On Sat, 30 Jul 2011 14:47:50 -0800, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Note again, that Pat's description is not the same as ESA's proposal.
ESA only wants to marry Orion/MPCV with the ATV's service module. The
pressurized MPLM-like module is not included. There is no way to get
from the MPCV to the pressurized module even if it were, without
cutting a hatch through the heat shield like Gemini 1,

Or docking to it nose-first, and have accelerations be eyeballs-out.
Note that the painting shows the MPCV in orbit with an attached service
module as it approaches the ATV, so I assume that's the idea.

Wait. What... huh? The painting on SpaceflightNow in your original
message is a NASA rendition of Orion at Mars, nothing about it is ESA.
It even predates the cancellation of Constellation and the advent of
MPCV. Note the solar panels are Lockheed's pizza pan type, not the
X-wing type of ATV. It appears to be Orion transferring between two
Mars transit ships (I know not why.)

ESA's proposal is to replace the Orion Service Module (with its
engines and pizza pan solar panels) with the Service Module from ATV
(with its engines and four "x-wing" solar panels.) Since it is
existing, they say this will save time. But I suspect the long pole in
the MPCV tent is the Command Module, not the Service Module, so I
don't think it would really make much difference. And integrating
ESA's ATV SM into Orion/MPCV would probably cost about as much as
paying Lockheed to finish its own SM.

Considering that the ATV wouldn't have that great of acceleration
forces, that's a completely workable scenario, and in fact was how the
Orion was to get boosted out of Earth orbit to the Moon in the original
Constellation concept.

But ESA's idea is for the Orion/ATV-SM to be married before launch and
stacked on the rocket (whatever that will be.) I don't think launch
escape or launch acceleration are workable for an upside-down Orion or
for an Orion with a big SM/Pressurized Module upside-down on its nose.

In fact, the ides goes way back - there was a canceled plan for a lunar
loop flight like the Soviet Zond spacecraft did using a Gemini docked to
a Centaur stage in orbit:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/gemntaur.htm
And what the Gemini-Agena flights were laying the groundwork for.
If they have any hope of getting MPCV to an asteroid, much less Mars,
they are going to have to carry far more food and water for the crew
than a single MPCV can carry, which is why the asteroid mission showed
two Orions docked nose-to-nose to give more interior volume for crew and
supplies:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0908/17orion/
That concept may give you enough supplies for a NEO asteroid mission,
but forget it for a flight to Mars and back, even if you put the ISS
water reclaiming toilet aboard...and pray it doesn't break down on the
way there or back.

Yes, but none of this resembles ESA's proposal.

I think it is a good idea for a modified MPLM, ATV, HTV, or Cygnus to
be the "habitat module" for early deep space missions, though.