Author Topic: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion  (Read 161942 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32003
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10629
  • Likes Given: 317
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #40 on: 02/24/2008 01:36 PM »
Here is a hard question for you, antonioe.

What is the time and location of the latest access to the PCM before launch?

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9597
  • Liked: 354
  • Likes Given: 460
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #41 on: 02/24/2008 02:43 PM »

If you are going to continue to list Progress M1, then the max capability of this spacecraft when flown on Soyuz 2/ST should be shown, which is about 3200 kg combined payload. This variant is currently not flown, because the added mass of the 8 prop tanks eats up about 200 kg of payload, and the prop isn't need. However, when Soyuz 2 becomes the standard launcher for ISS, Progress M1 may be re-introduced to take advantage of the additional payload capability.

 


Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #42 on: 02/24/2008 02:48 PM »

Quote
Jim - 24/2/2008 8:36 AM Here is a hard question for you, antonioe. What is the time and location of the latest access to the PCM before launch?

I believe the plan is to use a diving board through a payload fairing hatch to the CBM hatch just before the assembly rolls out the horizontal assembly building, nominally 24 hours before launch.  I don't kow the details (I don't think we've worked them out yet) on how to cope with the fact that the assembly (and the PCM cargo) is in a horizontal position.  I hear something about a "late-access cargo shelf", L-shaped so it can react both 1-g horizontal loads (while being loaded) and launch loads.  No on-pad access is currently planned.

I'll ask Jim.

ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9597
  • Liked: 354
  • Likes Given: 460
RE: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #43 on: 02/24/2008 02:48 PM »

Quote
SIIAlum - 23/2/2008  8:53 PM  
Thanks! That brings up another question: After looking at the Shuttle manifest, it appears that all six CAS locations will be full at Shuttle retirement (5 ELCs and AMS-02 if it goes). What is the plan for this issue. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the manifest and/or ISS assembly sequence and maybe one fo the NASA folks on the forum can clarify?

The original concept of operations for the Express Pallet was to have the pallets carry ORUs up to the station, and then return failed ORUs at a later date. I would not be surprised if ELCs 1 and 2 came back in 2009-10, if only to provide engineers with data on failed ORUs (if not to have the ORUs repaired and sent up again by HTV/COTS.

As far as the CAS locations, there are two distinct flavors, the S1 and P1 locations, which are segregated by function between payload and ORUs. AFAIK, none of the payload locations will be used, except possibly for AMS-02. 


Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #44 on: 02/24/2008 02:49 PM »

Quote
Danderman - 24/2/2008 9:43 AM If you are going to continue to list Progress M1, then the max capability of this spacecraft when flown on Soyuz 2/ST should be shown, which is about 3200 kg combined payload. This variant is currently not flown, because the added mass of the 8 prop tanks eats up about 200 kg of payload, and the prop isn't need. However, when Soyuz 2 becomes the standard launcher for ISS, Progress M1 may be re-introduced to take advantage of the additional payload capability.

Thanks, David.  Will incorporate in the next release of the table.  Do you know what the resulting launch mass would be?  Does the pressurized volume change? As a matter of fact, could you pls put together the correct "M1 on Soyuz 2" line for the table?  Tnx.

ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9597
  • Liked: 354
  • Likes Given: 460
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #45 on: 02/24/2008 02:52 PM »
BTW, where did the figure of 7.60 cubic meters for Progress cargo compartment volume come from? Every source I have seen shows 6.6 cubic meters, except for one graphic from Energia which showed 7.05 m3. I actually believe that the volume of the Progress orbital module is greater than 7 m3, compared with the 6.6 m3 for Soyuz, but I don't have the data to back me up.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9597
  • Liked: 354
  • Likes Given: 460
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #46 on: 02/24/2008 03:06 PM »

Corrected Progress M1 line:

Launch Mass: 8,250 kg

Max net pressurized: 1,800 kg

unpressurized: 0 (although this is not exactly true)

ISS "fuel" (prop): 1,885 kg

Combined: 3,200 kg (this is a function of the LV limit, not Progress M1)

Payload ratio: 0.387

Comments: Out of production, but available 

 

 

 


Offline antonioe

  • PONTIFEX MAXIMVS
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1077
  • Virginia is for (space) lovers
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #47 on: 02/24/2008 07:25 PM »

I take the 3,200 Kg combined limit is with the "Upgraded Soyuz"? Is "Soyuz 2" the correct nomenclature for this LV?  Is this the one powered by RD0124's?

Also, any thoughts on the correct pressurized volume?  So far, AFAIK,

  1. NASA ISS PR 1 literature: 6m3 ("212 ft3")
  2. Russian Space Web : 6.6 m3
  3. NASA ISS PR 2 Soyuz TM Orbital module: 6.5m3
  4. NASA ISS PR 2 Soyuz TM Descent module: 4m3 (used for fuel on Progress)
  5. Energia graphic: 7,05m3
  6. Wikipedia (blush!): 7.6m3

HELP!!!

From everything I see, the most reliable estimate of the Progress M capability using a "Soyuz Classic" LV is 1,800 Kg of pressurized cargo (based on all the data sources), a combined total of 2,500 kg (based on the latest Energia press releases, Anatoly Zak states "2,350 Kg"), and 6.6m3 of pressurized cargo volume.  Everybody OK?  Going, going...

ARS LONGA, VITA BREVIS...

Offline simpl simon

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #48 on: 02/24/2008 09:52 PM »
Quote
antonioe - 23/2/2008  11:12 PM

Quote
simpl simon - 23/2/2008 2:54 PM ... cannot understand how it is proposed to accommodate 6000 kg in a volume less than that of ATV.

Do you have a reputable source for that volume?  I could not find squat.



Sorry antonioe, I spent some time looking, but cannot find my original source. Looks like I leaned too far out the window with that statement. Lucky Jim didn't jump on me......

All  I can now find (I guess you have the same data), is the generalised information that the HTV PLC can carry 8 ISPR's or equivalent. In addition, there are stand-offs provided in the corners betweeen the racks. Each rack is capable of carrying 804,67 kg but that is a structural limit, not necessarily the weight of cargo that can be accommodated.

I'm sure the truth is out there somewhere.......


Offline hop

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3277
  • Liked: 429
  • Likes Given: 775
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #49 on: 02/24/2008 11:49 PM »
Quote
antonioe - 24/2/2008  12:25 PM
HELP!!!
If you want more confusion, Progress M also caries water in dedicated tanks (not in the pressurized compartment), and a variable number of air/oxygen tanks :)

M1 moves the water to the cargo compartment, using the the location of the original water tanks for the additional prop.

How these are counted against "dry" cargo probably varies between the sources. You might just want to take something in the middle of the range and call it good enough.

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1658
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 135
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #50 on: 02/25/2008 12:18 AM »
Quote
antonioe - 24/2/2008 7:12 AM

Quote
simpl simon - 23/2/2008 2:54 PM ... cannot understand how it is proposed to accommodate 6000 kg in a volume less than that of ATV.

Do you have a reputable source for that volume?  I could not find squat.

(Fishes out an envelope) My very rough (from a diagram) measurements put the PCM length at 2.9m excluding the CBM. That gives a volume of about 44m3. 6000 kg translates to 136kg/m3, 4500 translates to about 100m3. Progress apparently packed stuff in at about 240 kg/m3 from what I can work out.

Quote
Quote
 I have seen a figure of 4500 kg reported for HTV pressurized cargo, and that makes more sense to me (see: http://iss.jaxa.jp/en/htv/overview/)

Any suggestions from anybody else for what figure we should carry on the table?

"approximately 4500kg" is what everything I have seen from either Mitsubishi or JAXA, including JAXA's in-house magazine, says. I guess that is what the load limit is. Given that HTV is the dedicated experiment carrier for Kibo, then it would probably be going up with experiment pallets all the time. It might be able to go up with 6000kg of pressurised cargo but then again it may not be designed around those kinds of loads and C of G. My feeling is HTV does what it says on the label.

SKYLON... The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen's preferred surface-to-orbit conveyance.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9597
  • Liked: 354
  • Likes Given: 460
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #51 on: 02/26/2008 02:00 AM »
Quote
antonioe - 24/2/2008  12:25 PM

From everything I see, the most reliable estimate of the Progress M capability using a "Soyuz Classic" LV is 1,800 Kg of pressurized cargo (based on all the data sources), a combined total of 2,500 kg (based on the latest Energia press releases, Anatoly Zak states "2,350 Kg"), and 6.6m3 of pressurized cargo volume.  Everybody OK?  Going, going...

2500 kg dry cargo mass for Progress M is good enough, as far as I am concerned. The 6.6 m3 for the cargo volume is what most people use. Its certainly not correct, but I don't have a public source for the correct volume.

