Quote from: Comga on 03/12/2015 09:21 pmThis 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
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.
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?
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/12/2015 10:21 pmThis 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.
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).
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)
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=1All 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?
Quote from: Port on 03/13/2015 01:05 amnobody 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.
Quote from: joek on 03/12/2015 10:36 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/12/2015 10:21 pmThis 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.
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.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 03/13/2015 04:35 amQuote from: Port on 03/13/2015 01:05 amnobody 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.
Quote from: cosmonautdjp on 03/13/2015 01:12 amIt'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.
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.
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.
ISTM this adds a bunch of expensive failure modes. Just launch, fly and berth without the juggling act.