Artemis Updates

Orion Update & Overview

Orion in lunar orbit. Image: NASA.

Orion will be the first crewed spacecraft designed to fly astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit in five decades. The demands of designing a deep space crewed spacecraft meant that Orion faced a great many challenges during its development that nobody had faced since Apollo. While the experience of those who designed and built Apollo remains in the form of flight articles at various NASA facilities, sadly many of those who created the Apollo spacecraft are gone, and with them their lessons learned. Persisting experience between generations has since the dawn of time been a perennial problem for civilizations.

So NASA had to learn as it designed and tested Orion, and do so without the bountiful budgets of the Apollo era. The operational and safety experience NASA gained from the Apollo through the Space Shuttle programs also informed the design of the Orion spacecraft. In particular, the heritage of Apollo is in plain view when looking at the Orion spacecraft; the outer mold-line of the Orion spacecraft is the same as; the parachute system of Orion, though bigger, is similar to, that of the Apollo command module. Yet, Orion is a more advanced crewed spacecraft able to carry crew of 4, not 3 as in Apollo, astronauts on a 21-day, not 14-day, mission.

Orion vs Apollo Moldline. Image: NASA

One of the chief challenges of the Orion program, according to Ms. Debbie Korth, NASA’s Orion Crew and Service Module Manager, has been getting the spacecraft to its designed weight, a perennial problem for any spacecraft. According to NASA’s Johnson Space Center, the weight of the Orion system through various events of the mission are,

Orion System Event lbs kg
LAS Lift-off 17,000 7,711
CM Lift-off 21,900 9,934
SM Lift-off 31,100 14,107
SM Fairings Lift-off 3,050 1,383
CSM SC Adapter Lift-off 1,125 510
CSM Lift-off 74,175 33,645
CSM TLI ~54,500 ~24,721
CSM Post-TLI ~53,000 ~24,040
SM Jettison 15,135 6,865
CM Landing ~19,500 ~9,253

Weight of the Orion spacecraft matters for a number of reasons ranging from launch through landing. For launching, Orion can rely on the SLS. Even at SLS’s lowest payload mass capability of 167,551 lb (76MT) for the Block 1A, the SLS has more than enough power to launch Orion and a crew of four to the Moon. So, every pound saved by keeping the Orion CSM within its targeted weight means additional payload mass that can be delivered to orbit. But in the event of an abort, the capabilities of the Orion parachutes must not be exceeded by the weight of a fully fueled and loaded Orion crew module.

NASA’s Orion Crew Module descends to the Pacific Ocean under its three main parachutes concluding EFT-1. Photo: U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Charles White

The Orion parachute system, more precisely its capsule parachute assembly system (CPAS), is similar to the Apollo Earth Landing System design1. CPAS is designed to weight 1,124 lbs (510 kg) and, like Apollo, is stored in the Orion Crew Module forward bay beneath a forward heat shield that is jettisoned during subsonic flight prior to parachute deployment. Like Apollo command module (CM), the Orion crew module (CM) employs three main parachutes to land astronauts safely on the ocean. The Orion main parachutes are like those of Apollo, but are the largest ever built for a spacecraft. And as in Apollo, Orion’s parachute system designed to enable just two main parachutes to safely land an Orion crew module either from low-altitude (pad abort) or high-altitude2. Although atmospheric reentry will initially slow the spacecraft from 20,000 mph (8,940 m/s) to 325 mph (145 m/s), the Orion main parachutes have the job of slowing down Orion to 20 mph (8.84 m/s) or less needed for a safe water landing. The design of the three Orion Kevlar/Nylon hybrid main parachutes resulted in each having a surface area 10,500 square feet, 116 feet diameter, and 310 lbs weight3.

The resulting size of the Orion parachutes motivated a revision of Orion’s exterior moldline because the diameter at the top of Orion would not have allowed for sufficient packaging room for the Orion parachute system. As a result, Orion’s nominal backshell angle was widened 2.5° to provide more packaging volume for the parachute system4.

Orion certainly benefited from the Apollo program’s parachute design and testing. During development of the Apollo command module parachute system in the early through mid-60’s, several Apollo CM boilerplate test articles were destroyed5. The lessons learned from that experience meant that, after ten years of testing, the Orion Capsule Parachute Assembly System (CPAS) experienced only one failure during the Crew Development Test 2, or CDT-2, that was conducted on August 20, 2008. And those on the parachute test program accurately point out that the one failure wasn’t on Orion’s Capsule Parachute Assembly System’s part, but of the CPAS Pallet Separation System (CPSS) that was to separate the Orion parachute test vehicle (PTV) from the CPAS pallet6. The subsequent tests, including the 24th, and final, test of the Orion CPAS conducted on September 12, 2018, were successful. Orion’s ultimate parachute test, EFT-1, occurred on December 4, 2014 when Orion re-entered the atmosphere at around 20,000 mph and landed safely.

Orion Interior. Photo: AmericaSpace.com

One area where the Orion and Apollo spacecraft diverge is in personal space. The Orion spacecraft, at 314 cu.ft (8.89 cu.m), has more habitable volume than did Apollo at 210 cu.ft (5.95 cu.m). For each of the four astronauts, Orion’s 78.5 cu.ft (2.22 cu.m) per astronaut makes it a roomier spacecraft than was Apollo at 70 cuft (1.98 cu.m). The layout of the Orion CM’s interior is a clean, open architecture that consists of four seats and an instrument panel. The seats are arranged in two rows, one row for the commander and pilot and another for the mission specialists. Seated facing Orion’s instrument panel are the commander and pilot. Below, or in Orion’s coordinate system in the positive z-axis, the commander and pilot are the seats for the two mission specialists. According to Korth, which seat the commander and pilot will occupy has yet to be set in stone.

Orion From Commander-Pilot Area. Photo: AmericaSpace.com

The design of the Orion occupant restraint system owes much to the Columbia disaster. The Columbia Accident Investigation found that the Shuttle occupant restraints, the seat and seatbelts, did a poor job of restraining the astronauts, although ultimately it wouldn’t have made a difference in averting the disaster. Both the Orion seats and seatbelts were designed to better maintain astronauts in their seats during dynamic events, say tumbling, while accommodating a large size range, from females at 4’10” to males up to 6’4”. A great deal of work was done in studying how difficult it was for astronauts to get into and out of their seats, or ingress and egress in NASA-speak7. After launch, each seat’s footrest can be quickly disconnected and stowed to make for easier movement about the spacecraft cabin.

Orion Instrument Panel. Photo: AmericaSpace.com

The Orion instrument panel is, according to Korth, fully software driven, unlike Apollo. It consists of three large screens, translation controllers on each end, and a plethora of buttons, but still far fewer than the 2,000 switches and controls on the Space Shuttle or hundreds on Apollo. The screens are both the primary display and input-output. Debbie Korth pointed-out that on each of the commander’s and pilot’s armrests is a device that looks like a game controller and is the instrument panel’s mouse. Touch screens were eschewed in favor of a menu driven system actuated by buttons around each screen. The buttons on the instrument panel are not directly connected to instrumentation as in Apollo but instead activate software routine for their functionality. According to a ComputerWorld article8, the Orion instrument is built by Honeywell Int’l around the panel used on Boeing’s 787 jet airliner. There are two main flight computers that use two radiation hardened IBM PowerPC 750FX single-core processors, a CPU introduced in 2002 and used in Apple computers such as the iBook G3 until 2005. While the two CPU’s in each flight computer might be similar to the processor in the iBook G3 laptop, the rest of the flight computer bears little resemblance; the flight computers have been ruggedized for space travel with a larger housing, a thicker circuit board, and hardware to minimize vibrations. The two 750FX’s in each flight computer don’t error check each other but instead perform tasks and then compare their results. If the processors don’t get the same results, the flight computer will stop giving commands and reset itself, a process that takes 20 seconds, which is estimated to happen one-in-3.7 missions. If both main flight computers go down, a one-in-8,500 chance, there is a third flight computer that knows the state of the vehicle and acts as a source of truth for the Orion spacecraft’s state data at the time the flight computers return online. The chance of losing all three computers at the same time is one in 1,870,000 missions.

Orion Coordinate System. Image and Model: Jim Hillhouse

According to Orion CSM head Korth, for personal entertainment, astronauts will have tablets, with several spares in case radiation breaks some.

Speaking of radiation, one of the challenges of exploring beyond the relatively benign radiation environment of low-Earth orbit that is deep space is radiation9. The first study of deep space radiation occurred during NASA’s rover Couriosity’s trip to Mars using its Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD)10. Like an astronaut, RAD, which is a part of Curiosity’s instrumentation, sat deep inside the spacecraft transporting Curiosity to Mars. The results of the trip, revealed in 201311, indicate that solar and cosmic background radiation, caused by solar energetic particles (SEPs) and galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), are much more intense that previously thought. A 21 day trip to, orbiting, and returning from the Moon would be equivalent to 1.75 times the annual radiation allowed. With that in mind, NASA started looking for ways to protect astronauts within the Orion spacecraft. One solution was to minimize the time astronauts would be exposed to radiation by optimizing Orion trajectory12, which was also done during the Apollo program. Another step to protect astronauts was a collaboration between Lockheed Martin Space and StemRad Israel to develop the Radiation Vest for Astronauts, or AstrRad13 that uses proprietary smart shielding to protect the most vulnerable organs.

Orion EM-1 Internal Environment Characterization: The Matroshka AstroRad Radiation Experiment. Image: NASA

To better understand how radiation in deep space affects humans on Orion, in May 2018, NASA approved the Matroshka AstroRad Radiation Experiment (MARE) that will use two female CIRS ATOM Dosimetry verification phantom test articles14, Helga, weighing 79.1 lbs (35.88 kg), and Zohar, weighing 79.3 lbs (35.99 kg) to test the radiation environment within Orion on its unscrewed Artemis 1 flight. Zohar will on that flight wear an AstroRad Vest while Helga will not15. In 2016, human in the loop testing was conducted in the NASA JSC Orion medium-fidelity mockup to demonstrate how crew members might seek shelter during a radiation storm.

Section of Orion ECLSS Amine Swingbed. Photo: NASA

For Orion’s Environmental Control and Life-Support System (ECLSS) is based on a amine swingbed system. The amine swingbed was originally developed by the U.S. Navy for its nuclear submarines. Orion will have three amine swingbed systems, two primary and one secondary. Each amine swingbed system will use an amine-based chemical combined with the vacuum of space to filter and renew cabin air for breathing. Removing carbon dioxide and moisture from consumed air using this system reduces the demand to supply new air. Orion’s full ECLSS will be tested on the first flight with crew, Artemis 2. A fuller discussion on Orion’s ECLSS can be heard on the February 15, 2019 episode, “Living Space”, of the Houston We Have a Podcast.

One item that some might not know about but is critical for any long-duration crewed mission is that the Orion spacecraft will have a toilet. Officially known as the Universal Waste Management System (UWMS), it is a new compact commode for use on ISS and Orion16.

Future exploration vehicles being developed by NASA have smaller habitable volumes than the ISS, and as habitable volumes decrease, so must the toilet hardware. UWMS was designed to be more compact through the use of a dual-fan-rotary-separator and concentric odor-bacteria filter. The UWMS is currently scheduled to be installed on the ISS in the fall of 2019 and fly on the Orion EM-2 flight. Long gone are the days of the Apollo Waste Management system’s fecal bag17, think of a zip-lock with adhesive, although those will be aboard in case the toilet breaks down. For removing liquid waste, chemical tablets are mixed with the liquid waste to prevent precipitates from forming before it vents the urine overboard. The solid waste is not disposed of but is torrified18, that is it is heated-up to around 300°F to sterilize and remove any water, and then is compacted and stored. Biomass trash on Orion goes through a similar treatment in the Heat Melt Compactor (HMC), a device for reducing trash volume and stabilizing trash for long-term storage.

