Talk:European Service Module

Why move to ESA?
Nothing in article at moment explains change to use the European design. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * International hand-holding. The ATV-based service module is markedly inferior to the mainline design Let's all sing cum-bay-yah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.88.70 (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Found it. It's a funding thing. EDA builds module, it pays for European access to ISS without actually having to make actual payments. https://spaceflightnow.com/2014/12/03/esa-member-states-commit-funding-for-orion-service-module/

Need more on the two adapters
Could give some detail on the Crew Module Adapter which houses/hosts the umbilical connection. - Rod57 (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Both docking collars (ESM to MPCV and ESM-SLS) are being built by Lockheed Martin, they are just simple structural collars with pass through connections. Heres a couple of images of what they look like with and without side panels fitted. https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/orion-crew-module-adapter-prepared-for-transport https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/m15-159a.jpg WatcherZero (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No the Crew Module Adapter is far more complex than a simple structural collar, there are avionics and power equipment there see here. Hektor (talk) 12:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Service Module and European Service Module are not the same
The Orion Service Module includes the CMA. The European Service Module is the European part only. Hektor (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The Crew Module Adapter is technically a 3rd module, It is neither the Crew Module nor Service Module, though rarely is much coverage given to adaptors. WatcherZero (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry this is not true. The Service Module includes the CMA. Hektor (talk) 11:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Orion/Orion_s_first_Service_Module_integration_complete

"Last week at the Airbus integration hall in Bremen, Germany, technicians installed the last radiator on the European Service Module for NASA’s Orion spacecraft marking the module’s finished integration. … Once complete the service module will be packed and flown to NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, USA. Orion’s solar wings will be shipped separately, also from Bremen. In the USA the module will be stacked together with NASA’s Crew Module Adaptor and Crew Module, the first time the complete spacecraft will be on display." WatcherZero (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You can twist and turn your sentences the way you want the Service Module is still the assembly of the European Service Module and the CMA.
 * http://blogs.esa.int/orion/2019/01/14/european-service-module-welds-complete/
 * "Before the New Year at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida, USA, the final welds were finished that connect the European Service Module to the Crew Module Adapter. The two units are now one and form the Service Module."
 * Hektor (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * They are even listed as separate modules in the diagram: http://blogs.esa.int/orion/files/2018/11/Orion-ExploreFarther-the-spacecraft.jpg and the article http://blogs.esa.int/orion/2018/11/17/connecting-the-crew-module-adapter/ --WatcherZero (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

There are 6 components of the Service Module (according to the diagram) : Crew Module Adapter (including umbilical), European Service Module, 3 curved panels, Spacecraft adapter. Lockheed-Martin are building 5 of them. Since Orion Service Module just redirects here we could describe and detail (eg masses) all 6 in this article ? but planning eventually to populate Orion Service Module ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

American vs. British English
(Removed RfC) Should this article use American or British English? – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 11:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is this an RfC? There seems to have been zero discussion (or even disagreement) about this already (That I see) –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 13:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd like to formalize the variety and rewrite the article to use it. I'm hoping to "get ahead" of any debate. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 21:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Possibly American English because the proposal and manufacturing of the ESM is done by the United States. The ESM is financially helped by the ESA. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh? Airbus Defence and Space is the primary contractor. Thales Alenia Space has a large contract. It is largely based on the design of the European ATV. ESA pays for it, that's not just "financially helped" and I don't see any manufacturing that would be done in the US (I'm sure some smaller components will come from there, just like there will be components from Asia and other regions, but that's not the point). It is made for a US-lead project, Orion. --mfb (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not (yet) an RfC matter. There are far too many cases where people jump straight to a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC when there should be no need for that. In this case, there is no indication that WP:RFCBEFORE was observed. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I'm still fairly green to Wikipedia, and misunderstood the point of an RfC. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 01:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A RfC seems premature, but for what it's worth... I'd say American English. It's stretching, but NASA is (in effect) the customer. Airbus and Thales are the contractors, and they aren't doing the work in the United Kingdom. While it's quite possible their english-language documents use British spelling, I'd say the majority of the involvement by native English speakers is American. Fcrary (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think counting the number of native English speakers makes sense. I assume the vast majority of the people working on the ESM are not native English speakers, but Europeans who speak British, rather than American English. Tercer (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Europeans tend to learn British English in school but then they tend to see more American English, leading to some mixture of both. mfb (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Had a look at history and see what it was first written in. First major version was in American English (going by spelling "fiberglass". There's no massive tie to any particular English-speaking country that outweighs any other so by my reading of the guidelines, it should stick as AE unless that changes. I would though rephrase with metric units first as it's a European project. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Current status: Pro AE: Soumyabrata, mfb, Fcrary, GraemeLeggett; pro BE: - ; couldn't find a clear statement in favor of one: Jadebenn, Deacon Vorbis, Tercer, Redrose64 (only an administrative comment). --mfb (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like a clear consensus in favor of American English then. I'll add the relevant notice to the talk page. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 10:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually, my comment was intended as a clear statement in favour of BE. I'm sorry if it was unclear. I don't think it matters, though, so I would just keep the article as it is (AE). What I think does matter is to use metric units first. Currently the article is a messy mixture of metric and imperial. If nobody objects I'll do it myself. Tercer (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to switching to metric here. – Jadebenn (talk &middot;&#32;contribs &middot;&#32;subpages) 22:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Since nobody objected, I made the switch. I was actually unsure on whether to give a unit conversion, as the MoS says that it shouldn't be there in science-related articles. So I just gave a conversation where there was one, and left pure metric where it was pure metric. Tercer (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Isn't part of the specification for the ESM the delta-V it can give the Orion capsule
says 1.8 km/s (but was that before the ESM) ? says 1346 m/s (with another 241 m/s from the capsule after separation). Too much like OR - what do NASA say ? - Rod57 (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Most of the maths looks right but theyve made the mistake of using the specific impulse of the engine at ground level rather than in vacuum. WatcherZero (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Typo
>Artemis 1, first major milestone in Nasa's Artemis program to set food again on the moon and explore moon-to-mars missions planned to launch August 29th 2022, will carry the ESM in two low fly-by orbits around the moon.

Should be "To set food" 212.4.92.81 (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Error in selected engine for ESM-6
"1 New Aerojet Orion Main Engine (OME) from ESM-6"

The new Aerojet OME will be first installed on Artemis 7: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-orion-main-engine-contract-for-future-artemis-missions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.19.95 (talk) 11:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Where are the surge tanks
Article says the "surge tanks" in the initial design were for reentry and landing, so presumably they were in the capsule rather than the original-SM. This article should clarify ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)