Sorry, but I don't understand. Does the arm at any point leave the Jupiter tug completely?Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 03/13/2015 12:54 amTry 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 centaur4) the Jupiter releases the old pod, arm moves away and releases the arm
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 centaur4) the Jupiter releases the old pod, arm moves away and releases the arm
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.
Quote from: butters on 03/13/2015 07:49 pmIs the propulsion system (presumably hydrazine monopropellant like MAVEN?) on the reusable bus or the expendable pod?it's on the reusable bus.
Is the propulsion system (presumably hydrazine monopropellant like MAVEN?) on the reusable bus or the expendable pod?
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.
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 03/13/2015 12:54 amTry 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 centaur4) the Jupiter releases the old pod, arm moves away and releases the armI think Ronsmytheiii has cracked the case by identifying the white object on the tail of the Jupiter tug as a latching end effector.
Quote from: arachnitect on 03/13/2015 08:08 pmQuote from: Ronsmytheiii on 03/13/2015 12:54 amTry 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 centaur4) the Jupiter releases the old pod, arm moves away and releases the armI 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.
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?
Quote from: Comga on 03/13/2015 08:33 pmQuote from: arachnitect on 03/13/2015 08:08 pmQuote from: Ronsmytheiii on 03/13/2015 12:54 amTry 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 centaur4) the Jupiter releases the old pod, arm moves away and releases the armI 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 mechanismPerhaps they want the flexibility of having a second end effector for non-CRS missions, like satellite servicing or an L2 outpost.
From the Lockheed Martin website:
Also, does the LM CRS2 proposal warrant its own thread?
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.
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