Orion on Ariane

[Space_Invaders]

The French government has shown its support for an idea put forward by CNES (the French space agency) to modify the Ariane 5 rocket to carry the US Orion capsule.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyper ... rench.html

The study is still at an early stage, but this subject raises a few questions:

How much is it going to cost to man-rate Ariane 5?
Who's going to pay for it? Will ESA try to make NASA shoulder most of the cost?
Would the Orion capsule be used to launch US astronauts into space, or does ESA only want to buy it for its own use?
Can a new VAB be built in Kourou? (since a man-rated Ariane 5 would be too big for the current one)

Discuss away.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

I know I maybe in a minority, but I still like the Orion capsule. It will work well for the job of getting people outside of LEO. So since Ares I is going bye-bye (as it should), I hope that Orion can still fly. Be it Ares V, Heavy Delta, some variation of Atlas, or Falcon 9 or now Ariane. My preference will be Ares V, or a heavy Delta or a variation of Atlas because that gives you deep space capability, but Falcon 9 or Ariane will work for all of LEO and specifically the ISS.

But it will stink if NASA has to pay for Ariane to be man rated, that’s not saving money just moving it from American banks to European banks. If ESA wants to play in the big kids sand lot they should fork out most if not all the money themselves.

As far as who will fly, I’m sure NASA and ESA will not limit each other, but will be some kind of barter system ala shuttle, or a full team integration.

I'm just ready to see people leave LEO. However it happens.

 

[DarkenedOne]

The French government has shown its support for an idea put forward by CNES (the French space agency) to modify the Ariane 5 rocket to carry the US Orion capsule.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyper ... rench.html

The study is still at an early stage, but this subject raises a few questions:

How much is it going to cost to man-rate Ariane 5?
Who's going to pay for it? Will ESA try to make NASA shoulder most of the cost?
Would the Orion capsule be used to launch US astronauts into space, or does ESA only want to buy it for its own use?
Can a new VAB be built in Kourou? (since a man-rated Ariane 5 would be too big for the current one)

Discuss away.

ESA was already developing a manned version of the Ariane launch system.
http://www.esa.int/esaHS/SEMKCY4DHNF_iss_0.html

The website describes the process, but if everything goes well and if there is a need they will have a manned Ariane 5. However I do not think that it will be able to handle the Orion even though it has the shear lifting capacity. Human space systems are not as developed as satellite launch systems are. There is a set of common standards that satellite launchers adhere to so that payloads can largely be switched from one launcher to another without problems.

Manned space flight systems have no such standards as I understand.

 

[Astro_Robert]

I believe that other than g-force limitations of a human vs inert cargo, the primary factor for "Man-rating" a launch vehicle is "safety". Safety being defined as probable loss of crew. This is normally addressed through a combination of redundancy, testing at all levels from components through vehicle, and finally escape systems. You can look up 'man-rated launch vehicle' and you might find a better definition but that is what it boils down to, its more art than science.

I would assume that a "man-rated" expendable rocket of either Ariane or EELV would be 2X per launch for all the testing (compared to non-man rated) plus ~ $1-2B NRE (or so) to prove it all out. Keep in mind, most launchers have diret heritage from non-man-rated ICMBs so 'man-rating' an existing or modified rocket has been done before.

I don't see why we should limit ourselves to the French rocket after our experiences with using a Russian one. The French may be our ertwhile allies, and it might be ok to have a second launcher capable of putting the hefty Orion capsule into orbit. At the end of the day, I cannot imagine we would not have our own launcher for Orion.

 

[Polishguy]

I don't see why we should limit ourselves to the French rocket after our experiences with using a Russian one. The French may be our ertwhile allies, and it might be ok to have a second launcher capable of putting the hefty Orion capsule into orbit. At the end of the day, I cannot imagine we would not have our own launcher for Orion.

Why not just pay SpaceX to convert their Falcon 9 Heavy for Orion operation? It's strong enough, and they plan on launching a manned capsule with it anyway. Besides, this would pump money into the US economy.

Which brings me to another point: why keep developing Orion? SpaceX Dragon seems, to me, a superior craft.

 

[menellom]

Why not 'all of the above'?

For now, the assumption is that the Ares I is going to be cut and NASA's development work will be focused on getting an HLV (be it Ares V or some new design) completed. In the meantime we need as many ways of getting into LEO as possible. Soyuz is the only option currently available. The Falcon 9 is promising, but we'll have to wait until its full test this Spring to find out the likelihood of it flying ISS missions next year. The Ariane 5 is our third LEO option. Right now the ESA estimates it'll cost a couple billion to get the Ariane 5 man-rated, but it would take the ESA much much longer to do that if they're the only one's funding and working on it (2018 is the earliest estimate). If NASA throws in a few billion, lends the ESA some extra personnel, maybe see if we can't get the Japanese to pitch in too it probably be done in a couple years. Optimistically, by 2012 or 2013 instead of one LEO option we could have three.

More options means more flights and since the ESA, RSA, and SpaceX would be handling the LEO missions, it would leave NASA free to focus on a past-LEO rocket.