Author Topic: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024  (Read 418541 times)

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 683
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #580 on: 03/13/2015 08:08 pm »
Sorry, but I don't understand. Does the arm at any point leave the Jupiter tug completely?


Try this:

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) Jupiter maneuvers itself so the POA like end effector on the satellite bus ( end of the robot arm sticking out of the top) grabs the new pod
3) the new pod is released, the robot arm flips the stack around and berths the old one to the centaur
4) the Jupiter releases the old pod, arm moves away and releases the arm

I think Ronsmytheiii has cracked the case by identifying the white object on the tail of the Jupiter tug as a latching end effector.


Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4985
  • Likes Given: 6458
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #581 on: 03/13/2015 08:20 pm »
On top of all that, it looks like they have the ability to launch significant secondary payloads on the flights that aren't launching Jupiter, or offer some services similar to what ISS does (e.g.: hosting instruments), which could give them revenue that would allow them to reduce their bid, giving them a better chance against Cygnus.

Yeah, and it would give them an ideal way to easy into the market for such smaller payloads and hosted instruments -- they can prove they can execute and find out what the market really is without the risk of losing a big investment for a stand-alone program.

The big losers here are the stand-alone small payload launcher hopefuls, such as Firefly.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 683
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #582 on: 03/13/2015 08:23 pm »
Is the propulsion system (presumably hydrazine monopropellant like MAVEN?) on the reusable bus or the expendable pod?

it's on the reusable bus.

they have a capability to refuel the tug from the cargo containers as well

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4985
  • Likes Given: 6458
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #583 on: 03/13/2015 08:31 pm »
I'm surprised that no one has thought that LM, with Jupiter, is winking to NASA, indirectly suggesting a solution to fund (through CRS2) the development of a basic SM for Orion. A SM with a robotic arm, swappable tanks (its easy to increase the amount of fuel and oxidizer, just enlarge the tanks), and ion propulsion. All of that more or less for free. Yes, I know, the low power engine may be useful only in LEO, but it's a start. We need to keep in mind that the European SM for Orion is only 1, for the first mission. And then? Jupiter may be perfect also because it can be throughly tested in space before using it with a manned Orion.
Once funded through CRS2 resupply mission (that NASA has to pay anyhow), Jupiter can also be a low cost base to develop the ARM tug, an Hubble servicing tug and so on.
A forward-looking NASA administrator may trade the complexity of this solution with the savings it can give in these future missions.

I believe it would be illegal for NASA to take such factors into consideration.  They put out a request for bids and specified in some detail what they were looking for and how they would judge the bids.  For them to change their mind and use other criteria violates government contracting rules.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6086
  • Liked: 3978
  • Likes Given: 3718
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #584 on: 03/13/2015 08:33 pm »
Try this:

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) Jupiter maneuvers itself so the POA like end effector on the satellite bus ( end of the robot arm sticking out of the top) grabs the new pod
3) the new pod is released, the robot arm flips the stack around and berths the old one to the centaur
4) the Jupiter releases the old pod, arm moves away and releases the arm

I think Ronsmytheiii has cracked the case by identifying the white object on the tail of the Jupiter tug as a latching end effector.

OK, but if this is the plan, why not make Jupiter symmetric front to back?

The full connector for carrying the "pod" would have to be enough more complex and expensive that it is worth having the end effector in place of one and going through this coreography on each transfer. 

It seems simpler for Jupiter to
grab the Centaur,
berth to the new pod with the "rear" connector,
release the new pod from the Centaur,
flip around using the arm,
berth the old pod to the Centaur,
and let go of the Centaur and leave for the ISS.

I also see issues with orbital mechanics.  Jupiter needs to stay coorbital with the ISS to stay in the same orbital plane.  It may have to go to higher altitude for a while to let its orbit precess one way, before descending to meet the Centaur, where it's orbit will precess the other way.  If the timing is good, the orbit precesses back to the plane of the ISS.   If the launch is delayed, for whatever reason, the synchronicity fails and plane of Jupiter's orbit starts to drift. 

edit: "Engineering is done with numbers".  If I had the time, which might happen, part of the answer is the delta-V required daily to effect the plane change for differential precession for the insertion orbit.  Can anyone estimate the altitude at which the Centaur could deliver the pod and wait, while still being able to descend for disposal?  How many restarts can a Centaur do and how long can it remain functional? 

In last night's MMS launch, the Centaur's first burn gave it an apogee around 320 km.  That would be an OK altitude for a CRS-2 delivery in a three burn profile: inject, circularize, and descend to the atmosphere.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2015 08:45 pm by Comga »
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Offline WM68

  • Member
  • Posts: 56
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 134
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #585 on: 03/13/2015 08:39 pm »
From the Lockheed Martin website:
« Last Edit: 03/13/2015 08:41 pm by WM68 »

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1542
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 683
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #586 on: 03/13/2015 08:44 pm »
Try this:

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) Jupiter maneuvers itself so the POA like end effector on the satellite bus ( end of the robot arm sticking out of the top) grabs the new pod
3) the new pod is released, the robot arm flips the stack around and berths the old one to the centaur
4) the Jupiter releases the old pod, arm moves away and releases the arm

I think Ronsmytheiii has cracked the case by identifying the white object on the tail of the Jupiter tug as a latching end effector.

OK, but if this is the plan, why not make Jupiter symmetric front to back?

The full connector for carrying the "pod" would have to be enough more complex and expensive that it is worth having the end effector in place of one and going through this coreography on each transfer. 

It seems simpler for Jupiter to
grab the Centaur,
berth to the new pod with the "rear" connector,
release the new pod from the Centaur,
flip around using the arm,
berth the old pod to the Centaur,
and let go of the Centaur and leave for the ISS.

I also see issues with orbital mechanics.  Jupiter needs to stay coorbital with the ISS to stay in the same orbital plane.  It may have to go to higher altitude for a while to let its orbit precess one way, before descending to meet the Centaur, where it's orbit will precess the other way.  If the timing is good, the orbit precesses back to the plane of the ISS.   If the launch is delayed, for whatever reason, the synchronicity fails and plane of Jupiter's orbit starts to drift. 

edit: "Engineering is done with numbers".  If I had the time, which might happen, part of the answer is the delta-V required daily to effect the plane change for differential precession for the insertion orbit.  Can anyone estimate the altitude at which the Centaur could deliver the pod and wait, while still being able to descend for disposal?  How many restarts can a Centaur do and how long can it remain functional? 

In last night's MMS launch, the Centaur's first burn gave it an apogee around 350 km.  That would be a good altitude for a CRS-2 delivery in a three burn profile: inject, circularize, and descend to the atmosphere.

It they make Jupiter symmetrical, they need two sets of main thrusters.

Perhaps the LEE is lighter than the exoliner docking mechanism

Perhaps they want the flexibility of having a second end effector for non-CRS missions, like satellite servicing or an L2 outpost.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4412
  • Liked: 2269
  • Likes Given: 950
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #587 on: 03/13/2015 08:47 pm »
Since this is a CRS contract, I'm assuming that all vehicle development costs will be paid for by the companies making their various pitches, not by NASA or other government agencies.  They'll only pay for the delivery and return services.  It's not a COTS equivalent.  Is this correct?

Maybe-kinda-sorta.  There is a separate contract line item (CLIN-0002A) for "ISS Integration Certification", which is the price to certify the standard mission configurations.  That is in addition to the NTE per-mission price (i.e., simple delivery and return service price).

Exactly what is permissible under that "ISS Integration Certification" line item is unclear ... a test flight?  Some amount of DDT&E?  The RFP is unclear as to what is allowed, other than that ISS Integration Certification will be added to the total for purposes of the price evaluation.

My read is that bidders could potentially include whatever they think they can get away with under that "ISS Integration Certification" line item.  Recognizing of course that for every $ they put in that bucket, they are going to suffer in the price evaluation.

Offline Oberon_Command

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 371
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #588 on: 03/13/2015 08:55 pm »
Try this:

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) Jupiter maneuvers itself so the POA like end effector on the satellite bus ( end of the robot arm sticking out of the top) grabs the new pod
3) the new pod is released, the robot arm flips the stack around and berths the old one to the centaur
4) the Jupiter releases the old pod, arm moves away and releases the arm

I think Ronsmytheiii has cracked the case by identifying the white object on the tail of the Jupiter tug as a latching end effector.

OK, but if this is the plan, why not make Jupiter symmetric front to back?

The full connector for carrying the "pod" would have to be enough more complex and expensive that it is worth having the end effector in place of one and going through this coreography on each transfer. 

It seems simpler for Jupiter to
grab the Centaur,
berth to the new pod with the "rear" connector,
release the new pod from the Centaur,
flip around using the arm,
berth the old pod to the Centaur,
and let go of the Centaur and leave for the ISS.

I also see issues with orbital mechanics.  Jupiter needs to stay coorbital with the ISS to stay in the same orbital plane.  It may have to go to higher altitude for a while to let its orbit precess one way, before descending to meet the Centaur, where it's orbit will precess the other way.  If the timing is good, the orbit precesses back to the plane of the ISS.   If the launch is delayed, for whatever reason, the synchronicity fails and plane of Jupiter's orbit starts to drift. 

edit: "Engineering is done with numbers".  If I had the time, which might happen, part of the answer is the delta-V required daily to effect the plane change for differential precession for the insertion orbit.  Can anyone estimate the altitude at which the Centaur could deliver the pod and wait, while still being able to descend for disposal?  How many restarts can a Centaur do and how long can it remain functional? 

In last night's MMS launch, the Centaur's first burn gave it an apogee around 350 km.  That would be a good altitude for a CRS-2 delivery in a three burn profile: inject, circularize, and descend to the atmosphere.

It they make Jupiter symmetrical, they need two sets of main thrusters.

Perhaps the LEE is lighter than the exoliner docking mechanism

Perhaps they want the flexibility of having a second end effector for non-CRS missions, like satellite servicing or an L2 outpost.

Isn't this concept based on an existing satellite bus? Maybe it's cheaper to modify the bus by simply sticking the end effector on LEGO-style (which it looks like in the pictures), versus redesigning the whole bus to make it symmetrical?

Offline robert_d

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 348
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #589 on: 03/13/2015 09:09 pm »
So the top picture is between panel 4 and 5 of arachnitect's diagram? Is that correct? 


From the Lockheed Martin website:

Offline robert_d

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 348
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #590 on: 03/13/2015 09:15 pm »
I thought that ULA intended to phase out the Centaur upper stage in favor of a wider version? Not that that would change the concept, would it?

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #591 on: 03/13/2015 09:19 pm »
A CRS mission will be something like this.
1) Jupiter + exoliner dock with ISS.
2) A month later Jupiter + Exoliner (full of rubbish, maybe Jon's HatchBasket with its payload.) departs ISS.
3) Jupiter with Exoliner fly off and do secondary mission eg deploy satellites.
 4) Months( maybe a year)later Jupiter meets Centuar and swaps Exoliners.
5) Centuar deorbits. Jupiter docks with ISS.

NB secondary payload has full use of Jupiter for months at a time.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2015 09:20 pm by TrevorMonty »

Offline Sesquipedalian

  • Whee!
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 944
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #592 on: 03/13/2015 10:40 pm »
Also, does the LM CRS2 proposal warrant its own thread?

Report the thread if you think so.  I think it should be split off at the first LM-Jupiter post because it's an interesting spacecraft concept that's not limited to ISS CRS-2.  (The first time I saw the attached image I immediately thought of a Hubble servicing mission.)

Either the mods disagree with the idea of a thread split or they haven't seen my report yet.  Or they're being lazy and waiting for more reports to roll in. :)

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35730
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19893
  • Likes Given: 10373
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #593 on: 03/13/2015 10:41 pm »
Someone set up a new thread for the Lockheed stuff in this section.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35730
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19893
  • Likes Given: 10373
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #594 on: 03/13/2015 11:15 pm »
Fine. Here's the new thread to discuss Jupiter:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37034.0
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #595 on: 03/13/2015 11:52 pm »
Does CRS2 allow for more than 2 vehicles?

I was thinking of keeping Dragon and Cygnus plus adding one Jupiter mission per year. NASA may decide to add another vehicle for down mass redundancy, eg CST100 or DC.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2015 11:55 pm by TrevorMonty »

Offline rayleighscatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1098
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 562
  • Likes Given: 238
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #596 on: 03/14/2015 12:00 am »
Does CRS2 allow for more than 2 vehicles?

I was thinking of keeping Dragon and Cygnus plus adding one Jupiter mission per year. NASA may decide to add another vehicle for down mass redundancy, eg CST100 or DC.
No, it doesn't specify the number of contracts to be awarded.

Offline Llian Rhydderch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1227
  • Terran Anglosphere
  • Liked: 1283
  • Likes Given: 9563
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #597 on: 03/14/2015 01:08 am »
Since this is a CRS contract, I'm assuming that all vehicle development costs will be paid for by the companies making their various pitches, not by NASA or other government agencies.  They'll only pay for the delivery and return services.  It's not a COTS equivalent.  Is this correct?
Cheers

One can only hope!

Yes, more market forces in the space transport industry is a good thing for all of us want to see space access decrease in cost with a concomitant radical increase in flight frequency and mass to orbit.
Re arguments from authority on NSF:  "no one is exempt from error, and errors of authority are usually the worst kind.  Taking your word for things without question is no different than a bracket design not being tested because the designer was an old hand."
"You would actually save yourself time and effort if you were to use evidence and logic to make your points instead of wrapping yourself in the royal mantle of authority.  The approach only works on sheep, not inquisitive, intelligent people."

Offline HIP2BSQRE

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 668
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #598 on: 03/14/2015 03:56 pm »
Now that people have looked at Jupiter what chance do you see of it at least getting a piece of the CRS2 contract such as 1 -2 flights?

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4412
  • Liked: 2269
  • Likes Given: 950
Re: ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2024
« Reply #599 on: 03/14/2015 03:58 pm »
Might be prudent for LM to approach reuse incrementally so as to reduce initial risk and cost?

Strip it down to a disposable system; get rid of the arm and anything else possible.  Essentially an HTV or Cygnus++, which is not as exciting as a reusable space tug, but potentially much less initial risk and cost.  Do the first flights in disposable mode, then move to reusable later.

OTOH, it may not be possible to get the price down to a reasonable and competitive level when disposable (even for a few initial flights), so it may be reuse required from the start for the business case to close.

Tags:
 

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