Author Topic: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread  (Read 204352 times)

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 748
  • Motown
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #40 on: 07/09/2010 02:19 PM »
Does this mean the SM/US can be readapted to be a tug?
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline charlieb

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 617
  • King of Prussia, PA, USA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #41 on: 07/09/2010 02:30 PM »
Does this mean the SM/US can be readapted to be a tug?

no doubt in my mind... It could be a tug as is for small payloads, or enlarged to a degree for larger payloads..
Former Shuttle Mission Ops Eng  (In them days DF24 - INCO GROUP/COMMS, Now DS231-AVIONICS BRANCH).

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12569
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3369
  • Likes Given: 560
Re: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #42 on: 07/09/2010 06:49 PM »
Only the shell is Italian, the service module is the spacecraft and US.  Especially, since it can be used with an unpressurized logistics carrier.

Orbital calls it a "Pressurized Cargo Module" (PCM), which sounds like a lot more than just a "shell".  Orbital says that the entire PCM is being manufactured by Thales Alenia Space of Italy.

Orbital is assembling the Service Module (SM), which accounts for only 37% of the total Cygnus dry mass.  Even then, important parts of the Service Module will not originate in the U.S.  The SM, for example, will be Japanese-powered, by IHI thrusters.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 07/09/2010 06:50 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline Freddie

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #43 on: 07/09/2010 07:24 PM »
Does this mean the SM/US can be readapted to be a tug?

Yes, please go to http://servicingstudy.gsfc.nasa.gov/presentations_final/day3/Warren_Frick/Cygnus_Satellite_Servicing_R4.pdf.

This presentation by Orbital Sciences was made during an international workshop on 24-26 March 2010 at NASA Goddard as part of the latter's current Servicing Study (http://servicingstudy.gsfc.nasa.gov/).

All presentations made at the workshop can be accessed through http://servicingstudy.gsfc.nasa.gov/workshop_1_presentations.htm.

Coincidentally, SpaceX also presented at the workshop and gave a presentation of how its Dragon spacecraft, as one example, could be used to service the Hubble Telescope.  Please see http://servicingstudy.gsfc.nasa.gov/presentations_final/day2/Max_Vozoff/20100325_Robotic_Servicing_Workshop.pdf.  (Many thanks to Sandrot for the updated weblink.)

« Last Edit: 07/10/2010 03:51 PM by Freddie »

Online Space Pete

Re: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #44 on: 07/09/2010 08:08 PM »
Here's a great article about Cygnus being assembled by Thales Alenia Space (TAS) in Torino, Italy.

BBC News'/Jonathan Amos' "Spaceman" Blog: "The private spaceships taking shape in Torino".
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/jonathanamos/2010/07/cygnus.shtml

The article refers to a "37-inch hatch, specially developed by TAS". I thought Cygnus is going to use the CBM hatch (which is 50-inches in diameter)?

In the audio clip right near the end of the article Walter Cugno (programme manager on Cygnus at TAS) describes this a bit.  Short synopsis:  no ISPRs, so no need for 50 in. hatch.

It's apparently still compatible with CBM, though.  The vacuum seal must be out at the circular perimeter rather than the square hatch?

Hmm, that is interesting.

Cygnus will have to use the standard CBM berthing collar (which contains the vacuum seals). But the smaller diameter hatch will make it impossible to install the VBA (Vestibule Barrier Assembly), which means that the vestibule for Cygnus will be left exposed during berthed ops.

I don't know why Cygnus isn't using the CBM hatch - surely it would have been cheaper & quicker to use a proven system than design, build & test a new one?
« Last Edit: 07/09/2010 08:09 PM by Space Pete »
Electronic Engineer by day, NASASpaceflight's ISS Editor by night | Read my NASASpaceflight articles here

Offline sandrot

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 748
  • Motown
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #45 on: 07/09/2010 08:16 PM »
Does this mean the SM/US can be readapted to be a tug?

Yes, please go to http://servicingstudy.gsfc.nasa.gov/presentations_final/day3/Warren_Frick/Cygnus_Satellite_Servicing_R4.pdf.

This presentation by Orbital Sciences was made during an international workshop on 24-26 March 2010 at NASA Goddard as part of the latter's current Servicing Study (http://servicingstudy.gsfc.nasa.gov/).

All presentations made at the workshop can be accessed through http://servicingstudy.gsfc.nasa.gov/workshop_1_presentations.htm.

Coincidentally, SpaceX also presented at the workshop and gave a presentation of how its Dragon spacecraft, as one example, could be used to service the Hubble Telescope.  Please see http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=post;quote=616394;topic=21179.0;num_replies=42;sesc=bcb95b60f305387c44351521c7627548.



The forum link doesn't work for me, but the SpaceX presentation should be this:

http://servicingstudy.gsfc.nasa.gov/presentations_final/day2/Max_Vozoff/20100325_Robotic_Servicing_Workshop.pdf
"Paper planes do fly much better than paper spacecrafts."

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31146
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9396
  • Likes Given: 297
Re: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #46 on: 07/10/2010 11:42 AM »

I don't know why Cygnus isn't using the CBM hatch - surely it would have been cheaper & quicker to use a proven system than design, build & test a new one?

It uses up too much space.

Online Space Pete

Re: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #47 on: 07/10/2010 01:38 PM »

I don't know why Cygnus isn't using the CBM hatch - surely it would have been cheaper & quicker to use a proven system than design, build & test a new one?

