Author Topic: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2030 (Read 469817 times)

Jarnis · « **Reply #500 on:** 03/12/2015 09:17 pm »

Props for something new rather than just an Atlas-based Cygnus-like disposable can.

Not sure how the $$$ side will work out. Either LockMart gets Atlas V:s from some kind of super sale (buy 2, get one free), or this will be... expensive.

dror · « **Reply #501 on:** 03/12/2015 09:19 pm »

Alas - A space tug !

This is the future trying to be noticed.

btw ,
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2015/02/df-TUGpix_lockheedmartinconcept.jpg
This picture is wrong, right?

Comga · « **Reply #502 on:** 03/12/2015 09:21 pm »

This image reminds me of my dog running up to a tennis ball with one in his mouth, then being conflicted.
What is Jupiter supposed to do with two PCM assemblies?
arachnitect: Good point about the deorbit. Maybe they ARE going to have two cargo "pods" at the same time, and swap the old one for the new one, with the new one going to the ISS and the old one riding the Centaur down. That would seem to take two or three arms. Still doesn't seem right.

It sounds like Lockheed is conflating CRS-2 with a whole-cloth space exploration architecture. It's hard to imaging NASA accepting this "plays with everything" vision. All they asked for was cargo delivery

TrevorMonty · « **Reply #503 on:** 03/12/2015 09:21 pm »

Great idea. Not sure about using Centuar to do the deorbiting (see concept drawing). It may require some expendable propulsion (eg small solid and gas thrusters) for deorbiting.

jongoff · « **Reply #504 on:** 03/12/2015 09:23 pm »

Quote from: Jarnis on 03/12/2015 09:17 pm

Props for something new rather than just an Atlas-based Cygnus-like disposable can.

Not sure how the $$$ side will work out. Either LockMart gets Atlas V:s from some kind of super sale (buy 2, get one free), or this will be... expensive.

Not necessarily. By leaving the SM on orbit, and keeping the delivery cans as simple as possible, I bet they'll be a lot cheaper than people would think. Remember, with it's available volume constraints, Dragon is currently costing ~$130M for ~3000kg of cargo. It's quite possible that the marginal cost of a tug delivery like this could be not much more than a one-use Dragon delivery, and probably for a lot more cargo.

Falcon 9 is really cheap in $/kg to LEO, but Dragon $/kg to ISS is substantially higher--it's an expensive wrapper (especially if used only once) that takes up over half of the Falcon 9 LEO delivery mass. Don't get me wrong--this same argument applies to all traditional cargo vehicles (HTV, ATV, Progress, Cygnus, etc). This was a point that Josh Hopkins (one of the LM guys who announced this) was making as an issue with propellant depots. Getting stuff to orbit is cheap, but using traditional delivery vehicles to get it to a specific space facility kills the cheapness.

~Jon

jongoff · « **Reply #505 on:** 03/12/2015 09:24 pm »

Quote from: TrevorMonty on 03/12/2015 09:21 pm

Great idea. Not sure about using Centuar to do the deorbiting (see concept drawing). It may require some expendable propulsion (eg small solid and gas thrusters) for deorbiting.

No, that's one of the things IVF is for.

~Jon

guckyfan · « **Reply #506 on:** 03/12/2015 09:24 pm »

Quote from: Jarnis on 03/12/2015 09:17 pm

Props for something new rather than just an Atlas-based Cygnus-like disposable can.

Not sure how the $$$ side will work out. Either LockMart gets Atlas V:s from some kind of super sale (buy 2, get one free), or this will be... expensive.

Per mission yes. But per kg payload? Maybe not, compared to Antares/Cygnus.

acrotti · « **Reply #507 on:** 03/12/2015 09:27 pm »

Imagine this tug attaching a service module to Hubble, to replace and bypass malfunctioning reaction wheels. No need of a human mission

nadreck · « **Reply #508 on:** 03/12/2015 09:41 pm »

I have always envisioned large, multi-planar, satellite constellations with a tender like this one for on orbit replacement/service/disposal. The Jupiter-electric mentioned in the aviation week article could even service more than one plane. I could see 5-7 degrees of inclination change as long as waiting a week or two was cool.

yg1968 · « **Reply #509 on:** 03/12/2015 09:42 pm »

Quote from: joek on 03/11/2015 04:11 am

Quote from: yg1968 on 03/09/2015 11:17 pm
I believe that at least 4 cargo missions per year must be proposed by each provider. But it can be more than four missions.

Not sure of that minimum. I have not seen that in the RFP, although the RFI stated 4-5 missions/year as an "ideal", with 4/year preferred.

The minimum of 4 missions per year is also in the RFP (on page 79):

Quote from: page 79 of the RFP

NASA requires the service to provide the annual upmass required of the ISS in no fewer than four (4) flights per year with the cargo somewhat evenly distributed throughout the year.

dror · « **Reply #510 on:** 03/12/2015 09:43 pm »

Theres no real need to launch on atlas v. Subsequent canisters can be launched on F9 or F9R

arachnitect · « **Reply #511 on:** 03/12/2015 09:52 pm »

Quote from: dror on 03/12/2015 09:43 pm

Theres no real need to launch on atlas v. Subsequent canisters can be launched on F9 or F9R

If anything, this system is less flexible than a disposable vehicle like Cygnus because of the way it appears to use the centaur upper stage to deorbit the old cargo module.

