Author Topic: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion  (Read 170297 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32484
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11259
  • Likes Given: 333
OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« on: 02/21/2008 06:17 PM »
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11939&mid=247641#M247641

Quote
antonioe - 21/2/2008  11:36 AM

On the COTS I ReAward Final Cut Poll thread, now closed, I promised to explain elements and rationale of our COTS proposal.  If anybody is interested, I can deliver.  Question: is this the appropriate thread?  Moderators?

By the way, that was a very interesting and enjoyable thread.  Thanks to all that participated!


Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #1 on: 02/21/2008 07:12 PM »

From the COTS Award Announcement Thread:

Quote
Jim - 21/2/2008 1:54 PM return capability?

That's what the SM+RCM combination does (1,300 Kg both up and down).  No, we have not proposed to demonstrate capability C.  But we've committed that if somebody offers to buy a capability C flight for about 30% more than a pressurized cargo, Orbital will pony up the money to develop the RCM (which is a simple low L/D cone with active roll control, CBM, and about half the net payload and 1/3 the volume of a PCM).  Oh, and about 24 months lead time.  No demo flight, though - you take your chances.

By the way, an Orbital precursor company (CTA) did put together a commercial reentry capsule ("Meteor") which, unfortunately, went to sleep with the fishies in the 1995 Conestoga failed launch attempt ("danke schoen", Gunter, for your excellent website).

ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline tnphysics

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1073
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #2 on: 02/21/2008 07:51 PM »
What about manned flight?

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #3 on: 02/21/2008 09:04 PM »

We did not propose capability D.  We shared with the JSC folks some preliminary designs (again, heritage from the STAS work) for a TWO person capsule that would fit within a T II payload envelope including the required LES.  Unfortunately, the "SMS+Mission module" paradigm breaks down due to the widely conflicting requirements that crewed flight imposes on the system.

While technically feasible, the business case is very, very hard to build up...  :frown:

ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #4 on: 02/21/2008 09:12 PM »

FOR REFERENCE from the COTS Award discussion thread: here's a revised table of ISS supply vehicle capabilities, as best as I know.  I would approaciate additional information and comments

 

 

Mass at

Max net cargo

Combined

Payload

Vehicle

Launch,

press.

unpress.

fuel

Limit

Ratio

  Comments
Progress M17,1501,800 1,9502,230

0.31

ATV20,7505,5004,7007,700

0.37

HTV16,5006,0001,6006,000

0.36

Actual capability  not clearly understood
SpaceX10,0001,4001,7003,100

0.31

S/C has two sections: press  reenters, unpress burns up
Orbital
SM+PCM5,4002,3002,300

0.43

SM+UCM5,4002,0002,000

0.37

SM+RCM5,4001,3001,300

0.24

 
ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1765
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 296
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #5 on: 02/22/2008 03:38 AM »
I've dug up everything I can find on the HTV including slides (JAXA not having a massive infodump like L2) and they all say exactly the same thing:

Kibo is very low-tech compared to ATV. It approaches and is grabbed by the Canadarm. It's largely practice in manned spaceflight systems for JAXA.

Pressurised cargo: 4 500kg (I think this is the max up-load as indicated by the slides)
Unpressurised cargo: 1 500 kg (ONE Kibo or ISS express pallet)

Photos from 2 years ago show an HTV test article almost fully assembled, so these figures are simply a result of the Japanese being inscrutable - construction of the actual flight article should be complete by now.

A 12 tonne test model will be launched by an H-2A later this year. 2009 should see a demonstration flight. JAXA is planning an unmanned winged vehicle by 2020, and a manned, reusable (capsule, that is) vehicle by 2025. Interestingly, the HTV is described as being built of "30% imported goods." Apparently this is because it worked out cheaper.
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3341
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 829
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #6 on: 02/22/2008 03:57 AM »
Quote
Lampyridae - 21/2/2008  8:38 PM
Kibo is very low-tech compared to ATV. It approaches and is grabbed by the Canadarm. It's largely practice in manned spaceflight systems for JAXA.
I assume you mean HTV, not Kibo ?

AFAIK both OSC and SpaceX plan to use the same berthing method.

Offline SIIAlum

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #7 on: 02/22/2008 04:09 AM »
Thanks Antonio for taking the time and courage to answer questions from the public.  That's cool.  My question is: Is your berthing box (box for capture and grapple by the SSRMS) the same for both the UCM and PCM versions?  If so, based on your figures it looks to be a bit of a stretch for the SSRMS to reach both a Node 2 Nadir CBM position and either of the truss (I think S3 or P3) positions.  Maybe there's intermediate hand off positions so the SSRMS can reposition?  If not, does that require a different rendezvous profile and targeting for the final closure to ISS?