Video: NASA

Like Apollo, Orion’s Launch Abort System (LAS) is a puller-style system using a solid-fueled tractor rocket that produces 8.8 million pounds of thrust19. It is designed to activate within milliseconds and offers the highest thrust and acceleration escape system ever tested. The Orion LASA is powerful enough to pull the Orion crew module beyond the debris field of the SLS rocket during an abort. And like Apollo, Orion successfully completed its Pad Abort Test (PA-1) on May 6, 2010 and its Ascent Abort (AA-2) test on July 2, 2019, both with flying colors.

Beyond weight, radiation, and waste management, there were other challenges that the Orion program faced, such as integrating the designs and requirements of the Orion crew and service vehicle, and the people building them. That meant getting NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) to speak the same human spaceflight program language. ESA has never designed and built a crewed spacecraft while NASA has developed six (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Shuttle, and Orion). That means the perspective each agency comes from is different causing each to think differently about a great many things, from redundancy to testing, and so on. Over the years of working together, NASA and the ESA have learned how to bridge those differences in order to work together to design a safe and capable Orion service module, according to Korth.

Orion CSM. Image and Model: Jim Hillhouse

The Orion service module, built by the European Space Agency, incorporates several different types of engines. Unlike the Apollo service module, the Orion service module has two means of propulsion to generate the velocity. There is the service module’s Orion main engine (OME), an AJ10-190 built by Aerojet-Rocketdyne. This engine is based on the Space Shuttle’s Orbital Maneuvering System’s (OMS) AJ10-190. And Orion’s service module also has 8 auxiliary Aerojet-Rocketdyne R-4D-11 engines that can generate sufficient velocity for such events as a trans-earth injection (TEI) burn. Additionally, Orion has 24 reaction control engines that allow Orion to change its orientation.

Test of Orion ESM Propulsion Systems. Photo: NASA.

On August 5, 2019, NASA conducted a test to simulate an abort-to-orbit scenario, in which the Orion CSM separates from SLS second stage, either the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) or the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS). The Orion service module’s propulsion system was successfully tested on August 5, 2019 at White Sands Test Facility. The test used a qualification version of the Orion service module’s propulsion system.

According to Korth, the Artemis 1 Orion has had all of the thermal protection material applied to the spacecraft’s back heatshield. Orion is being prepared for its trip, expected on November 14, to Plumbrook on NASA’s Guppy. Orion was expected to arrive in Plumbrook at the end of September, but the weight of the Orion spacecraft is such that the Guppy needed some modifications to address performance risks that could crop-up in certain phases of flight. Those modifications of the Guppy are nearing completion.

Footnotes:


  1. Human Rating the Orion Parachute System ↩︎
  2. Development and Testing of the Orion CEV Parachute Assembly System (CPAS) ↩︎
  3. Orion Parachute System ↩︎
  4. Orion Crew Module Aerodynamic Testing, p. 3 ↩︎
  5. Apollo CSM, Astronautix ↩︎
  6. Orion Capsule Parachute Assembly System (CPAS) Airdrop Test Program Techniques, Challenges, and Solutions, p. 20 ↩︎
  7. Evaluating Suited Ingress and Egress of a Space Vehicle (Orion) Seat, AIAA-2012-3551 ↩︎
  8. The Orion spacecraft is no smarter than your phone ↩︎
  9. Orion EM-1 Internal Environment Characterization: The Matroshka AstroRad Radiation Experiment ↩︎
  10. Mars Curiosity RAD ↩︎
  11. Mars’ Surface Radiation Environment Measured with the Mars Science Laboratory’s Curiosity Rover ↩︎
  12. Orion GN&C Mitigation Efforts for Van Allen Radiation ↩︎
  13. Orion EM-1 Internal Environment Characterization: The Matroshka AstroRad Radiation Experiment, page 7 ↩︎
  14. CIRS ATOM® Dosimetry Verification Phantoms ↩︎
  15. Orion EM-1 Internal Environment Characterization: The Matroshka AstroRad Radiation Experiment, page 11 ↩︎
  16. Improving and Waste Management for Deep Space Human Exploration ↩︎
  17. SP-368 Biomedical Results of Apollo, Ch. 2, Waste Management System ↩︎
  18. Torrefaction Processing for Human Solid Waste Management ↩︎
  19. Orion Launch Abort System Designed to Pull its Weight for Moon Missions ↩︎

Source