ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2030

[joek]

Exactly! And if you transport cargo with the crew, I can't think of much more suitable cargo to bring than supplies they will need on station. Right?

Wrong lesson.  The fundamental error in this line of thought is that any cargo transported with the crew that is not required for the survival of the crew is non-essential, therefore hazardous, therefore presents undue risk to the crew, therefore such cargo should not be transported with the crew.  That is obviously false.

[ChrisWilson68]

Exactly! And if you transport cargo with the crew, I can't think of much more suitable cargo to bring than supplies they will need on station. Right?

Wrong lesson.  The fundamental error in this line of thought is that any cargo transported with the crew that is not required for the survival of the crew is non-essential, therefore hazardous, therefore presents undue risk to the crew, therefore such cargo should not be transported with the crew.  That is obviously false.

Yeah, that was the wrong lesson.  I think a better lesson is that if you're transporting large amounts of cargo, the design decisions you make will tend to be in conflict with the design decisions you would make to keep a small crew safe, so it's better not to combine a large amount of cargo capacity with crew.  Whether CST-100 has enough cargo capacity that the design had to make compromises that sacrificed safety in some material way I do not know, but I suspect the answer is no.

[baldusi]

Well, Shuttle couldn't carry anything without crew, even a fully fueled hypergolic stage that basically had to hang from just the back of the cabin. That's not a sound decision.
On the other hand, stowing some boxes that might even allow the crew to exit faster in case of emergency, and that add no risk to the crew if broken, is obviously not an issue.
To recap, Shuttle cargo meant satellites and things that could go boom and had to be human rated because the STS couldn't do it robotically. On Commercial Crew it just means boxes and bags of things that are already human rated since they have to go to the ISS and be handled by the crew. Quite different issues.
BTW, it would seem that CST-100 lacks any unpressurized cargo capabilities in crew mode. As I just said, anything pressurized to the ISS is human rated and "safe" to handle.

[clongton]

Please do quote that part of the report. I know it's widely interpreted that way and no amount of correction seems to stop people from saying that, but I'm pretty sure they never said that.

Throughout the entire report the difficulties of manifesting cargo in Shuttle because crew was aboard were spoken of again and again. The specific recommendation to not carry crew and cargo inside the same vehicle was actually articulated by a CAIB member when the report was released and can be found in multiple discussion here on NSF that were ongoing at that time.

Regarding the report itself, here are just 2 internal references to the crew/cargo separation in replacement vehicle designs. I know there are others but that's all I spotted in just a quick scan of the report. The Board members were all in agreement that crew and cargo should not be carried aloft inside the same vehicle, but in separate vehicles as spoken to at the report's release.

WRT the Shuttle replacement: p211 bottom of 2nd paragraph:

The nation must not shy from making that commitment. The International Space Station is likely to  be  the  major  destination  for  human  space  travel  for  the next decade or longer. The Space Shuttle would continue to be used when its unique capabilities are required, both with respect to space station missions such as experiment delivery and retrieval or other logistical missions, and with respect to the few planned missions not traveling to the space station. When cargo can be carried to the space station or other destinations by an expendable launch vehicle, it should be.

WRT Crew Escape: p217 1st paragraph:

Finally,  a  crew  escape  system  cannot  be  considered  separately  from  the  issues  of  Shuttle  retirement/replacement, separation of cargo from crew in future vehicles, and other considerations in the development – and the inherent risks of space flight.

Remember that the CAIB was created to identify what happened to Columbia and why, not to create design recommendations, but they did that anyway: separate the two to the extent practical in different spacecraft.

[ChrisWilson68]

Please do quote that part of the report. I know it's widely interpreted that way and no amount of correction seems to stop people from saying that, but I'm pretty sure they never said that.

Throughout the entire report the difficulties of manifesting cargo in Shuttle because crew was aboard were spoken of again and again. The specific recommendation to not carry crew and cargo inside the same vehicle was actually articulated by a CAIB member when the report was released and can be found in multiple discussion here on NSF that were ongoing at that time.

Regarding the report itself, here are just 2 internal references to the crew/cargo separation in replacement vehicle designs. I know there are others but that's all I spotted in just a quick scan of the report. The Board members were all in agreement that crew and cargo should not be carried aloft inside the same vehicle, but in separate vehicles as spoken to at the report's release.

WRT the Shuttle replacement: p211 bottom of 2nd paragraph:

The nation must not shy from making that commitment. The International Space Station is likely to  be  the  major  destination  for  human  space  travel  for  the next decade or longer. The Space Shuttle would continue to be used when its unique capabilities are required, both with respect to space station missions such as experiment delivery and retrieval or other logistical missions, and with respect to the few planned missions not traveling to the space station. When cargo can be carried to the space station or other destinations by an expendable launch vehicle, it should be.

WRT Crew Escape: p217 1st paragraph:

Finally,  a  crew  escape  system  cannot  be  considered  separately  from  the  issues  of  Shuttle  retirement/replacement, separation of cargo from crew in future vehicles, and other considerations in the development – and the inherent risks of space flight.

Remember that the CAIB was created to identify what happened to Columbia and why, not to create design recommendations, but they did that anyway: separate the two to the extent practical in different spacecraft.

Well, you've made QuantumG's point quite well -- the report didn't say what you claimed at all.

Your first quote from the report is specifically about the shuttle and preferring an expendable vehicle for cargo versus the shuttle.  It's not at all a blanket recommendation to never carry cargo in a crew vehicle.

Your second quote just says that when considering a crew escape system, whether or not to carry cargo in the same vehicle should be a consideration.

[JasonAW3]

If recovery goes reasonably well, they'll probably build a backlog of flown cores... a few per pad would buffer any return failure.  I would expect them to leap frog among two or three cores on a pad once reuse gets rolling instead of returning a stage and hoping it goes well because the same stage is next up.

But yes, reuse is the multiplier for increased launch rate... the Hawthorne/McGregor cycle will be the bottle-neck without reuse.  FH need for three cores makes it 3x worse.

Some cores will also be expended for heavy payloads and some will land down range.  Steady launch rates require multiple reuse cores per pad.  Replacement cores will just be rolled into the queue.

I figure that any heavy cores that are expended woul be ones close to their EOU limit.  they'd strip it of landin legs and control fins and let that puppy Viking Funeral back to Earth.

[notsorandom]

Well, Shuttle couldn't carry anything without crew, even a fully fueled hypergolic stage that basically had to hang from just the back of the cabin. That's not a sound decision.
On the other hand, stowing some boxes that might even allow the crew to exit faster in case of emergency, and that add no risk to the crew if broken, is obviously not an issue.
To recap, Shuttle cargo meant satellites and things that could go boom and had to be human rated because the STS couldn't do it robotically. On Commercial Crew it just means boxes and bags of things that are already human rated since they have to go to the ISS and be handled by the crew. Quite different issues.
BTW, it would seem that CST-100 lacks any unpressurized cargo capabilities in crew mode. As I just said, anything pressurized to the ISS is human rated and "safe" to handle.

That and to launch a satellite one needed to fly a crew on the shuttle. There was no point in risking a human life when the same job could be done without that risk. Putting cargo on a crew vehicle because there is left over capacity is something totally different. There were no design compromises to add the cargo. The craft wasn't made bigger, more complex, or less able to abort.

[GraniteHound92]

Anyone know what time we can expect the LM announcement?

[woods170]

Please, can we keep any discussion about launching cargo-and-crew together out of this thread? It has nothing to do with CRS-2, which is clearly about spacecraft that will not carry crew, just cargo.
Thank you.

[arachnitect]

Anyone know what time we can expect the LM announcement?

it's an "invitation only cocktail reception" apparently.

Hopefully some press are invited and LM release some renderings.

[AncientU]

Anyone know what time we can expect the LM announcement?

tonight
and here's an article:

The Jefferson County-based aerospace company has scheduled a Washington D.C. press conference for later today to outline its bid, which proposes using a cargo carrier adapted from designs of the MAVEN space probe it built for an ongoing Mars research mission.