It uses up too much space.

How do you mean exactly? Do you mean that the CBM hatch would occupy too much space inside the PCM when opened? Or do you mean that using a CBM hatch would preclude cargo from being stowed immediately behind it, thus reducing upmass?

On an unrelated note, below is an excerpt from a document presented to the Augustine Commission last June, showing the cargo accommodation of the PCM. As you can see, pretty much all the available volume will be filled with CTBs.
« Last Edit: 07/10/2010 01:44 PM by Space Pete »
Electronic Engineer by day, NASASpaceflight's ISS Editor by night | Read my NASASpaceflight articles here

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #48 on: 07/10/2010 03:57 PM »

I don't know why Cygnus isn't using the CBM hatch - surely it would have been cheaper & quicker to use a proven system than design, build & test a new one?

It uses up too much space.

Doesn't Dragon use a full CBM hatch?

Offline Freddie

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #49 on: 07/26/2010 09:47 PM »
Orbital Sciences has released a further update about Cygnus and COTS/CRS Development & Flight Milestones that can be viewed at http://www.orbital.com/CargoResupplyServices/.

Offline Freddie

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #50 on: 08/13/2010 07:30 PM »
Orbital Sciences has released an August 2010 update entitled "Cygnus Pressurized Cargo Module Completes Proof-Pressure Testing" that can be viewed at http://www.orbital.com/CargoResupplyServices/.

Online Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22267
  • Liked: 528
  • Likes Given: 233
Re: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #51 on: 09/06/2010 04:40 AM »
While everyone in the space community is focused on the commercial crew capsule, the opportunity is ripe for Orbital to go all out for the Advanced Rendezvous & Docking Vehicle (ARDV) concept NASA has proposed by utilizing the Cygnus bus. After all OSC has the most experience with autonomous R&D in the US right now, and the bus seems almost tailor made for such an application. Crew transport might be flashy, but the ARDV looks like it will be the cargo hauler for LEO and interplanetary missions, perhaps more important than crew transport and therefore more lucrative.

L2 link to ARDV stuff:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22088.0
« Last Edit: 09/06/2010 04:44 AM by Ronsmytheiii »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8109
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #52 on: 09/06/2010 06:30 AM »
One of the options for the propellant depot is that the depot is refilled using cheap LV tankers.  The cheapness comes from the tankers not having a main engine or RCS.  Plus the avionics being limited to a radio location bleeper.  The complex process of docking the tanker to the depot being performed by a short range tug.  Solar electric spacecraft could use some help rendezvousing when in the shadows cast by the Earth and the depot's solar arrays.

The J-130 may be able to lift heavy loads in the 60 to 75 metric ton range to LEO but basically being a first stage the J-130 lacks an RCS to dock the cargo to say the ISS.

The task of a long range chemical tug are covered elsewhere.

Offline NotGncDude

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • V
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #53 on: 09/12/2010 10:33 PM »
After all OSC has the most experience with autonomous R&D in the US right now, and the bus seems almost tailor made for such an application.


What do you mean? (honestly curious)

Offline HMXHMX

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1364
  • Liked: 835
  • Likes Given: 256
Re: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #54 on: 09/13/2010 04:51 AM »
After all OSC has the most experience with autonomous R&D in the US right now, and the bus seems almost tailor made for such an application.


What do you mean? (honestly curious)

DART:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DART_(spacecraft)

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6007
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 1967
  • Likes Given: 679
Re: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #55 on: 09/13/2010 04:50 PM »
After all OSC has the most experience with autonomous R&D in the US right now, and the bus seems almost tailor made for such an application.


What do you mean? (honestly curious)

DART:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DART_(spacecraft)

Not to diss their experience, but I would think that Boeing's experience with Orbital Express (which worked after a few initial bugs were recovered from) might be a better baseline to start with than DART (which ran out of propellant and accidentally impacted it's target satellite).  Of course they a) probably learned a lot from that, and b) may have been involved with stuff since then, and c) the general industry knowhow on AR&D has advanced a bit in the past several years.

I think Orbital could do a tug, just saying they're not the only ones or even necessarily the best ones for the job.

~Jon

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7442
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 162
Re: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #56 on: 09/13/2010 05:02 PM »
Heh. Bear in mind that Orbital Express wasn't autonomous but remotely operated.
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline jimvela

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1289
  • Liked: 174
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #57 on: 09/13/2010 05:19 PM »
Heh. Bear in mind that Orbital Express wasn't autonomous but remotely operated.

No it wasn't.  There's a big difference between remotely commanded autonomous operation and remotely operated.

OE was executed as a sequence of incremental autonomous commanded activities as part of a very conservative sequence of demonstration/evaluation activities.

Representing it as being "remotely operated" is at best uninformed.

DART also operated as commanded, so by you apparent definition, neither one qualifies as autonomous.  As another poster noted, DART also bounced off of its target, and did neither capture, transfer, or fueling operations.

There's no comparison between what the Boeing/Ball team  did with ASTRO and NEXTSat and what DART did.

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7442
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 162
Re: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #58 on: 09/13/2010 05:23 PM »
I read it was much more than just remote commanding. There was a live video link and a lot of hand holding IIRC.
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Offline mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7442
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 162
Re: Orbital: Cygnus Update Thread
« Reply #59 on: 09/13/2010 05:24 PM »
I didn't say DART was more impressive than Orbital Express and I knew it had bumped into its target.
We will be vic-toooooo-ri-ous!!!

Tags: