Author Topic: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024  (Read 421314 times)

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6114
  • Liked: 4025
  • Likes Given: 3918
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #540 on: 03/13/2015 02:42 am »
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.
Your dog doesn't have a mouth on either side of its head, but this bus might have two adapters top and bottom.

Note the orientation of the latching parts of the payload adapters.

Could be there's a lot of interesting surprises with this one.

And I think the biggest is its business model ;)

Fair enough but Jupiter is NOT symmetric front to back.  If it puts the "new" PCM on the "back" it looks like it won't be able to rotate its solar panels.  I don't see the "latching parts  of the payload adapters."

And in this hand-off mode Jupiter always has a PCM attached, either on its way to ISS, sitting on ISS, or returning from ISS with an old PCM, and it could be in the latter configuration for a long time.  It would not be available for other tasks like taking comm sats to GEO.  It would probably have to remain coorbital with the ISS so that it didn't experience differential orbital precession.

As to the business model, we will see if they get the "Our old partner doing neat stuff" or "We didn't ask for that" response from NASA.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline Galactic Penguin SST

Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #541 on: 03/13/2015 02:49 am »
I wonder why LM went with an arm on board instead of just docking to the container for every mission like in Russia's Parom proposal - isn't it more expensive to fit an arm on board for just ISS flights?

I don't think Jupiter will make it for CRS-2, but the concept is certainly interesting and has uses further than ISS....

P.S. The Jupiter name reminds me that the DIRECT team has a similar concept spacecraft for ISS servicing, just with an even bigger PCM. Am I correct?
Astronomy & spaceflight geek penguin. In a relationship w/ Space Shuttle Discovery. Current Priority: Chasing the Chinese Spaceflight Wonder Egg & A Certain Chinese Mars Rover

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13862
  • Liked: 6062
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #542 on: 03/13/2015 03:15 am »
However, my picks for CRS2 winners are SpaceX and OrbitalATK, as they are the incumbents. 

I've read plenty of space enthusiast comments that Bigelow space habitats are just around the corner and will provide plenty of business for SpaceX.

So NASA could pick two new entrants in the field, develop new capabilities, and leave SpaceX to fill the sky with their Dragons servicing all those Bigelow space stations that will soon be up there.

Right?

Online TrevorMonty

Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #543 on: 03/13/2015 03:28 am »
The arm gives them more options, especially as space tug and for satellite servicing.

Offline Port

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • Germany
  • Liked: 13
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #544 on: 03/13/2015 03:28 am »
no, nasa should pick the option best suited for there needs. crs-2 is not a development-program, that ship sailed when LM failed to put forth a good proposal for CRS-1.
LM should have to carry the burden of cost/risk of developing jupiter by themselves when they think it's case is compelling enough - provided nasa will not pick them for crs-2 - which i strongly hope for.
The fact that they want to fly it on an Atlas V is an enormous cost-factor alone, also making it non-future-proof since the A-V has a limited lifetime now, so that it would have to be requalified with anything ULA/LM/Boing come up with in coop with Blue Origin - when ever that may be.

(the only option would be to pick them for a late date, letting SpX and OSC fly for the frist 2/3 of the CRS-2 duration)

however that all may sound, I hold no grudge against LM. I just think they had there chance and missed it, that's how the open market is supposed to work.
I think Jupiter is a good concept and I give them all the credit in the world for it. It's worth pursuing - but not under the CRS-2 Contract.

my 0.02 on all proposals that need serious development going forward
« Last Edit: 03/13/2015 03:39 am by Port »

Offline Space Junkie

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • IL, USA
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 95
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #545 on: 03/13/2015 03:47 am »
I've read plenty of space enthusiast comments that Bigelow space habitats are just around the corner and will provide plenty of business for SpaceX.

So NASA could pick two new entrants in the field, develop new capabilities, and leave SpaceX to fill the sky with their Dragons servicing all those Bigelow space stations that will soon be up there.

Right?

What Port said.

NASA's goal with CRS-2 is to obtain reliable and preferably cost-effective transportation of cargo to the ISS. I really like this concept. (I'd like it even more if it used a cheaper launch vehicle.) I doubt NASA will pick it though.

BTW: Bigelow space habitats have been "just around the corner" for a while and probably will be for 5-7 years at least. Lots of work still needs to be done.

I would love to be proven wrong.

Offline Norm Hartnett

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2310
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #546 on: 03/13/2015 03:49 am »
Examining both the video and the graphics it does appear that there are end effector fixtures on both the Jupiter and the Mission Support Module. In other words it can dock with pods on either/both ends.

Therefore;

1) Jupiter with old pod grappled to forward end rendezvouses with new pod and Centaur and uses arm to grapple to Centaur.

2) Jupiter uses arm to maneuver to MSM effector with new pod. (stack is old pod, Jupiter, MSM, new pod, Centaur)

3) Centaur disengages from new pod. (stack is old pod, Jupiter, MSM, new pod)

4) Jupiter uses arm to rotate 180 reference Centaur and redocks (stack is new pod, MSM, Jupitor, old pod, Centaur)

5) Jupiter disengages old pod and releases Centaur.

6) Jupiter grapples new pod with arm and moves it from aft MSM effector to forward Jupiter effector.

Note for MSM's with solar panels the MSM grapple would simply be longer.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2015 03:51 am by Norm Hartnett »
“You can’t take a traditional approach and expect anything but the traditional results, which has been broken budgets and not fielding any flight hardware.” Mike Gold - Apollo, STS, CxP; those that don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it: SLS.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4987
  • Likes Given: 6458
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #547 on: 03/13/2015 04:18 am »
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).

Could be.  Keep in mind that CRS-2 is intended primarily to be a cargo service contract; meeting NASA's CRS-2 requirements and price over the term of the contract is what will win.

Anyone want to venture a guess at how cost-competitive this might be in the context of CRS-2?  The CRS-2 price evaluation and contract award does not care about how cool it may be, or whether it has a longer term payoff.

It's true that NASA doesn't take into account longer-term payoff in the CRS-2 decision.  But LM can take it into account.  They can give up profit on the CRS-2 contract if they see it setting them up for long-term gain.  So the long-term potential can help in with CRS-2, if LM really believes in it and puts their money behind it, as they claim they are willing to do.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4987
  • Likes Given: 6458
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #548 on: 03/13/2015 04:35 am »
nobody seemed to have posted for LM-Jupiter proposal so far.

I really like the idea and it took me by surprise that they could come up with something worthwhile after all this liberty-stuff nobody seemed to take seriously  (imo)

Liberty was ATK, not Lockheed-Martin.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #549 on: 03/13/2015 05:55 am »
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?
It sounds like a bad proposal. I don't like the unnecessary complexity or that the majority of the proposal out sources work to foreign aerospace companies (the Atlas V engine, the pressurized vessel, the robotic arm). I don't think CRS should be used to prop up the space economies of other countries when the US space economy is in as bad of shape as it's in.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Online TrevorMonty

Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #550 on: 03/13/2015 06:10 am »
The Cygnus was >$200m a mission has only half volume and payload, no external cargo or refuelling option for ISS. If LM can sell for < $400m they should competitive with Cygnus. Volume more than mass seems to be limiting factor with Dragon (11m3)and Cygnus(27m3) at approx 71m3 (4.5m*4.5m)Jupiter is king.
NB edit volume.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2015 07:29 am by TrevorMonty »

Offline LastStarFighter

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • Europa
  • Liked: 77
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #551 on: 03/13/2015 06:26 am »
nobody seemed to have posted for LM-Jupiter proposal so far.

I really like the idea and it took me by surprise that they could come up with something worthwhile after all this liberty-stuff nobody seemed to take seriously  (imo)

Liberty was ATK, not Lockheed-Martin.

I'm guessing it was a reference to the composite version of the Orion capsule that was to go ontop of Liberty. LM was a subcontractor to ATK for that Commercial crew proposal I think. LM was to build the service module, integrate avionics and do final assembly.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13362
  • UK
  • Liked: 3678
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #552 on: 03/13/2015 06:34 am »

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).

Could be.  Keep in mind that CRS-2 is intended primarily to be a cargo service contract; meeting NASA's CRS-2 requirements and price over the term of the contract is what will win.

Anyone want to venture a guess at how cost-competitive this might be in the context of CRS-2?  The CRS-2 price evaluation and contract award does not care about how cool it may be, or whether it has a longer term payoff.

It's true that NASA doesn't take into account longer-term payoff in the CRS-2 decision.  But LM can take it into account.  They can give up profit on the CRS-2 contract if they see it setting them up for long-term gain.  So the long-term potential can help in with CRS-2, if LM really believes in it and puts their money behind it, as they claim they are willing to do.

If LM are willing to put a lot of their own money into this as far as development is concerned then maybe I can see this getting somewhere.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4987
  • Likes Given: 6458
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #553 on: 03/13/2015 06:35 am »
It sounds like a bad proposal. I don't like the unnecessary complexity

Making something reusable isn't unnecessary complexity in my book.  It tends to makes things cheaper, and it enables us to grow far more in the future than we ever could with the old paradigm of building everything new for every mission.

or that the majority of the proposal out sources work to foreign aerospace companies (the Atlas V engine, the pressurized vessel, the robotic arm). I don't think CRS should be used to prop up the space economies of other countries when the US space economy is in as bad of shape as it's in.

The U.S. space economy is in the best shape its ever been in.  All sorts of exciting innovations are going on.

Working with companies in other countries lets us get more out of each tax dollar we spend, and makes it easier for U.S. companies to sell to the governments of those other countries in return.

What you're proposing is a form of protectionism.  Everyone loses from that.  It was one of the leading causes of the Great Depression.  The freer trade of every sort is between countries, the more everyone wins.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4987
  • Likes Given: 6458
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #554 on: 03/13/2015 06:37 am »
nobody seemed to have posted for LM-Jupiter proposal so far.

I really like the idea and it took me by surprise that they could come up with something worthwhile after all this liberty-stuff nobody seemed to take seriously  (imo)

Liberty was ATK, not Lockheed-Martin.

I'm guessing it was a reference to the composite version of the Orion capsule that was to go ontop of Liberty. LM was a subcontractor to ATK for that Commercial crew proposal I think. LM was to build the service module, integrate avionics and do final assembly.

Ah, right.  I still don't blame Lockheed Martin for that.  ATK was the driving force.

Offline MP99

Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #555 on: 03/13/2015 08:28 am »


It's frustrating that the video doesn't show the cargo exchange with Centaur.  None of the solutions to the exchange proposed here are entirely satisfactory.

I doubt it needs to be anything that extraordinary - as one possible example a simple hinge mounted to the adapter to the centaur would allow  the new pod to swing out of the way while the disposal pod is connected.  Grab the new pod with the arm and connect  to the Jupiter.

I like this. Simplest proposal I've seen so far.

Jupiter arm docks to Centaur;
new container hinges away from the docking port;
arm docks old container to the docking port;
Jupiter detaches from old container;
arm manoeuvres Jupiter to dock with new container;
hinge releases new stack;
arm moves stack away from Centaur before it detaches.

Cheers, Martin

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4987
  • Likes Given: 6458
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #556 on: 03/13/2015 08:41 am »
Another possibility is that the cargo module's docking adaptor is on the top end of the stack on launch and it's connected to the Centaur on the other end with a different mechanism.  Then the sequence would be:

1.) Jupiter arrives with the old cargo module docked to it and uses its arm to remove the old cargo module and hold it on the arm.
2.) Jupiter docks itself to the new cargo module that is still attached to the Centaur, while still holding the old module in its arm.
3.) Centaur releases the new cargo module, which is still docked to Jupiter.
4.) Jupiter puts the old cargo module, which is still in its arm, on the Centaur and releases it.
5.) The Centaur re-enters with the old cargo module while Jupiter flies off to ISS with the new cargo module.

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6061
  • Liked: 8625
  • Likes Given: 840
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #557 on: 03/13/2015 08:58 am »
It sounds like a bad proposal. I don't like the unnecessary complexity or that the majority of the proposal out sources work to foreign aerospace companies (the Atlas V engine, the pressurized vessel, the robotic arm). I don't think CRS should be used to prop up the space economies of other countries when the US space economy is in as bad of shape as it's in.

There's not much choice with regards to foreign companies, Orbital uses them too (Russian engines, same supplier for pressure vessel).

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6310
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4189
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #558 on: 03/13/2015 09:47 am »
ISTM this adds a bunch of expensive failure modes. Just launch, fly and berth without the juggling act.
DM

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4987
  • Likes Given: 6458
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #559 on: 03/13/2015 09:53 am »
ISTM this adds a bunch of expensive failure modes. Just launch, fly and berth without the juggling act.

Are you concerned just about using the Centaur to de-orbit or are you against the whole idea of a re-usable tug?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0