Also, you mentioned METEOR in an early post, this brings back good memories of a spacecraft which was originally called ComET.  I might differ with you on the details of the work CTA did as although they might have done the final assembly, the detailed design and development of the cargo recovery module was all done inhouse at Space Industries.  Although I had a minor part on ComET , it was a thrill to be working on trying to commercial low earth orbit some 15 years ago by providing a platform for microgravity processing.  Unfortunately things didn't pan out for us.  Maybe it just wasn't the right time as our Industrial Space Facility (ISF) effort to commercialize LEO in the late '80s didn't work out as well.  Hopefully between Orbital and SpaceX maybe the timing is right and we can now see commercialized manned and unmanned operations in LEO and get NASA focused on exploration.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1765
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 296
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #8 on: 02/22/2008 04:10 AM »
Quote
hop - 22/2/2008  1:57 PM

Quote
Lampyridae - 21/2/2008  8:38 PM
Kibo is very low-tech compared to ATV. It approaches and is grabbed by the Canadarm. It's largely practice in manned spaceflight systems for JAXA.
I assume you mean HTV, not Kibo ?

AFAIK both OSC and SpaceX plan to use the same berthing method.

Indeed, this is HTV I am talking about. It uses GPS to approach within 500m, then laser ranging to close within 10m. The difference between OSC / SpaceX and HTV is that HTV has a Proximity Communication System (PROX) on the Kibo module to facilitate ISS aproach and docking. Info's a bit hazy but I think it receives data from HTV and provides manouevring data? I don't really know what its role is. There are also hints that JAXA is considering developing a reentry capsule for HTV.

http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/rockets/htv/manager_e.html

AFAIK Cygnus is controlled from the ground via TDRS and the normal station channels (whatever those are).
SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6182
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #9 on: 02/22/2008 04:14 AM »
Quote
Lampyridae - 21/2/2008  10:38 PM

Kibo is very low-tech compared to ATV. It approaches and is grabbed by the Canadarm. It's largely practice in manned spaceflight systems for JAXA.

It is a myth that the systems required for approach and SSRMS berthing are "low-tech" compared to those required for approach and direct docking.
JRF

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #10 on: 02/22/2008 10:53 AM »
Quote
antonioe - 21/2/2008  4:04 PM

We did not propose capability D.  We shared with the JSC folks some preliminary designs (again, heritage from the STAS work) for a TWO person capsule that would fit within a T II payload envelope including the required LES.  Unfortunately, the "SMS+Mission module" paradigm breaks down due to the widely conflicting requirements that crewed flight imposes on the system.

While technically feasible, the business case is very, very hard to build up...  :frown:


So no-one has told you the good news then ? RpK had $200m coming to them for a crewed flight demo in 2011-2012. I assume this money will now be yours unless NASA has changed its plans. Happy spending ;)

p16
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/168735main_AIAA_2007_COTS.pdf


Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #11 on: 02/22/2008 11:34 AM »
Quote
antonioe - 21/2/2008  5:12 PM

FOR REFERENCE from the COTS Award discussion thread: here's a revised table of ISS supply vehicle capabilities, as best as I know.  I would approaciate additional information and comments

 

 

Mass at

Max net cargo

Combined

Payload

Vehicle

Launch,

press.

unpress.

fuel

Limit

Ratio

  Comments
Progress M17,1501,800 1,9502,230

0.31

ATV20,7505,5004,7007,700

0.37

HTV16,5006,0001,6006,000

0.36

Actual capability  not clearly understood
SpaceX10,0001,4001,7003,100

0.31

S/C has two sections: press  reenters, unpress burns up
Orbital
SM+PCM5,4002,3002,300

0.43

SM+UCM5,4002,0002,000

0.37

SM+RCM5,4001,3001,300

0.24

 

Interesting. Would it be fair to say Cygnus is comparable to Progress, only much more flexible because it's non-monolithic? And is the Cygnus SM able to perform autonomous operations (i.e., could be launched on its own)?

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6691
  • Liked: 1000
  • Likes Given: 140
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #12 on: 02/22/2008 06:17 PM »
Quote
Jorge - 21/2/2008  10:14 PM

Quote
Lampyridae - 21/2/2008  10:38 PM

Kibo is very low-tech compared to ATV. It approaches and is grabbed by the Canadarm. It's largely practice in manned spaceflight systems for JAXA.

It is a myth that the systems required for approach and SSRMS berthing are "low-tech" compared to those required for approach and direct docking.

