Because unless NASA burdens the commerical providers with crew return requirements, NASA would still have to buy Soyuzes to meet its crew escape commitments to the ISS partnership after commercial crew is up and running. NASA has to develop domestic sources of both crew transport and crew rescue to rid itself of Soyuz purchases. They apparently ran the programmatics and numbers and found a commercial crew/Orion-lite combo to be less risky and/or less costly than commercial crew only.

“I wonder what cargo capability this would have (up and down), and what the implications of that will be, assuming it will be replaced/refurbished on the ground periodically.”

If two Orion-lites are sent up annually on six-month rotations (the old CRV assumption), it’s not going to contribute a lot to cargo, but every bit helps.

“As someone said at Transterrestrial Musings, I’m worried about ‘the nose of the camel’.”

Could happen if there’s a change in leadership. But under the current leadership, I’d argue this accelerates commercial crew by reducing requirements and making it easier to achieve.

“I’m also concerned with the development and operations costs. It’s hard to judge if it’s worth it without knowing the costs.”

No doubt, but the ISS partnership commitment/requirement is what it is. It’s going to cost something, and Orion-lite is probably the least costly from among a number of domestic options.

FWIW…

A flagship-class in-space cryo management mission will take several years to field and test in space. Per the budget materials, NASA is aiming for its first flagship-class technology demonstration mission launch no later than 2014. A follow-on HLV decision in 2015 after at least a year of in-space cryo management experience would be well-timed.

Duh…

Sorry for taking so long to reply … busy …

I could see how that could be attractive to commercial crew vendors. So … they don’t need to support long stays at the ISS or other crew return requirements, and they can get quick turnaround and reuse time if their spacecraft are reusable. Even if NASA doesn’t go for reuse (as in SpaceX cargo), the systems could be reused for other crew missions or things equivalent to DragonLab.

Augustine was looking for $5B for commercial crew, and the 2011 budget proposal has $5.8. It also has $312M that might be useful for commercial crew, depending on what happens. We have $1.9B at KSC and generally the Florida launch range that might be of use for commercial crew, again depending on what happens. Now we have the potential for easier ISS stay requirements, generally reduced emergency return requirements, and faster turnaround time. It seems like commercial crew is getting more and more solid.

Major Tom: “long-duration in-space stays and automated flight requirements are also usually associated with human deep space missions. Orion-lite in the CRV role simplifies commercial crew and advances deep space exploration capabilities in one step.”

Jim Muncy has a take on this where the Orion Lite CRV could be upgraded to be the CRV for an otherwise space-only beyond-LEO spacecraft:

nasawatch.com/archives/2010/04/well-there-seem.html#comment-32024

Major Tom: “Atlas/Delta” (will launch Orion Lite CRV)

Oops, I actually did read that (and several other documents on the subject) but obviously it didn’t sink in.

Major Tom: “The U.S. is on the hook with the ISS partnership to provide the station’s crew escape function, which currently can only be met via Soyuz purchases.”

I’m still not connecting the dots on how this reduces our dependence on foreign providers. If we had it now in the Shuttle era, I could see that. However, if we’re in the “gap” time, we still need Soyuz to reach the stations, and those vehicles should provide 1-for-1 crew return. If we’re in the U.S. commercial crew era, I would think it just shifts CRV responsibility from 1 U.S. system (commercial crew) to another (Orion Lite CRV) for the crew launched on U.S. commercial crew.

I wonder what cargo capability this would have (up and down), and what the implications of that will be, assuming it will be replaced/refurbished on the ground periodically.

As someone said at Transterrestrial Musings, I’m worried about “the nose of the camel”. I’m also concerned with the development and operations costs. It’s hard to judge if it’s worth it without knowing the costs.

In-space cryo management.

Duh…”

To which my response is:
No that difficult it will take 5 years to develop.

Duh…..

Earl I couldn’t agree more. I like the idea that Orion was kept in any form as it was and is the one piece of Cx that really had no fundamental issues that weren’t derivative of issues with Ares I. I’m not a fan of it’s limited scope as a CRV. As a result I got pretty excited with her wording on beyond-LEO capability for the Orion. I was equally let down and pretty confused when she said there were no beyond-LEO plans. I guess on a technicality it could be re-tooled for B-LEO later, but I think Dragon stands about as solid a chance of serving in that capacity as a purpose-built CRV.

I like, to use Mark’s term, Obamaspace and I think it stands a good chance of being more of an actual program than empty rhetoric and dates, but the messaging on this has been absolutely horrible. Bolden and Garver may be adept bureaucrats and politicians, but they are some of the worst PR people I’ve ever seen. Some of that has to do with limited lead time from the administration on FY2011, but time has passed and they still seem incapable of coordinating a message even within the same speech.

The U.S. has crew rescue commitments to the ISS partnership regardless of Shuttle or commercial crew schedules.

“These ‘compromises’ just reinforce my belief that this whole thing is just their way to kill NASA human space flight.”

It’s hard to see a decision to pursue an Orion-lite CRV and to set a date for an HLV decision as “compromises”. Orion-lite (CRV or otherwise) was not an element of Constellation; the Augustine Committee’s final report warned about the costs of the full-scale Orion; and both Orion-lite and a 2015 HLV decision strengthen the use of EELVs and commercial crew over Shuttle-derived vehicles or Shuttle extension. We’re still going to hear complaints from Ares, SDLV, Shuttle extension, and probably even full-up Orion advocates, on top of the whining about the lack of a singular, Apollo-like exploration target and date. None of these factions are going to say that there’s been a compromise — they didn’t get anything they wanted.

“Opposition to the president’s plan is mounting and becoming better organized.”

Evidence? They couldn’t even get Shelby’s Constellation langauge from last year’s omnibus appropriations bill inserted into an FAA bill.

“How will this allow us to keep the ability to go beyond low Earth orbit with humans, (particularly since we have no such capabilities at this time), while having no plans to continue development for beyond LEO?!”

Regardless of outer mold line, or even whether an Earth reentry vehicle accompanies future human space exploration missions, a CRV has key capabilities in common with crewed deep space systems, especially automation, long-duration stays in space, and highly reliable restart. The subsystems will likely be reapplied. A CRV is a bigger step to a deep space crew vehicle than a LEO Orion.

“As Tom would say:
Goofy….”

I wouldn’t say it in this case.

“We also get a promise to make a decision on the TYPE of HLV in 2015!
How indecisive can you be? What type of ‘game changing technologies’ are you expecting that would justify such a delay?”

In-space cryo management.

Duh…