 


Offline SIIAlum

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #52 on: 02/26/2008 02:29 AM »
If I remember correctly from the NASA webcast last week, I think they mentioned that you are planning one Demo mission to the ISS for COTS I.  Assuming a successful flight, is there anything else required to certify the T-II to fly other NASA medium class payloads?  If I understand the NLS requirements correctly, I think the T-II will be certified to fly Category 1 & 2 payloads but not Cat 3 which takes something like 14 missions?  Also, any idea what NASA will require for the launch vehicle for COTS 2?  I guess we'll find out soon as I believe the draft RFP will be released in the near future.

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5201
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 226
RE: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #53 on: 02/26/2008 03:42 AM »
Quote
SIIAlum - 25/2/2008  9:29 PM
Assuming a successful flight, is there anything else required to certify the T-II to fly other NASA medium class payloads?  If I understand the NLS requirements correctly, I think the T-II will be certified to fly Category 1 & 2 payloads but not Cat 3 which takes something like 14 missions?  Also, any idea what NASA will require for the launch vehicle for COTS 2?  I guess we'll find out soon as I believe the draft RFP will be released in the near future.
The latest NASA LV certification matrix is here:
http://nodis.gsfc.nasa.gov/NPD_attachments/N_PD_8610_007D_A.pdf

The COTS 2 Draft RFP should be out on Thursday.
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32003
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10629
  • Likes Given: 317
RE: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #54 on: 02/26/2008 11:03 AM »
Quote
SIIAlum - 25/2/2008  10:29 PM
1.  I think the T-II will be certified to fly Category 1 & 2 payloads but not Cat 3 which takes something like 14 missions?  

2.  Also, any idea what NASA will require for the launch vehicle for COTS 2?  I guess we'll find out soon as I believe the draft RFP will be released in the near future.

1.  14 missions isn't the only way for Cat 3, see MRO and Atlas V

2.  I believe nothing.  It will be like delivery on orbit


Offline Yegor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 404
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #55 on: 02/27/2008 09:17 PM »
Quote
antonioe - 24/2/2008  3:25 PM

I take the 3,200 Kg combined limit is with the "Upgraded Soyuz"? Is "Soyuz 2" the correct nomenclature for this LV?  Is this the one powered by RD0124's?

"Soyuz-2-1b" is the proper name for "Soyuz 2" LV with RD-0124.
Inclination (degree): 51,6, Payload: 8250 kg

"Soyuz-2-1a" is the proper name for "Soyuz 2" LV with RD-0110.
Inclination (degree): 51,6, Payload: 7020 kg
 
http://www.samspace.ru/ENG/RN/souz_2.htm


Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12505
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3375
  • Likes Given: 678
Re: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #56 on: 03/01/2008 05:01 PM »
Antonio,

Can you provide any more details of the Cygnus SM and/or the two Taurus II stages?  Things like loaded and empty masses, specific impulse, etc.  

 - Ed Kyle

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
RE: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #57 on: 03/02/2008 02:23 PM »
For those interested Orbital's SAA milestones are on page 5

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/214651main_AIAA%203rd%20Space%20Ex%20Conf.%20COTS.pdf

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22436
  • Liked: 747
  • Likes Given: 274
RE: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #58 on: 04/10/2008 05:32 AM »
I don't know much about Wallops and the pad numbering, could someone label the pads below and state what vehicle they service?  Maybe I should put an L2 request out for Wallops launch area details. Kind of embarrassing since I live down the shore on the opposite side of the state!
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12505
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3375
  • Likes Given: 678
RE: OSC COTS I Proposal Discussion
« Reply #59 on: 04/11/2008 07:28 PM »
Quote
Ronsmytheiii - 10/4/2008  12:32 AM

I don't know much about Wallops and the pad numbering, could someone label the pads below and state what vehicle they service?  Maybe I should put an L2 request out for Wallops launch area details. Kind of embarrassing since I live down the shore on the opposite side of the state!

From bottom to top, the following Launch Areas are visible.  

Commercial Launch Area 0B (Zero B):  Minotaur
Commercial Launch Area 0A (Zero A):  Conestoga
Launch Area 1 (50Klb rail launcher)
Launch Area 2 (ARC 20 Klb rail launcher and two smaller launchers)
Launch Area 3B (20Klb rail launcher, probably east of big rectangular bldg):  USN missile testing
Launch Area 4 (beyond large blockhouse, 20Klb tubular launcher, inactive)
Launch Area 5 (also beyond large blockhouse):  was Scout

Here is a link to the Wallops Range User's Handbook.

http://sites.wff.nasa.gov/multimedia/docs/wffruh.pdf

 - Ed Kyle

Tags: