staging interplanetary flights. After the flights to SEL₂, a flight to a NEO could be attempted; due to its extremely low surface gravity a landing module would not be needed and the astronauts could "walk" on it with MMU-like equipment. Finally, a mission to orbit Mars and possibly land on its moons is suggested. All these flights would be accomplished with one CEV design supported by the various modules, as necessary. Stage II would take place from about 2015 onward. However, according to the current descriptions of the ESAS, a landing on the Moon appears to be the first priority of Project Constellation and will occur by 2018 [23].

[edit] Stage III

In Stage III, human-rated landers are developed to allow landings on both the Moon and Mars. Since the Block II CEV should be capable of flights to both these destinations, lunar and Mars landings could begin simultaneously, with the experience gained from exploring the four destinations referenced in Stage II. These landings would begin in 2020.

[edit] Summary

Although Orion development is still in an extremely early stage and it remains to be seen what form it will finally take, NASA is apparently taking exactly the steps recommended for the implementation of Stage I of the report. Therefore it is likely that the three-stage plan suggested in this report will be the plan for the actual Project Constellation. Although it appears that the plan will not be followed exactly, it is possible that elements of it will still be used as a baseline for Constellation exploration strategies (for example, Stage I appears to have become a NASA strategy). The plan does not allow for lunar landings as early as 2015, as suggested in the Bush vision, but does permit an early Mars landing in 2020, contemporaneous with lunar landings by that date.

Building 9 at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas contains a full-scale mock-up simulator of the Orion "capsule." As of July 26, 2006, internal components were being fitted.

[edit] Funding

President Bush's budget request for Fiscal Year 2005 included: "$428 million for Project Constellation ($6.6 billion over five years) to develop a new crew exploration vehicle." The budget for FY2005 was confirmed by the Congress in November 2004 with full funding for the CEV.

The FY2006 budget request includes $753 million for continuing development of the CEV. As of 2005 the total development costs of the CEV are estimated at $ 15 billion. [24]

Lockheed Martin's contract for the initial "Schedule A" part of the Orion project, awarded on August 31, 2006 and running through 2013, is worth $3.9 billion. Additional development options in the "Schedule B" part of the contract could be worth up to another $3.5 billion. [25]

Although to date the exploration systems have received full funding and a House endorsement[26], there is a possibility that rising Shuttle return to flight costs will make funding of CEV development extremely difficult. There has been discussion of either obtaining a special supplemental from Congress to pay for the extra Shuttle costs, or of involving private industry in CEV development and operations. [27] The total funding of Project Constellation through 2025, inflation-adjusted and without any other increases to NASA's budget, is estimated at $210 billion; the ESAS estimates the cost of the program through that date at being only $7 billion more, at $217 billion [28]. This cost may in fact end up lower as it includes developing new engines for the EDS instead of the newer idea of using J-2 derivatives[29].

[edit] Nomenclature

In June 2006 the NASA assigned two "notional" names, Altair and Artemis, to the CSM and LSAM spacecraft. However, on 20 July 2006, it was reported that the NASA had applied for trademark protection for the name "Orion" as both the name of the CEV spacecraft as a whole and as the name of its overall project to return to the moon. Astronaut Jeff Williams accidentally confirmed this name publicly and prematurely in a NASA communications blunder from the International Space Station on 22 August 2006.^[15]. In October 2006 NASA announced the official name "Artemis" for the LSAM spacecraft.

Further revisions in nomenclature by NASA are possible before the launch of the first Orion mission.

[edit] Orion Nomenclature (October 2006)

• Orion Command/Service Module (CSM) manned/unmanned multi-role spacecraft
• Artemis Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) manned/unmanned lunar logistics vehicle
• Ares I ("the Stick") Medium-lift crew/cargo launch vehicle
• Ares V Heavy-lift cargo launch vehicle

[edit] See also

• Cleon Lacefield
• Kliper, Russian concept for replacement of the Soyuz Spacecraft (temporarily stopped)
• Advanced Crew Transportation System, European-Russian counterpart of the CEV
• Orbital Space Plane
• Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle, Current front-runner launch vehicle for the CEV
• Exploration Systems Architecture Study
• Atmospheric reentry
• Colonization of the Moon
• Colonization of Mars

[edit] References

[edit] External links

• Official Orion NASA Web Site
• Lockheed Martin Orion Crew Vehicle Site
• CEV vs Apollo
• NASA Budget Lays Out CEV Spiral Development - Aerospace Daily (Feb 4, 2004)
• Article of Popular Mechanics about CEV - Lockheed concept (June 2005)
• Full listing of midterm and final reports to NASA on CE&R studies (July 7, 2005)
• ESAS Final Report - First Installment (December 27, 2005)

v • d • e  United States government manned space programs
Active: Space Shuttle | ISS (joint) | Project Constellation (future)
Past: Mercury | X-15 (suborbital) | Gemini | Apollo | Skylab | Apollo-Soyuz Test Project (joint, USSR) | Shuttle-Mir (joint, Russia)
Cancelled: MISS | Orion | Dyna-Soar | Manned Orbiting Laboratory | Space Station Freedom (now ISS) | Orbital Space Plane

Lockheed Martin	v • d • e
Companies and Partnerships International Launch Services | LM Aeronautics | LM Information Technology | LM Maritime Systems and Sensors | LM Missiles and Fire Control | LM Orincon | LM Simulation, Training & Support | LM Space Systems | LM Systems Integration - Owego | LM Transportation & Security Solutions | LM UK | Savi Technology | United Space Alliance | United Launch Alliance
Facilities: Goodyear Airdock | Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory | LM Space Applications Laboratory | Michoud Assembly Facility | Sandia National Laboratories | Skunk Works
Active Products: Aegis | AeroText | Asroc | ATACMS | Atlas V rocket | C-5 | C-130 | External Fuel Tank | Force Hawk | F-16 | F-22 | F-35 | F-117 Nighthawk | JASSM | Javelin | JCM | Hellfire | HIMARS | MEADS | Milstar | MLRS | MUOS | Nimiq | Orion spacecraft (under development) | P-3 | Predator missile | SBIRS | THAAD | Sniper XR | T-50 | Trident missile | VH-71/US101 | U-2
Statistics: Annual Revenue: $37.2 billion USD (FY2005) | Employees: 135,000 | Stock Symbol: NYSE: LMT | CEO: Robert J. Stevens | Website: www.lockheedmartin.com