Why not atlas or delta
So the question stands. If an alternate launcher (ULA or F9) has launched an Orbital Satellite based on the STAR bus, then is the payload interface compatible with Cygnus? What new work would have to be done?
The big issue with both SpaceX and ULA is finding a spare LV these are built to order. I doubt either company has spares. The alternative is to grab the LV from another scheduled government flight.
Orb/Cygnus was not really expected to launch again until Q1 2015, and the next one after that was in the Summer of 2015. So it does not appear to me they will miss much with a 6-9 month delay in launches. SpaceX has about 5 Dragon's planned for 2015, so it is not likely they could squeeze in any more.A year long delay OTOH, would definitely be a problem. Might have to order another ATV or HTV. Dragon does not do garbage duty either.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 10/29/2014 05:27 pmThe big issue with both SpaceX and ULA is finding a spare LV these are built to order. I doubt either company has spares. The alternative is to grab the LV from another scheduled government flight.Launch vehicles are built to order.
A totally off the wall multiple part question:For the purposes of full non-perishable supply to ISS with the planned Cygnus craft.1) How many Cygnus could be lofted at a time by a Falcon Heavy?2) If close to the number of mission Orbital has planned for ISS in it's downtime would Orbital or Nasa consider placing them in a parking orbit and then sending Cygnus as needed from that orbit to ISS?3) Could a Cygnus remain parked in an orbit for a long time before being used? (batteries etc.)4) What would it take to convince Elon or Orbital to risk this on the Falcon Heavy test flight?
^^^ The fairing for FH isn't any bigger than the fairing for F9. So the FH doesn't buy you anything, can only loft one Cygnus per launch. I think F9 could lift the enhanced Cygnus (assuming it fits) fully loaded. Dragon is always volume, not payload limited and Cygnus doesn't have a trunk.
They also have a CRS contract with NASA, which might give NASA some leverage to make them add a Cygnus launch?
I am hoping the Antares mishap will motivate Orbital to pursue integration of Cygnus on Delta IV, both as a backup strategy for CRS if Antares doesn't return to flight soon, and as a forward-looking strategy to expand the capabilities of Cygnus beyond LEO ISS resupply.
I'm not sure which Delta IV M+ variant would be appropriate for launching an Enhanced Cygnus to ISS.
Quote from: sdsds on 11/01/2014 06:57 pmI am hoping [Orbital will] pursue integration of Cygnus on Delta IVDelta IV is one of the most expensive rockets in the world. Orbital has a fixed price contract. That is not going to happen.
I am hoping [Orbital will] pursue integration of Cygnus on Delta IV
Quote from: Lars-J on 10/29/2014 07:04 pm They also have a CRS contract with NASA, which might give NASA some leverage to make them add a Cygnus launch? OSC has a CRS contract too, they could contract ULA for launch services and this would be transparent to NASA. NASA has no leverage on Spacex or OSC to tell them which launch vehicle to use.
In another thread Dan thought of using Arianne if ULA isn't able to free up a core or two. Sure, Arianne has issues of its own, and has a spare Soyuz-ST that could be used for Cygnus, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34129.msg1268946#msg1268946a Win Win for both firms.
It may be that they can't fulfill their full contract, but I'm sure they'd consider that a better bet than pushing something out that isn't ready. The push should be the future, and to me that means hoping to get a portion of the CRS2 contract (in tandem with SpaceX). Being ready for that should be the #1 goal.
Quote from: robertross on 11/01/2014 08:49 pmIt may be that they can't fulfill their full contract, but I'm sure they'd consider that a better bet than pushing something out that isn't ready. The push should be the future, and to me that means hoping to get a portion of the CRS2 contract (in tandem with SpaceX). Being ready for that should be the #1 goal.If they can't fulfill their CRS-1 contract, they aren't going to get a CRS-2 contract
Quote from: Jim on 11/01/2014 08:51 pmQuote from: robertross on 11/01/2014 08:49 pmIt may be that they can't fulfill their full contract, but I'm sure they'd consider that a better bet than pushing something out that isn't ready. The push should be the future, and to me that means hoping to get a portion of the CRS2 contract (in tandem with SpaceX). Being ready for that should be the #1 goal.If they can't fulfill their CRS-1 contract, they aren't going to get a CRS-2 contractBut that would be up to NASA to decide, no?And NASA already has a substantial investment in getting Orbital to the point of ISS re-supply, with limited options in the near term, so perhaps contract re-negotiation could be in order.
But for the record, I think Orbital will figure out how to get the rest of their CRS1 missions done.
CRS Go-Forward PlanThe company’s senior managers have begun developing a comprehensive plan to maintain the cargo supply line between Earth and the International Space Station, fulfilling Orbital’s commitment to NASA for the delivery of supplies for the astronaut crew, necessary equipment for the operation and maintenance of the station, and scientific experiments conducted aboard the orbiting laboratory. Details about Orbital’s approach for completing future missions under its Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract with NASA will be made public in the near future.
Quote from: robertross on 11/01/2014 09:20 pmQuote from: Jim on 11/01/2014 08:51 pmQuote from: robertross on 11/01/2014 08:49 pmIt may be that they can't fulfill their full contract, but I'm sure they'd consider that a better bet than pushing something out that isn't ready. The push should be the future, and to me that means hoping to get a portion of the CRS2 contract (in tandem with SpaceX). Being ready for that should be the #1 goal.If they can't fulfill their CRS-1 contract, they aren't going to get a CRS-2 contractBut that would be up to NASA to decide, no?And NASA already has a substantial investment in getting Orbital to the point of ISS re-supply, with limited options in the near term, so perhaps contract re-negotiation could be in order.I agree with Jim. If CRS2 has pretty much the same requirements as the current CRS1 contract, then if Orbital can't complete their CRS1 contract why would anyone think they could handle the CRS2 contract?And from a business standpoint, why would you put your faith in a company that has not been able to fulfill a contract you already have with them? You wouldn't.But for the record, I think Orbital will figure out how to get the rest of their CRS1 missions done.
Everything in public domain points to them using a different engine for CRS2 contract so any failure due to AJ26 shouldn't count against them.
Plus tender is not just about LV but also the Cygnus which has proved its self. ISS is more precious than any cargo, having a reliable flight proven cargo vehicle is a huge plus for Orbital.
Quote from: Jim on 11/01/2014 08:51 pmQuote from: robertross on 11/01/2014 08:49 pmIt may be that they can't fulfill their full contract, but I'm sure they'd consider that a better bet than pushing something out that isn't ready. The push should be the future, and to me that means hoping to get a portion of the CRS2 contract (in tandem with SpaceX). Being ready for that should be the #1 goal.If they can't fulfill their CRS-1 contract, they aren't going to get a CRS-2 contractYou seem very sure of that.The only thing that would stop them flying the current Antares again is if it is AJ26 problem that can't be resolved. Any other possible failings of LV should be solvable.Everything in public domain points to them using a different engine for CRS2 contract so any failure due to AJ26 shouldn't count against them. Plus tender is not just about LV but also the Cygnus which has proved its self. ISS is more precious than any cargo, having a reliable flight proven cargo vehicle is a huge plus for Orbital.
Quote from: Prober on 11/01/2014 08:00 pmIn another thread Dan thought of using Arianne if ULA isn't able to free up a core or two. Sure, Arianne has issues of its own, and has a spare Soyuz-ST that could be used for Cygnus, http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34129.msg1268946#msg1268946a Win Win for both firms.No, it has to be a US rocket
Well I didn't know about this when I first posted (yes, posting without full knowledge of the facts), but NASA had put out a request to extend the CRS1 contract to allow both Orbital and SpaceX up to the end of 2017 to fulfill CRS1 (albeit to mitigate risk, and allow additional providers a chance to bid on CRS2). That gives Orbital up to 38 months, which I believe is possible.
Quote from: robertross on 11/01/2014 09:39 pmWell I didn't know about this when I first posted (yes, posting without full knowledge of the facts), but NASA had put out a request to extend the CRS1 contract to allow both Orbital and SpaceX up to the end of 2017 to fulfill CRS1 (albeit to mitigate risk, and allow additional providers a chance to bid on CRS2). That gives Orbital up to 38 months, which I believe is possible. I thought the intent of the CRS1 extensions was to buy MORE flights to fill the gap between the scheduled CRS1 missions and the beginning of CRS2?
Well I didn't know about this when I first posted (yes, posting without full knowledge of the facts), but NASA had put out a request to extend the CRS1 contract to allow both Orbital and SpaceX up to the end of 2017 to fulfill CRS1 (albeit to mitigate risk, and allow additional providers a chance to bid on CRS2). That gives Orbital up to 38 months, which I believe is possible. Of course NASA would want assurances before that cut off point, but I see more than enough time to fly a re-designed Antares, rather than fielding an entirely new spacecraft, perhaps building a new launch pad (if required), and meeting NASA's ISS requirements (including 1 flight with prox ops).I see Orbital still using Antares, albeit likely with a new engine. (And personally I'd call it the Phoenix, understandably, but they likely won't change the name, and let's not start a naming game on this thread)
Quote from: robertross on 11/01/2014 09:39 pmWell I didn't know about this when I first posted (yes, posting without full knowledge of the facts), but NASA had put out a request to extend the CRS1 contract to allow both Orbital and SpaceX up to the end of 2017 to fulfill CRS1 (albeit to mitigate risk, and allow additional providers a chance to bid on CRS2). That gives Orbital up to 38 months, which I believe is possible. Of course NASA would want assurances before that cut off point, but I see more than enough time to fly a re-designed Antares, rather than fielding an entirely new spacecraft, perhaps building a new launch pad (if required), and meeting NASA's ISS requirements (including 1 flight with prox ops).I see Orbital still using Antares, albeit likely with a new engine. (And personally I'd call it the Phoenix, understandably, but they likely won't change the name, and let's not start a naming game on this thread)The standard sized Cyngus probably also can fit on Stratolaunch. OSC is developing the rocket so it would make sense to go ahead and design a payload interface for their own vehicles.
Quote from: gongora on 11/01/2014 11:54 pmQuote from: robertross on 11/01/2014 09:39 pmWell I didn't know about this when I first posted (yes, posting without full knowledge of the facts), but NASA had put out a request to extend the CRS1 contract to allow both Orbital and SpaceX up to the end of 2017 to fulfill CRS1 (albeit to mitigate risk, and allow additional providers a chance to bid on CRS2). That gives Orbital up to 38 months, which I believe is possible. I thought the intent of the CRS1 extensions was to buy MORE flights to fill the gap between the scheduled CRS1 missions and the beginning of CRS2?Not according to what I found:https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=cff80051d20c232523953c167a42b410&tab=core&_cview=0
Quote from: robertross on 11/02/2014 01:30 amQuote from: gongora on 11/01/2014 11:54 pmQuote from: robertross on 11/01/2014 09:39 pmWell I didn't know about this when I first posted (yes, posting without full knowledge of the facts), but NASA had put out a request to extend the CRS1 contract to allow both Orbital and SpaceX up to the end of 2017 to fulfill CRS1 (albeit to mitigate risk, and allow additional providers a chance to bid on CRS2). That gives Orbital up to 38 months, which I believe is possible. I thought the intent of the CRS1 extensions was to buy MORE flights to fill the gap between the scheduled CRS1 missions and the beginning of CRS2?Not according to what I found:https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=cff80051d20c232523953c167a42b410&tab=core&_cview=0The wording in that is really strange. The CRS contracts already went to the end of 2016, and both Orbital and SpaceX are scheduled to do their final flights under the original contract in late 2016. There is a one year gap because CRS2 isn't scheduled to start until 2018, so they need to buy another 4-5 flights in 2017. I think that posting really is to buy the additional 2017 flights, just hard to understand what all the bureaucratic language is actually saying.
I believe the key point is the first paragraph (bold mine):"NASA/JSC intends to extend the existing Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts NNJ09GA02B, with Orbital Sciences Corporation, hereinafter referred to as Orbital, and NNJ09GA04B, with Space Exploration Technologies, hereinafter referred to as SpaceX for up to 24 months from December 2015 to December 2017 at no cost. Both contracts were awarded in December 2008 and have a not to exceed (NTE) contract value of 3.1B each."
I was wondering if you could put the Pressurized Cargo Module (PCM) for Cygnus in the Dragon Trunk?The PCM for Cygnus has a diameter of 3.07m and a height that looks to be about 2.4m. The dry mass is 1,500kg including the service module I think, so maybe just 750kg for the PCM?Dragon has a diameter of 3.7m and CRS-8 is carrying BEAM in the trunk and BEAM has a 3.2m diameter (although this likely is less for transport) and 4m height and is 1,360kg.It seems like it would fit to me. Thoughts?
Quote from: Billium on 11/02/2014 04:34 pmI was wondering if you could put the Pressurized Cargo Module (PCM) for Cygnus in the Dragon Trunk?The PCM for Cygnus has a diameter of 3.07m and a height that looks to be about 2.4m. The dry mass is 1,500kg including the service module I think, so maybe just 750kg for the PCM?Dragon has a diameter of 3.7m and CRS-8 is carrying BEAM in the trunk and BEAM has a 3.2m diameter (although this likely is less for transport) and 4m height and is 1,360kg.It seems like it would fit to me. Thoughts?No.A. the Dragon can not maneuver with itb. The PCM is not made to be pulled into orbitc. Trunk does not the structural capabilityd. No performance to carry it
Who are "those folks"?
Quote from: friendly3 on 11/27/2014 11:06 pmWho are "those folks"?Month ago or so (I do not remember exactly who, I just remember post) someone fumed at even mentioning possibility that Orbital would buy launch from SpaceX. After all, they are cutthroat competition, not in milion years or something.
Quote from: Patchouli on 11/02/2014 01:31 am(1)The standard sized Cyngus probably also can fit on Stratolaunch. OSC is developing the rocket so it would make sense to go ahead and design a payload interface for their own vehicles.Not going to happen.
(1)The standard sized Cyngus probably also can fit on Stratolaunch. OSC is developing the rocket so it would make sense to go ahead and design a payload interface for their own vehicles.
Not saying it would fit in the trunk or anything like that, but ISTM F9E has quite a lot of performance in reserve when it lifts Dragon. Cheers, Martin
Quote from: MP99 on 11/29/2014 03:53 pmNot saying it would fit in the trunk or anything like that, but ISTM F9E has quite a lot of performance in reserve when it lifts Dragon. Cheers, MartinThe limitation would not be the payload capacity of Falcon 9 it would be the payload capacity of Dragon. According to wikipedia Dragon has a maximum payload of 3310kg. The dry mass of Cygnus would be included in this total mass.Edited for clarity.
Quote from: robertross on 11/02/2014 01:46 amQuote from: Patchouli on 11/02/2014 01:31 am(1)The standard sized Cyngus probably also can fit on Stratolaunch. OSC is developing the rocket so it would make sense to go ahead and design a payload interface for their own vehicles.Not going to happen.Can you please say why not? Is (1) wrong or lack of performance or lack of incentives or short time scales or what?
Re (d) - if F9 can really do 13t expendable to LEO, ISTM it could manage both a Dragon and a Cygnus (perhaps part loaded).
Quote from: MP99 on 11/29/2014 03:53 pmRe (d) - if F9 can really do 13t expendable to LEO, ISTM it could manage both a Dragon and a Cygnus (perhaps part loaded). SpaceX listed 13.15 tonnes payload to a 185 km x 28.5 deg orbit. That only means 12 point something tonnes (maybe 12.3 tonnes, give or take) to a 51.6 deg ISS orbit, still at only 185 km.The most recent Dragons were more than 8.6 tonnes loaded, and the blown up Cygnus was something like 5.6 tonnes loaded. - Ed Kyle
BTW, SpaceX lists Dragon as 6,000 kg (apparently including cargo, and including trunk cargo)...
You are all assuming this launch is going to be from the East Coast and thus the full payload capability of F9 will be available. Does their near term manifest allow for an East Coast launch, or is the "hole" in the manifest just SLC-4? Should be plenty of performance for Cygnus vs Dragon off the West Coast.
Quote from: newpylong on 11/30/2014 11:07 amYou are all assuming this launch is going to be from the East Coast and thus the full payload capability of F9 will be available. Does their near term manifest allow for an East Coast launch, or is the "hole" in the manifest just SLC-4? Should be plenty of performance for Cygnus vs Dragon off the West Coast.West coast depends on NASA being able to load Cygnus there, especially late load. Do we know they can do it in Vandenberg?
Late loads for Cygnus were processed horizontally the same as Dragon. Flying loads out west shouldn't be an issue. Dragon science return is handled from out west.
Quote from: Prober on 11/30/2014 12:09 pmLate loads for Cygnus were processed horizontally the same as Dragon. Flying loads out west shouldn't be an issue. Dragon science return is handled from out west.Not the same. Cygnus is in a fairing, where as Dragon is not. There is no access to the Cygnus while in the fairing. Dragon can be accessed at the pad. Location of science return has no bearing on prelaunch early access
Quote from: Jim on 11/30/2014 03:24 pmQuote from: Prober on 11/30/2014 12:09 pmLate loads for Cygnus were processed horizontally the same as Dragon. Flying loads out west shouldn't be an issue. Dragon science return is handled from out west.Not the same. Cygnus is in a fairing, where as Dragon is not. There is no access to the Cygnus while in the fairing. Dragon can be accessed at the pad. Location of science return has no bearing on prelaunch early accesshuh? you saying Cygnus didn't do late loading?again flying late loads out to the West coast vs East coast should NOT be and issue.
again flying late loads out to the West coast vs East coast should NOT be and issue.
SpaceFlight Insider has received word that the potential prime “contender” to ferry Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Cygnus spacecraft to orbit, and thus allow Orbital to complete its requirements under the $1.9 billion Commercial Resupply Services (CRS ) contract – is none other than fellow CRS participant – SpaceX. If this turns out to be true, it would mean that both current CRS firms – would be flying on the same rocket.Source: spaceflightinsider.com
Quote from: mr. mark on 11/27/2014 07:33 pmSpaceFlight Insider has received word that the potential prime “contender” to ferry Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Cygnus spacecraft to orbit, and thus allow Orbital to complete its requirements under the $1.9 billion Commercial Resupply Services (CRS ) contract – is none other than fellow CRS participant – SpaceX. If this turns out to be true, it would mean that both current CRS firms – would be flying on the same rocket.Source: spaceflightinsider.comWhat surprises me the most about this information is that SpaceX can make two F9s available within a year (expected launch dates mid - late 2015) of being ordered. The industry norm is 2 years. With the RLV SpaceX could have lead times in months even weeks if customers are willing to use a 2nd hand booster. The other plus for customers is the option to launch earlier if their satellite is ready, complete satellites don't make any money sitting on ground waiting on LVs. To compete competitors may need to have spare LVs.
IIRC According to Jim LVs are build to order to the payload. So having a number of spare cores might not work.Of course SpaceX have the advantage of being able to modifying a LV stack on the fly since they have very few supply chain bottlenecks. Most parts are just on the other side of the SpaceX factory instead of on other side of the country.
IIRC According to Jim LVs are build to order to the payload. So having a number of spare cores might not work.
It's not a two in one year. Orbital expects about two years for the 200 Antares.
Quote from: baldusi on 12/03/2014 06:27 pmIt's not a two in one year. Orbital expects about two years for the 200 Antares.I picked up somewhere that Orbital expects a hotfire at the end of 2015. I can't recall where though, so feel free to call bunk on it.
It's not a two in one year. Orbital expects about two years for the 200 Antares. So it might be closer to one core in 15 months and one core in 20 months.
Quote from: baldusi on 12/03/2014 06:27 pmIt's not a two in one year. Orbital expects about two years for the 200 Antares. So it might be closer to one core in 15 months and one core in 20 months. In that - likely - case wouldn't they need more than two launches on other vehicles to keep their obligations? They are already behind by one.
The launch cost per Antares 130 is about $240m from one of the NSF Orbital threads.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 12/07/2014 01:32 pm The launch cost per Antares 130 is about $240m from one of the NSF Orbital threads.That's very high. The entire contract for Orbital is 1.9 Billion and that includes Antares, Cygnus, operations, etc. With 9 originally planned flights a $240m Antares alone would have cost 2.1 Billion.
Cygnus will fly on the Atlas Vhttp://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1996251
Quote from: MDDevice on 12/09/2014 06:36 pmCygnus will fly on the Atlas Vhttp://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1996251So to summarize:Cygnus CRS-4 - Fall 2015 - Atlas V (401?)Cygnus CRS-5 - 1Q 2016 - Antares "231" (Atlas V as back-up)Cygnus CRS-6 - 2Q 2016 - Antares "231"Cygnus CRS-7 - 4Q 2016 - Antares "231"Cygnus CRS-8 - removed from CRS-1 contract (has the spacecraft parts been built yet?)Is that correct?
Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 12/09/2014 06:46 pmQuote from: MDDevice on 12/09/2014 06:36 pmCygnus will fly on the Atlas Vhttp://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1996251So to summarize:Cygnus CRS-4 - Fall 2015 - Atlas V (401?)Cygnus CRS-5 - 1Q 2016 - Antares "231" (Atlas V as back-up)Cygnus CRS-6 - 2Q 2016 - Antares "231"Cygnus CRS-7 - 4Q 2016 - Antares "231"Cygnus CRS-8 - removed from CRS-1 contract (has the spacecraft parts been built yet?)Is that correct?Probably Antares "230""231" would have Bipropellant Transfer Stage.
Quote from: MDDevice on 12/09/2014 06:36 pmCygnus will fly on the Atlas Vhttp://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1996251So much for the Spaceflight Insider and their SpaceX prediction. There was similar prediction about DC and CC. The only reliable source is the actual companies/ agencies involved in the decision making process.
Interesting to see that ULA/Lockheed Martin has yet to announce this contract....
Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 12/09/2014 06:46 pmQuote from: MDDevice on 12/09/2014 06:36 pmCygnus will fly on the Atlas Vhttp://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1996251So to summarize:Cygnus CRS-4 - Fall 2015 - Atlas V (401?)Cygnus CRS-5 - 1Q 2016 - Antares "231" (Atlas V as back-up)Cygnus CRS-6 - 2Q 2016 - Antares "231"Cygnus CRS-7 - 4Q 2016 - Antares "231"Cygnus CRS-8 - removed from CRS-1 contract (has the spacecraft parts been built yet?)Is that correct?They wouldn't use the same number would they?
Quote from: Prober on 12/09/2014 08:04 pmQuote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 12/09/2014 06:46 pmQuote from: MDDevice on 12/09/2014 06:36 pmCygnus will fly on the Atlas Vhttp://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=81036&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1996251So to summarize:Cygnus CRS-4 - Fall 2015 - Atlas V (401?)Cygnus CRS-5 - 1Q 2016 - Antares "231" (Atlas V as back-up)Cygnus CRS-6 - 2Q 2016 - Antares "231"Cygnus CRS-7 - 4Q 2016 - Antares "231"Cygnus CRS-8 - removed from CRS-1 contract (has the spacecraft parts been built yet?)Is that correct?They wouldn't use the same number would they?Why wouldn't they?
The EXIF states that it was taken on February 2nd, 2015. I'm counting 5 PCM. Which would imply CRS-5 to CRS-9!
Quote from: baldusi on 08/12/2015 07:54 pmThe EXIF states that it was taken on February 2nd, 2015. I'm counting 5 PCM. Which would imply CRS-5 to CRS-9!This would have been taken before the Orb-4 PCM shipped correct? So we're seeing PCM's for Orb-4 through Orb-8e (assuming these are all flight units).It's very possible there are more PCMs somewhere at Thales: on the most recent earnings call, OrbATK said they had 2 additional missions. I'm assuming that means we'll see 8e and 9 for sure, and possibly Orb-10?
NASA ordered two more cargo deliveries to the International Space Station from Orbital ATK under a 2008 Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract, a company spokeswoman said Aug. 12.
I wonder now if part of the driver for that recent Atlas order was to move more volume uphill quickly to free up later Antares flights for the extended contract.
This FISO podcast was about German ideas for DSH and using it for artificial gravity experiments. http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Derz-Hill_6-17-15/One possible use of Cygnus post CRS mission is to do tethered artificial gravity experiment. Would another space craft to tether to, this could be a Cygnus from a previous CRS mission. Alternatively a Dragon, in which dragon may carry the experiments as the can be directly returned to earth. As one of the listeners pointed out, it is not just about testing life sciences but also how equipment would work in lunar or mars gravity.
Would it be possible to make a Cygnus variant with a wider and taller PCM and launch it on an AV 551, to gain back something approaching ATV upmass capability?
Update presentation by Frank Culbertson:
Quote from: yg1968 on 01/15/2016 05:02 pmDuring the CRS-2 press conference, it was mentionned that Orbital/ATK has the option of bringing up a spacecraft with unpressurized cargo only. What might that look like? Like half a Cygnus with one end missing?http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/cygnus-ucm.htmBasically the Cygnus service module with an ExPRESS Logistics Carrier on it.
During the CRS-2 press conference, it was mentionned that Orbital/ATK has the option of bringing up a spacecraft with unpressurized cargo only. What might that look like? Like half a Cygnus with one end missing?
Quote from: baldusi on 01/15/2016 05:48 pmThat could bring one huge ORU! Or a whole module ;-)Not a lot of space inside the Antares fairing...
That could bring one huge ORU! Or a whole module ;-)
Quote from: baldusi on 01/15/2016 05:48 pmBTW, the numbers according to their press release were 4,400kg of cargo on an Atlas V. Have they bid the four segment Cygnus?Their press release strongly implies that the initial task orders will be the current "enhanced Cygnus." How they proposed to stuff 4.4t in there is beyond me... lots of water? Send the astros some free weights and a Bocce set?
BTW, the numbers according to their press release were 4,400kg of cargo on an Atlas V. Have they bid the four segment Cygnus?
Quote from: arachnitect on 01/15/2016 10:17 pmQuote from: baldusi on 01/15/2016 05:48 pmQuote from: arachnitect on 01/15/2016 10:17 pmQuote from: baldusi on 01/15/2016 05:48 pmActually, Enhanced Cygnus is the craft with most available volume (27m³). And they could very easily do 33m³ with a four segment. I know that on the conference NASA stated that they had bid the same "Enhanced Cignus" (AKA three segment Cygnus). The four segment couldn't use an Atlas V 401 because the it wouldn't fit under the fairing (because of the length).
Quote from: baldusi on 01/15/2016 05:48 pm
Quote from: baldusi on 01/16/2016 12:51 amQuote from: arachnitect on 01/15/2016 10:17 pmQuote from: baldusi on 01/15/2016 05:48 pmQuote from: arachnitect on 01/15/2016 10:17 pmQuote from: baldusi on 01/15/2016 05:48 pmActually, Enhanced Cygnus is the craft with most available volume (27m³). And they could very easily do 33m³ with a four segment. I know that on the conference NASA stated that they had bid the same "Enhanced Cignus" (AKA three segment Cygnus). The four segment couldn't use an Atlas V 401 because the it wouldn't fit under the fairing (because of the length).Simple solution use an Atlas V 501. Which in theory could take a 5 segment PCM Cygnus up.
Give those spores 25-30°C and a dead air zone and you have more than spores. Don't stop it and you have a mycotoixin factory, plus likely allergic responses. Definitely non-trivial.
SNC reported that OA has made a follow on order for berthing mechanisms from them. While this in and of its self isn't unusual I was surprised that their press release said that with OA-4 three of their PCBM's have now been to the ISS. 4 Cygnus (Cygnii?) have been to the station, is their number wrong or did OA use a different PCBM for the demo mission?
As I mentioned, earlier, the company received two additional CRS 1 extension missions last year and we are in discussions now about the possibility of additional one or more additional extension missions this year to help bridge that gap before 2019 when new missions under the new CRS 2 contract would commence. While NASA has not yet established the details of its long-term plans for CRS 2, we expect the space agency to order 10 to 12 of our Cygnus Cargo Mission under that new contract for flights that would commence in 2019 and continue through 2024, the current planned retirement date of the space station. The effect at our level would be to continue to see revenue increase on the CRS program in 2016 compared to last year and then to probably stabilize at about this year's level from here on out as at least through the end of the decade. We could be either high low a little bit in that outlook and it will depend on how NASA finalizes its plans for supporting the space station over the long-term.
Under the terms of the CRS 2 contract, the payment profiles are somewhat improved and so as we transition through the completion of CRS 1 and into steady state operations on CRS 2, although it still won't represent a highly working-capital efficient business, it will improve compared to what we've experienced over the last two or three years. CRS 2 will have improved terms relative to CRS 1.
ISS Daily Summary Report – 11/22/2017TangoLab-1 Transfer to Cygnus (OA-8): The crew removed TangoLab-1 from EXPRESS Rack 4, and transferred the facility to Cygnus for a short demonstration of TangoLab-1 operations in Cygnus. This is being performed as a proof of the “extended lab” concept, wherein visiting vehicles can be used as an extension of the ISS laboratory volume while attached. TangoLab-1 is a reconfigurable general research facility designed for microgravity research and development and pilot manufacturing aboard the International Space Station (ISS).
Bit of a Bump...QuoteISS Daily Summary Report – 11/22/2017TangoLab-1 Transfer to Cygnus (OA-8): The crew removed TangoLab-1 from EXPRESS Rack 4, and transferred the facility to Cygnus for a short demonstration of TangoLab-1 operations in Cygnus. This is being performed as a proof of the “extended lab” concept, wherein visiting vehicles can be used as an extension of the ISS laboratory volume while attached. TangoLab-1 is a reconfigurable general research facility designed for microgravity research and development and pilot manufacturing aboard the International Space Station (ISS). Is NASA planing for Cygnus to stay berthed to the station for longer periods in the future?
Is the Orbital/ATK CRS-1 contract running through OA-12 now?
Frank DeMauro said that OA's plan is to continue flying Cygnus on Antares, and that they currently have orders out to OA-13.QuoteDeMauro said there are no plans to return to the Atlas 5 for the foreseeable future, as the company completes its original Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract and starts a follow-on award called CRS-2. “Our baseline plan is to continue to fly Cygnus on Antares,” he said. “We are ready to respond to our customer’s needs, if they should require something different, but for all of the rest of CRS-1 and so far for the CRS-2 missions we’re planning to do them on Antares.”After this launch, Orbital ATK has three missions remaining on its CRS contract, OA-9, 10 and 11. No firm launch dates have been set, but DeMauro said OA-9 could launch as soon as the first quarter of 2018. OA-10 would then likely follow in the fall of 2018 and OA-11 in early 2019. DeMauro said later that NASA has ordered two Cygnus missions so far under its CRS-2 contract, OA-12 and 13.http://spacenews.com/orbital-atk-looks-to-antares-to-handle-cargo-resupply-missions/
DeMauro said there are no plans to return to the Atlas 5 for the foreseeable future, as the company completes its original Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contract and starts a follow-on award called CRS-2. “Our baseline plan is to continue to fly Cygnus on Antares,” he said. “We are ready to respond to our customer’s needs, if they should require something different, but for all of the rest of CRS-1 and so far for the CRS-2 missions we’re planning to do them on Antares.”After this launch, Orbital ATK has three missions remaining on its CRS contract, OA-9, 10 and 11. No firm launch dates have been set, but DeMauro said OA-9 could launch as soon as the first quarter of 2018. OA-10 would then likely follow in the fall of 2018 and OA-11 in early 2019. DeMauro said later that NASA has ordered two Cygnus missions so far under its CRS-2 contract, OA-12 and 13.
Quote from: deruch on 11/27/2017 04:41 pmBit of a Bump...QuoteISS Daily Summary Report – 11/22/2017TangoLab-1 Transfer to Cygnus (OA-8): The crew removed TangoLab-1 from EXPRESS Rack 4, and transferred the facility to Cygnus for a short demonstration of TangoLab-1 operations in Cygnus. This is being performed as a proof of the “extended lab” concept, wherein visiting vehicles can be used as an extension of the ISS laboratory volume while attached. TangoLab-1 is a reconfigurable general research facility designed for microgravity research and development and pilot manufacturing aboard the International Space Station (ISS). Is NASA planing for Cygnus to stay berthed to the station for longer periods in the future?I don't think so, just bringing up experiments in Cygnus, doing them there (Or bringing experiments from the station into Cygnus), probably only for very short experiments.I guess it could stay berthed to the station longer, 2 months sounds safe, but I think that since most of Cygnus is used for bringing up consumables, long-term experiments for the station itself and possibly large items (like space suits or backup hardware), there wouldn't be much room left for in-Cygnus experiments.I wouldn't even be surprised if they did made part of Dragon or the HTVs into mini labs, maybe even Dream Chaser in the future!We will see, though!
University of Texas El Paso Orbital Factory 2Orbital Factory 2 (OF-2) is a 1U CubeSat. The primary payload is an experiment to test repair inorbit using additive manufacturing. Secondary payloads are an experimental S-band patch antenna,software methods for attitude control using magnetorquers and external camera to capture Earthimages.OF-2 will be launched in October 2019 from Wallops, VA into a 400 km Low Earth Orbit, onboardan Antares launch vehicle to the International Space Station (ISS), as part of a Cygnus resupplymission. Approximately 3 months after arrival at ISS, OF-2 will be deployed by the astronautsthrough the ISS Japanese Experiment Module (JEM) airlock. A ground station in El Paso willreceive downlinked data, and provide command and control.