“Introduction to UPC-Orion” June 4, 2008

Discussion of: UPC-Orion History UPC-Orion Vision UPC Accommodation Information Depart the meeting with a clear understanding of the UPC-ORION Concept.

History of “Exploration Carriers” NASA Administrator directed accommodation of ISS-bound UnPressurized Cargo (UPC) to meet resupply needs after STS retirement (aka, ORUs) Constellation Program Level-2 requirements presented at Program SRR and recommended that Orion provide a… Smart Service Module capability Robust UPC capability supporting Orbital Replacement Units “Smart” Payload Class Requirements sanctioned and initially assigned to Orion/Level-3 ESMD assigned implementation role to GSFC on 10/30/07, leveraging the center’s 20+ year “Hitchhiker” legacy Utilizes the as-built Orion functional performance envelope for ISS-bound On-orbit Replacement Units (ORUs) and expands this to include a “smart” payload capability via a plug-n-play interface Enables an expanded set of applications (e.g., technology development, LEO small sats) and users (e.g., all NASA MDs, OGAs, industry, academia, internationals) Offers an risk reduction opportunity for CxP during Test Flights Examples of payloads include: Passive cargo ISS-bound On-orbit Replacement Units (ORUs) “Smart” cargo Test Equipment and Instrumentation (e.g. sensors, cameras) Further characterize the flight environment Small Attached Payloads Conduct investigations and/or prove technology Deployable Payloads Ride CEV for insertion into LEO or other compatible trajectories ISS-bound Missions: Mass (est.): m > 590 kg Power (est.): P > 100 W avg., P > 1.3kW-peak TLM (est.): r > 1 Mbps Lunar-bound Missions: Mass (est.): m > 80 kg Power (est.): P > 200 W avg., P > TBD W-peak TLM (est.): r > 2 Mbps

Vision for “Exploration Carriers” Exploration Carriers will be…an Orion- or Altair-attached carrier offering standardized H/W, command, and telemetry interfaces and providing rapid access to space for unpressurized cargo to ISS, the moon, and beyond… OPS Concept: a “one stop shop” where users come to obtain access to space via the Constellation architecture using a plug-n-play interface and established programmatic interfaces Leverages the efficiencies validated during the Attached Payloads era Reduces Technical and Programmatic risk Exploration Carriers manage the Orion-Carrier Interface…not the users Safety, Integration, Mission Operations interfaces established and validated The Exploration Carriers concept provide to the Agency what the “SIM Bay” provided to Apollo, and Hitchhiker provided to the Space Shuttle Rapid access to space for secondary payloads Concept “scaleable” to all Exploration Mission Phases (i.e., ISS, Moon, Mars) Offers a unique opportunity for long-term collaboration At the Feb SMC, CEV was given priority use of Chamber A over JWST JWST still plans on using Chamber A Out of the Feb SMC, actions were given to the 2 MDs and PA&E JWST provide back-up test plans, CEV, its desired test plans and jointly, the feasibility of JWST and CEV sharing JSC Chamber A - The PA&E team’s responsibility was to independently assess the: • Information provided by both MDs • Feasibility of the proposed solutions and recommendations • Make any independent recommendations At the end of March, PA&E received their responses indicating “tough, but do-able” and there is newly provided info making sharing more feasible The strategic question for the SMC today is: “Does NASA want to put CEV and JWST on a serial schedule?” If “yes”, both programs must additional schedule and cost reserves to mitigate risks. Currently, neither program is doing so. • CEV should include reserves to include plans for a back-up chamber, funded when necessary • JWST should add sufficient reserves to mitigate JWST risk of CEV priority resulting in costs, schedule, and technical impact to JWST If “no”, then either • JWST moves its testing to a new location, with higher costs and schedule impacts than CEV OR • CEV makes plans to test elsewhere, possible since CEV has more options at lower cost and has more flexibility available than JWST ***PA&E addressed the harder answer to this question to better understand the conflict***

Orion Service Module Design Trades Studies to evaluate positioning of UPC for ISS missions complete GSFC is beginning efforts to bring definition up to PDR-level maturity Require SMD-focused studies for bounding user cases

GSFC Orion- UPC Free Flyer Concept

Lunar Free-Flyer Concept (GSFC - Mission Design Lab) Stowed Iso view

Key Capabilities for “Free-Flyer” (lunar concept) Orion Service Module ( SM) Un-pressurized Cargo (UPC) Parameter Capability Comments Orbit LEO/52° transitional to Lunar SM release into ISS orbit; free-flyer transition to lunar orbit Duration 2yrs on station Notional 1yr cruise to moon Volume 2.92 m3 (103 ft3) - inside SM Includes P/L, S/C bus, carrier/ ejection h/w Mass Aprox. 600 kg total launch mass Includes ~25 kg P/L, S/C bus, carrier/ejection h/w Power 0.2-1.0 kW (P/L) Significant power potentially available once at destination Data Rate 1 Mbps S-Band downlink/shaped Omni - 18m dish Thermal P/L as required Heatpipes / radiator will be notionally base lined FOV

Constellation’s Orion Service Module Science Payload Unpressurized Carrier Potential Capabilities ACCOMMODATIONS Fixed Payloads on Orion’s Service Module (SM) Test Equipment and Instrumentation (e.g. sensors/detectors, cameras) Further characterize the in-situ/flight environment Short flight duration Payload destroyed upon SM reentry to Earth’s atmosphere Externally Attached Payloads on International Space Station Conduct science investigations and/or demonstrate technology External facility sites include JAXA’s JEM-EF, ESA’s Columbus, U.S. Express Logistics Carrier Long flight duration Potential payload return to Earth Deployable Payloads Aboard Orion/SM for insertion into LEO, translunar, cis-lunar or other compatible trajectories Possible long duration orbits with payload propulsion package Contacts: Bruce Milam 301-286-0429 Bruce.Milam@nasa.gov; Ruthan Lewis 301-286-0818 ruthan.lewis@nasa.gov 4/08