LMSS is partnering with European aerospace contractor Thales Alenia to create a pressurized cargo container for ISS supplies, a container based on Europe's "automated transfer vehicle" that's been used for ISS deliveries in the past.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/boosters_bits/2015/03/lockheed-martin-proposes-building-iss-cargo-ship.html?page=2

[GraniteHound92]

Anyone know what time we can expect the LM announcement?

tonight
and here's an article:

The Jefferson County-based aerospace company has scheduled a Washington D.C. press conference for later today to outline its bid, which proposes using a cargo carrier adapted from designs of the MAVEN space probe it built for an ongoing Mars research mission.

LMSS is partnering with European aerospace contractor Thales Alenia to create a pressurized cargo container for ISS supplies, a container based on Europe's "automated transfer vehicle" that's been used for ISS deliveries in the past.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/boosters_bits/2015/03/lockheed-martin-proposes-building-iss-cargo-ship.html?page=2

So...they are planning a MAVEN/ATV mashup?  Am I reading that correctly?

[Ronsmytheiii]

Anyone know what time we can expect the LM announcement?

tonight
and here's an article:

The Jefferson County-based aerospace company has scheduled a Washington D.C. press conference for later today to outline its bid, which proposes using a cargo carrier adapted from designs of the MAVEN space probe it built for an ongoing Mars research mission.

LMSS is partnering with European aerospace contractor Thales Alenia to create a pressurized cargo container for ISS supplies, a container based on Europe's "automated transfer vehicle" that's been used for ISS deliveries in the past.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/boosters_bits/2015/03/lockheed-martin-proposes-building-iss-cargo-ship.html?page=2

Sounds like a Lockheed built Cyguns, just using a Maven bus.

[Star One]

Anyone know what time we can expect the LM announcement?

tonight
and here's an article:

The Jefferson County-based aerospace company has scheduled a Washington D.C. press conference for later today to outline its bid, which proposes using a cargo carrier adapted from designs of the MAVEN space probe it built for an ongoing Mars research mission.

LMSS is partnering with European aerospace contractor Thales Alenia to create a pressurized cargo container for ISS supplies, a container based on Europe's "automated transfer vehicle" that's been used for ISS deliveries in the past.

http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/boosters_bits/2015/03/lockheed-martin-proposes-building-iss-cargo-ship.html?page=2

So...they are planning a MAVEN/ATV mashup?  Am I reading that correctly?

Its left me scratching my head as it sounds such an odd combination.

[notsorandom]

This is basically what Orbital did to make Cygnus. They took an existing satellite bus and paired it with a pressurized cargo module built by Thales Alenia. I am guessing that the Thales Alenia PCM like the one for Cygnus will be based on MPLM heritage rather than ATV.

[TrevorMonty]

Looks like Jon was spot on with his guess.
Besides the extra payload to ISS this would be ideal for a EAM/mini space station for BEO missions.

[libs0n]

An honest to goodness space tug:

http://aviationweek.com/space/jupiter-space-tug-could-deliver-cargo-moon

[arachnitect]

It's a tug called "Jupiter"

Launches on Atlas 500 series, has its own little robotic arm and everything.

http://aviationweek.com/space/jupiter-space-tug-could-deliver-cargo-moon?sf7295798=1

All sorts of claims about it being modular and extensible and multi purpose etc etc. I say it's DOA.

edit: the funny thing is, except for the whole space tug part, this is pretty much exactly what I expected.

Also, how do they reattach the old module to centaur for disposal?

[fgonella]

I like very much this concept! I always found discarding the SM such a waste.

[jongoff]

Looks like Jon was spot on with his guess.
Besides the extra payload to ISS this would be ideal for a EAM/mini space station for BEO missions.

I wasn't that close. A friend (not at LM) had suggested they were going to do a tug-like design, and I had poo-poohed him when he did so. Methinks I owe him a dinner next time I'm in town.

~Jon