I can picture a couple ways the orbital handoff works, and neither of them make much sense.

The Constellation Services/SSL architecture looked a lot simpler and easier.

joek · « **Reply #512 on:** 03/12/2015 10:08 pm »

Quote from: yg1968 on 03/12/2015 09:42 pm

The minimum of 4 missions per year is also in the RFP (on page 79):
Quote from: page 79 of the RFP
NASA requires the service to provide the annual upmass required of the ISS in no fewer than four (4) flights per year with the cargo somewhat evenly distributed throughout the year.

Yes, agree. Sorry may not have been clear... note that the requirement is only for up-mass; there is no stipulation as to the number of missions required for down-mass (return or disposal). In short, the minimum or maximum number of missions to meet all of NASA's requirements is unspecified.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #513 on:** 03/12/2015 10:19 pm »

Where are we discussing this AWESOME LockMart reusable-refuelable-space-tug CRS-2 bid?
http://m.aviationweek.com/space/jupiter-space-tug-could-deliver-cargo-moon

joek · « **Reply #514 on:** 03/12/2015 10:19 pm »

Ok, Jupiter allows for pressurized up, unpressurized up, pressurized disposal, and presumably unpressurized disposal(?). That alone will not satisfy all of NASA's needs (although it qualifies for consideration under the CRS-2 RFP). So presumably this is would be an adjunct to other proposals which provide for (at least) pressurized return.

So what is the price to NASA to develop Jupiter vs. an unpressurized variant of, e.g., Cygnus? The price for qualification is a factor in the price evaluation and thus relevant to the contract award and as a newbie, Jupiter appears to have a tough road to hoe (regardless of its long term potential).

The quote from Crocker, "So I would say that while I think that ultimately this vehicle will get built, without CRS-2 as a foundation, it would be pushed way out." suggests it is likely to get "pushed way out".

Robotbeat · « **Reply #515 on:** 03/12/2015 10:21 pm »

This would be capable of more payload than Cygnus. The per-launch spacecraft cost could also be significantly lower since the tug is reusable (without refurbishment other than refueling).

Super excited about this proposal.

GWH · « **Reply #516 on:** 03/12/2015 10:26 pm »

More info up on the Lockmart site:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ssc/crs2.html
Even a little animation

Galactic Penguin SST · « **Reply #517 on:** 03/12/2015 10:32 pm »

Isn't that essentially an "LM robotic arm-included Parom"? Funny that Russian concept ended up as a CRS-2 bid......

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #518 on:** 03/12/2015 10:33 pm »

Sierra Nevada Corporation to Debut Dream Chaser® Cargo System
Company Unveils New Design for Uncrewed Missions

WHAT:
Sierra Nevada Corporation’s (SNC) Space Systems will host a press conference at the Satellite 2015 Conference to debut its Dream Chaser Cargo System, SNC’s solution for NASA’s Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) contract. Media will have the opportunity to speak with SNC’s Space Systems executive Mark Sirangelo and participate in a Q-and-A session following the conference.

WHEN:
Tuesday, March 17, 2015 at 3:00 p.m. EDT

WHERE:
Walter E. Washington Convention Center, Salon D.
Media can request telecon service via RSVP.

WHO:

Mark N. Sirangelo, corporate vice president, SNC’s Space Systems
Steve Lindsey, senior director and co-program manager, SNC’s Space Systems Space Exploration Systems

WHY:
SNC’s Dream Chaser spacecraft is a multi-mission-capable space utility vehicle (SUV) suitable for crewed or uncrewed missions. The Dream Chaser Cargo System is an uncrewed system developed to provide cargo transportation services to the International Space Station (ISS). The Dream Chaser Cargo System utilizes a mission variant of the Dream Chaser crewed spacecraft that meets or exceeds all of NASA’s goals for cargo transportation to the ISS, including rapid return of critical science.

Oberon_Command · « **Reply #519 on:** 03/12/2015 10:33 pm »

Quote from: arachnitect on 03/12/2015 09:52 pm

If anything, this system is less flexible than a disposable vehicle like Cygnus because of the way it appears to use the centaur upper stage to deorbit the old cargo module.

I can picture a couple ways the orbital handoff works, and neither of them make much sense.

What did you have in mind? Just from looking at the picture, here's what I was envisioning, that would only require one arm:

1) Jupiter rendezvouses with the new pod and upper stage, grappling the Centaur (NOT the new pod) with its arm, as depicted in the picture.
2) The Centaur jettisons the new pod.
3) Jupiter uses its arm to position itself and the old pod on the Centaur, attaching the old pod to the centaur in the process.
4) Jupiter undocks from the old pod, which stays with the Centaur.
5) Jupiter chases after the new pod, grapples and berths it with itself, then proceeds to station, while the Centaur with the old pod deorbits.