I was wondering about that.  Do you happen to know the limits on the relative velocities before capture can be attempted and successfully completed?

Offline quark

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 444
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #13 on: 02/22/2008 11:02 PM »
Quote
marsavian - 22/2/2008  4:53 AM

Quote
antonioe - 21/2/2008  4:04 PM

We did not propose capability D.  We shared with the JSC folks some preliminary designs (again, heritage from the STAS work) for a TWO person capsule that would fit within a T II payload envelope including the required LES.  Unfortunately, the "SMS+Mission module" paradigm breaks down due to the widely conflicting requirements that crewed flight imposes on the system.

While technically feasible, the business case is very, very hard to build up...  :frown:


So no-one has told you the good news then ? RpK had $200m coming to them for a crewed flight demo in 2011-2012. I assume this money will now be yours unless NASA has changed its plans. Happy spending ;)

p16
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/168735main_AIAA_2007_COTS.pdf


The $200 M was part of an unfunded, unexercised option in RpK's contract.  It is still unfunded.  The latest budget release from NASA has nothing for capability D.  By the way, SpaceX also has an unfunded capability D option.

Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3341
  • Liked: 476
  • Likes Given: 829
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #14 on: 02/23/2008 12:23 AM »
Quote
William Barton - 22/2/2008  4:34 AM
Interesting. Would it be fair to say Cygnus is comparable to Progress, only much more flexible because it's non-monolithic? And is the Cygnus SM able to perform autonomous operations (i.e., could be launched on its own)?
Different systems with different capabilities.

Note that progress M1 (listed above) is not currently in normal use. M1 carries more fuel and less cargo than M. See this post http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11939&mid=247807#M247807

Progress can be used to reboost ISS, and integrated into the ISS attitude control system (which is advantageous because it's a nice long lever arm, and preserves the service life of the RS thrusters.) I don't know if there is any interest in COTS providing either of these capabilities.

Progress has also in the past been modified to carry external cargo and return ~150kg of payload via the Raduga capsule (both in the Mir program). I'm not sure what the maximum external cargo would be, but likely significantly less than what is proposed for the UCM.

Progress can dock to the station even if it is unmanned. No idea if this can be done with the arm berthing systems.

Cygnus, because it berths at a CBM can deliver payloads that don't fit through the Russian hatches. Bringing external cargo within reach of the arm is a big plus too.

Offline Frediiiie

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 102
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #15 on: 02/23/2008 02:50 AM »
COTS part D is currently unfunded.
That is, there are no funds in the current budget.
But funds are not required in the current budget.
Should NASA decide to take up COTS part D funds would need to be in budget for 2009 ($27.42M) and more for following years to total of $308M by 2012 just for SpaceX.
This is assuming the time schedule currently in the SpaceX COTS agreement.
NASA will have to, sometime before the 2009 budget is set in stone, make a decision on whether they want to fund COTS part D.
It's all up to NASA

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1874
  • Liked: 256
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #16 on: 02/23/2008 04:11 AM »
A belated congratulations to OSC. (I haven't been on in awhile)
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline CFE

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #17 on: 02/23/2008 06:41 AM »
Is it confirmed that Taurus II will launch from LC-0B?  It would seem that the existing Minotaur pad would need a lot of mods to support a liquid vehicle.  Not to mention the fact that T-II has roughly twice the thrust of a Minotaur IV.
"Black Zones" never stopped NASA from flying the shuttle.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #18 on: 02/23/2008 09:54 AM »
Quote
Frediiiie - 22/2/2008  9:50 PM

COTS part D is currently unfunded.
That is, there are no funds in the current budget.
But funds are not required in the current budget.
Should NASA decide to take up COTS part D funds would need to be in budget for 2009 ($27.42M) and more for following years to total of $308M by 2012 just for SpaceX.
This is assuming the time schedule currently in the SpaceX COTS agreement.
NASA will have to, sometime before the 2009 budget is set in stone, make a decision on whether they want to fund COTS part D.
It's all up to NASA

The manned spaceflight gap is the biggest public crisis facing NASA, I would say the liklihood of NASA *not* funding COTS part D for both companies is very small. If so Antonio and Orbital then need to see how many people they can send up on Taurus II on a $200m development budget.

Offline simpl simon

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #19 on: 02/23/2008 11:00 AM »
Quote
marsavian - 23/2/2008  11:54 AM

The manned spaceflight gap is the biggest public crisis facing NASA, I would say the liklihood of NASA *not* funding COTS part D for both companies is very small. If so Antonio and Orbital then need to see how many people they can send up on Taurus II on a $200m development budget.

But the 2009 Budget Request includes funds for Soyuz missions.

Tags: