Yes and this the prototypical scenario for a cost-plus investment.

I didn’t get anything “mixed-up”. NASA puts the PDR for MPCV in 2009:

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/mpcv/foundation.html

There is no other Orion or MPCV PDR, for “Block II” or anything else.

“As for the timing of Orion MPCV CDR in 2015, I think that is driven more by NASA HQ than the Orion MPCV project office at JSC. One hint is scheduling ETF-1, currently set for 2014, before CDR. It is clear to any objective observer that those at NASA HQ who tried to kill Orion do not want to see Orion MPCV ready to fly years before any of the CCDev participants, even though that looks likely, so they have deliberately slow-rolled Orion MPCV”

This is a contradictory statement. NASA HQ pushed EFT-1 specifically to give MPCV an opportunity to fly and demonstrate progress while the project waited for SLS to catch up. NASA HQ is not slow-rolling anything — they’re trying to give the project a chance to show its stuff at the same time that COTS and CCDev partners are flying. Without EFT-1 and Delta IV, MPCV won’t fly until at least 2017 and probably later as existing and coming budget shortfalls drive further schedule slips on SLS.

As for how EFT-1 is scheduled relative to CDR, EFT-1 is a demo flight — it should be scheduled before the final review (CDR) sets the production design in stone.

Regardless, my criticism isn’t about the schedule. It’s about the poor state of MPCV’s mass margins at this stage of design. Instead of the robust, positive mass margins that should exist between PDR and CDR to accommodate the inevitable mass growth that comes with developing any final, production design, MPCV has large, negative mass margins. Not only can’t MPCV accommodate the coming mass growth, it’s not even a viable design if we want our astronauts safely returning to Earth in one piece vice crash landing under overstrained parachutes.

“Orion weight reduction will be along the some of the same lines as of upgrades used to make the Saturn V capable of supporting the later J missions, e.g. eduction or removal of TO mitigation hardware if flight data supports it. The AvWeek article references these and other possible changes based on EFT-1 and other test data.”

The AvWeek article makes no reference to “eduction or removal of TO mitigation hardware”. Deputy AA Dumbacher even states in the article that he doesn’t know whether they’ll need to remove or add mass to the heat shield or structure coming out of EFT-1.

I considered that, but so did the agency….if you go look at the weight change from “takeoff” to landing…the bulk of the consumables etc are clearly in the service module…and I would be surprised if the issues on mass/weight (sorry to mix here I know the difference) are probably not the issues that you bring up. RGO

The problem is a little more tricky that. Apollo had certain requirements: support a crew of 3 for 14 days using a 3psi atmosphere.

They shoe horned CXP requirements: Support a crew of 4 for 21 days, 14psi atmosphere, support it unmanned 6 months into that shape. Without considering how it would affect the whole system.
In the case of Apollo the 3psi atmosphere allowed a lighter structure. Apollo used fuel cells saving the mass of separate oxygen tanks for the crew, water tanks, solar panels, and batteries. There was enough space in the capsule to store everything including LIOH cartages for C02 scrubbing.

Orion has none of those elegant solutions. The 6 month duration ruled out fuel cells for power, there was not enough space to store enough LIOH cartages requiring development of regenerative C02 scrubbers (and esp. one small enough to fit in the capsule).