NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

Commercial and US Government Launch Vehicles => Commercial Space Flight General => Topic started by: Robotbeat on 03/13/2015 11:15 pm

Title: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/13/2015 11:15 pm
Here's a thread to discussion Lockheed Martin's CRS-2 bid and the "Jupiter" reusable/refuelable space tug.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ssc/crs2.html
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Bob Shaw on 03/13/2015 11:24 pm
Overly complex, and a solution seeking a market.


Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/13/2015 11:37 pm
Overly complex, and a solution seeking a market.
Huh?

Currently, Cygnus dumps an entire, perfectly good spacecraft into the ocean every mission. That's needlessly wasteful. And how complex is it to build a dozen spacecraft, when you really only need to build one?

I mean, I suppose we should just scuttle Chinese cargo ships when the reach the US, because hey, it's overly complex to reuse them.

NASA needs a capability like this. ISS could have been built this way (or at least finished). Jim has a thread on the topic somewhere on this site. It's essentially a robotic and FAR cheaper version of what Shuttle did with logistics flights to ISS, just with a shorter version of MPLM (although there's no reason in principle they couldn't use a whole MPLM sized container, especially once the tug is placed in orbit).
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/13/2015 11:39 pm
...a solution seeking a market.
It's bidding on CRS-2, but I suppose that doesn't count.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: QuantumG on 03/13/2015 11:41 pm
I mean, I suppose we should just scuttle Chinese cargo ships when the reach the US, because hey, it's overly complex to reuse them.

As I understand it, there's an abundance of cargo containers in many places in the world as it's cheaper to send the cargo ship back unloaded and no shortage of cargo container makers in China.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: robertross on 03/13/2015 11:42 pm
Thanks for the splinter thread.

I've been thinking this over for the last day, and that suspicious part of my mind finds this concept not entirely in line with CRS.

What it does fall in line with is the other notes discussed in the CRS thread: Hubble & satellite servicing,

But the biggest is autonomous (or tele-operated) functions.

Let's start with Hubble: It needs a de-orbit plan, and this could be a secondary aid in that goal to ensure all goes well for a deorbit module.

Second, what about ISS EOM? There is lots of life left in ISS, but whether Russia is on board or not has a major role in its future, as does major ORU replacement, a deorbit plan, a secondary station out of certain modules already up there. There are some interesting possibilities with Jupiter.

Orion & BEO. Orion's SM does not have an arm. There can be a case made for certain Mars mission assembly requirements where using this type of spacecraft advances the state-of-the-art, or at the very least keeps the money flowing to the companies that could be keep to making it happen. MDA certainly needs 'skin in the game' to keep a keen edge on space robotics (not that I mind as a Canadian for a Canadian technology).  ;)

I'm also thinking there could be some military requirements that we don't necessarily know about, but nevertheless exist, for a technology employing a robotic arm (although the X-37 probably has that sewn up) probably not for something in plain view of earth-based observers.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/13/2015 11:53 pm
I mean, I suppose we should just scuttle Chinese cargo ships when the reach the US, because hey, it's overly complex to reuse them.

As I understand it, there's an abundance of cargo containers in many places in the world as it's cheaper to send the cargo ship back unloaded and no shortage of cargo container makers in China.
Perfect analogy. Cheap metal boxes (i.e. the cargo modules) are cheap, the actual vehicle (i.e. Jupiter) is not.

The whole concept is the epitome of the "80-20" rule. You get 80% of the benefit of reuse with 20% of the dev costs.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/13/2015 11:56 pm
Has no one acknowledged the similarities between this concept and Shuttle's ISS logistics flights?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: jongoff on 03/14/2015 12:01 am
(Transferred from CRS-2 thread post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34093.msg1345877#msg1345877))

Keep in mind that with a precision launch, Jupiter does not need to do too much more then in/out of the KOS. In theory.

And the chief issue with use of the US is the lifetime of the stage - within hours (or less) you want to do the swap and disposal.

If ULA can get IVF working for Centaur, both of these issues get a lot easier. IVF has much better in-space maneuvering capability than the existing Centaur, and mission durations can be a lot longer if necessary. Though you probably want to keep the deliveries brief anyway to minimize requirements on the cargo pod.

~Jon
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 12:04 am
Old NSF space tug thread from *gasp* 2005 that reviews some similar older space tug concepts:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=684.0

EDIT: If anyone can find Jim's old thread about building/completing ISS without Shuttle using something like this, please post it here.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: jongoff on 03/14/2015 12:08 am
Overly complex, and a solution seeking a market.

The key questions are what does this do for delivery price of cargo, and is it too complex to work reliably. Complexity isn't always bad, especially if it enables more affordable operations. Nova/Direct Ascent would've been a lot simpler than Saturn V/LOR for Apollo, but it made the mission actually feasible. I don't think a tug system like this will noticeably decrease the probability of a successful mission--sure it will decrease it somewhat, but is it enough to ever matter? If the answer is no, then the savings of not tossing the spacecraft bus every time, and require less "wrapper" to be launched each time could actually make it very worthwhile. Not to mention as someone else mentioned, this would be a great way to launch new modules to the ISS or other facilities.

~Jon
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 12:14 am
Ah, found it:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11968.5
(In it, Jim actually said he didn't think arms would be needed for crew transport craft.)

But yeah, this would make assembling a new station somewhere else a piece of cake. It's like the best parts of Shuttle (from a station logistics standpoint) kind of distilled down into the least expensive form.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/14/2015 12:54 am
Another item for reuse - MAVEN bus already has fine pointing because its a sensor platform. If you're going to develop any imaging/sensor sat, one of the hardest parts is such a capability.

So lets say part of the payload delivered to orbit includes a sensor platform that occupies Jupiter for a few months, then is discarded and another put in its place. You could develop new sats more quickly/cheaply, because you wouldn't need to prove the platform each time in space avoiding commissioning time/cost.

So there would be a number of markets alone for this in commercial, institutional, and national security.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Steam Chaser on 03/14/2015 01:06 am
Overly complex, and a solution seeking a market.

I don't think a tug system like this will noticeably decrease the probability of a successful mission--sure it will decrease it somewhat, but is it enough to ever matter? If the answer is no, then the savings of not tossing the spacecraft bus every time, and require less "wrapper" to be launched each time could actually make it very worthwhile.

For reliability concerns, I wonder if it would be worth it to have a second copy of the Jupiter tug module on standby in case of problems with the first?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: WindnWar on 03/14/2015 01:14 am
I'd be curious how they can prove the reliability of the Jupiter tug, if there are rendezvous issues or equipment failures on the tug, you'll need to replace it, as if it fails its not like you can dock it at the ISS for repairs by itself, it might not even be allowed near the ISS if redundancy in equipment is lost, if they guess wrong on how often it'll have to be replaced the cost will go up quite a bit. We have seen various failures of equipment on the ATV during it's time on orbit, and most of that time was docked, this will be far more complex.

I like the concept, I'm just not sure how you prove the risk is worth it for this mission. 
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: joek on 03/14/2015 01:18 am
NASA needs a capability like this. ISS could have been built this way (or at least finished). Jim has a thread on the topic somewhere on this site. It's essentially a robotic and FAR cheaper version of what Shuttle did with logistics flights to ISS, just with a shorter version of MPLM (although there's no reason in principle they couldn't use a whole MPLM sized container, especially once the tug is placed in orbit).

The CRS-2 evaluation criteria does not care about fuzzy NASA future or potential needs; it cares only about meeting CRS-2 requirements at the lowest cost and risk, as spelled out in the CRS-2 RFP.

If LM can make a competitive bid that addresses CRS-2 requirements and is competitive, wonderful and more power to them.  If LM cannot make a competitive bid that addresses CRS-2 requirements and which is competitive, its ability to meet future or potential NASA needs is irrelevant with respect to CRS-2.

While I agree that LM's proposal has great potential, I have doubts that it will competitive for CRS-2.  In any case, I look forward to reading the CRS-2 selection statement.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 01:22 am
I never claimed NASA would judge it based on future use.

But why do people think this wouldn't be competitive? Earlier, I showed my math about how I thought it would be competitive, so put up some homework to show why you think otherwise.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: nadreck on 03/14/2015 01:25 am
For reliability concerns, I wonder if it would be worth it to have a second copy of the Jupiter tug module on standby in case of problems with the first?

I definitely see redundancy for ISS support. As well if you were using the Jupiter-Electric (or similar) as a tender for a seriously multi planar LEO/MEO satellite constellation you might have a tender on ever other plane but know that for a little penalty of added time it could deliver service/replacement one more plane over, and of course collect duds for deorbitiing.

I'd be curious how they can prove the reliability of the Jupiter tug, if there are rendezvous issues or equipment failures on the tug, you'll need to replace it, as if it fails its not like you can dock it at the ISS for repairs by itself, it might not even be allowed near the ISS if redundancy in equipment is lost, if they guess wrong on how often it'll have to be replaced the cost will go up quite a bit. We have seen various failures of equipment on the ATV during it's time on orbit, and most of that time was docked, this will be far more complex.

I like the concept, I'm just not sure how you prove the risk is worth it for this mission. 

The reliability is based on the experience with the individual component hardware systems: the MAVEN bus, the arm, etc. all those systems have already been tested with plenty of on orbit time. The combination may require some engineering analysis, but we are not talking anything more rigorous than mating a different comms system to the Boeing 702 bus.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: WindnWar on 03/14/2015 01:43 am
For reliability concerns, I wonder if it would be worth it to have a second copy of the Jupiter tug module on standby in case of problems with the first?

I definitely see redundancy for ISS support. As well if you were using the Jupiter-Electric (or similar) as a tender for a seriously multi planar LEO/MEO satellite constellation you might have a tender on ever other plane but know that for a little penalty of added time it could deliver service/replacement one more plane over, and of course collect duds for deorbitiing.

I'd be curious how they can prove the reliability of the Jupiter tug, if there are rendezvous issues or equipment failures on the tug, you'll need to replace it, as if it fails its not like you can dock it at the ISS for repairs by itself, it might not even be allowed near the ISS if redundancy in equipment is lost, if they guess wrong on how often it'll have to be replaced the cost will go up quite a bit. We have seen various failures of equipment on the ATV during it's time on orbit, and most of that time was docked, this will be far more complex.

I like the concept, I'm just not sure how you prove the risk is worth it for this mission. 

The reliability is based on the experience with the individual component hardware systems: the MAVEN bus, the arm, etc. all those systems have already been tested with plenty of on orbit time. The combination may require some engineering analysis, but we are not talking anything more rigorous than mating a different comms system to the Boeing 702 bus.

Except it'll be used in a very different manner. It'll need to perform long burns many more times than the bus it's based on normally would if it is used multiple times, it'll need to refuel, something not proven on orbit at all, it'll need to do precision on orbit rendezvous, also not tested with this bus to both the station and to the cargo pods, and it introduces and additional docking that if failed prevents the mission from succeeding. Like I said, the concept is interesting but given the complexities without on orbit testing of it in a complete package, I don't see how they can convince NASA that the risks would be worth it for this mission.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: joek on 03/14/2015 01:50 am
I never claimed NASA would judge it based on future use.
Granted, but future capability seems to be a recurring theme in why people are excited about it, no?  So let's take any future capability off the table and look at it in the cold hard light of CRS-2 requirements and the competitors...

Quote
But why do people think this wouldn't be competitive? Earlier, I showed my math about how I thought it would be competitive, so put up some homework to show why you think otherwise.
Because it is new development, competing with systems which have already been developed and certified.  That does not mean it cannot be competitive, simply that it has a higher hill to climb, with attendant cost and risk.

Taken as a single system capable of satisfying most needs, maybe it is competitive.  However, it is extremely unlikely that Jupiter et. al. would the only system in the equation; it would likely be in addition to an existing capability or capabilities (especially given that it is new and higher risk, at least in the near term).

So what is the cost of the delta capability Jupiter provides?  Given that there will be at least one other provider, and possibly more than on other provider in the equation, is it higher or lower than, e.g., Cygnus+?  That is far from clear.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Norm38 on 03/14/2015 02:11 am
The LM presentation doesn't have much detail.  How is the swap of cargo containers accomplished?  They show the Jupiter grabbing hold of an upper stage with a new cargo container, but then what?  Where does it put the old container before it docks to the new one?  The old has to attach to the US for disposal, yes?  So it can't just be cut loose, and there's only one arm.  I can't picture it.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: QuantumG on 03/14/2015 02:15 am
The old has to attach to the US for disposal, yes?

No. The tug would decelerate the container to a reentry and fly back to a stable orbit.

Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Norm38 on 03/14/2015 02:26 am
Ahh.  So their animation is in error?  When the tug docks to the US, it'll be just the tug, having already dumped the old container?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/14/2015 02:26 am
I don't think a tug system like this will noticeably decrease the probability of a successful mission--sure it will decrease it somewhat, but is it enough to ever matter?

It might descrease the probability of a successful mission, but it might also increase it.  Say for each unit built there's a 1% chance of a manufacturing defect that slips through testing and doesn't get noticed until it's in orbit.  If you build 20 of them for 20 missions you have roughly a 20% chance of one of the missions getting hit by this problem.  But if you build only 1 and use it for all 20 missions, you only have a 1% chance of that.

It all depends of the specific failure modes and how likely infant mortality is versus failure modes that go away with a throw-away system.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: WindnWar on 03/14/2015 02:29 am
The old has to attach to the US for disposal, yes?

No. The tug would decelerate the container to a reentry and fly back to a stable orbit.

That would need a lot of delta-v to pull that off since part of the requirement was 2500 kilos of cargo disposal. I wonder how much fuel will be needed in each cargo pod in order to leave the Jupiter tug with enough to get back to a stable orbit and then have fuel remaining to dock with the next cargo pod. Or do you place a pod with nothing but fuel in orbit for it to dock to between missions?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 02:30 am
Yeah, good point. Once the mission launches successfully, odds are lower that you'll run into more infant fatalities.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/14/2015 02:47 am
Like I said, the concept is interesting but given the complexities without on orbit testing of it in a complete package, I don't see how they can convince NASA that the risks would be worth it for this mission.

The beauty of CRS is that the risk lies almost entirely with the companies, not with NASA.  Most of the cargo to the station is pretty cheap and easy to replace, and NASA has multiple providers.  As we've seen with Cygnus, even if something goes wrong, it doesn't cause any serious problems for NASA.  They just shift around some missions and use other providers more until the provider with the problem works it out.

If you're thinking of risk to the station, that can be retired before the vehicle is allowed close to the station, as was done with Cygnus and Dragon 1 and will be done with CST-100 and Dragon 2 -- NASA just makes the companies demonstrate precision operations far from the ISS first.  Once it's been tested on orbit, they let them come to the station.  It can be on the same mission, so they don't even need a dedicated flight just for testing.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: nadreck on 03/14/2015 03:12 am
For reliability concerns, I wonder if it would be worth it to have a second copy of the Jupiter tug module on standby in case of problems with the first?

I definitely see redundancy for ISS support. As well if you were using the Jupiter-Electric (or similar) as a tender for a seriously multi planar LEO/MEO satellite constellation you might have a tender on ever other plane but know that for a little penalty of added time it could deliver service/replacement one more plane over, and of course collect duds for deorbitiing.

I'd be curious how they can prove the reliability of the Jupiter tug, if there are rendezvous issues or equipment failures on the tug, you'll need to replace it, as if it fails its not like you can dock it at the ISS for repairs by itself, it might not even be allowed near the ISS if redundancy in equipment is lost, if they guess wrong on how often it'll have to be replaced the cost will go up quite a bit. We have seen various failures of equipment on the ATV during it's time on orbit, and most of that time was docked, this will be far more complex.

I like the concept, I'm just not sure how you prove the risk is worth it for this mission. 

The reliability is based on the experience with the individual component hardware systems: the MAVEN bus, the arm, etc. all those systems have already been tested with plenty of on orbit time. The combination may require some engineering analysis, but we are not talking anything more rigorous than mating a different comms system to the Boeing 702 bus.

Except it'll be used in a very different manner. It'll need to perform long burns many more times than the bus it's based on normally would if it is used multiple times, it'll need to refuel, something not proven on orbit at all, it'll need to do precision on orbit rendezvous, also not tested with this bus to both the station and to the cargo pods, and it introduces and additional docking that if failed prevents the mission from succeeding. Like I said, the concept is interesting but given the complexities without on orbit testing of it in a complete package, I don't see how they can convince NASA that the risks would be worth it for this mission.
I grant you the that the connectors for the fuel containers (both the SEP fuel and the hypergolic) will be new and special case technologies that require serious testing unless the whole plumbing and engines swap out with the hyper-golic fuel, the rest I believe have been proven out as subsystems or represents a much lower risk.  Certainly MAVEN engines burned more impulse than rendezvous and docking will take, SEP portion probably won't be part of the ISS servicing Jupiter, avionics and control systems for the arm and such will be new. However software engineered for spacecraft is testable and gets subjected to rigorous test long before it puts any equipment at risk.  I don't see the number of docking and rendezvous events as troublesome, just the fact that it needs to be a reliable process and given that we have reliable processes for that already I think it is no stretch of the imagination to develop, test in simulation, then fly an acceptance test and be assured that docking and rendezvous will continue to work.

Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: QuantumG on 03/14/2015 03:28 am
Ahh.  So their animation is in error?  When the tug docks to the US, it'll be just the tug, having already dumped the old container?

Well, if the upper stage is going to be left in that orbit, it seems just as reasonable to leave an old container in that orbit too. If it's a LEO orbit it'll deorbit soon enough.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/14/2015 04:47 am
See post 585 on CRS2 thread on how Exoliner swap with Centuar may happen.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/14/2015 04:55 am
If reusable upper stages ever happen, they can swap containers stored in the upper stage. This would also give them down mass.

See Kistler upper stage concept here. PS surprised website still exists.

http://www.kistler.co/fpmain.html
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: redliox on 03/14/2015 05:48 am
Would be interesting if Lockheed could pull this off.  It looks like a slightly-suped-up version of a Cygnus, mainly with the robotic arm and a reusable tug being the improvements.  For something primarily geared for low orbit, doesn't look like a bad choice.  I'd favor the Dragon more so only because it can reenter, whereas this I like for potential long-term utility.

The Exoliner module has my attention because the Orion needs something just like it to enable a proper long-term mission, at least to the Moon and asteroids.  After an Orion is in orbit, a Jupiter with Exoliner could rendezvous, and deliver it to Orion.  I wouldn't go so far as to say Mars or even its moons; that would be a big stretch.  Still, it feels like a step in the right direction.

Again, it would be interesting to see if Lockheed could pull this off.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: redliox on 03/14/2015 06:12 am
ISS aside, I will say the robotic arm option makes it the candidate to serve Hubble.  I wish it could give the Hubble a new tune up, but I presume they would only assign this vehicle to deorbit the renowned observatory.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: IRobot on 03/14/2015 06:37 am
Would it make sense to have a dual engine, Chemical + electric? The electric thruster could be used for slow maneuvers, like spiraling down from the ISS or for spiraling up, when there is no time-sensitive cargo?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: marsman2020 on 03/14/2015 07:03 am
Like I said, the concept is interesting but given the complexities without on orbit testing of it in a complete package, I don't see how they can convince NASA that the risks would be worth it for this mission.

The beauty of CRS is that the risk lies almost entirely with the companies, not with NASA.  Most of the cargo to the station is pretty cheap and easy to replace, and NASA has multiple providers.  As we've seen with Cygnus, even if something goes wrong, it doesn't cause any serious problems for NASA.  They just shift around some missions and use other providers more until the provider with the problem works it out.

If you're thinking of risk to the station, that can be retired before the vehicle is allowed close to the station, as was done with Cygnus and Dragon 1 and will be done with CST-100 and Dragon 2 -- NASA just makes the companies demonstrate precision operations far from the ISS first.  Once it's been tested on orbit, they let them come to the station.  It can be on the same mission, so they don't even need a dedicated flight just for testing.

NASA also "just" paid Orbital 80% of the cost of a flight that ended with the payload burnt to a crisp on the beach 100 feet from the pad.  And the federal government is paying for the $20 million in pad repairs, even though they had no requirement to do so - because "somehow" Orbital wasn't contractually liable to fix what they broke, and the VA state space people didn't want to pay it either. 

The idea that the risk in CRS somehow lies with the vendors is only perpetuated by the fact that the % payment on the individual milestones for each flight in the publicly available versions of the as-signed CRS contracts is redacted out.  Based on the public disclosure Orbital made to their investors about the financial consequences of their failure, it seems like the actual "delivery of cargo" milestones are only about 20% of the contract value. 
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/14/2015 07:18 am
LV failure shouldn't be an issue with Atlas.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Star One on 03/14/2015 07:18 am
ISS aside, I will say the robotic arm option makes it the candidate to serve Hubble.  I wish it could give the Hubble a new tune up, but I presume they would only assign this vehicle to deorbit the renowned observatory.
It could be adapted to remove various stuff out of orbit I would have thought. Might be a viable solution for reducing space junk.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 03/14/2015 07:29 am
I wonder how much more workload would the ISS astronauts and ground controllers need for one Jupiter logistics mission compared with, say, one Cygnus?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/14/2015 07:51 am
I would expect LM ground crew would be in charge for Jupiter/ Exoliner/Centuar operations. So no more work for NASA staff than a Cygnus mission.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 07:53 am
Jupiter looks like it can carry much more cargo than Cygnus, so proportionally less involvement per ton.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: fgonella on 03/14/2015 09:42 am
About disposal, if I understand correctly Hohmann transfer orbits, in order to go from ISS orbit to delivery orbit you need (simplifying it) a deorbit backburn to lower orbit and a new burn to stabilize on the rendevouz orbit. If the discarded PCM would be jettisoned before the last burn, wouldn't it safely deorbit and burn up even before you reach the Centaur? On the other hand, swapping PCMs would indeed allow for a more controlled deorbit.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: guckyfan on 03/14/2015 10:05 am
It looks to me that Jupiter cannot do any burns without Exoliner attached, because the fuel is there. Probably they can do attitude control without it but no more.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Jimmy Murdok on 03/14/2015 10:55 am
Jupiter looks like it can carry much more cargo than Cygnus, so proportionally less involvement per ton.

(Edit & Corrected) I did a rough estimation of the pressurized volume. It gives me somewhere around 55-58m3 of presurized volume (4.26m long x 4.26m wide) VS 27m3 for Cygnus. If Cygnus does not implement an unpressurized cargo bay they are probably in serious disadvantage. Specially assuming all the possibilities of this amazing spacecraft as a multipurpose tug and the capacity to boost the station to higher orbit.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/14/2015 11:52 am
Pressurized volume is more like 4.5m (14ft Dia) x 4.5m(14ft L) = 70m3
See LM website for scaled picture.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Jimmy Murdok on 03/14/2015 12:27 pm
Pressurized volume is more like 4.5m (14ft Dia) x 4.5m(14ft L) = 70m3
See LM website for scaled picture.

Uuups, yes even better. And the centaur picture was not updated. Actual one is 12.68m long

So 4.26m diam x 4.26m -> 56-58m3 of pressurized volume and 5000kg + 1500kg of unpressurized.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 02:16 pm
It looks to me that Jupiter cannot do any burns without Exoliner attached, because the fuel is there. Probably they can do attitude control without it but no more.
No, Exoliner just has the refueling tanks. Jupiter has its own tanks of course.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: GuessWho on 03/14/2015 02:33 pm
Quote
No. The tug would decelerate the container to a reentry and fly back to a stable orbit

The trash container is de-orbited by Centaur not the tug.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Nilof on 03/14/2015 03:02 pm
The infographic on lockheeds website (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ssc/crs2.html) says that the pressure vessel is 14' by 14'(with a drawing of an elephant standing inside to drive home their point). That translates into a volume of about 60 cubic meters, or three times the pressurized volume and six times the habitable volume of an Orion if used for deep space.

It also means it has roughly twice the pressurized payload of the Cygnus in both mass and volume. That's some really good numbers and Orbital may have a tough time competing with that.

If I understood Lockheed's statement here (http://aviationweek.com/space/jupiter-space-tug-could-deliver-cargo-moon) correctly, the Exoliner with no Jupiter tug needs no SRB's on the Atlas to launch? That would imply a launch mass of about ten tonnes if it goes on an Atlas 401, meaning it could launch on a Falcon 9 if necessary, maybe even with first stage reuse.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: joek on 03/14/2015 03:22 pm
This might provide a bit more detail on the dimensions... (can't find the link to it on the LM site any longer)
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Razvan on 03/14/2015 03:28 pm
I welcome Lockheed Martin initiative as this brings some innovations to the "same all same all" capsule designs ever since Apollo design.
However, I cannot help ,myself noticing how crowded is this area compared to the Launching one. Everybody is looking to send "taxis" to the sky but their imagination becomes so poor when dealing with the Rocket, big exception, though, for SpaceX.
So, I will again have to say about this: same all same all russian engine business. Therefore, I realize that, although probably of great perspective, Lokheed initiative based upon building on a dead support (Congress banned russian engines) is looking like a giant with clay legs.
And, coming to this point, I am afraid that this is just another scheme of imposing NASA selecting two bids for CRS2: Boeing and Lockheed - same ULA story under different cover.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: arachnitect on 03/14/2015 03:37 pm
The infographic on lockheeds website (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ssc/crs2.html) says that the pressure vessel is 14' by 14'. That translates into a volume of about 60 cubic meters, or three times the pressurized volume and six times the habitable volume of an Orion if used for deep space.

It also means it has roughly twice the pressurized payload of the Cygnus in both mass and volume. That's some really good numbers and Orbital may have a tough time competing with that.
[...]

I'm not entirely convinced the space tug will pay for itself, but I think LM has done one thing very much right by offering such a big vehicle.

I think Orbital is going to be hard pressed to squeeze enough capacity out of their system to address NASA's "more upmass/less flights" desires.

[...]
If I understood Lockheed's statement here (http://aviationweek.com/space/jupiter-space-tug-could-deliver-cargo-moon) correctly, the Exoliner with no Jupiter tug needs no SRB's on the Atlas to launch? That would imply a launch mass of about ten tonnes if it goes on an Atlas 401, meaning it could launch on a Falcon 9 if necessary, maybe even with first stage reuse.

They need the 5m. fairing, so Atlas 501. Is there a stretched Falcon fairing available? Because the (old) dimensions I've found would be a very tight fit for "exoliner" and it's adapter.

I'm guessing their CRS2 bid is all Atlas, all the time.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: yg1968 on 03/14/2015 03:39 pm
NASA needs a capability like this. ISS could have been built this way (or at least finished). Jim has a thread on the topic somewhere on this site. It's essentially a robotic and FAR cheaper version of what Shuttle did with logistics flights to ISS, just with a shorter version of MPLM (although there's no reason in principle they couldn't use a whole MPLM sized container, especially once the tug is placed in orbit).

The CRS-2 evaluation criteria does not care about fuzzy NASA future or potential needs; it cares only about meeting CRS-2 requirements at the lowest cost and risk, as spelled out in the CRS-2 RFP.

If LM can make a competitive bid that addresses CRS-2 requirements and is competitive, wonderful and more power to them.  If LM cannot make a competitive bid that addresses CRS-2 requirements and which is competitive, its ability to meet future or potential NASA needs is irrelevant with respect to CRS-2.

While I agree that LM's proposal has great potential, I have doubts that it will competitive for CRS-2.  In any case, I look forward to reading the CRS-2 selection statement.

I completely agree wit that. I was disapointed when NASA said in the CCtCap selection statement that the fact that the CST-100 could carry more cargo than other companies was a positive. It should have been a negative. If you provide stuff that NASA didn't require, it increases the cost of a mission for no reason. Plus, it isn't really fair. If NASA wants a space tug, it should allow all commercial companies to bid for it. Cygnus could also easily be turned into a tug. Hopefully, NASA will look at prices for CRS-2 and not what is the "best value" for the government (which is a very subjective criteria).
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 03:51 pm
Yeah, If this concept used F9R (the upgraded version), it'd be the cheapest way to get payload to ISS, period.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: kdhilliard on 03/14/2015 03:52 pm
... the Exoliner ... could launch on a Falcon 9 if necessary ...
The plan calls for the Centaur to deorbit the old Exoliner.  Would a F9 US be able to do the same?  How long after launch are the Centaur and F9 US rated for restart?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 03/14/2015 03:54 pm
Please remember companies were told the general requirements, how they meet them was up to them.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: arachnitect on 03/14/2015 03:55 pm
NASA needs a capability like this. ISS could have been built this way (or at least finished). Jim has a thread on the topic somewhere on this site. It's essentially a robotic and FAR cheaper version of what Shuttle did with logistics flights to ISS, just with a shorter version of MPLM (although there's no reason in principle they couldn't use a whole MPLM sized container, especially once the tug is placed in orbit).

The CRS-2 evaluation criteria does not care about fuzzy NASA future or potential needs; it cares only about meeting CRS-2 requirements at the lowest cost and risk, as spelled out in the CRS-2 RFP.

If LM can make a competitive bid that addresses CRS-2 requirements and is competitive, wonderful and more power to them.  If LM cannot make a competitive bid that addresses CRS-2 requirements and which is competitive, its ability to meet future or potential NASA needs is irrelevant with respect to CRS-2.

While I agree that LM's proposal has great potential, I have doubts that it will competitive for CRS-2.  In any case, I look forward to reading the CRS-2 selection statement.

I completely agree wit that. I was disapointed when NASA said in the CCtCap selection statement that the fact that the CST-100 could carry more cargo than other companies was a positive. It should have been a negative. If you provide stuff that NASA didn't require, it increases cost of a mission for no reason. Plus, it isn't really fair. If NASA wants a space tug, it should allow all commercial companies to bid for it. Cygnus could also easily be turned into a tug. Hopefully, NASA will look at prices for CRS-2 and not what is the "best value" for the government (which is a very subjective criteria).

I'll have to go reread the source selection document but I don't think the advantage for CST-100 was so much "more cargo" as just having a really specific plan for how they were going to accommodate it. I may have missed it, but I haven't seen a rendering or mockup of Dragon2 or Dreamchaser in an ISS mission configuration, but well before the CCtCap bids went in there were renderings and mockups of CST in its ISS configuration showing exactly where all the lockers and freezers were, how they would be accessed, etc.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Carl G on 03/14/2015 09:02 pm
Two pages of nothing but general CRS2 were in here. We have a thread for that. Members even said "this probably belongs in the CRS2 thread" and still posted in this one.

Split and merged.

We do not have separate threads for the separate options yet. This thread will be completely merged into the CRS2 thread if we get one more post that isn't specific to this proposal and we may just do that anyway as there's Jupiter posts in the CRS2 thread.

The CRS2 thread covers all the proposals at this stage anyway, so this thread is somewhat pointless if no one can control their fingers by keeping in the correct thread.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: dror on 03/14/2015 09:18 pm
Specifically, if the Jupiter gets 1 mission a year,  it has to either:
stay docked to ISS for almost the whole year,  or
travel in orbit with a can full of trash for many months, possibly doing other missions ,  or
meet a third centaur with a diffrent mission specific module and perform an unrelated mission in between the two crs flights.

Right?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/14/2015 09:48 pm
It is right there should be standalone threads.

We'll add more standalone threads for other concepts - such as SNCs - as they are announced.

As you were :)
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/14/2015 09:49 pm
I was disapointed when NASA said in the CCtCap selection statement that the fact that the CST-100 could carry more cargo than other companies was a positive. It should have been a negative. If you provide stuff that NASA didn't require, it increases the cost of a mission for no reason.

Any impact on cost *was* taken as a negative, but that was in a different part of the selection statement.  The cost as a whole was compared with the cost of the competitors.

Plus, it isn't really fair. If NASA wants a space tug, it should allow all commercial companies to bid for it.

Everyone was allowed to bid for it.  IIRC there was some language in CCtCap saying that bids could include other benefits to NASA that weren't explicitly mentioned in NASA's solicitation, and NASA could take that into account to a certain extent, though it wasn't as important as the other criteria.  So everyone knew they were allowed to offer other kinds of value to NASA.  I'm not sure if CRS-2 includes similar language, but, in my opinion, it should.

Cygnus could also easily be turned into a tug.

I don't think that's true.  LM has a flight-proven bus for interplanetary probes, OrbitATK doesn't.  It's non-trivial to develop one.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/14/2015 10:45 pm
I do not see the advantage of Jupiter for flights to the ISS and LEO Bigelow spacestations. The LV could just go straight there. However it will be useful for flights to GEO and EML-1/2.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/14/2015 10:51 pm
For the record, Dawn is an Orbital bus and certainly counts as interplanetary. OrbitalATK could do a Jupiter-style tug if they wanted to.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: fgonella on 03/14/2015 10:58 pm
The advantage is that any cargo vessel needs a SM with avionics, engine, solar arrays, attitude controls, etc... For most cargo capsules, a perfectly working SM is ditched every mission. The beauty of Jupiter is that you have just one SM for all the missions. And you also save a huge mass each launch.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Darkseraph on 03/14/2015 11:44 pm
Apart from all that, the real advantage here is future applications. The Antares/Cygnus system works most of the time, but it's a dead end technologically. Assets that keep in space permanently the most expensive parts and lower recurring mass are valuable. I believe in space applications is where the future is, not the 10 mins of fireworks from the ground (even if launcher reusability pans out!)

Integrating solar electric propulsion to these systems is exciting. I think 2015 is the year SEP really came of age, with the successful Dawn mission and Boeings two all electric sats being placed into orbit by SpaceX.

I've like to know the dimensions and pressurized volume of the exoliner though. :)
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/15/2015 12:34 am
I suspect that Lockheed Martin will need to loss lead on this contract to cover the development cost of the Jupiter. It will have to make the profit on CRS-3 or some other contract. This will put the management under extreme financial pressure, so do not be surprised if proposals for all sorts of new uses for Jupiters appear in 2-3 years time.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: go4mars on 03/15/2015 01:53 am
They mention Mars on their website.  Fantastic!

I like the versatility of this proposal.  This is their longbox crew cab 4seats-wide dually pickup truck for space.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/15/2015 02:26 am
I can see a requirement for modifications to Centuar to make this work. Communications link between Jupiter  and Centuar so Jupiter can control Centuar during docking maneuvers.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Steam Chaser on 03/15/2015 02:35 am
I suspect that Lockheed Martin will need to loss lead on this contract to cover the development cost of the Jupiter. It will have to make the profit on CRS-3 or some other contract. This will put the management under extreme financial pressure, so do not be surprised if proposals for all sorts of new uses for Jupiters appear in 2-3 years time.

Of course it all depends on what the development cost is, and what their bid is.  This is from the beginning of the CRS-2 RFP:

The guaranteed minimum value for any awarded contract is six (6) cargo resupply service missions with the capabilities defined for the awarded mission in Table I.A.3-1, Mission Capabilities for the Standard Resupply Services Missions.  The total maximum value of any contract awarded will be $14 billion. The total amount of all task orders under all contracts awarded shall not exceed $14 billion.


That's a lot more than CRS-1, presumably because of the number of years and the need to fill in for ATV.  I'd imagine it's also why it piqued the interest of Lockheed Martin this time.  If we suppose they're only hoping to split a contract win with a couple other competitors, even if the combined winning bids don't quite get to $14B, they could still be looking at $3B or $4B of business with CRS-2.

You might compare the amount spent by Orbital (NASA and internal funds combined) for Antares and Cygnus.  It wasn't all that much, as these things go.  Jupiter/Exoliner is larger and more complicated than Cygnus, probably making them more expensive to develop than it, but in its favor LM won't have to go to the trouble of building or demonstrating a new rocket and associated ground systems like Orbital did.

I have no idea what the actual development or operations costs would be but suppose LM gets a $3B contract for 1 mission per year over 7 years.  Suppose development costs $500M (the original cost on the NASA side for COTS for Falcon 9, Antares, Dragon, Cygnus, and RpK's work, before that value was supplemented with things like the Antares demo mission).  Suppose the tug costs $500M to actually build and operate.  Suppose each Exoliner and Atlas V pair cost $200M together.  Then the cost to develop and operate it for CRS-2 is $2.4B, and LM comes out ahead.

Of course LM is already suggesting that they'll try to do non-CRS-2 work with the hardware while doing the CRS-2 missions (like launching and deploying secondary satellites and hosting instrument payloads), so even if the actual figures aren't as favorable to LM as the ones I made up above, they still might come out ahead during the CRS-2 missions.  Either way, if they win a CRS-2 contract I'm sure they'll try to get more business for the system whether or not they take a loss during CRS-2 itself.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: baldusi on 03/15/2015 01:25 pm
Well, this has been discussed before. I even talked about a similar concept but using mostly SEP tugs that could supply power and station keeping to the station while attached. Using both chemical and electrical engines would allow the tug to also supply DAM reaction capabilities. But they just went for the tug approach. Which is pretty reasonable since the ISS was not designed for the other concept. Integration is almost too easy and once you have the tug up, changing LV is almost trivial. In fact, a standardized way of doing this would allow for two compatible solutions.
I do believe that if this concept is not selected for CRS-2 (which I believe could get at least on flight), it will be very seriously look into by Bigelow.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 03/15/2015 02:13 pm
Well, this has been discussed before. I even talked about a similar concept but using mostly SEP tugs that could supply power and station keeping to the station while attached. Using both chemical and electrical engines would allow the tug to also supply DAM reaction capabilities. But they just went for the tug approach. Which is pretty reasonable since the ISS was not designed for the other concept. Integration is almost too easy and once you have the tug up, changing LV is almost trivial. In fact, a standardized way of doing this would allow for two compatible solutions.
I do believe that if this concept is not selected for CRS-2 (which I believe could get at least on flight), it will be very seriously look into by Bigelow.

Why would Bigelow want to look at the concept?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: S.Paulissen on 03/15/2015 04:27 pm
To build the inevitable space hotel! Er... space station I mean.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/15/2015 06:08 pm
Well, this has been discussed before. I even talked about a similar concept but using mostly SEP tugs that could supply power and station keeping to the station while attached. Using both chemical and electrical engines would allow the tug to also supply DAM reaction capabilities. But they just went for the tug approach. Which is pretty reasonable since the ISS was not designed for the other concept. Integration is almost too easy and once you have the tug up, changing LV is almost trivial. In fact, a standardized way of doing this would allow for two compatible solutions.
I do believe that if this concept is not selected for CRS-2 (which I believe could get at least on flight), it will be very seriously look into by Bigelow.

Why would Bigelow want to look at the concept?
Because it should be a lot cheaper than sending up supplies any other way (provided you use a F9 or FH or whatever the cheapest launch vehicle is), and it can do water and propellant transfer.

Also, it's even better beyond LEO, since you can launch supplies to LEO on a cheap (mostly) RLV like FHR to get its full performance (which is what, 40-50t with reuse? no doubt there'll be minor upgrades to claw back to 50t even with reuse) but get the full benefit of electric propulsion's much higher Isp.

So you have a huge logistics payload launched for about $1000/kg to LEO, then delivered to a Bigelow lunar orbit (EML1/2/DRO/LLO/whathaveyou) for (say) $2000/kg, and you don't have to pay for a really expensive spacecraft bus each time nor do you need to service a reentry craft.

That logistics load could be the propellant needed to land the Bigelow modules on the Moon or whatever, since the tug is also capable of propellant transfer.

And remember that Bigelow was talking about multiple times the logistics flights of ISS at one time. This concept allows you to streamline and cheapen that cost dramatically and reduce the complexity of resupply (due to fewer flights) at the same time.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: MattMason on 03/15/2015 06:19 pm
Well, this has been discussed before. I even talked about a similar concept but using mostly SEP tugs that could supply power and station keeping to the station while attached. Using both chemical and electrical engines would allow the tug to also supply DAM reaction capabilities. But they just went for the tug approach. Which is pretty reasonable since the ISS was not designed for the other concept. Integration is almost too easy and once you have the tug up, changing LV is almost trivial. In fact, a standardized way of doing this would allow for two compatible solutions.
I do believe that if this concept is not selected for CRS-2 (which I believe could get at least on flight), it will be very seriously look into by Bigelow.

Why would Bigelow want to look at the concept?
Because it should be a lot cheaper than sending up supplies any other way (provided you use a F9 or FH or whatever the cheapest launch vehicle is), and it can do water and propellant transfer.

Also, it's even better beyond LEO, since you can launch supplies to LEO on a cheap (mostly) RLV like FHR to get its full performance (which is what, 40-50t with reuse? no doubt there'll be minor upgrades to claw back to 50t even with reuse) but get the full benefit of electric propulsion's much higher Isp.

So you have a huge logistics payload launched for about $1000/kg to LEO, then delivered to a Bigelow lunar orbit (EML1/2/DRO/LLO/whathaveyou) for (say) $2000/kg, and you don't have to pay for a really expensive spacecraft bus each time nor do you need to service a reentry craft.

That logistics load could be the propellant needed to land the Bigelow modules on the Moon or whatever, since the tug is also capable of propellant transfer.

And remember that Bigelow was talking about multiple times the logistics flights of ISS at one time. This concept allows you to streamline and cheapen that cost dramatically and reduce the complexity of resupply (due to fewer flights) at the same time.

I love this idea. It's not just yet another cargo container vehicle. It's a reusable system that could form the LEO infrastructure that not only services ISS but outlives it to aid its successors.

Jupiter does some of what the Shuttle Orbiters do in terms of cargo movement, especially with the ingenious arm. With its own fuel supply, the idea of using it for satellite rescue (placed in bad orbit, for instance) or even repair, as well as ISS boosting and future station construction...I think Lockheed has a winner here.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: nadreck on 03/15/2015 07:05 pm
With its own fuel supply, the idea of using it for satellite rescue (placed in bad orbit, for instance) or even repair, as well as ISS boosting and future station construction...I think Lockheed has a winner here.

I see the satellite disposal market and the tender market being a potentially large and lucrative one. I think that anything in an orbit above about 400-500km should have deorbit contingency forced upon it and if it is not built in, the cost of doing it from something like a Jupiter craft should be taxed onto it somehow, and if it is built in, then a reasonable insurance cost to use something like the Jupiter craft should be taxed on to it.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Moe Grills on 03/15/2015 07:12 pm
Well, this has been discussed before. I even talked about a similar concept but using mostly SEP tugs that could supply power and station keeping to the station while attached. Using both chemical and electrical engines would allow the tug to also supply DAM reaction capabilities. But they just went for the tug approach. Which is pretty reasonable since the ISS was not designed for the other concept. Integration is almost too easy and once you have the tug up, changing LV is almost trivial. In fact, a standardized way of doing this would allow for two compatible solutions.
I do believe that if this concept is not selected for CRS-2 (which I believe could get at least on flight), it will be very seriously look into by Bigelow.

Why would Bigelow want to look at the concept?

Bigelow has dreamed of setting up a Moonbase with inflatable modules for years.  But to turn dreams into a viable project and a functioning reality you have to plan to move a whole load of inflatable modules, life-support supplies, lunar-surface machinery, power-source equipment, and lunar-landing systems COMBINED (something like 50 metric tons mass total, MINIMUM) from LEO to LLO.
And that requires a space tug (like the Lockheed Martin "Jupiter" space tug); one that Mr. Bigelow can afford to acquire or rent. He's got a brain on his shoulders.
BTW, I stated 50 metric tons as the value of the total mass of the hardware and propellant that Mr. Bigelow's planned Moonbase project would initially require; that's how much mass an FH can haul into LEO, and he's obviously taken that into consideration. Again, Mr. Bigelow is no dummy.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/15/2015 07:50 pm
VASIMR has a video showing how they attach small solid motor de orbit modules to spent upper stages. This could be a job for a SEP Jupiter.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: cdleonard on 03/15/2015 08:11 pm
Is there any indication that they are planning a variant of Jupiter with electric propulsion? Until they do this tug is very limited in what it can do.

Between missions it will be stuck idling near the ISS in a high-inclination LEO orbit. It can't do stuff like rescue or deorbit satellites because it will probably lack the delta-V to reach them.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: nadreck on 03/15/2015 08:25 pm
Is there any indication that they are planning a variant of Jupiter with electric propulsion?

http://aviationweek.com/space/jupiter-space-tug-could-deliver-cargo-moon (http://aviationweek.com/space/jupiter-space-tug-could-deliver-cargo-moon)

Quote
A win in the CRS-2 competition will hasten the development, including the addition of solar-electric propulsion for missions beyond LEO, but the team plans to continue the work with or without the ISS cargo contract, he says.

Quote
For missions to geostationary orbit and beyond, the company has a concept it calls “Jupiter Electric” that uses solar-electric Hall thrusters designed as an upgrade for the Lockheed Martin A2100 commercial satellite bus.

“The only addition to this is the A2100 Hall-current thruster packs that we put on,” Crocker says. “It would actually be more packs than are on our A2100, but those are being designed, built and flight qualified right now.”
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 03/16/2015 05:02 am
Why the announcement now?  Bids were due in Dec  - so what has LM got to gain by making this announcememt - why not wait till you have a contract?  How much is LM "investing" in this project without NASA?  How long have they been working on it?  What stage of development is LM?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 03/16/2015 05:09 am
There are only so many ports on the ISS - Jupiter comes and is filled with trash then its SpaceX's turn...what does Jupiter do now - wait around for the next Atlas launch that maybe many months away?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/16/2015 06:05 am
There are only so many ports on the ISS - Jupiter comes and is filled with trash then its SpaceX's turn...what does Jupiter do now - wait around for the next Atlas launch that maybe many months away?
Jupiter departs station and goes into a standby orbit. Isn't it kind of obvious?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: gospacex on 03/16/2015 08:31 am
Overly complex, and a solution seeking a market.
Huh?

Currently, Cygnus dumps an entire, perfectly good spacecraft into the ocean every mission. That's needlessly wasteful.

Why you aren't talking of SpaceX then? They don't dump their spacecraft, you know...

Quote
NASA needs a capability like this. ISS could have been built this way (or at least finished). Jim has a thread on the topic somewhere on this site. It's essentially a robotic and FAR cheaper version of what Shuttle did with logistics flights to ISS

Hardly a convincing argument. Shuttle is a benchmark how not to do things.

You need to explain why this Lockheed thingy is better then _SpaceX_ cargo delivery method.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: kevinof on 03/16/2015 08:52 am
If for some strange reason, Nasa want's to add a new section to the ISS (or move ISS/bits of it to maybe L2 in 10 years time) who would  it do it? We no longer have the Shuttle to deliver something this large. Could Jupiter be used for this? The module is delivered to orbit, Jupiter docks and moves to the ISS where it is attached.

This is a capability that we don't currently have and none of the existing cargo carriers are planning on providing.

Overly complex, and a solution seeking a market.
Huh?

Currently, Cygnus dumps an entire, perfectly good spacecraft into the ocean every mission. That's needlessly wasteful.

Why you aren't talking of SpaceX then? They don't dump their spacecraft, you know...

Quote
NASA needs a capability like this. ISS could have been built this way (or at least finished). Jim has a thread on the topic somewhere on this site. It's essentially a robotic and FAR cheaper version of what Shuttle did with logistics flights to ISS

Hardly a convincing argument. Shuttle is a benchmark how not to do things.

You need to explain why this Lockheed thingy is better then _SpaceX_ cargo delivery method.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/16/2015 08:59 am
There are only so many ports on the ISS - Jupiter comes and is filled with trash then its SpaceX's turn...what does Jupiter do now - wait around for the next Atlas launch that maybe many months away?
Leaves ISS and does its secondary payload's mission until next Exoliner is delivered by a Centuar.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: fgonella on 03/16/2015 10:10 am
Dragon and Jupiter complement each other: the former for retrieval, the latter for more upmass and disposal, both reusable. Additionally, you have redundancy with 2 reliable LVs.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: baldusi on 03/16/2015 11:39 am
Well, this has been discussed before. I even talked about a similar concept but using mostly SEP tugs that could supply power and station keeping to the station while attached. Using both chemical and electrical engines would allow the tug to also supply DAM reaction capabilities. But they just went for the tug approach. Which is pretty reasonable since the ISS was not designed for the other concept. Integration is almost too easy and once you have the tug up, changing LV is almost trivial. In fact, a standardized way of doing this would allow for two compatible solutions.
I do believe that if this concept is not selected for CRS-2 (which I believe could get at least on flight), it will be very seriously look into by Bigelow.

Why would Bigelow want to look at the concept?
Besides what's been said above, it add a man tender experiment capability for free. Bigelow wants to optimize for price and this might probably be the cheapest solution on a USD/kg basis. And it add capabilities, scalability and fault tolerance.
Say that you use tugs with both chemical and SEP capabilities. Those tugs could both carry your station to the Moon and, when attached, offer reboost, gyro desat and DAM capabilities. You wouldn't need complicated GNC and propulsion on the Bigelow modules, just let the tug take it away from the US and bring it to the correct orbit.
And if you can take some of the power generated by the solar panels when attached, now you would have a scalable and fault redundant power system.
But that's not all, you can mix and match LV at pleasure, with what's probably one of the easiest to integrate cargo. So you can reaaally compete on price. And you get the arm, which is an interesting point.
Have you wondered about the Bigelow business model? Will it have external payloads capabilities? How will those get accessed, by EVA or by pressure lock? There's a very interesting market for delivery cubesats from the ISS, and probably microsats in the future. Bigelow might well want a piece of that.
But there's more, if you use what the Altius boys have been working on (putting a microsat launcher on the CBM door), a concept like Jupiter might allow the crew to prep the sats, and let the tug move to a higher orbit for release. And if you can do that, you can also use the pressurized module for doing dangerous experiments. Or if you need really goo microgravity, the crew preps the experiments, the tug takes it higher and let's it drift to get the best environment, and then returns to station for processing and return on a Dragon.
The capabilities are endless and it would solve most of the current tradeoffs between material sciences and physiology experiments.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: MattMason on 03/16/2015 12:12 pm
Like other transportation "conductors" and traffic management systems, the only thing that Jupiter has to consider is the many types of interconnectors to be found on the spacecraft it would have to manage. Items built by Lockheed/ULA would be easy, but what about an errant cargo Dragon? Could Jupiter have a "universal" clamp or utilize the Dragon's Canadarm grapple to move that ship to the ISS itself, and then aid in its deberthing and even deorbiting?

Someone's idea of Jupiter being supplied with small deorbiting engines that could be connected to space junk is fascinating. There's also emergency rescue of CC vehicles, moving them to ISS, or even inspection of said vehicles (just because they don't use TPS doesn't mean they're immune from issues involving safe reentries).

And commercial stations like Bigelow's need a tender to assemble a few pieces. There's also the matter of disassembling the ISS when its day is over.

The more I think of Jupiter's versatility, the more it seems that such a space-tender is the best thing to be envisioned since propulsive landings.

We're going to need more than one of these babies.

Edit: clarification
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: notsorandom on 03/16/2015 12:14 pm
If for some strange reason, Nasa want's to add a new section to the ISS (or move ISS/bits of it to maybe L2 in 10 years time) who would  it do it? We no longer have the Shuttle to deliver something this large. Could Jupiter be used for this? The module is delivered to orbit, Jupiter docks and moves to the ISS where it is attached.

This is a capability that we don't currently have and none of the existing cargo carriers are planning on providing.

Based on previous discussions Cygnus can provide the capability to launch new modules to the station. It would function much as the Progress based tugs have in delivering the Poisk and Pirs. The PCM would be replaced with the new module and Cygnus would have to be modified like the Progress was to separate and then dispose of itself. Jupiter may have more capability to deliver a bigger module. I think in any case such a scenario would be outside the CRS-2 contract and be an new and separate contract to deliver the new module.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: thydusk666 on 03/16/2015 01:07 pm
This is a capability that we don't currently have and none of the existing cargo carriers are planning on providing.

Most likely because this capability hasn't been requested.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/16/2015 01:37 pm
Why the announcement now?  Bids were due in Dec  - so what has LM got to gain by making this announcememt - why not wait till you have a contract?  How much is LM "investing" in this project without NASA?  How long have they been working on it?  What stage of development is LM?
Contract bidders traditionally advertise during such competitions, to build awareness in various offices, usually in and near Washington DC. 

How many knew about the "Jupiter" concept two weeks ago?  Now we're talking about it, and wondering what other things it might do, etc. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: kevinof on 03/16/2015 01:56 pm
Ok thanks. Didn't know that.

So the advantage that Jupiter would have is that  you could stick the new module on top of a "dumb" second stage and so save the cost on the SM? You also save on mass so, in theory, could launch a bigger payload. Wonder what the cost difference would be?


If for some strange reason, Nasa want's to add a new section to the ISS (or move ISS/bits of it to maybe L2 in 10 years time) who would  it do it? We no longer have the Shuttle to deliver something this large. Could Jupiter be used for this? The module is delivered to orbit, Jupiter docks and moves to the ISS where it is attached.

This is a capability that we don't currently have and none of the existing cargo carriers are planning on providing.

Based on previous discussions Cygnus can provide the capability to launch new modules to the station. It would function much as the Progress based tugs have in delivering the Poisk and Pirs. The PCM would be replaced with the new module and Cygnus would have to be modified like the Progress was to separate and then dispose of itself. Jupiter may have more capability to deliver a bigger module. I think in any case such a scenario would be outside the CRS-2 contract and be an new and separate contract to deliver the new module.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: WindnWar on 03/16/2015 02:16 pm
It will be interesting to see the life span of the components if this is placed in orbit. Maven did a 33 minute burn to enter orbit, how many minutes are the engines rated for and how long of burns will be needed to drop off and pick up new cargo then berth with the station? Maven was about 2500 kilos of which about 1500 was fuel, this will be moving a 5,000 kilo or so cargo pod right? What is the fuel requirements and engine burn time for each mission? Will Jupiter need larger tanks?

Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: arachnitect on 03/16/2015 03:09 pm
Overly complex, and a solution seeking a market.
Huh?

Currently, Cygnus dumps an entire, perfectly good spacecraft into the ocean every mission. That's needlessly wasteful.

Why you aren't talking of SpaceX then? They don't dump their spacecraft, you know...

Quote
NASA needs a capability like this. ISS could have been built this way (or at least finished). Jim has a thread on the topic somewhere on this site. It's essentially a robotic and FAR cheaper version of what Shuttle did with logistics flights to ISS

Hardly a convincing argument. Shuttle is a benchmark how not to do things.

You need to explain why this Lockheed thingy is better then _SpaceX_ cargo delivery method.

In the context of CRS-II this proposal is "better" than spacex because it offers more volume and upmass.

It is not competing with Dragon, it is competing with Cygnus. I'd actually say the best thing Jupiter-Exoliner has going for it is that if it can do the work of multiple Cynguses in one flight, thereby allowing NASA to buy more Dragon missions which are cheap and have downmass.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: baldusi on 03/16/2015 03:56 pm
It will be interesting to see the life span of the components if this is placed in orbit. Maven did a 33 minute burn to enter orbit, how many minutes are the engines rated for and how long of burns will be needed to drop off and pick up new cargo then berth with the station? Maven was about 2500 kilos of which about 1500 was fuel, this will be moving a 5,000 kilo or so cargo pod right? What is the fuel requirements and engine burn time for each mission? Will Jupiter need larger tanks?
Low thrust (1kN or so) engines are easy to certify. Doing a 4000 seconds or even a 40,000 second certification with a vacuum chamber is a week's work or so. Hall thrusters, on the other hand, might take months. Basically because to get the same impulse you need to run the Hall engine 20X longer (or more). So if you are worried about a crash program, chemical is quite doable. Let's not forget the MAVEN's propulsion probably had over 1,800m/s of delta-v budget, while Jupiter only has to circularize the insertion orbit (granted, with a lot more mass). But quite "easy" to do as certification goes.
Now, big rockets (many kN size) or long thrusting (like Hall thrusters), those are expensive and slow to certify. Probably the reason they are not proposing the SEP version from the start. Once they commercial GTO market does proves them, they will be sort of a commodity.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/16/2015 04:08 pm
Jupiter could support small cargo modules launched on one of the new small sat LVs eg Electron, Firefly, VG Launcher one. These would ideal for critical emergency spares as they could be launched within days not weeks, especially if a LV has been put aside for this purpose. The small pressurized module could be brought into ISS via crew airlock. For disposal place it in a Cygnus or Exoliner.

Small reentry vehicles are being design to return time critical experiments. Jupiter could safely take these well clear of ISS before releasing and arming their propulsion system.

Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/16/2015 04:22 pm
All MAVEN components here are overqualified from the start for Jupiter, every way imaginable. One of the reasons it was chosen for this. You want something to last in terms of lifetime, base it off any current interplanetary bus.

Which feeds nicely into keeping alive the bus for further missions. They have a tendency to go technologically stale, and are costly to upgrade.

Now lets apply this to the other components. Arm/effectors - used on ISS. How long working on-orbit? Used on Shuttle? Maintenance logs? Containers - used on ISS. Ditto.

Now, take another step. Lets say you actually get a Jupiter on orbit, in use. All of these get routinely exercised, accumulating even more flight history/telemetry/etc. And, in this case, you might be able to swap out parts to return to earth to understand wear/effectiveness from a lab on earth. You might refly it or swap from unpressurized cargo, refitting and enhancing ever so gradually.

Now its time to bid on next interplanetary probe. Who are you gonna choose? This is what aerospace is all about. Refining your game to always be the best.
 
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/16/2015 04:44 pm
... Let's not forget the MAVEN's propulsion probably had over 1,800m/s of delta-v budget, while Jupiter only has to circularize the insertion orbit (granted, with a lot more mass).
Centaur (perhaps even also F9/other US) can do second burn for circularize, third for disposal.

It need only do phasing for KOS. Much less than MAVEN burns.

Oh, and MAVEN's elliptical orbit (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution Mission) takes it close to the atmosphere and after the science  (first results this week at the LPSC in Houston!) concludes, a circular orbit for relay work (which unfortunately kills the atmospheric sensors, but that's another issue). So the propulsion systems and platform torques/stabilization are quite robust.

Also, since the approach is to an active target for handoff, one can trim the dispersions using Jupiter fine thrusters using GPS/other navaids. The handoff can be done without phasing delays.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: baldusi on 03/16/2015 05:12 pm
... Let's not forget the MAVEN's propulsion probably had over 1,800m/s of delta-v budget, while Jupiter only has to circularize the insertion orbit (granted, with a lot more mass).
Centaur (perhaps even also F9/other US) can do second burn for circularize, third for disposal.

It need only do phasing for KOS. Much less than MAVEN burns.

Oh, and MAVEN's elliptical orbit (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution Mission) takes it close to the atmosphere and after the science  (first results this week at the LPSC in Houston!) concludes, a circular orbit for relay work (which unfortunately kills the atmospheric sensors, but that's another issue). So the propulsion systems and platform torques/stabilization are quite robust.

Also, since the approach is to an active target for handoff, one can trim the dispersions using Jupiter fine thrusters using GPS/other navaids. The handoff can be done without phasing delays.
Well, I didn't stated how much they had to circularize  :P. I understand that they usually launch with apogee right below ISS, and perigee is more of how much they want the US to last as debris. But if they are going to do a deorbit burn, now that you mention it, yes, they could get pretty close. As much as the ISS people feel safe about, I would guess.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/16/2015 05:24 pm
A future use for the Jupiter is as a construction drone in a spaceship yard. Use a Bigelow module as a habitat for the people and control room. The first Jupiter performs the station keeping for the spacecraft being built. The second Jupiter attaches the new module. The third Jupiter acts as spare, collects new modules from low orbit, collects cargo for the spacestation and joins pipes & electrical cables.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: inventodoc on 03/17/2015 04:13 am
No opinion yet here.

To be honest, I'm still grappling with the question of whether this whole Jupiter/exoliner thing makes any sense.

It MIGHT be useful in deeper space, not sure about ISS. If only there were some numbers to crunch.... ::)
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/17/2015 08:38 am

The total maximum value of any contract awarded will be $14 billion. The total amount of all task orders under all contracts awarded shall not exceed $14 billion.

That's a lot more than CRS-1, presumably because of the number of years and the need to fill in for ATV.  I'd imagine it's also why it piqued the interest of Lockheed Martin this time.  If we suppose they're only hoping to split a contract win with a couple other competitors, even if the combined winning bids don't quite get to $14B, they could still be looking at $3B or $4B of business with CRS-2.

I think it's a mistake to assume the actual amount spent will be anywhere close to $14 billion.  That's just a very high upper bound to say that if the cost is that much, it's so ridiculously high NASA will cancel the whole thing rather than pay that much.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: acrotti on 03/17/2015 09:00 am
Has anyone said in this thread that LM with this system may be able to deliver standard racks to ISS, due to the large diameter of the pressurized section? If I remember well, only HTV has this capability today (no more Shuttle/MPLM), and only a few HTV missions remains available.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 03/17/2015 10:10 am
Has anyone said in this thread that LM with this system may be able to deliver standard racks to ISS, due to the large diameter of the pressurized section? If I remember well, only HTV has this capability today (no more Shuttle/MPLM), and only a few HTV missions remains available.

Yes, that has been mentioned on this thread several times.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Jim on 03/17/2015 03:30 pm

I think it's a mistake to assume the actual amount spent will be anywhere close to $14 billion.  That's just a very high upper bound to say that if the cost is that much, it's so ridiculously high NASA will cancel the whole thing rather than pay that much.


No, the upper bound is so NASA doesn't have to recompete the contract.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Patchouli on 03/17/2015 05:53 pm

Low thrust (1kN or so) engines are easy to certify. Doing a 4000 seconds or even a 40,000 second certification with a vacuum chamber is a week's work or so. Hall thrusters, on the other hand, might take months. Basically because to get the same impulse you need to run the Hall engine 20X longer (or more). So if you are worried about a crash program, chemical is quite doable. Let's not forget the MAVEN's propulsion probably had over 1,800m/s of delta-v budget, while Jupiter only has to circularize the insertion orbit (granted, with a lot more mass). But quite "easy" to do as certification goes.
Now, big rockets (many kN size) or long thrusting (like Hall thrusters), those are expensive and slow to certify. Probably the reason they are not proposing the SEP version from the start. Once they commercial GTO market does proves them, they will be sort of a commodity.
The also also can add more engines or just larger ones for more thrust in this application.


Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/17/2015 08:33 pm
Jupiter has additional advantage with secondary payload missions that will run after leaving ISS. If there is any problem with payload they can return to ISS and have payload inspected, maybe even removed and brought in station for repair.

NB the secondary payloads would most likely be commercial so ISS crew being involved could be an issue.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: a_langwich on 03/17/2015 11:50 pm
This system is an elegant architecture.  It's like windshield wipers and electric starters on automobiles; once used, it's hard to imagine going back to the old way.  I'm not predicting whether LM will win a CRS-2 entry or not; that depends on the specific prices their particular implementation has.  Of course Atlas V 401 is not the cheapest launch vehicle;  the ATV "can" was designed for reasonable but not necessarily low price; I'm not sure MDA has designed and executed arms for anything other than big government projects; and the MAVEN bus certainly prioritized reliability above any cost concerns.  So their prices might be high.  But in the same way, I don't know whether the very first car to include windshield wipers or an electric starter was a commercial success, but as soon as they got a reasonable working version, it had to be clear that no commercially successful auto could do without them.  I think the tug-and-cargo model, like a tractor-and-trailer truck system, will certainly be the way forward.

The key pieces of the design, with regard to future versatility, will be the attachment interface of the container (Exoliner) to the Centaur, and the attachment interface of the Jupiter tug to the Exoliner container.

The following conceptual missions have occurred to me, and reading the posts, it seems to others also. 

Unmanned "Station Two" forming

Example:  a private company designs orbital fabrication equipment (3D printers, extruders, composite layup machines, etc) as a self-contained module inside the Exoliner (if non-vacuum is desired) or in the unpressurized volume (if not).  Or both.  It gets launched to ISS.  Why there?  Well, at ISS it gets checked out, tested, debugged, with humans inspecting it, plenty of cameras, human intervention for troubleshooting, etc. 

This fabrication equipment, still in the Exoliner, gets towed to some comfortable (for NASA) stand-off distance by Jupiter.  Why?  Perhaps because it presents vibration concerns to sensitive instruments on ISS, or because it is "noisy" electromagnetically.  Or perhaps because the owner of the equipment wants to arrange their own cargo deliveries (for consumables) , and the timing is easier to arrange and the prices are cheaper if they don't go through ISS and man-rated safety concerns.  Or perhaps the item being fabricated is large and the bulk of the ISS would get in the way.  Speaking of which, consumables come up in/on an Exoliner, which could in an automated manner select and retrieve them using an extensible gripper traversing a pole from hatch to back.  Or similar pick-and-place hardware on a standardized external rack.  This gets handed, hatch to hatch, to a similar gripper in the fabrication container, to be inserted like a toner cartridge into the fabrication unit.  Upon completion of the fabrication, a Jupiter tug can carry it to the customer.  Easily, if the customer is ISS or another LEO station.  SEP required for delivery of a large antenna to GEO, for example.

You can easily imagine a similar arrangement with a private lab, doing some automated drug testing or materials handling.  The benefit to fabrication is that the customer is in orbit, so any competing equipment has to pay millions to get launched, which helps even out the economics.  Perhaps the module is a sensitive scientific instrument, or has a giant rotating antenna like SMAP, and so it is towed some distance away to avoid conflicts.  With Electric Jupiter, it could be towed to a quite different orbit.  Perhaps NASA designs a cargo container with self-contained radiation experiments, perhaps mice for example, and tows them using Jupiter EP out through the radiation belts and back in to ISS.  The benefit to basing it out of ISS here is having mice-handling facilities at ISS, and Dragon to bring back frozen samples, and the ability to keep a control group at ISS that went through the same launch and LEO radiation environment.

Manned station splitting


Similar idea, but for actual full station modules.  These would get launched to ISS.  Why?  Again, because they can be checked out and verified by people.  Perhaps also it would be convenient for some final configuration and installation to be done on orbit, perhaps for an inflatable module to get some additional internals installed after inflation.  At some point, this human check-out-and-repair function could be split from ISS into a separate station, in which case _that_ station would be a split as outlined here.

So Bigelow has his BEAM or BA330, it's outfitted at ISS.  Now he's ready to move his modules off to his own area.  Jupiter tug!  After movement, he won't have to get approval from a half-dozen member nation governments to launch customers.  He might even be able to accept Chinese citizens as guests.  :)


Not Related to ISS


Rhymes with "gruel pee-poh"*                                    *(at least in my dialect, YMMV)

Some future "Advanced Centaur (C-X)" or "Next-Gen Upper Stage (NGUS)" launches with Jupiter plus unpressurized-cargo.  Perhaps this cargo includes a deployable heat shade.  Perhaps it includes umbilical and pressurant if needed (or perhaps the stage's IVF handles that).  It need not launch to LEO, perhaps it goes into a highly elliptical orbit suitable for subsequent beyond-Earth targeting but stable enough to last a bit.  At some later date, a second launch occurs, with a C-X topped by an outbound payload.  Jupiter tugs the second stack near the first.  Fuel is transferred from the first C-X to the second--that's the main capability required for this stage to be "advanced" or "next-gen"--which now has a full tank for its outbound burn.  How does our kg/C3 curve look now, Scotty?  Can we do better than a D4H?

Of course this can be extended to multiple tanks and multiple payload assemblies, and if it were envisioned to be a repeated need to a destination like the moon or Mars, a more suitable location like the LaGrange points etc could be chosen.

Now, maneuvering a big Centaur or equivalent (especially with partially filled tanks) with a little tug will probably take some learning.  It's a good thing there were practice maneuvering sessions available back during the ol' CRS-2 days, right?  Consider them efforts to extend in-space reusability, much like a certain other company has done for terrestrial first-stage recovery.


To the moon, Alice, to the moon!

One of the more obvious applications of Jupiter + a Bag o' Tricks is toward DARPA's Phoenix program.  Maybe the ideas or some of the hardware sprang from that direction.  Even if NASA does not include LM's entry for CRS-2, NASA might join up with DARPA and USAF to fund some demonstration missions.

Suppose LM got a contract from DARPA/USAF to perform some Phoenix-related GEO salvage/repair/swap-out, and used an Electric Jupiter.  Primary mission completed, check.  Now suppose a Google Lunar X-Prize competitor is launched as a secondary payload behind a GEO-bound bird, but they weren't willing to let a secondary to include a large propulsion element.  So GLXP team packs a little xenon or argon tank, and waits in its extended GTO.  Here comes Jupiter EP on its secondary mission!  Hang on, this is going to take a while...there, dropped off in lunar orbit.  Ready to head back toward another competitor.  As with electric-engined satellites, supplementation with chemical propulsion can balance travel time with mass.

Suppose NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate organized and funded a series of small technology demonstrators which used the moon as a place to develop lander technology, shelter building, ISRU tech, and interplanetary cubesat sensors and systems.  Electric Jupiter could ferry them, allowing them to ride as secondary payloads.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/18/2015 12:18 am
The idea of using Exoliner as free flying dedicated automated lab has some possibilities especially if it can tap into ISS freight service. This could be a case of docking with ISS occasionally for restocking, offloading manufactured goods and servicing.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Ruaridhmc on 03/18/2015 02:10 am
I'm guessing their CRS2 bid is all Atlas, all the time.
[/quote]

No WAY that is happening after what happened to Antares, NASA will know they need at least 2 different launchers this time
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/18/2015 02:24 am
Using Atlas only shouldn't be an issue. Redundancy is provided by other vehicles using different LVs ie Dragon & F9, Cygnus & Antares.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Nibb31 on 03/18/2015 08:58 am
I don't understand how this system can deorbit the spent Exoliner. From what I understand, the Centaur brings up the full Exoliner, Jupiter takes the empty one from the station, then has to swap them around on the Centaur? How can it do that if both the Centaur and Jupiter can only be attached to one Exoliner at the same time?

Either the Jupiter has to handle two Exoliners while it swaps them around, or it has to do several empty runs between the ISS and the Centaur, which can hardly be very efficient in terms of propellant. How long can a Centaur loiter on orbit anyway?

How does the spent Exoliner reattach to the Centaur ? Does it berth with a CBM on the Centaur? The Jupiter's arm looks a bit short for that.

I think it would have been more elegant for the tug to have two identical docking systems, one on each end. That way, it could remove the full canister from the Centaur, turn around, and plug the empty one into the Centaur for disposal.

Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: docmordrid on 03/18/2015 09:21 am
>
I'm not sure MDA has designed and executed arms for anything other than big government projects;
>

MDA had prototypes of a lightweight telescoping 15 meter arm and a 2.58 meter mini-arm in 2012.

http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/news/generation-canadarm-unveiled/
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: baldusi on 03/18/2015 12:35 pm
I don't understand how this system can deorbit the spent Exoliner. From what I understand, the Centaur brings up the full Exoliner, Jupiter takes the empty one from the station, then has to swap them around on the Centaur? How can it do that if both the Centaur and Jupiter can only be attached to one Exoliner at the same time?

Either the Jupiter has to handle two Exoliners while it swaps them around, or it has to do several empty runs between the ISS and the Centaur, which can hardly be very efficient in terms of propellant. How long can a Centaur loiter on orbit anyway?

How does the spent Exoliner reattach to the Centaur ? Does it berth with a CBM on the Centaur? The Jupiter's arm looks a bit short for that.

I think it would have been more elegant for the tug to have two identical docking systems, one on each end. That way, it could remove the full canister from the Centaur, turn around, and plug the empty one into the Centaur for disposal.
In fact, if you look at the video, you'll notice that Jupiter has an extra End Effector on the back. It must be part of the use strategy.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/19/2015 07:30 pm
If DARPA XS1 program is successful we could have vehicle that can deliver 1-2000kg to LEO for $5m a flight by 2020. Jupiter could rendezvous with this payload and deliver it to ISS.

Currently NASA are paying around $50m per 1000kg to ISS.

The XS1 may only be good for non precious/delicate cargo, but that still makes up a large portion of ISS supplies.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 03/21/2015 05:28 pm
Has anyone said in this thread that LM with this system may be able to deliver standard racks to ISS, due to the large diameter of the pressurized section? If I remember well, only HTV has this capability today (no more Shuttle/MPLM), and only a few HTV missions remains available.

I suspect that cargo Dragon could deliver a rack to ISS in a pinch.

Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: daveklingler on 03/22/2015 01:44 am
I suspect that this proposal is the product of many water fountain discussions internal and external to LM over the past few years, that the CRS2 reviewers already knew it was coming, and that they will award at least a few extra point for creativity.  I'd love to see it get chosen, just because of all the enormous capabilities it will bring (and prove), all at once.

Anyone other than SpaceX and Orbital bidding on CRS2 obviously has to prove that their system is better than the ones already flying.  This sort of proposal is the only sort I can imagine that could make a clear claim to that description, if extra capability is a factor.

And the really big thing, IMHO, is that the thing that rhymes with gruel peepoe would become relatively routine.  Not to mention that I can imagine big chains of smallsats being towed into different orbits with one of these.  No, not chains.  Trains...
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: deadshot462 on 03/23/2015 09:59 pm
This video got posted on the LM CRS-2 website:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YucRy6ztT20

Watching it now..
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/24/2015 04:34 am
The Jupiter tugs adds a few more options to a station in Lunar orbit.
Supporting a reusable robotic lander (eg MoonExpress MX1) lander to do sample returns. The Jupiter tug would capture and return it to Station where it can drop off the samples and refuel. The next visiting capsule Orion would return the samples to earth. Alternatively the samples could be analysed on the station either remotely (ie station unmanned ) or by crew member.

Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 03/25/2015 02:57 pm
This is a really great idea - an intermodal container and an ISS-based tug.

How come nobody ever thought of this before?       8)

Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: MattMason on 03/27/2015 11:54 am
The Jupiter tugs adds a few more options to a station in Lunar orbit.
Supporting a reusable robotic lander (eg MoonExpress MX1) lander to do sample returns. The Jupiter tug would capture and return it to Station where it can drop off the samples and refuel. The next visiting capsule Orion would return the samples to earth. Alternatively the samples could be analysed on the station either remotely (ie station unmanned ) or by crew member.

I don't see Jupiter used in this way. The infrastructure for lunar operations requires a stronger reusability aspect, in my mind. Things arrive in lunar orbit, are safely taken down and used. But nothing of mass is coming back from the lunar surface, unless some mining is going on.

I can envision Jupiter handing off arriving Exoliners or other modules from Earth and mating them to landers that help build a base or other structure. The vehicle that gets the Exoliner there could be an extended-fuel Jupiter itself that can move between Earth and the Moon. For samples, human intervention, with a return capability, is more desirable.

But Jupiter certainly has the cargo shuttling within any orbital or trans-orbital frame down pat in principle.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Moe Grills on 03/27/2015 03:20 pm
   Wow! There are so many good posts here, where can one start?
It's obvious that LM has hit upon a good idea with the Jupiter space tug.
All of your posts indicate it's a good idea and such hardware would have many possible uses.
We might start referring to the Jupiter space tug as the "Swiss Army Knife" of spacecraft;
it can do a lot of things. A short list below.

1) It can service the ISS from LEO (haul oversized equipment, cargo containers, modules to and from).
2) It can remove dangerous large pieces of space debris from orbit (reaching them, connecting re-entry avionic & retrorocket systems)
3) It can maneuver and connect modules in LEO for commercial space stations (like Bigelow plans for).
4) It can reach malfunctioning or dying satellites in GEO, hauling them down to the ISS for repair or refurbishment.
5) It can haul modules, cargo, and other material from LEO to Low Lunar Orbit.
6) NEO asteroids can be reached.

Amazing to think that Bigelow's planned inflatable modules, the planned Jupiter space tug, Falcon Heavy and Dragon variants may all be meant for each other.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 03/27/2015 03:37 pm
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/parom.html

RSC Energia proposed an ISS based tug over 10 years ago - this tug could also perform other missions, such as propelling satellites.

Where RSC Energia got the idea for an ISS based tug using intermodal canisters is a story in itself.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Bob Shaw on 03/28/2015 01:01 am
Overly complex, and a solution seeking a market.
Huh?

Currently, Cygnus dumps an entire, perfectly good spacecraft into the ocean every mission. That's needlessly wasteful. And how complex is it to build a dozen spacecraft, when you really only need to build one?

I mean, I suppose we should just scuttle Chinese cargo ships when the reach the US, because hey, it's overly complex to reuse them.

NASA needs a capability like this. ISS could have been built this way (or at least finished). Jim has a thread on the topic somewhere on this site. It's essentially a robotic and FAR cheaper version of what Shuttle did with logistics flights to ISS, just with a shorter version of MPLM (although there's no reason in principle they couldn't use a whole MPLM sized container, especially once the tug is placed in orbit).

Actually, regarding the scuttling, that's what happens, in one sense: the containers, which contain the cargo, ought to be reused, but ain't! Daft, yes?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/28/2015 02:50 am
Overly complex, and a solution seeking a market.
Huh?

Currently, Cygnus dumps an entire, perfectly good spacecraft into the ocean every mission. That's needlessly wasteful. And how complex is it to build a dozen spacecraft, when you really only need to build one?

I mean, I suppose we should just scuttle Chinese cargo ships when the reach the US, because hey, it's overly complex to reuse them.

NASA needs a capability like this. ISS could have been built this way (or at least finished). Jim has a thread on the topic somewhere on this site. It's essentially a robotic and FAR cheaper version of what Shuttle did with logistics flights to ISS, just with a shorter version of MPLM (although there's no reason in principle they couldn't use a whole MPLM sized container, especially once the tug is placed in orbit).

Actually, regarding the scuttling, that's what happens, in one sense: the containers, which contain the cargo, ought to be reused, but ain't! Daft, yes?

One disposable Exoliner can carry twice pressurized mass and over 3 times volume of a reusable Dragon (which is not reused, another story). The reusable Dragon would dispose of two LVs (Draft yes?) to deliver same payload as one disposable Exoliner + LV. Most of the up mass NASA doesn't what back, eg packaging, clothing,human waste (recycled food) so disposing of it in space makes sense.
Being expendable can be a plus, Cygnus has already conducted one fire experiment after it left the station. I'm sure people have plenty of other experiments that would benefit from a disposable space vehicle.

For BLEO missions where Exoliner is supplying a lunar orbit station (on NASAs roadmap), the benefits of a low weight expendable container really shine. A SEP Jupiter can dispose of Exoliner into deepspace for a lot less fuel(mass) than it would take to return 2 Dragons to Earth. 
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 03/28/2015 02:39 pm
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/parom.html

RSC Energia proposed an ISS based tug over 10 years ago - this tug could also perform other missions, such as propelling satellites.

Where RSC Energia got the idea for an ISS based tug using intermodal canisters is a story in itself.


Pfft.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/otv.htm
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: dror on 03/28/2015 03:01 pm
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/parom.html

RSC Energia proposed an ISS based tug over 10 years ago - this tug could also perform other missions, such as propelling satellites.

Where RSC Energia got the idea for an ISS based tug using intermodal canisters is a story in itself.


Pfft.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/otv.htm

Why stop there ?

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/loccetug.htm
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: GuessWho on 03/28/2015 03:32 pm
   Wow! There are so many good posts here, where can one start?
It's obvious that LM has hit upon a good idea with the Jupiter space tug.
All of your posts indicate it's a good idea and such hardware would have many possible uses.
We might start referring to the Jupiter space tug as the "Swiss Army Knife" of spacecraft;
it can do a lot of things. A short list below.

1) It can service the ISS from LEO (haul oversized equipment, cargo containers, modules to and from).
2) It can remove dangerous large pieces of space debris from orbit (reaching them, connecting re-entry avionic & retrorocket systems)
3) It can maneuver and connect modules in LEO for commercial space stations (like Bigelow plans for).
4) It can reach malfunctioning or dying satellites in GEO, hauling them down to the ISS for repair or refurbishment.
5) It can haul modules, cargo, and other material from LEO to Low Lunar Orbit.
6) NEO asteroids can be reached.

Amazing to think that Bigelow's planned inflatable modules, the planned Jupiter space tug, Falcon Heavy and Dragon variants may all be meant for each other.

1) Yes - by design.
2) Limited.  Only if that debris is in or near the orbital plane of ISS.  Jupiter doesn't have the energy to make large plane changes and certainly cannot economically get to polar/sun-sync orbits where a majority of the debris resides.
3) Yes, if near ISS orbit inclination or you build a dedicated Jupiter to service Bigalow
4) No way.  It couldn't raise itself to GEO let alone come back with any payload.  You would likely need to refuel Jupiter 6-8 times on the way to GEO just to get it there.
5) No way.  See 4)
6) Huh?  In what universe?  It can't even leave LEO.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/28/2015 03:48 pm
   Wow! There are so many good posts here, where can one start?
It's obvious that LM has hit upon a good idea with the Jupiter space tug.
All of your posts indicate it's a good idea and such hardware would have many possible uses.
We might start referring to the Jupiter space tug as the "Swiss Army Knife" of spacecraft;
it can do a lot of things. A short list below.

1) It can service the ISS from LEO (haul oversized equipment, cargo containers, modules to and from).
2) It can remove dangerous large pieces of space debris from orbit (reaching them, connecting re-entry avionic & retrorocket systems)
3) It can maneuver and connect modules in LEO for commercial space stations (like Bigelow plans for).
4) It can reach malfunctioning or dying satellites in GEO, hauling them down to the ISS for repair or refurbishment.
5) It can haul modules, cargo, and other material from LEO to Low Lunar Orbit.
6) NEO asteroids can be reached.

Amazing to think that Bigelow's planned inflatable modules, the planned Jupiter space tug, Falcon Heavy and Dragon variants may all be meant for each other.

1) Yes - by design.
2) Limited.  Only if that debris is in or near the orbital plane of ISS.  Jupiter doesn't have the energy to make large plane changes and certainly cannot economically get to polar/sun-sync orbits where a majority of the debris resides.
3) Yes, if near ISS orbit inclination or you build a dedicated Jupiter to service Bigalow
4) No way.  It couldn't raise itself to GEO let alone come back with any payload.  You would likely need to refuel Jupiter 6-8 times on the way to GEO just to get it there.
5) No way.  See 4)
6) Huh?  In what universe?  It can't even leave LEO.
You obviously didn't read much about Jupiter. Lockheed Martin intends to upgrade it with significant electric propulsion. So, um, THIS universe.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: GuessWho on 03/29/2015 02:45 pm
You obviously didn't read much about Jupiter. Lockheed Martin intends to upgrade it with significant electric propulsion. So, um, THIS universe.

Actually I did.  And I probably know a way lot more about it than you do.  But to your comment ...

When are they going to upgrade it?  Under what circumstances would they include EP?  ISS doesn't need it so what market exists that would cause them to invest further sums of money to add EP?  Define "significant electric propulsion".  If LM were smart, they would sit back and let NASA develop a multi-kW EP system and then use that.  But NASA is a long ways from doing that; if ever, given the weak support for ARM.  If NASA holds true to form, ARM will wander along for another year or two and then die a quiet death.  No ARM, no big EP as NO ONE ELSE needs it.

Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 03/29/2015 11:57 pm
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/parom.html

RSC Energia proposed an ISS based tug over 10 years ago - this tug could also perform other missions, such as propelling satellites.

Where RSC Energia got the idea for an ISS based tug using intermodal canisters is a story in itself.


Pfft.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/otv.htm

Nope.

OTV was intended to move stuff from the space station up to GEO or whatever. The station itself would be supplied by Space Shuttle; in that sense, OTV was basically the same as any other upper stage, except that the exchange between Shuttle and the tug happened at the station, rather than in the Shuttle payload bay.

The concept of supplying the station with intermodal canisters that are orbited and stabilized in orbit by a conventional rocket upper stage and then transferred to the station by a station-based tug is a relatively new thing. RSC Energia got the patent for that concept in Russia.

The reason I know it is new is that a lot of experts told me at the time that upper stages could not support the docking as they didn't have the necessary pointing capability.   Apparently, that turned out not have a lot of truthiness.





Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: john smith 19 on 04/01/2015 10:03 am
I'll have to go reread the source selection document but I don't think the advantage for CST-100 was so much "more cargo" as just having a really specific plan for how they were going to accommodate it. I may have missed it, but I haven't seen a rendering or mockup of Dragon2 or Dreamchaser in an ISS mission configuration, but well before the CCtCap bids went in there were renderings and mockups of CST in its ISS configuration showing exactly where all the lockers and freezers were, how they would be accessed, etc.
NASA does like a nicely presented picture.  :(
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: newpylong on 04/01/2015 11:04 am
You obviously didn't read much about Jupiter. Lockheed Martin intends to upgrade it with significant electric propulsion. So, um, THIS universe.

Actually I did.  And I probably know a way lot more about it than you do.  But to your comment ...

When are they going to upgrade it?  Under what circumstances would they include EP?  ISS doesn't need it so what market exists that would cause them to invest further sums of money to add EP?  Define "significant electric propulsion".  If LM were smart, they would sit back and let NASA develop a multi-kW EP system and then use that.  But NASA is a long ways from doing that; if ever, given the weak support for ARM.  If NASA holds true to form, ARM will wander along for another year or two and then die a quiet death.  No ARM, no big EP as NO ONE ELSE needs it.

Apparently you don't know as much as you think. " Waiting for NASA to develop " would get LM nowhere considering NASA is going to contract out further SEP development. That would be like LM waiting for themselves to do something.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: GuessWho on 04/01/2015 11:59 am
Quote
Apparently you don't know as much as you think. " Waiting for NASA to develop " would get LM nowhere considering NASA is going to contract out further SEP development ...

No sure what you are trying to say here.  Waiting for NASA to develop a significant EP system is bad because NASA is going to develop one? 

Whether NASA does it in-house or by contracting it out is still spending NASA money.  Why would LM spend its own dollars if NASA is going to spend theirs?  And given that currently NASA is the only "customer" interested in high power EP (several 10's to 100's of kW), and that interest is only for a manned-space architecture that can't seem to find a purpose, LM would be foolish to invest any of their own money.  If you have an example of a non-NASA customer that has expressed a need for high power EP, then by all means share that with the community so we can be as enlightened as you are.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: john smith 19 on 04/01/2015 12:39 pm
I'm a bit late to thread so I've been playing catch up.

LM have certainly lost none of the ability to play the NASA procurement  game. At a single stroke
they have a solution that handles ISS resupply, setting up a deep space habitat and there's more. On an SLS it could supply the habitat to Mars ! Lots of boxes ticked.

Exciting stuff. I certainly was.  :)

Now take a few deep breaths and step back a minute.

Development was meant to be under the CCiCAP programme, not in CRS 2, by which time the vehicles and their payloads should be mature.

So how will LM fund this? Internally? Additional price on the payload launches? I'll leve those with more knowledge of the workings of large government and aerospace contractors to answer that one.

The core task of CRS2 (like CRS 1) is resupply to the ISS.

This is a very complex approach to carry out that task. (and it still delivers no down mass. Presumably that's CTS 100's job). The various bits all have pedigree but of course the jokers in the integration.

Anyone remember the "Sergent York" anti aircraft gun fiasco? All bits individually OK but together....

I'm not sure if LM didn't show for CTS or CRS 1 or they and got rejected but it's taken them a long time to turn up for this.

Their narrative seems to be roughly "Sure it'll probably be a bit more expensive than others but heck, look at what it will do in the future"

Sure it's a clever concept (but not original. Tug concepts have been around since at least the STS phase A studies)

It's a clever idea, not least because it appeals to a lot of peoples wishes.

That alone should make people suspicious.  :(

Incidentally I thought the idea of CRS and CRS 2 were to lower the cost per unit mass.

$18 000 000 000??  That's the entire projected SABRE/Skylon development budget + 50%.  :(
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/01/2015 12:40 pm
If you haven't noticed, electric propulsion is a fairly common technology in the commercial satellite industry. Why is everyone acting as if it's rare and would be especially hard to do?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: GuessWho on 04/01/2015 01:04 pm
If you haven't noticed, electric propulsion is a fairly common technology in the commercial satellite industry. Why is everyone acting as if it's rare and would be especially hard to do?

At the few kW level, you are correct.  To do the kinds of things attributed to Jupiter in the future (beyond ISS LEO), you would need systems in the several 10's (50+) to 100's of kW which has not been demonstrated yet either in terms of thrusters or power processing systems.  That is just orbital mechanics.  Solvable? Yes. Economical? Highly unlikely, but that is one person's opinion.  Your mileage may vary.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: JasonAW3 on 04/01/2015 03:22 pm
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/parom.html

RSC Energia proposed an ISS based tug over 10 years ago - this tug could also perform other missions, such as propelling satellites.

Where RSC Energia got the idea for an ISS based tug using intermodal canisters is a story in itself.


Pfft.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/otv.htm

Nope.

OTV was intended to move stuff from the space station up to GEO or whatever. The station itself would be supplied by Space Shuttle; in that sense, OTV was basically the same as any other upper stage, except that the exchange between Shuttle and the tug happened at the station, rather than in the Shuttle payload bay.

The concept of supplying the station with intermodal canisters that are orbited and stabilized in orbit by a conventional rocket upper stage and then transferred to the station by a station-based tug is a relatively new thing. RSC Energia got the patent for that concept in Russia.

The reason I know it is new is that a lot of experts told me at the time that upper stages could not support the docking as they didn't have the necessary pointing capability.   Apparently, that turned out not have a lot of truthiness.

Actually, you might want to recheck that.  the original idea for an otv was published before we even had space stations. Von Baun and a number of other Nasa types had been thinking about it back before they eve3n launched men into space.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: JasonAW3 on 04/01/2015 03:27 pm
If you haven't noticed, electric propulsion is a fairly common technology in the commercial satellite industry. Why is everyone acting as if it's rare and would be especially hard to do?

At the few kW level, you are correct.  To do the kinds of things attributed to Jupiter in the future (beyond ISS LEO), you would need systems in the several 10's (50+) to 100's of kW which has not been demonstrated yet either in terms of thrusters or power processing systems.  That is just orbital mechanics.  Solvable? Yes. Economical? Highly unlikely, but that is one person's opinion.  Your mileage may vary.

one has to wonder if anyone has considered electrical generation via heat differential between lit and unlit surfaces, direct heat to electrical conversion and even converting stray RF to electricity.  All oth these techniques exist, although they may not be too effective, but if they're low enough mass, they might be something to consider, as every watt is usefull in space.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 04/01/2015 03:42 pm

Actually, you might want to recheck that.  the original idea for an otv was published before we even had space stations. Von Baun and a number of other Nasa types had been thinking about it back before they eve3n launched men into space.

The classical paradigm used the tug to lift payloads from the station to the Moon or a higher orbit, and used a Shuttle to get payloads to the station.

What Lockheed is proposing is to use a rocket to lift a payload to a parking orbit, using the rocket upper stage to stabilize the cargo payload, send a tug from the space station to rendezvous with the upper stage, and then return to the station with the tug.  Von Braun never considered that architecture.

Another approach Back in the Day was to have a "Shuttle" or Apollo type vehicle carry a Resource Module launched together with the crewed vehicle, and use the crewed vehicle to carry the cargo module to a station. That was considered and rejected for SkyLab.

As an aside, one of the benefits of operating a space station is that it provokes new thinking about operations in space. The more the station is used, the more operational alternates emerge from station requirements. Von Braun lived in a world where there was no station, so he could not see all the requirements.


Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: JasonAW3 on 04/01/2015 04:55 pm
     Some of the designs I find interesting are the ones that use aerobraking for deceleration.  One of the OTV designs was a lifting body, which, in theory, could allow two additional capibilities that a disc shaped aerobrake lacks.

First, change of orbital inclination.  The self same capibility that allows a lifting body reentry vehicle to have a vastly extended crossrange versus a capsule, would also allow an aerobraking craft to adjust it's orbital inclination by several degrees without the use of fuel.  In surfer's terms, you'd be carving a wicked cut to go in a different direction, by using the atmosphere, and the craft's aerodynamic capibilities, to change the orbital inclination.

Second, if also equiped with landing gear, it would also allow the OTV, to be used as a lifeboat for a Earth return landing.  In theory, it could make a water landing, but this would be an exceptional risk.  Although the disk design would allow atmospheric entry, final deceleration could prove problimatic, even assuming a rocket fired final decelleration into the ocean.  Cold seawater and hot rocket nozzles don't really make for a too friendly combination.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: HIP2BSQRE on 04/01/2015 05:06 pm
Please remember to keep this on topic.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/01/2015 05:20 pm
     Some of the designs I find interesting are the ones that use aerobraking for deceleration.  One of the OTV designs was a lifting body, which, in theory, could allow two additional capibilities that a disc shaped aerobrake lacks.

First, change of orbital inclination.  The self same capibility that allows a lifting body reentry vehicle to have a vastly extended crossrange versus a capsule, would also allow an aerobraking craft to adjust it's orbital inclination by several degrees without the use of fuel.  In surfer's terms, you'd be carving a wicked cut to go in a different direction, by using the atmosphere, and the craft's aerodynamic capibilities, to change the orbital inclination.

Second, if also equiped with landing gear, it would also allow the OTV, to be used as a lifeboat for a Earth return landing.  In theory, it could make a water landing, but this would be an exceptional risk.  Although the disk design would allow atmospheric entry, final deceleration could prove problimatic, even assuming a rocket fired final decelleration into the ocean.  Cold seawater and hot rocket nozzles don't really make for a too friendly combination.
"disc based" aerobraking can be lifting as well so would also be capable of these things.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/01/2015 08:10 pm
The Jupiter tug would bring fuel depots a long with OTVs one step closer. The tug would allow payloads to be transferred to a OTV for delivery to BLEO. In case of depots, help dock the upper stage to depot or OTV for fuel transfer. Tug may even do the fuel transfer.

In case if Jupiter adding fuel transfer capabilities may just require a modified Exoliner with fuel transfer equipment.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: john smith 19 on 04/02/2015 09:28 am
"disc based" aerobraking can be lifting as well so would also be capable of these things.
There is no mention of aerobraking in LM's proposal.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 04/03/2015 02:45 am
Meh, I am not impressed. It seems like a step back compared to DC and Dragon. The whole BEO stuff sounds like marketing fluff to me. But maybe I am just feeling cynical today.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: MattMason on 04/03/2015 12:48 pm

Actually, you might want to recheck that.  the original idea for an otv was published before we even had space stations. Von Baun and a number of other Nasa types had been thinking about it back before they eve3n launched men into space.

The classical paradigm used the tug to lift payloads from the station to the Moon or a higher orbit, and used a Shuttle to get payloads to the station.

What Lockheed is proposing is to use a rocket to lift a payload to a parking orbit, using the rocket upper stage to stabilize the cargo payload, send a tug from the space station to rendezvous with the upper stage, and then return to the station with the tug.  Von Braun never considered that architecture.

Another approach Back in the Day was to have a "Shuttle" or Apollo type vehicle carry a Resource Module launched together with the crewed vehicle, and use the crewed vehicle to carry the cargo module to a station. That was considered and rejected for SkyLab.

As an aside, one of the benefits of operating a space station is that it provokes new thinking about operations in space. The more the station is used, the more operational alternates emerge from station requirements. Von Braun lived in a world where there was no station, so he could not see all the requirements.

And that's the key. Getting something into space now is, comparably, not a big problem.

It's manipulating what's been sent there to where you want it to be that's the trick, unless I missed something in my infantile skills in orbital mechanics.

And thrusters only go so far, unless all those robot arms on the Shuttle Orbiter and ISS are completely optional.

A number of us watch the SpaceX floating pad. It has its own power, but it needs guidance to move to the right positions with precision. (So does the cruise ship cam we use to watch the pad when it's moored.)

The Jupiter isn't so much as a spacecraft as it is a Elsbeth III or the Go Quest support ships that move the cargo to storage and transfer points. This action doesn't require the ISS but supports its mission, as it would others.

Several Jupiters could form a "dock" of its own, holding canisters for any number of needs that can be transferred elsewhere, sitting in a nice parking orbit.

As I might have said before, this is an infrastructure device. All the freight trucks in the world would be useless without cranes, tugs, forklifts, and this seems a very good start to defining space freight hardware. STS was supposed to work this way but was obviously far too expensive and compromised by design and politics.

Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: guckyfan on 04/03/2015 01:26 pm
I am not used to thinking in orbital parameters. But I do wonder. Jupiter will wait for the next mission in LEO, well below ISS. That means it can be anywhere in relation to the ISS. How does that affect launch windows or how does Jupiter get into the position it needs to be to first rendezvous with the launch vehicle then ISS. Will the time from launch to ISS docking be much longer than other vehicles?

Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/03/2015 02:09 pm
Launch window would still be instantaneous as Jupiter is stationary relative to ISS. Where it meets the upper stage would have to be well clear of ISS eg 50km, to avoid any possible navigation errors by upper stage.

I would say Jupiter having abilities of a crane or forklift are its most more important features. Especially if these are totally automated, which may not be the case initially.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Comga on 04/03/2015 02:15 pm
I am not used to thinking in orbital parameters. But I do wonder. Jupiter will wait for the next mission in LEO, well below ISS. That means it can be anywhere in relation to the ISS. How does that affect launch windows or how does Jupiter get into the position it needs to be to first rendezvous with the launch vehicle then ISS. Will the time from launch to ISS docking be much longer than other vehicles?

Jupiter can't "wait for the next mission in LEO, well below ISS" because if it does, it's orbit will precess at a rate different from that of the station's orbit.  It would then have to do a plane change to get back to rendezvous.  A small amount of this drift and the delta-V will quickly consume and then exceed, or at least waste, Jupiter's fuel load.The fact that it would in concept take longer to rendezvous is the least of the issues.

Jupiter will have to stay in the same orbit as ISS, either leading or trailing, maintaining its altitude in synchronization with the ISS, despite their different ballistic coefficients.  It might be able to "sail" with its solar panels to do this without burning fuel, but it can't do it without active control.  It probably is a minor effect if it drifts around the orbit, because it will have to rephase in any case after it descends to pick up a new Exoliner. 
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 04/03/2015 02:49 pm
In this regard, looking at the concept of operations of the proposed Russian OKA-T spacecraft is useful. OKA-T would be able to refuel from Zvezda, and fly near the ISS orbit while performing science.

Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Nilof on 04/03/2015 02:50 pm
This video got posted on the LM CRS-2 website:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YucRy6ztT20

Watching it now..

Some key things worth mentioning from that video that don't seem to have made it into the discussion:

* the Exoliner was dimensioned to be capable of launching together with an Orion on an SLS block I stack.
* Used as a deep space hab, it is large enough to fit both ISS-derived exercising equipment and closed cycle life support.

That is a substantial improvement over the baseline Orion in terms of deep-space capabillity. You could actually do some serious deep space missions with that.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: guckyfan on 04/03/2015 03:44 pm
Jupiter can't "wait for the next mission in LEO, well below ISS" because if it does, it's orbit will precess at a rate different from that of the station's orbit.  It would then have to do a plane change to get back to rendezvous.  A small amount of this drift and the delta-V will quickly consume and then exceed, or at least waste, Jupiter's fuel load.The fact that it would in concept take longer to rendezvous is the least of the issues.

Jupiter will have to stay in the same orbit as ISS, either leading or trailing, maintaining its altitude in synchronization with the ISS, despite their different ballistic coefficients.  It might be able to "sail" with its solar panels to do this without burning fuel, but it can't do it without active control.  It probably is a minor effect if it drifts around the orbit, because it will have to rephase in any case after it descends to pick up a new Exoliner.

OK, makes sense. Thank you for the explanation.

It means that Jupiter will have to stay in the ISS orbit until the next Exoliner is launched.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Elmar Moelzer on 04/03/2015 05:34 pm

Some key things worth mentioning from that video that don't seem to have made it into the discussion:

* the Exoliner was dimensioned to be capable of launching together with an Orion on an SLS block I stack.
* Used as a deep space hab, it is large enough to fit both ISS-derived exercising equipment and closed cycle life support.

That is a substantial improvement over the baseline Orion in terms of deep-space capabillity. You could actually do some serious deep space missions with that.
Wouldn't it need a lot more radiation protection (and probably other modifications) to be usable as a deep space habitat?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Jimmy Murdok on 04/03/2015 07:26 pm
It's ironic, that in the stack between Orion + Jupiter there is a full ATV disassembled as Orion service module + Exoliner cargo container.

I'm concerned about EVA's, as the stack will need to be disassembled each time. Besides that, the solution is quite practical and realistic to do something interesting with SLS+Orion in the 2020's. I really hope NASA invests in this solution for CRS-2.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/03/2015 09:48 pm
Meh, I am not impressed. It seems like a step back compared to DC and Dragon. The whole BEO stuff sounds like marketing fluff to me. But maybe I am just feeling cynical today.

I don't think it's a step forward or backward compared to DC and Dragon.  It's a step to the side.

DC or Dragon is good for downmass.  Jupiter is good for bulk delivery of upmass, plus other operations such as constructing new stations and moving supplies other places such as lunar orbit.  They are complementary.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 04/04/2015 12:26 am
For reference, here is an animation showing the CSI approach to ISS servicing, using intermodal containers, and an ISS-based tug. In the case of CSI, the tug was Progress, not Jupiter.

FYI only.


Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: the_other_Doug on 04/04/2015 02:46 am
I'm concerned about EVA's, as the stack will need to be disassembled each time.

I'd put an EVA hatch in the Exoliner and also the suit servicing equipment, and use the Exoliner as your airlock in the pictured configuration.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/04/2015 05:32 am
I'm concerned about EVA's, as the stack will need to be disassembled each time.

I'd put an EVA hatch in the Exoliner and also the suit servicing equipment, and use the Exoliner as your airlock in the pictured configuration.
That is the plan for a EAM whether it is based on a Exoliner, Cygnus or something else.
In the article below Exoliner wasn't public knowledge hence preference for Cygnus. Nice to see some competition for this EAM, Cygnus has flight history, Exoliner has more room, either way Thales wins.

http://spacenews.com/4212765th-international-astronautical-congress-nasa-studying-habitation-module/
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Burninate on 04/04/2015 09:42 am
Jupiter can't "wait for the next mission in LEO, well below ISS" because if it does, it's orbit will precess at a rate different from that of the station's orbit.  It would then have to do a plane change to get back to rendezvous.  A small amount of this drift and the delta-V will quickly consume and then exceed, or at least waste, Jupiter's fuel load.The fact that it would in concept take longer to rendezvous is the least of the issues.

Jupiter will have to stay in the same orbit as ISS, either leading or trailing, maintaining its altitude in synchronization with the ISS, despite their different ballistic coefficients.  It might be able to "sail" with its solar panels to do this without burning fuel, but it can't do it without active control.  It probably is a minor effect if it drifts around the orbit, because it will have to rephase in any case after it descends to pick up a new Exoliner.

OK, makes sense. Thank you for the explanation.

It means that Jupiter will have to stay in the ISS orbit until the next Exoliner is launched.

Doesn't make sense to me.

How does "Precession" apply to this?  1) It's not spinning, so you're not talking about polar precession, and 2) periapsis precession does not modify the orbital plane.  Periapsis precession is far too slow a process to move apoapsis above the orbit of the ISS and create a collision risk in a reasonable amount of time, and at this altitude atmospheric drag is far too high to permit it: the atmosphere circularizes objects quickly.

3) It can't wait below the ISS, stationary to the ISS, not because of precession but because something at 350km altitude circular will simply have a shorter orbital period than something at 360km altitude circular, so while it would stay in the same plane, phasing would drift rapidly.

But phasing does not cost a lot of fuel to defeat, if you're willing to wait a few orbits for things to sync up.  As these are cargo ships, we are willing to wait.

4) Maybe you're arguing that the atmospheric drag against a rotating atmosphere will start to rotate the orbital plane out somehow?  I find I can't estimate that easily, but I'm skeptical that could have a huge effect.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: belegor on 04/04/2015 12:02 pm
@Burninate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nodal_precession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nodal_precession)
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 04/04/2015 02:13 pm


Doesn't make sense to me.

How does "Precession" apply to this? 

Objects in the same orbital plane at different altitudes have differing amounts of precession. Even a difference of 50 km altitude will result in Jupiter;s orbital plane precessing away from ISS, so that after a week, the plane change to return to ISS would be non-trivial.

If you look at the CSI video above, you will see a Progress tug performing a rendezvous and docking with a canister some 50 km below ISS; in that case, if the docking is delayed by more than a few days, the Progress cannot return to ISS without expending significant amounts of propellant.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Jimmy Murdok on 04/04/2015 02:40 pm
I'd put an EVA hatch in the Exoliner and also the suit servicing equipment, and use the Exoliner as your airlock in the pictured configuration.

Looks like Bigelow is building another Beam with frontal door to be used as an airlock for their station. As it's quite small and inexpensive module, could be a good option to be carried in the unpressurized section and installed with the arm or directly plugged on the side of the container to be inflated in orbit.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Nilof on 04/04/2015 04:08 pm
Objects in the same orbital plane at different altitudes have differing amounts of precession. Even a difference of 50 km altitude will result in Jupiter;s orbital plane precessing away from ISS, so that after a week, the plane change to return to ISS would be non-trivial.

If you look at the CSI video above, you will see a Progress tug performing a rendezvous and docking with a canister some 50 km below ISS; in that case, if the docking is delayed by more than a few days, the Progress cannot return to ISS without expending significant amounts of propellant.

How much would the delta-v requirement change for a 27 degrees orbit? In the degenerate case of an equatorial orbit, the delta-v is clearly zero because you can absorb the precession into the phase of the orbit. For a 90 degrees orbit, the precession rate is zero so there should be no delta-v cost here either. I'm curious as to how the cost changes inbetween these two cases.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 04/04/2015 05:30 pm
To fly from ISS to a 27 degree orbit would effectively require warp drive.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/04/2015 06:27 pm
To fly from ISS to a 27 degree orbit would effectively require warp drive.
Or a tether.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 04/04/2015 10:00 pm
To fly from ISS to a 27 degree orbit would effectively require warp drive.
Or a tether.

At this point, discussions about precession and high delta-V belong in a topic other than the LockMart Jupiter topic.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Nilof on 04/04/2015 10:39 pm
To fly from ISS to a 27 degree orbit would effectively require warp drive.
Ah sorry if my post was unclear. I meant for the case of a hypothetical space station in a 27 degrees inclination orbit, such as a future Bigelow commercial station. For service vehicles like Jupiter, would the delta-v to cancel out precession due to orbital altitude differences be a bigger or a smaller problem at these inclinations?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 04/05/2015 01:46 pm
To fly from ISS to a 27 degree orbit would effectively require warp drive.
Ah sorry if my post was unclear. I meant for the case of a hypothetical space station in a 27 degrees inclination orbit, such as a future Bigelow commercial station. For service vehicles like Jupiter, would the delta-v to cancel out precession due to orbital altitude differences be a bigger or a smaller problem at these inclinations?

Precession would be a major issue at the standard 28.5 orbit.

In almost all cases, if the ISS tug were separated from the station, they would have to maintain a similar orbit at the same altitude, matching any maneuvers conducted by the station, in orbit to be able to return without using their entire prop supply.  One way to do this would be to change altitude from time to time, climbing higher, and then lower.

Here is an example of an architecture for an ISS-based tug to be used for repair of Globalstar satellites, which are at 1400 km. The time spent at 1400 km incurs  a precession "loss", so after such a mission, the tug has to descend very low, to spend time to "catch up" with ISS so the ascending nodes finally match:

https://www.google.com/patents/US20020130222?dq=ininventor:%22David+Anderman%22&ei=LTwhVfD4KoatogS7ioCYDg&cl=en

Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Comga on 04/05/2015 04:57 pm
@Burninate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nodal_precession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nodal_precession)
Thanks belegor
Yes Burninate, it is about the rates at which the orbital planes rotate, the same effect that is used to find sun synchronous orbits and that causes launch windows to the ISS to shift ~7 minutes earlier every day. It has nothing to do with atmospheric drag. Phasing IS a much easier effect to cancel.  But precession is a real effect and a serious constraint on where to "park" a Jupiter/Exoliner.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 04/05/2015 08:45 pm
I'm concerned about EVA's, as the stack will need to be disassembled each time. Besides that, the solution is quite practical and realistic to do something interesting with SLS+Orion in the 2020's. I really hope NASA invests in this solution for CRS-2.

I'd put an EVA hatch in the Exoliner and also the suit servicing equipment, and use the Exoliner as your airlock in the pictured configuration.

Looks like Bigelow is building another Beam with frontal door to be used as an airlock for their station. As it's quite small and inexpensive module, could be a good option to be carried in the unpressurized section and installed with the arm or directly plugged on the side of the container to be inflated in orbit.

You could definitely do that and I think it would be good to develop an EVA capable/2-docking port EAM. However, I don't think the stack would need to be disassembled for EVA's. According to the material NASA is putting out for ARM you could just use the Orion hatch for EVA egress/ingress.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/05/2015 09:34 pm
For reference, here is an animation showing the CSI approach to ISS servicing, using intermodal containers, and an ISS-based tug. In the case of CSI, the tug was Progress, not Jupiter.

FYI only.

Thank you for bringing CSI up. Compared to Jupiter, it would seem that this failed COTS proposal differed in two ways - an "arm" for an additional CBM, and the ability to use an already existing, on-orbit vehicle as dual use tug.

IIRC, there was a Loral bus as a tug not unlike Jupiter, no arm, no replenished fuels from container, and no payload exchange with a US whereby the US could dispose the container. With CSI, I assume passive reentry instead.

Note also the docking to the RS as well, and the potential for such in refueling ISS propulsion.

But this brings up another way to do the Lockheed proposal as well - just do Exoliner as derivative of ATV's pressurized container. Then contract the "tug" part of the mission as one or more of Dragon/Cygnus/CST100/Progress/HTV/Soyuz ... and launch only the Exoliner, starting from first launch. Need additional docking adapter or limited berthing (needs just couple/decouple unpressurized) second "fixture".

The advantage of this approach would be low risk, high mass/volume efficiency cargo to ISS. No tug!
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 04/06/2015 02:48 pm
One capability that Jupiter enables is delivery of a 4th Node to ISS.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 04/06/2015 02:50 pm

Thank you for bringing CSI up. Compared to Jupiter, it would seem that this failed COTS proposal differed in two ways - an "arm" for an additional CBM, and the ability to use an already existing, on-orbit vehicle as dual use tug.



You are correct. n 2006, the only tug around was Progress. And yes, Jupiter uses berthing, rather than docking, although berthing is actually a form of docking.

If CSI were bidding today, their approach would undoubtedly incorporate more advanced technology, such as a dedicated tug.

However, in the final analysis, Lockheed seems to be using an updated version of the CSI approach of an ISS  tug and intermodal containers stabilized in orbit by an upper stage; CSI's approach was considered innovative in 2006, and apparently was.


Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: woods170 on 04/07/2015 08:08 am
One capability that Jupiter enables is delivery of a 4th Node to ISS.
Oh no. Not Node 4 again. Can we please let the subject of Node 4 rest? Thanks.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/07/2015 01:50 pm
One capability that Jupiter enables is delivery of a 4th Node to ISS.
Oh no. Not Node 4 again. Can we please let the subject of Node 4 rest? Thanks.
4th Node, fine, but the ability to add new large modules is valuable.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/08/2015 05:53 am
One capability that Jupiter enables is delivery of a 4th Node to ISS.
Oh no. Not Node 4 again. Can we please let the subject of Node 4 rest? Thanks.
4th Node, fine, but the ability to add new large modules is valuable.

A method of attaching science labs, spaceship assembly & repair yards and docking ports to Bigellow spacestations will be needed. A space tug sounds like the right tool for this job.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Todd Martin on 04/08/2015 03:14 pm
Since Jupiter has an arm, why can't the tug simply latch onto an open hand restraint on the outside of the ISS (or perhaps something beefier and dedicated for the tug) instead of wasting fuel maneuvering around?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 04/08/2015 07:51 pm
Since Jupiter has an arm, why can't the tug simply latch onto an open hand restraint on the outside of the ISS (or perhaps something beefier and dedicated for the tug) instead of wasting fuel maneuvering around?


A single attachment point would likely lead to the tug swinging about every time there is a propulsive maneuver by ISS. The arm would have to be strengthened to be able to support the mass of the tug while attached to ISS, in inverse proportion to the area of the attachment point.

As an example, Soyuz and Progress have an attachment area with a diameter of about 1 meter. On top of this, hooks and clamps are used to strengthen the attachment.

The tug would have an attachment area of maybe 100 to 200 mm, which generates a sort of lever arm on the tug and increases the intensity of any velocity imparted to the tug via the arm.

What the tug really needs is a docking or berthing port.

I suspect that the reason this is not in Lockheed's current concept is because the costs of developing the port interface and the costs of the ISS partners paying for the additional prop required by the tug's additional mass is simply beyond the scope of their proposal.



Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/08/2015 07:58 pm
Note that it can "dual attach" using arm and attachment used with Centaur.

And, this can be axially aligned in various places on ISS. Like ones along longitudinal axis of thrust ...
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 04/09/2015 12:43 am
Note that it can "dual attach" using arm and attachment used with Centaur.

And, this can be axially aligned in various places on ISS. Like ones along longitudinal axis of thrust ...

Hand waving here.

I could axially align my pickup truck in various places on SLS, along the longitudinal axis of thrust, too.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Todd Martin on 04/09/2015 12:45 am
The ISS partners' additional prop. cost to keep ISS in orbit with Jupiter attached would be much less than the cost of Jupiter's prop. for independent station keeping.  More importantly, an independent station keeping Jupiter would need ground crew monitoring, control, and tracking.  The Ground ops requirements would be much less if it was just attached to ISS by a grapple. 

I understand and appreciate the lever arm issue, so a 2nd attachment point would be desired.  But, comparing the docking requirements of cargo & crew supplying vehicles (which need sealed airlocks) is a bit unfair.  I think a closer comparison would be outside experiment racks which are simply bolted in place.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: JasonAW3 on 04/13/2015 07:59 pm

Actually, you might want to recheck that.  the original idea for an otv was published before we even had space stations. Von Baun and a number of other Nasa types had been thinking about it back before they eve3n launched men into space.

The classical paradigm used the tug to lift payloads from the station to the Moon or a higher orbit, and used a Shuttle to get payloads to the station.

What Lockheed is proposing is to use a rocket to lift a payload to a parking orbit, using the rocket upper stage to stabilize the cargo payload, send a tug from the space station to rendezvous with the upper stage, and then return to the station with the tug.  Von Braun never considered that architecture.

Another approach Back in the Day was to have a "Shuttle" or Apollo type vehicle carry a Resource Module launched together with the crewed vehicle, and use the crewed vehicle to carry the cargo module to a station. That was considered and rejected for SkyLab.

As an aside, one of the benefits of operating a space station is that it provokes new thinking about operations in space. The more the station is used, the more operational alternates emerge from station requirements. Von Braun lived in a world where there was no station, so he could not see all the requirements.

And that's the key. Getting something into space now is, comparably, not a big problem.

It's manipulating what's been sent there to where you want it to be that's the trick, unless I missed something in my infantile skills in orbital mechanics.

And thrusters only go so far, unless all those robot arms on the Shuttle Orbiter and ISS are completely optional.

A number of us watch the SpaceX floating pad. It has its own power, but it needs guidance to move to the right positions with precision. (So does the cruise ship cam we use to watch the pad when it's moored.)

The Jupiter isn't so much as a spacecraft as it is a Elsbeth III or the Go Quest support ships that move the cargo to storage and transfer points. This action doesn't require the ISS but supports its mission, as it would others.

Several Jupiters could form a "dock" of its own, holding canisters for any number of needs that can be transferred elsewhere, sitting in a nice parking orbit.

As I might have said before, this is an infrastructure device. All the freight trucks in the world would be useless without cranes, tugs, forklifts, and this seems a very good start to defining space freight hardware. STS was supposed to work this way but was obviously far too expensive and compromised by design and politics.

This is part of why I prefer the Lifting body aero shell.  With a disk you have limited cross range and really can't make any major orbital inclination changes, whereas with a lifting body design, you can.  (Lifting bodys were designed with a much higher degree of maneuverability in flight than a disk is heat shield is capible of).  Using the atmosphere and momentum is a fairly effecient way of changing orbital inclinations, if you don't loose to much velocity during the change that is.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: RanulfC on 04/16/2015 04:12 pm
Historical reference, LM has suggested similar before:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740023215.pdf

Randy :)
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: RanulfC on 04/16/2015 04:22 pm
Uhm just a quick observation on the aerobraking/maneuver conversation; aerobraking is normally suggested to be done with a large aero-shell to have maximum drag, using the atmosphere to maneuver on the other hand uses shapes designed to have LOW drag and HIGH lift at hypersonic speeds so you don't need to slow down TOO much during the maneuver. Lifting bodies in general have too much of the former and not enough of the latter for the maneuver mission UNLESS they are specifically hypersonic bodies. Examples of maneuver shapes would be FDL5/7 series, Bud Reddings Spacecruiser and such while the "disk" (large area) aero-shells of the 1970s Space Tug were specifically for aerobraking missions.

The main determining factor of which way you want to go with this idea is simply that in the maneuver mission you pretty much have to enclose the entire payload INSIDE the hypersonic lifting body where as in the aerobraking mission the payload can be protected even if "outside" the actual vehicle due to the large "shadow" the disk creates.

Randy
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 04/16/2015 04:25 pm
Historical reference, LM has suggested similar before:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740023215.pdf

Randy :)

Well, that is an Agenda with large prop tanks for use as an upper stage for Shuttle, sort of like IUS.

Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 04/29/2015 12:34 am
Think we have been down this road before with Space Systems/Loral's COTS II proposal, again a tug architecture using an existing spacecraft bus:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110718101724/http://www.constellationservices.com/SSL_COTS_Fact_Sheet_Dec_2007.pdf

The proposal was eliminated in the first round of the COTS II proposal for many reasons, but included “operational complexity of the Space Tug system”

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12822.0

The Lockheed proposal will run up into the same issue, except it will compete with two finished competitors and one past CDR, so while interesting it wont get picked for CRS-2.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Patchouli on 04/29/2015 01:43 am
Think we have been down this road before with Space Systems/Loral's COTS II proposal, again a tug architecture using an existing spacecraft bus:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110718101724/http://www.constellationservices.com/SSL_COTS_Fact_Sheet_Dec_2007.pdf

The proposal was eliminated in the first round of the COTS II proposal for many reasons, but included “operational complexity of the Space Tug system”

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12822.0

The Lockheed proposal will run up into the same issue, except it will compete with two finished competitors and one past CDR, so while interesting it wont get picked for CRS-2.
I always found it odd they considered the space tug operations complex and risky when the technology has been proven on several demonstration missions like Orbital Express and the core vehicle hardware the SSL1300 bus was about as proven as it gets.
In some ways CRS-1 seemed like a thinly disguised LV development program as it seemed like the quickest way to get eliminated was to say you were going to use an existing LV.
Not that it was a bad thing as we got Falcon 9 out of the deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Express

LM's Jupiter and Exoliner proposal is one of two that can replicate the capability the ATV had the other being DCCS.
Jupiter it's self is probably by far the best vehicle to use for added US side reboost since it is a space tug.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2015 02:04 am
Think we have been down this road before with Space Systems/Loral's COTS II proposal, again a tug architecture using an existing spacecraft bus:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110718101724/http://www.constellationservices.com/SSL_COTS_Fact_Sheet_Dec_2007.pdf

The proposal was eliminated in the first round of the COTS II proposal for many reasons, but included “operational complexity of the Space Tug system”

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12822.0

The Lockheed proposal will run up into the same issue, except it will compete with two finished competitors and one past CDR, so while interesting it wont get picked for CRS-2.

Three points:

1. Just because two different proposals share the same broad architecture doesn't mean they are either both picked or both rejected.  If the details are different, the selection board may like one better than the other.  You allude to this in your post when you say the SS/Loral proposal was eliminated "for many reasons", not just because of the perceived complexity of the tug operations.

2. It's not the same people making the decision for CRS 2 that made the COTS 2 decisions.  Opinions can differ.

3. The situation is different now.  At the time of COTS 2, there was no existing system and NASA had to fund development, so it could only choose two awardees and had to minimize risk to try to make sure it got at least one working system.  Now, there are two existing systems that already work, so NASA can be freer to experiment with riskier options.  If the riskier options fail, NASA is out nothing because in CRS 2 they only pay for operational missions and as long as they have other awardees, they can just give more missions to the other options if the tug option doesn't pan out.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Patchouli on 04/29/2015 02:14 am

Three points:

1. Just because two different proposals share the same broad architecture doesn't mean they are either both picked or both rejected.  If the details are different, the selection board may like one better than the other.  You allude to this in your post when you say the SS/Loral proposal was eliminated "for many reasons", not just because of the perceived complexity of the tug operations.

2. It's not the same people making the decision for CRS 2 that made the COTS 2 decisions.  Opinions can differ.

3. The situation is different now.  At the time of COTS 2, there was no existing system and NASA had to fund development, so it could only choose two awardees and had to minimize risk to try to make sure it got at least one working system.  Now, there are two existing systems that already work, so NASA can be freer to experiment with riskier options.  If the riskier options fail, NASA is out nothing because in CRS 2 they only pay for operational missions and as long as they have other awardees, they can just give more missions to the other options if the tug option doesn't pan out.


I guess CRS 2 can safely be a technology development program then which means Jupiter and DCCS may have a good chance at winning it.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/29/2015 03:18 am
LM are already looking beyond CRS2 for using their Jupiter and Exoliner.

http://aviationweek.com/Habitats
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 04:18 am
Think we have been down this road before with Space Systems/Loral's COTS II proposal, again a tug architecture using an existing spacecraft bus:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110718101724/http://www.constellationservices.com/SSL_COTS_Fact_Sheet_Dec_2007.pdf

The proposal was eliminated in the first round of the COTS II proposal for many reasons, but included “operational complexity of the Space Tug system”

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12822.0

The Lockheed proposal will run up into the same issue, except it will compete with two finished competitors and one past CDR, so while interesting it wont get picked for CRS-2.

It should be noted that CSI was a partner in the Loral proposal in COTS II, as well as a prime in COTS I, and that Lockheed was a partner with CSI in COTS 1.  CSI came up with the intermodal architecture, which NASA didn't like the first two times around, but maybe they will come around on it this time.

Not wanting to blow my own horn, I was the guy who came up with the concept way back when.  I look at the complex issue the way that some people for LOR - it was much more complex than the standard direct approach to lunar landing where everything went to the surface of the Moon, but LOR was much more efficient. A tug based ISS resupply system is similarly more complex, but more efficient.


Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2015 04:56 am
Think we have been down this road before with Space Systems/Loral's COTS II proposal, again a tug architecture using an existing spacecraft bus:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110718101724/http://www.constellationservices.com/SSL_COTS_Fact_Sheet_Dec_2007.pdf

The proposal was eliminated in the first round of the COTS II proposal for many reasons, but included “operational complexity of the Space Tug system”

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12822.0

The Lockheed proposal will run up into the same issue, except it will compete with two finished competitors and one past CDR, so while interesting it wont get picked for CRS-2.

It should be noted that CSI was a partner in the Loral proposal in COTS II, as well as a prime in COTS I, and that Lockheed was a partner with CSI in COTS 1.  CSI came up with the intermodal architecture, which NASA didn't like the first two times around, but maybe they will come around on it this time.

Not wanting to blow my own horn, I was the guy who came up with the concept way back when.  I look at the complex issue the way that some people for LOR - it was much more complex than the standard direct approach to lunar landing where everything went to the surface of the Moon, but LOR was much more efficient. A tug based ISS resupply system is similarly more complex, but more efficient.

More complex but more efficient can make the whole system less risky overall because it can allow reductions of complexity elsewhere, reduce the number of launches, etc.

And in the particular case of a tug, the reuse aspect can also reduce risk because infant mortality means once something has worked once, using the same item n more times has a lower risk of failure than using n things one time each.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/29/2015 05:00 am
Looking back some early COTS1 web articles it seems NASA were more interested in developing new launch services than a sure thing with existing big aerospace companies. The gamble paid off as we now have SpaceX and F9 shaking up launch industry which should save NASA billions in the long run.

LM proposal does have an element of risk but this time round NASA will not be financing the risk.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: fgonella on 04/29/2015 07:10 am
Letting the politics aside, could an idle Jupiter have been deployed to salvage yesterday's failed progress launch?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2015 08:29 am
Letting the politics aside, could an idle Jupiter have been deployed to salvage yesterday's failed progress launch?

I was wondering the same thing.

To do so, Jupiter would need to be able to use its attitude thrusters to match the spin of the progress.  That's probably possible.  It would then need to be able to operate while spinning like that.  I don't know if it could do that.  Then, it would need to have something it could grab with its arm that would be within range from a position on the axis of rotation (Jupiter's axis of rotation would have to be the same as progress's).  I'm not sure if there would be something suitable.  Then, it would need to be able to hang on while thrusting to kill the rotation.  The arm might not be designed for that kind of load.  Also, everything would be complicated by the fact that moving the arm would change the rate of rotation, so thrusters might have to keep making adjustments while the arm moved.

Unless the software was all written to do that long before, it would be hard to design it all in the 2-3 days before progress de-orbits, I would think.

In the end, I doubt they would even try because it would be too great a chance of losing Jupiter and too low a chance of actually saving the progress.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 10:08 am
Nothing on Progress for the arm to grab onto; typically end effectors have specialized grapple fixtures.

The better question is what Jupiter would do with a dead Progress,  if it could grapple Progress somehow.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: john smith 19 on 04/29/2015 10:19 am
Historical reference, LM has suggested similar before:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19740023215.pdf

Randy :)
So you could call it a Shuttle Upper Stage?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 04/29/2015 04:55 pm
Letting the politics aside, could an idle Jupiter have been deployed to salvage yesterday's failed progress launch?
The Jupiter may not be able to save the Progress but it could provide valuable photos which would help with investigations.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Patchouli on 04/29/2015 05:23 pm
Nothing on Progress for the arm to grab onto; typically end effectors have specialized grapple fixtures.

The better question is what Jupiter would do with a dead Progress,  if it could grapple Progress somehow.

It might be possible to grab it by the probe in the docking system or one of the thrusters.
But it wouldn't be able to do much with it if it's lost power since the active side of RDS requires electrical power to retract the probe and actuate hooks?
A spacecraft with a probe can dock with a dead vehicle with a drogue but not vice versa.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: MattMason on 04/30/2015 07:54 pm
Nothing on Progress for the arm to grab onto; typically end effectors have specialized grapple fixtures.

The better question is what Jupiter would do with a dead Progress,  if it could grapple Progress somehow.

Quite true. Jupiter couldn't fix what went wrong in the first place. There's the matter of the spacecraft's overall integrity. Although Jupiter might have the capacity to ferry the stricken ferry to ISS, that ship may be too battered from its launch and be a serious hazard, from debris floating off it, to leaks or even "energetic events."

Even if Progress could be stabilized now, in my opinion there's no way that NASA or Roscosmos would trust it without knowing the full extent of the issue--not even to drive it remotely near the ISS for photos.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: somepitch on 05/13/2015 08:19 pm
Charles A. Lurio ‏@TheLurioReport  10m10 minutes ago
Rumors from Lockheed: Jupiter/Exoliner eliminated from CRS2 ISS cargo competition as not competitive.

https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/598580761751588865 (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/598580761751588865)
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 05/14/2015 01:58 pm
That leaves the two incumbents, plus Boeing and Sierra Nevada on the outside.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: baldusi on 05/14/2015 02:05 pm
That leaves would leave the two incumbents, plus Boeing and Sierra Nevada on the outside.
There, I corrected it for you. It's a rumor. Granted, an expected outcome, but for now, just a rumor.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: gongora on 05/14/2015 03:01 pm
Couple tweets from Jeff Foust a few days ago (May 6) kinda hints that LM's Jupiter proposal wouldn't be cheap:

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/596047671988617216 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/596047671988617216)
Josh Hopkins, LM: value of lunar orbit outpost is that we can’t take giant leap of 1000-day Mars mission from Earth orbit. #H2M2015

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/596048732908552192 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/596048732908552192)
Hopkins: develop technologies for this by sneaking it into another budget line: ISS cargo (LM’s Jupiter concept.) #H2M2015

Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: simonbp on 05/18/2015 03:24 pm
I wouldn't say that; SpaceX has pulled similar tricks getting COTS money to pay for the development of a crew capsule, and CRS money to pay for development of a reusable first stage.

LM is publicly talking up the non-ISS uses of Jupiter because that's a selling point, not a disadvantage.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: AncientU on 05/18/2015 11:10 pm
I wouldn't say that; SpaceX has pulled similar tricks getting COTS money to pay for the development of a crew capsule, and CRS money to pay for development of a reusable first stage.

LM is publicly talking up the non-ISS uses of Jupiter because that's a selling point, not a disadvantage.

They had the cheapest price for both.  What SpaceX did with its revenue/profits (reinvest them instead of paying dividends or whatever) is not the issue.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: jongoff on 05/18/2015 11:55 pm
That leaves would leave the two incumbents, plus Boeing and Sierra Nevada on the outside.
There, I corrected it for you. It's a rumor. Granted, an expected outcome, but for now, just a rumor.

And quite frankly, I'm pretty skeptical of the rumor. AIUI, doesn't NASA usually let both winners and losers know at the same time? If they had decided to do a two-step downselect, I would've thought that they would've said that explicitly when they announced they were slipping the announcement to September. Also, one of the rumors talked about LM working with Boeing, but Boeing can't really change its bid after it's been submitted.

Methinks we have a case of someone misinterpreting some data, then the echo chamber going.

~Jon
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 05/21/2015 05:41 pm
The rumors don't make sense, but the general rule is that all rumors are true.

If this rumor were not true, Lockheed would deny the rumor.
Title: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Star One on 05/21/2015 07:14 pm
The rumors don't make sense, but the general rule is that all rumors are true.

If this rumor were not true, Lockheed would deny the rumor.

Why should they waste their time commenting on such an unsubstantiated rumour.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: meekGee on 05/21/2015 09:04 pm
The minute they deny it, they give it much wider visibility.  No upside.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: jongoff on 05/21/2015 10:35 pm
The rumors don't make sense, but the general rule is that all rumors are true.

If this rumor were not true, Lockheed would deny the rumor.

Heh. If all rumors were generally true, we'd live in a really interesting world. My experience is that most rumors are at best misunderstandings of 4th hand details that has at best a tenuous connection with reality.

~Jon
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Patchouli on 05/23/2015 12:55 am
Charles A. Lurio ‏@TheLurioReport  10m10 minutes ago
Rumors from Lockheed: Jupiter/Exoliner eliminated from CRS2 ISS cargo competition as not competitive.

https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/598580761751588865 (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/598580761751588865)

A bit of a shame as it was a great concept and was very flexible.
That leaves the two incumbents, plus Boeing and Sierra Nevada on the outside.


If one of the outside contractors wins hopefully it'll be SNC who wins as then we'll get a space plane with near ATV cargo capacity.
I'm still annoyed that Boeing won the commercial crew contract with their unimaginative design.

Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: GuessWho on 05/23/2015 02:06 pm
Charles A. Lurio ‏@TheLurioReport  10m10 minutes ago
Rumors from Lockheed: Jupiter/Exoliner eliminated from CRS2 ISS cargo competition as not competitive.

https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/598580761751588865 (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/598580761751588865)

A bit of a shame as it was a great concept and was very flexible.
That leaves the two incumbents, plus Boeing and Sierra Nevada on the outside.


If one of the outside contractors wins hopefully it'll be SNC who wins as then we'll get a space plane with near ATV cargo capacity.
I'm still annoyed that Boeing won the commercial crew contract with their unimaginative design.



If it's true that the LM concept has been rejected, then one has to wonder what the real motivation is at NASA.   NASA just released an RFI for the ARM mission that also includes a request for a LEO space servicing vehicle (space tug) on one hand (Govt. led) and rejects a "commercial" space tug from Lockheed Martin on the other.  Rather curious from where I am sitting.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: rcoppola on 05/23/2015 03:12 pm
The thing to remember is that CRS is a service contract, not a development program. So any new entrants' prices would need to envelop both their development and service costs and still remain competitive. That's no small task. NASA only has so much budget to commit to what is a service contract. Boeing may have a shot if they can, at minimal cost, leverage their crew CST design for cargo, or SNC, by perhaps only building 2 DCs and manage to keep refurbishment costs so low that they can make their development costs back by re-use and still remain competitive on price.

And needless to say, IMO, you can fill one slot of the contract with SpaceX regardless. They have the most experience and success now. I'm sure they proposed upgraded Dragon and trunk capabilitties and will continue to be the lowest cost provider.

So IMO, Jupiter, will probably find a home either in a DOD framework, or NASA Moon/Mars infrastructure planning architecture, LEO Servicing (Sats etc) but not CRS-2. Some program that will have development funds.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Star One on 05/23/2015 05:56 pm
The thing to remember are these are just rumours yet again.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: baldusi on 05/24/2015 01:00 am
I don't expect them to win. LM is not used to the commercial market. Specially the commercial services LEO market. They have just won back a couple of GSO, and they won the Morelos-3 contract by slashing 20% their price. This would have meant a big investment upfront, to win a certain revenue that would put them in the forefront of the ARM and whatever EML1/2 station might appear in the future. But they won't bet this big on such uncertain outcomes.
Having said that, this is still a rumor and unless they failed at some technical level they will get their formal notification by August/September. Now, may be they didn't got much feedback, or they got asked a lot of answers they couldn't really answer in such a way as feeling confident. May be the technical equivalent of "is this all?!?!". Which I doubt, they are LM. And thus someone deduced they have not been selected. That's my guess.
I would guess that NASA will first decide on two "main" competitors, and based on the total cost, might chose to give a third "small" contract if the price is right. So the LM decision will (probably) be done by July/August.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/06/2015 04:07 am
Found this interesting article on in space assembly. They plan to using SPHERES on ISS to construct a small telescope inside ISS to prove out this technology.

http://ssl.mit.edu/spheres/library/SPIE-ALMOST-paper-final.pdf

My thoughts on it was that Jupiter could be used to do something similar but create a larger proof of concept telescope. The mirrors and modules could be delivered as external payload on Exoliner.
Construction could take place at ISS or some where nearby. Once telescope is operational Jupiter could deliver it to higher orbit eg 800km.

The advantage with in space construction is ability to replace faulty modules during or after construction. If construction is done in ISS vicinity then replacement parts could be delivered on next Exoliner. Completed GEO telescopes could be placed on ACES and delivered direct to GEO or a Lagrange point.

For repairs onsite somebody is going to have pay for a oneway trip of Jupiter to GEO or a Lagrange point, but once there it is available for future repairs, upgrades or building a new telescope.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: savuporo on 10/01/2015 08:42 pm
http://www.wsj.com/articles/lockheed-martin-eliminated-from-nasas-cargo-competition-1443725840
By Andy Pasztor

Quote
NASA has quietly eliminated Lockheed Martin Corp. from a pending multibillion-dollar competition to ship cargo to the international space station starting in roughly three years, according to people familiar with the details.

The decision, which hasn’t been disclosed publicly, poses a potentially significant setback to Lockheed’s plans to accelerate development of enhanced space-exploration capabilities.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: yg1968 on 10/02/2015 02:22 am
From the same article:

Quote
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration made its decision this past summer, according to the people familiar with the matter, and since then it has been a topic of discussion in industry circles. NASA made the call largely on the basis of price, according to one of these people.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: docmordrid on 10/02/2015 05:25 am
Charles Lurio reported it last May.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Comga on 10/02/2015 03:58 pm
Is it common for NASA to essentially do half an award announcement, postponing the official release but saying, almost "letting it slip", that certain proposers had been eliminated?

I do remember something like this happening on the Ares V electronics unit competition, were the proposing teams were winnowed down to two. The net result of which was that one organization knew that they were "first among the losers".  :P
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/02/2015 04:10 pm
For an elimination to be made on price then there must have been a price cap or a price evaluation criteria of elimination of outriders if the price was some factor greater than the average of all proposals.

I am not surprised at a price elimination for LM's proposal in that the development costs of their system being absorbed by just this contract would have made it very expensive. If they had only apportioned a part of the expense of development against the CRS2 and the rest against possible other future customers/contracts then they may have been able to survive this cut. Its a problem in that corporate management still views space as a fully single customer gov funded endeavor and not as a speculative commercial long term multiple customer one.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: manboy on 10/11/2015 10:23 pm
Charles A. Lurio ‏@TheLurioReport  10m10 minutes ago
Rumors from Lockheed: Jupiter/Exoliner eliminated from CRS2 ISS cargo competition as not competitive.

https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/598580761751588865 (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/598580761751588865)

A bit of a shame as it was a great concept and was very flexible.
It was a terrible proposal. It was unnecessarily complex and the majority of the hardware would have been manufactured by non-U.S. aerospace companies.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/11/2015 10:42 pm
Charles A. Lurio ‏@TheLurioReport  10m10 minutes ago
Rumors from Lockheed: Jupiter/Exoliner eliminated from CRS2 ISS cargo competition as not competitive.

https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/598580761751588865 (https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/598580761751588865)

A bit of a shame as it was a great concept and was very flexible.
It was a terrible proposal. It was unnecessarily complex and the majority of the hardware would have been manufactured by non-U.S. aerospace companies.
Assume "great concept" == "unnecessarily complex" == on orbit, reusable tug with "dumb" cargo containers. Yes?

Assume "majority of the hardware would have been manufactured by non-U.S. aerospace companies" == cargo containers and robotic arm. Yes?

Assume therefor that "very flexible" == " terrible proposal". Because we want to manufacture lots of disposable cargo service modules to feed undernourished US aerospace companies? Yes?

I can't read minds. Tell me straight up instead of vague stuff.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: manboy on 10/11/2015 11:42 pm
Assume "great concept" == "unnecessarily complex" == on orbit, reusable tug with "dumb" cargo containers. Yes?
Mission plan for most other vehicles:

1. Launch
2. Rendezvous with station
3. Dock/berth
4. Undock/unberth
5. De-orbit

Mission plan for Jupiter:

1. Launch
2. Rendezvous with space tug
3. Space tug grapples new vessel/centaur
4. Space tug re-fuels itself
5. Centaur detaches, joins with old vessel and de-orbits
6. New vessel/space tug rendezvous with station
7. Berth
8. Unberth
9. Wait for new centaur
10. Space tug grapples new vessel/centaur
11. Space tug re-fuels itself
12. Centaur detaches, joins with old vessel and de-orbits

Lots of extra steps that increase the chance of failure and delay the delivery of cargo to the ISS.

Assume "majority of the hardware would have been manufactured by non-U.S. aerospace companies" == cargo containers and robotic arm. Yes?

Assume therefor that "very flexible" == " terrible proposal". Because we want to manufacture lots of disposable cargo service modules to feed undernourished US aerospace companies? Yes?
The pressurized vessel, the first stage engine and the arm. The tug would be American made but it gets re-used. Almost every disposable part is manufactured by a foreign company, the only thing that's not is Centaur. Commercial Cargo is funded by American tax dollars, so it makes since for it to invest back into America's industry. Furthermore if we start outsourcing too many of our critical technologies then we'll eventually loose them.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/12/2015 01:06 am
Assume "great concept" == "unnecessarily complex" == on orbit, reusable tug with "dumb" cargo containers. Yes?
Mission plan for most other vehicles:

1. Launch
2. Rendezvous with station
3. Dock/berth
4. Undock/unberth
5. De-orbit

Mission plan for Jupiter:

1. Launch
2. Rendezvous with space tug
3. Space tug grapples new vessel/centaur
4. Space tug re-fuels itself
5. Centaur detaches, joins with old vessel and de-orbits
6. New vessel/space tug rendezvous with station
7. Berth
8. Unberth
9. Wait for new centaur
10. Space tug grapples new vessel/centaur
11. Space tug re-fuels itself
12. Centaur detaches, joins with old vessel and de-orbits

Lots of extra steps that increase the chance of failure and delay the delivery of cargo to the ISS.

Yes, it's like when they tried to get me to use these newfangled horseless carriages.

Mission plan before horseless carriage:

1. Go out door
2. Walk to town
3. Arrive in town

Mission plan for horseless carriage:

1. Go out door
2. Find keys
3. Unlock door of horseless carriage
4. Put key in ignition
5. Turn ignition
6. Put horseless carriage in gear
7. Pull out of driveway
8. Drive to town
9. Find parking space
10. Pull into parking space
11. Put on parking brake
12. Turn off ignition
13. Exit horseless carriage
14. Lock door of horseless carriage
15. Walk to destination

Lots of extra steps that increase the chance of failure.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: CameronD on 10/12/2015 01:27 am
....
Lots of extra steps that increase the chance of failure.

Sure. But you have to admit it's a lot faster.. if it works. :D
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 10/12/2015 03:11 am
The problem here is that it is trying to be the inter-modal cargo carrier before there is enough cargo to be inter-modal. For instance while the pressure vessel could be launched by multiple rockets, the pressure vessel they are building would have been launched by one or sized to that one. (Atlas). It also would be owned by LM instead of some industry standard.

The tug concept is interesting, but something like Cygnus could develop into an tug if need be.  I think an private tug that charges an fee to customers to perform some service for an spacecraft might emerge someday if it is useful, but it is of questionable use here and only an complication for now. While we do have inter-modal cargo containers, we still use container that are not inter-modal for some cargo. I think it might be an great concept if the ISS could have or use 4 different cargo carriers.

But even with 3, given current realities Dragon, CST-100, and Cygnus would be the safest three to spilt the cargo among and both Dragon and CST-100 could be lower cost as they could share workforce with their commercial crew craft. Jupiter needs development and lacks ability to share workforce and somehow is trying to make it up by reusing the service module that probably isn't enough. There is also an need to come on-line quickly to fill as there is not much time for development either.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/12/2015 03:25 am
The problem here is that it is trying to be the inter-modal cargo carrier before there is enough cargo to be inter-modal. For instance while the pressure vessel could be launched by multiple rockets, the pressure vessel they are building would have been launched by one or sized to that one. (Atlas). It also would be owned by LM instead of some industry standard.

The tug concept is interesting, but something like Cygnus could develop into an tug if need be.  I think an private tug that charges an fee to customers to perform some service for an spacecraft might emerge someday if it is useful, but it is of questionable use here and only an complication for now. While we do have inter-modal cargo containers, we still use container that are not inter-modal for some cargo. I think it might be an great concept if the ISS could have or use 4 different cargo carriers.

But even with 3, given current realities Dragon, CST-100, and Cygnus would be the safest three to spilt the cargo among and both Dragon and CST-100 could be lower cost as they could share workforce with their commercial crew craft. Jupiter needs development and lacks ability to share workforce and somehow is trying to make it up by reusing the service module that probably isn't enough. There is also an need to come on-line quickly to fill as there is not much time for development either.

I fear you're right -- Jupiter would be great as part of a more ambitious space infrastructure, but it's not really needed for CRS, and its drawbacks may outweigh its benefits.

I wish CRS weren't structured so that NASA was so focused on their immediate needs.  Personally, I'd like to see NASA go for Jupiter because of the capabilities it gives for the future.  But, since NASA is, unfortunately, constrained in the CRS choices by the narrow current needs, Jupiter may not be the choice for them to make.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 10/12/2015 03:40 am

I fear you're right -- Jupiter would be great as part of a more ambitious space infrastructure, but it's not really needed for CRS, and its drawbacks may outweigh its benefits.

I wish CRS weren't structured so that NASA was so focused on their immediate needs.  Personally, I'd like to see NASA go for Jupiter because of the capabilities it gives for the future.  But, since NASA is, unfortunately, constrained in the CRS choices by the narrow current needs, Jupiter may not be the choice for them to make.

Cygnus like Jupiter has growth capacity for future needs and in time that infrastructure might arise, but I suspect that the only way an tug will work is if there are clear advantages to it and I think Cygnus could baby step to it better than Jupiter jump into it.

For instance if the pressurized module were to gain the ability to return to earth(reuse or not), then leaving the tug part of it on orbit could be advantageous and reusing said tug could make some sense. But here  Jupiter is trying to under cut developed or mostly developed systems(Cygnus, Dragon, CST-100) and not bringing much to the party(an larger pressure module launched by an larger more expensive rocket).
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: a_langwich on 10/12/2015 05:15 am

I fear you're right -- Jupiter would be great as part of a more ambitious space infrastructure, but it's not really needed for CRS, and its drawbacks may outweigh its benefits.

I wish CRS weren't structured so that NASA was so focused on their immediate needs.  Personally, I'd like to see NASA go for Jupiter because of the capabilities it gives for the future.  But, since NASA is, unfortunately, constrained in the CRS choices by the narrow current needs, Jupiter may not be the choice for them to make.

Cygnus like Jupiter has growth capacity for future needs and in time that infrastructure might arise, but I suspect that the only way an tug will work is if there are clear advantages to it and I think Cygnus could baby step to it better than Jupiter jump into it.

For instance if the pressurized module were to gain the ability to return to earth(reuse or not), then leaving the tug part of it on orbit could be advantageous and reusing said tug could make some sense. But here  Jupiter is trying to under cut developed or mostly developed systems(Cygnus, Dragon, CST-100) and not bringing much to the party(an larger pressure module launched by an larger more expensive rocket).

One flaw in this argument is that Cygnus is riding on top of an execrable (for this application) solid rocket motor.  If Orbital were using a fantastically capable, space-restartable, high ISP upper stage which could refuel the tug and de-orbit the expended portions, they might easily offer NASA the ability to work on a Tug/Cargo upgrade.  But with the solid, they would only have a one-use tug/cargo system which has little benefit.

In reading back through this thread, as far as I can see the only evidence the Jupiter bid has been discarded was a Charles Lurio tweet and an Andy Pasztor article?  Both of those aren't high on my list of reliable sources.  I'm not sure I would believe Pasztor even if I had just watched the head of the LM Jupiter team whisper something in his ear.   Is there something more definitive in other threads?  Has NSF gotten any sort of statement from LM on it? 
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: manboy on 10/12/2015 06:05 am
Yes, it's like when they tried to get me to use these newfangled horseless carriages.

Mission plan before horseless carriage:

1. Go out door
2. Walk to town
3. Arrive in town

Mission plan for horseless carriage:

1. Go out door
2. Find keys
3. Unlock door of horseless carriage
4. Put key in ignition
5. Turn ignition
6. Put horseless carriage in gear
7. Pull out of driveway
8. Drive to town
9. Find parking space
10. Pull into parking space
11. Put on parking brake
12. Turn off ignition
13. Exit horseless carriage
14. Lock door of horseless carriage
15. Walk to destination

Lots of extra steps that increase the chance of failure.
That's an apples to oranges comparison. And there's many other architectures that have planned re-use but have significantly less complex mission plans (Ex: Dragon, CST-100, Dream Chaser, etc). And more of the spacecraft would actually be built in the country that's paying for it.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 10/12/2015 06:47 am

One flaw in this argument is that Cygnus is riding on top of an execrable (for this application) solid rocket motor.  If Orbital were using a fantastically capable, space-restartable, high ISP upper stage which could refuel the tug and de-orbit the expended portions, they might easily offer NASA the ability to work on a Tug/Cargo upgrade.  But with the solid, they would only have a one-use tug/cargo system which has little benefit.



Not really. You could start the path of upgrade by creating an returnable cargo module with an detachable disposable stage. The inflatable heat-shield could offer some method or Orbital could partner with someone else to develop something that would increase station down mass but be low cost and quick to develop. Once you get re-usability then work on the tug part to make it reusable. Simply hauling an tank of propellant and using the smaller cheaper rocket could make up the difference. Now you won't get as much upmass as Jupiter, but Jupiter isn't the only starting point for an tug and this path could be easier for an company to develop and could run aside with Cygnus keeping the Original disposable form.

Exchanging cargo modules is only one way to get an tug and it limits you to rockets with restart-able upper stages capable of lingering in Orbit and only ULA at the moment has or is very close to one of those. If there were two rockets that could lift and de-orbit then Jupiter could have some immediate benefit(i.e. allow the commercial cargo company to switch flights). But as it stands now there isn't and you would be limited to Atlas(or the un-competitive Delta) until raptor comes online.

Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/12/2015 07:32 pm
And more of the spacecraft would actually be built in the country that's paying for it.
The only truth here. Rest is total BS. Jupiter is essentially MAVEN, routinely works similar maneuvers for years.

Doesn't matter smart or dumb, tshirts/toilet paper or NSS. A payload is a payload to be paid for. Piece of the action.

And that's why it gets fought. Like the dockworkers strikes against containerized cargo in the 70's 80's.

Just a different form of "union". Same protectionism, same stranglehold on the future.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: spacenut on 10/12/2015 08:38 pm
Yes, before the horseless carriage, if it was beyond walking distance, then you have.

Walk to barn.
Get horses out of stable.
Get horses hitched up to carriage.
Close barn doors.
Make sure all reins and straps are secure.
Make sure horses shoes are good to go. 
Ride to town.
Apply carriage brake.
Tie horses to hitching post.
Walk to store. 

Horses have to be fed daily also.  Vehicle doesn't.  Horses also have to be put in a barn at night, vehicle doesn't have to be put in a garage.  Quite a few trade offs, and more apples to apples comparison.  If you can walk before horseless carriage, you can walk after.  Only distance and time matter. 

Back to topic.  Jupiter would be a better deal if it took satellites to GSO from LEO or took them to L1 or L2 then returned.  Moving around in LEO doesn't mean much, unless it picks up old satellites and space debris and shoots is back into the atmosphere over an ocean for destruction. 
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: manboy on 10/12/2015 09:39 pm
And more of the spacecraft would actually be built in the country that's paying for it.
The only truth here. Rest is total BS. Jupiter is essentially MAVEN, routinely works similar maneuvers for years.
Significantly increased complexity for minimum return. Jupiter would be doing many things MAVEN is not, rendezvous, capture, vessel hand over and fuel transfer. Once again other vehicles are capable of even greater re-use but with significantly less complex mission plans. I don't understand why so many people feel the need to defend this three-legged dog.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/12/2015 10:08 pm
And more of the spacecraft would actually be built in the country that's paying for it.
The only truth here. Rest is total BS. Jupiter is essentially MAVEN, routinely works similar maneuvers for years.
Significantly increased complexity for minimum return. Jupiter would be doing many things MAVEN is not, rendezvous, capture, vessel hand over and fuel transfer.
Science missions do remarkable things (drop landers/rovers, reposition, some have even been planned to dock/capture and even be refuel able!). Testing all of this is what makes the difference between a successful science mission and an abrupt failure. Point here is that all of this goes with the territory of such hardware.

And why such are so expensive!

Quote
Once again other vehicles are capable of even greater re-use but with significantly less complex mission plans. I don't understand why so many people feel the need to defend this three-legged dog.

Because you can compete multiple ways. You can be paid for an expensive S/C that carries highly profitable delivery services of cheap containers of goods (containerized shipping), or you can have expensive containers of goods that self deliver.

So if you allow cheap/frequent cargo flights, you make as much just retrieving the "dumb" containers and delivering them, as you did with the expensive self deliverers. If you look at the business model, you actually do better in the long run, because the economics "knee in the curve" at about 10 deliveries shift to your advantage.

So the cost of historical pessimism potentially is to hold off reasons for flight frequency increase. Stepping on one's anatomy.

Take it up with the transportation sector, its a well known case study (I think Wharton still invokes it in their B-school). It's why you have so many cheap foreign goods.

But we must not lower the cost of spaceflight! Or increase its frequency! Or improve its reliability... And don't fly those complex missions like Philae, won't work ...

"Trees are for leaning against. And that's all."
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/12/2015 10:54 pm
And more of the spacecraft would actually be built in the country that's paying for it.
The only truth here. Rest is total BS. Jupiter is essentially MAVEN, routinely works similar maneuvers for years.
Significantly increased complexity for minimum return. Jupiter would be doing many things MAVEN is not, rendezvous, capture, vessel hand over and fuel transfer. Once again other vehicles are capable of even greater re-use but with significantly less complex mission plans. I don't understand why so many people feel the need to defend this three-legged dog.

The reason Jupiter is exciting is that it would be the first case of a vehicle that moves around in space and doesn't have to come back to Earth's surface to get refuelled.  That's pretty big.  Once space vehicles don't have to come back to Earth's surface for fuel, whole new levels of economics become possible.

Like I said, it may not work out to be worth it for the very narrow case of ISS resupply, but if we have larger aspirations, such a capability has very clear, huge advantages.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: savuporo on 10/12/2015 11:24 pm
The reason Jupiter is exciting is that it would be the first case of a vehicle that moves around in space and doesn't have to come back to Earth's surface to get refuelled.  That's pretty big. 
Uh .. this has been done since Salyut 6 IIRC.

Yeah, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_6_EO-1#Progress_1
Progress: Refuelling things in Space (TM) Since January 29, 1978.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/12/2015 11:32 pm
The reason Jupiter is exciting is that it would be the first case of a vehicle that moves around in space and doesn't have to come back to Earth's surface to get refuelled.  That's pretty big. 
Uh .. this has been done since Salyut 6 IIRC.

Yeah, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_6_EO-1#Progress_1
Progress: Refuelling things in Space (TM) Since January 29, 1978.

That's why I said "moving around".  There's a difference between a station being refuelled for maintaining its orbit and a vehicle that does substantial movement between orbits, and is, in fact, designed precisely for moving things from one orbit to another.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: cdleonard on 10/12/2015 11:37 pm
Back to topic.  Jupiter would be a better deal if it took satellites to GSO from LEO or took them to L1 or L2 then returned.  Moving around in LEO doesn't mean much, unless it picks up old satellites and space debris and shoots is back into the atmosphere over an ocean for destruction.

Would it really be a good deal? Satellites already have propulsion systems for station-keeping. All that they need in order to do their orbit insertion is extra fuel and maybe even a special stronger engine.

Let's say you used a tug. Instead of paying for launching extra fuel in a bigger tank on your satellite you now have to pay in order to launch extra fuel for the the tug. You need more fuel because the tug needs to also take itself to GSO and back. Strictly from a mass-to-orbit perspective you would probably end up worse, right? And that's the biggest cost factor.

Where a tug would make sense is slowly transferring a very large and mostly dumb payload over a large delta-V. Something like a space station module or cargo pod. Sadly there's not much of a market for that.

Or maybe the NRO could pay for a tug instead of the Delta 4 Heavy for a GSO direct-inject mission. But those are really rare.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: savuporo on 10/12/2015 11:49 pm
The reason Jupiter is exciting is that it would be the first case of a vehicle that moves around in space and doesn't have to come back to Earth's surface to get refuelled.  That's pretty big. 
Uh .. this has been done since Salyut 6 IIRC.

Yeah, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_6_EO-1#Progress_1
Progress: Refuelling things in Space (TM) Since January 29, 1978.

That's why I said "moving around".  There's a difference between a station being refuelled for maintaining its orbit and a vehicle that does substantial movement between orbits, and is, in fact, designed precisely for moving things from one orbit to another.

Is there actually a useful distinction here ? Progress and TKS and its descendants have moved things from low orbits to higher orbits, i.e. 'moving around' in space, good example being Salyut-7. Progress is precisely designed as a resupply vehicle as well.
I really wonder if Chinese sourced the propellant transfer and management from Russia for Shenzhou or no, because this is one unique capability that Russia has possessed with literally multiple decades of operations and experience, at large scale.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/13/2015 12:03 am
The point is that the problem is not technology, not operations.

Its just the dollars flowing to cheap payloads that might go out of country.

On the fear of losing "deal size" and ownership, we don't advance efficiency. Ever.

A battle of business models, masquerading as lessened risk.

Which makes perfect sense, if you believe in no increase in launch frequency. Zero sum game.

There's no need to get better because we are already perfect.

Jupiter's just one of many, and I'm not an advocate. Just annoys to see something near the threshold of change, and have things such as this narrow line of reasoning as the petty (but true) put down.

A better put down of Jupiter is the risk of an expensive tug needing to be frequently replaced. Or the off nominal "rescue" situations. However, a S/C vendor can deal with these in contract - that is why they are not raised.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: a_langwich on 10/13/2015 02:43 am

One flaw in this argument is that Cygnus is riding on top of an execrable (for this application) solid rocket motor.  If Orbital were using a fantastically capable, space-restartable, high ISP upper stage which could refuel the tug and de-orbit the expended portions, they might easily offer NASA the ability to work on a Tug/Cargo upgrade.  But with the solid, they would only have a one-use tug/cargo system which has little benefit.

Not really. You could start the path of upgrade by creating an returnable cargo module with an detachable disposable stage. The inflatable heat-shield could offer some method or Orbital could partner with someone else to develop something that would increase station down mass but be low cost and quick to develop. Once you get re-usability then work on the tug part to make it reusable.

Jupiter doesn't do down mass.  That might be a nice feature, and in fact if Orbital does eventually do that test of NASA's HIAD on reentry, it may look into it as an out-past-CRS-2 future option for other Cygnus variants.

If you were thinking you could just inflate a HIAD or some other drag device to deorbit your cargo module, I don't think that's going to give you the accuracy to meet reentry safety criteria, it probably won't be very timely, and it limits the usefulness of your tug architecture to ISS or below.  And there's still the question, which I think Orbital will ultimately have to address anyway, of whether its solid upper stages are contributing to the space junk problem. 


Simply hauling an tank of propellant and using the smaller cheaper rocket could make up the difference. Now you won't get as much upmass as Jupiter, but Jupiter isn't the only starting point for an tug and this path could be easier for an company to develop and could run aside with Cygnus keeping the Original disposable form.

You can't just add a tank of propellant.  You have to add another stage, a transfer stage, that will have to fly on each flight, manuever in space with propulsion and inertial guidance, and then do the reentry burn.  In essence, a second tug to be expended, to enable the first tug to remain in orbit and be reusable.

If your tug has to do all the manuevering to reach a dumb tank, that means the propellant it needs per mission goes up.  Rendezvous with a dead, possibly tumbling object is much harder than with one under attitude and position control.

Once you've wiped out the upmass, the cost savings, the flexibility for so many different situations, have you really made an alternative?  Or have you built a steam-powered aeroplane which cannot get off the ground but which steampunk nerds think is cool?

Exchanging cargo modules is only one way to get an tug and it limits you to rockets with restart-able upper stages capable of lingering in Orbit and only ULA at the moment has or is very close to one of those. If there were two rockets that could lift and de-orbit then Jupiter could have some immediate benefit(i.e. allow the commercial cargo company to switch flights). But as it stands now there isn't and you would be limited to Atlas(or the un-competitive Delta) until raptor comes online.

Sure, there are other ways to modularize a cargo architecture.  A tiny few of them may actually make sense and be competitive.  The Jupiter architecture makes sense now.

Why do you think Jupiter has to be able to use multiple different LVs to have benefit?  Even if that were true, it could probably be tweaked to work on Delta IV as well.  But Dragon and AstroLiner can manage to be useful, even on just one LV.  And if SpaceX or Boeing or Orbital had a reason to want this, the Jupiter tug could always rendezvous with one of their cargo vessels and perhaps attach it to on-going work.  Or berth them to a commercial station.

In fact, Atlas is a wonderful launch vehicle.  Beyond its stellar success record, it is among the most flexible launch vehicles in terms of payload and performance to any particular C3, in a reasonable price range.  Delta IV has the Heavy, but the crowning benefit of Atlas has been its ability to reach 95% of the total commercial/military/science launch markets with just one core and add-on solids.  If Vulcan hits its price point, and its add-on solids hit their price points, it could be more than competitive with Falcon Heavy for some payload ranges.

In the context of Jupiter, this means its launch vehicle and the Centaur upper stage support a large variation in payload mass.  Or, support a large variation in the types of orbit it can reach.  Who said a Jupiter tug couldn't make it to GEO?  And its popularity means there might be all sorts of payloads launched on an Atlas with a Centaur upper stage which might then be one step away from using Jupiter to expand their mission capability, or restore their mission capability.

A Jupiter-class tug on top of ULA's distributed launch architecture could easily approach von Braun's vision of assembling a Mars-bound spaceship in earth orbit, but cheaply.  It points the way toward far more practical commercial station maintenance that doesn't require 24/7 staffing by humans.

"Oh there's nothing that the Wompom (http://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=81447#1491835) cannot  do (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivf4w3r-_3c)!"   
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: manboy on 10/13/2015 03:50 am
But we must not lower the cost of spaceflight! Or increase its frequency! Or improve its reliability... And don't fly those complex missions like Philae, won't work ...
Those science missions do those complex tasks because there is no other way to achieve their mission goals. It's not comparable because other vehicles have even greater re-usability while accomplishing the same goals but with significantly less complex mission plans. I'm skeptical Jupiter could compete with those vehicles on a cost basis. Also those pressurized vessels that get thrown away are not cheap.

If increased complexity isn't resulting in cost savings or increased capability then why defend it?

There's no need to get better because we are already perfect.
Who is making that claim?

The reason Jupiter is exciting is that it would be the first case of a vehicle that moves around in space and doesn't have to come back to Earth's surface to get refuelled.  That's pretty big.  Once space vehicles don't have to come back to Earth's surface for fuel, whole new levels of economics become possible.

Like I said, it may not work out to be worth it for the very narrow case of ISS resupply, but if we have larger aspirations, such a capability has very clear, huge advantages.
Then it sounds like you're not defending Jupiter but instead defending what you think it represents. Look I believe in-orbit refueling is probably the best path towards colonization but I just think the Jupiter proposal as a whole isn't a very good one.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/13/2015 04:39 am
Those science missions do those complex tasks because there is no other way to achieve their mission goals. It's not comparable because other vehicles have even greater re-usability while accomplishing the same goals but with significantly less complex mission plans. I'm skeptical Jupiter could compete with those vehicles on a cost basis.

They represent developed, proven hardware that DOES DO THOSE THINGS. And they already function reliably over longer duration than the ENTIRE LIFE OF 10's to 100's of "deliveries".

Since one of them is needed to perform the function of 10 or 100 or more, perhaps the cost basis isn't the same as a one-shot?

Quote
Also those pressurized vessels that get thrown away are not cheap.

No they are not. By the way, the initial containerized, intermodal containers were also 10x more expensive (as well as having tracking/routing "features" that only now have a point) - once it was discovered that container reuse was much less infrequent, and that "intermodal" had a longer, riskier, harder time to be "absorbed" into the stodgy transportation industry, they got massively cheaper. Things adapt as you use them.

Quote
If increased complexity isn't resulting in cost savings or increased capability then why defend it?

Depends on the time it takes to recover the cost and/or prove the capability. Break even is typically what you look at, and that was around 10 or so. There are other benefits on top as well that are less "apples to apples".

Quote
There's no need to get better because we are already perfect.
Who is making that claim?

Implicit in the form used to eliminate the benefit as risk. I.e. that fewer dependent operations make for less mission risk, thus by induction the fewest operations (i.e. what we have now) is optimum, so you can't improve upon that. QED.

I run into this all the time. It's tiresome.

Business model changes in how we handle space are now essential to the business is my top level point here. This example with Jupiter is otherwise unremarkable.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 10/13/2015 07:10 pm


You can't just add a tank of propellant.  You have to add another stage, a transfer stage, that will have to fly on each flight, manuever in space with propulsion and inertial guidance, and then do the reentry burn.  In essence, a second tug to be expended, to enable the first tug to remain in orbit and be reusable.

If your tug has to do all the manuevering to reach a dumb tank, that means the propellant it needs per mission goes up.  Rendezvous with a dead, possibly tumbling object is much harder than with one under attitude and position control.

I was thinking of an somewhat less passive cargo container. One that has some propulsion and station keeping capability.

Quote
Sure, there are other ways to modularize a cargo architecture.  A tiny few of them may actually make sense and be competitive.  The Jupiter architecture makes sense now.

Questionable that it makes sense now. Risky but there are not enough other carriers to mitigate it. It's one thing when you have enough cargo coming from other companies, but right now there are only two and I doubt NASA would select more than 2-3 companies for this contract. And the reason why we use modularity in transport on earth is because it give an clear benefit for operations involving that cargo(loading/unloading, switching between vehicles, switching between modes of transport). 

Here Jupiter is attempting reuse via modularity, but the dumb cargo container is attached to an modified expensive upper stage(Centaur), launched by an expensive rocket(Atlas or Delta). It is competing with vehicles already developed and in service(Cygnus, Dragon) and vehicles that could add a little extra cargo without as much development cost or fixed upkeep costs(CST-100).
Quote

Why do you think Jupiter has to be able to use multiple different LVs to have benefit?  Even if that were true, it could probably be tweaked to work on Delta IV as well.  But Dragon and AstroLiner can manage to be useful, even on just one LV.  And if SpaceX or Boeing or Orbital had a reason to want this, the Jupiter tug could always rendezvous with one of their cargo vessels and perhaps attach it to on-going work.  Or berth them to a commercial station.

They don't need Jupiter to berth them. To berth all you need is an robot arm. The berthing process could be automated but if humans are on board they should control it or monitor it. There is also the possibility of automatic docking.  The reason why you want the ability to switch rockets is because you may need it. This is an advantage of Cygnus which would be Jupiter's prime competitor. CST-100 is also able to switch. Dragon isn't but it has down mass as an selling point.

Quote
Who said a Jupiter tug couldn't make it to GEO?  And its popularity means there might be all sorts of payloads launched on an Atlas with a Centaur upper stage which might then be one step away from using Jupiter to expand their mission capability, or restore their mission capability.

The satellite would have to be designed for serving first.

Quote
A Jupiter-class tug on top of ULA's distributed launch architecture could easily approach von Braun's vision of assembling a Mars-bound spaceship in earth orbit, but cheaply.  It points the way toward far more practical commercial station maintenance that doesn't require 24/7 staffing by humans.

The ISS is already capable of having it's robot arm do things commanded from the ground.  And the assemble may or may not need an tug(The thing could have docking ports or arms).  Stations also don't need 24/7 staffing by humans. They are just sate-lights capable of supporting human life.
   
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: manboy on 10/13/2015 07:38 pm
Those science missions do those complex tasks because there is no other way to achieve their mission goals. It's not comparable because other vehicles have even greater re-usability while accomplishing the same goals but with significantly less complex mission plans. I'm skeptical Jupiter could compete with those vehicles on a cost basis.

They represent developed, proven hardware that DOES DO THOSE THINGS. And they already function reliably over longer duration than the ENTIRE LIFE OF 10's to 100's of "deliveries".

Since one of them is needed to perform the function of 10 or 100 or more, perhaps the cost basis isn't the same as a one-shot?
They do some of those things but they don't capture, perform vessel hand over, fuel transfer or rendezvous with other vehicles. The complex tasks they do are done because there is no other way to achieve their mission goals. It's not comparable because other vehicles have even greater re-usability while accomplishing the same goals but with significantly less complex mission plans.

Depends on the time it takes to recover the cost and/or prove the capability. Break even is typically what you look at, and that was around 10 or so.
Minimum amount of missions to be awarded is 6.

Implicit in the form used to eliminate the benefit as risk. I.e. that fewer dependent operations make for less mission risk, thus by induction the fewest operations (i.e. what we have now) is optimum, so you can't improve upon that. QED.

I run into this all the time. It's tiresome.

Business model changes in how we handle space are now essential to the business is my top level point here. This example with Jupiter is otherwise unremarkable.
You haven't even proven there's any benefit. What's the advantage of Jupiter over Dragon? They both carry internal and external cargo. The only thing that get's thrown away on Dragon is the radiator and solar arrays. There are also many other in-orbit refueling proposals that are vastly superior to Jupiter.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: a_langwich on 10/14/2015 04:29 am
I was thinking of an somewhat less passive cargo container. One that has some propulsion and station keeping capability.

Again, you've just included most of the expense of the tug.  The guidance and control, propulsion, communication and the power system to run them are the pieces on which Jupiter is saving cost by only launching once.  It can do this because it can take advantage of Centaur's continued availability after orbital insertion, and Centaur's proven version of all these components.  Orbital currently only ends up with a dead solid beneath it after launch, so changing that would be necessary. 

Maybe Orbital-ATK's solid stage is so cheap they can afford to include another GEOStar-based platform to be expended, in addition to the one for Cygnus.  The economics (how much you are saving, and how much payload penalty there is) and deltaV aren't as good, but as you say that is at least partly balanced by the cheaper launch vehicle.  The original Antares was underpowered even for CRS-1, so it couldn't support this concept, but maybe the full capacity of Antares II would have enough mass capability to do it.


Questionable that it makes sense now. Risky but there are not enough other carriers to mitigate it. It's one thing when you have enough cargo coming from other companies, but right now there are only two and I doubt NASA would select more than 2-3 companies for this contract.

This is irrelevant.

And the reason why we use modularity in transport on earth is because it give an clear benefit for operations involving that cargo(loading/unloading, switching between vehicles, switching between modes of transport). 

Yes!  Only I think you have fixated on the intermodel container analogy.  Think of a tractor-trailer rig.  One engine and control piece can be attached to many different cargo carriers, and it is still very useful even if one company makes all of those cargo containers.  Being able to unload one trailer, while the tractor is going to pick up another one, is useful.  That usefulness still applies even if your competitors are using moving vans, and they don't have trailers of their own that you can tow around.  If you are filling your trailers with trash and burning them up, it makes tremendous sense not to burn up the tractor portion with the trailer, and the more trailers you burn up the more you've saved by not expending the tractor.


Here Jupiter is attempting reuse via modularity, but the dumb cargo container is attached to an modified expensive upper stage(Centaur), launched by an expensive rocket(Atlas or Delta).

Not sure what you mean by "attached".  It rides on top of a Centaur, true, like any payload, but no more.  You have no idea what a Centaur costs relative to any other upper stage, so you really shouldn't assume.  And you aren't paying any extra for that Centaur, above your launch cost.

Granted, the Atlas V is a premium ride into orbit these days, not the cheapest.  But it is cheap enough that Orbital just bought two flights to help fill out their CRS-1 obligations, so it's not that outrageous either.  A Falcon+Dragon flight costs about $140 million for CRS-1, and Antares+Cygnus ran about $238 million.   

I think it's likely you could build a Jupiter-like architecture that would be price competitive with those even on an Atlas, but how LM chose to try to recover its R&D costs and price their idea, I don't know.  I know what the rumors say, and it seems like many on this forum are trying to use their logic to justify that assumed reality.  LM may well have assumed they could command too high a price, or decided on too large a profit margin, or decided to recover their development costs on too quick a time frame.  But I don't know.


Quote
Who said a Jupiter tug couldn't make it to GEO?  And its popularity means there might be all sorts of payloads launched on an Atlas with a Centaur upper stage which might then be one step away from using Jupiter to expand their mission capability, or restore their mission capability.

The satellite would have to be designed for serving first.


Well that was what I had in mind, that the satellite manufacturer and satellite operator would see the possibilities and jump to take advantage of them.  But strictly speaking, DARPA and various other organizations (NASA too, I think) have looked at satellite servicing even on satellites not designed for it.  Refuelling seems to be possible.  Certainly it could tug a prematurely failed satellite to a disposal orbit, although the more deltaV I wave my hands around, the more likely it would want swapping in an electric thruster system.  :) 

In the recent Intelsat / Russian Luch satellite deal (http://spacenews.com/russian-satellite-maneuvers-silence-worry-intelsat/), one wonders what would happen if Intelsat had a Jupiter tug come nearby, and call up and offer the Russians a friendly tow to wherever they meant to be going before they surely lost control and it wandered too close to commercial sats?  Putin seems to respond well to the big stick approach, it just seems he hasn't been shown it quite enough.


Quote
A Jupiter-class tug on top of ULA's distributed launch architecture could easily approach von Braun's vision of assembling a Mars-bound spaceship in earth orbit, but cheaply.  It points the way toward far more practical commercial station maintenance that doesn't require 24/7 staffing by humans.

The ISS is already capable of having it's robot arm do things commanded from the ground.  And the assemble may or may not need an tug(The thing could have docking ports or arms).  Stations also don't need 24/7 staffing by humans. They are just sate-lights capable of supporting human life.
   

You missed the key word commercial station.  Yes, the ISS has several Canadian arms (in response to rather ignorant comments made by some earlier in the thread about LM going outside the country for parts, as if any of NASA's big articulated arms had come from anywhere other than Canada, and as if the US had any knowledge base on arms that needed preserving by means of a cargo vessel). 

But for a commercial station, or multiple mini stations, having a tug with an arm servicing multiple small standalone facilities might be very handy.   Having that arm mounted on a free-flying platform with its own thrusters and attitude control and power gives some of the flexibility of the way the ISS can move its arms around to different places, but without all of the expense and design complexity of the tracks.  An inflatable commercial station, for example, might not find it convenient to mount the hard structure for a track around its perimeter.   If you add free flyers in formation, Jupiter allows you to send an arm to a non-contiguous part of ISS and service it.

Yes, it's true a spacecraft could self-assemble, but again you are missing the way the tug allows you to separate out the expensive parts that do inertial control, station maintenance, attitude control, docking, and manipulation.  You can use one tug for multiple assemblies.  You know, that's the reason each segment of ISS doesn't have its own thrusters and attitude control and comm and power and certainly not arms:  it had the shuttle as a tug to help assemble them.

And lastly, you missed the key word maintenance.  Things break, and humans must then get involved.  Having an arm on a mobile platform, with which you might be able to go around and fix things telerobotically, might allow you to dispense with some EVAs and associated training and equipment. 

At ISS they would freak at the thought of a free flyer moving around in really close proximity, and they've spent many many billions to design other ways of accomplishing this (multiple arms, the track, constant human presence, extensive EVA training, etc).  So a station maintenance capability is not likely to be useful for ISS.  But a commercial station might find using something like Jupiter was a cheaper way to do things, especially if they had a Jupiter hanging around for cargo resupply.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: a_langwich on 10/14/2015 05:14 am

You haven't even proven there's any benefit. What's the advantage of Jupiter over Dragon? They both carry internal and external cargo. The only thing that get's thrown away on Dragon is the radiator and solar arrays. There are also many other in-orbit refueling proposals that are vastly superior to Jupiter.

Everything gets thrown away on Dragon.  Oh, sure, it's sitting in a warehouse somewhere, or in some unused space at Hawthorne, but the next time a resupply flight goes up, it's a new Dragon.

And, whether or not NASA chooses to try recycling an already-used Dragon, every single pound of Dragon must be launched into space every time cargo is flown.

For Jupiter, the solar arrays and batteries, the propulsion and attitude control system, the guidance and communication computers and systems, the rendezvous sensors, all get launched once.  Subsequent launches are purely dumb aluminum cans.

Dragon is a bad choice for comparison, because it's a completely different vehicle with many systems involved in reentry capability.  Dragon's down mass ability is a substantial drag on its upmass capability (sorry).  Let's look at Orbital's Cygnus:  Cygnus is the marriage of an Orbital GEOStar satellite core with an Alenia keg.  In the Jupiter architecture, the equivalent of the Orbital GEOStar base is launched once and stays in space, and only the kegs get launched after that.  Not only have you saved the cost of building another GEOStar base equivalent, but you've saved however many thousands of dollars for each kg it weighs in launch costs.  Multiplied by how many times you fly.

Then, beyond the price savings, you get an independently capable tug in space.  After Dragon is launched, all it can do is maneuver up to ISS and wait for the Claw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9t5ZqeHcYk) to berth it.  Jupiter has an arm, it can manipulate things...that opens the door to all sorts of shenanigans, at the ISS end or in the general neighborhood of ISS, at the Centaur end where it's used to swap kegs and refuel itself, and ultimately in all sorts of future NASA missions.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/14/2015 07:29 am
Everything gets thrown away on Dragon.  Oh, sure, it's sitting in a warehouse somewhere, or in some unused space at Hawthorne, but the next time a resupply flight goes up, it's a new Dragon.

That's only because NASA told SpaceX to bid for a new Dragon every flight on CRS1.  Nobody outside SpaceX and NASA knows if the SpaceX CRS2 bid includes reflying Dragons.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: MattMason on 10/14/2015 01:55 pm
Everything gets thrown away on Dragon.  Oh, sure, it's sitting in a warehouse somewhere, or in some unused space at Hawthorne, but the next time a resupply flight goes up, it's a new Dragon.

That's only because NASA told SpaceX to bid for a new Dragon every flight on CRS1.  Nobody outside SpaceX and NASA knows if the SpaceX CRS2 bid includes reflying Dragons.

My understanding from another thread indicates that components of flown Dragons are being reused in later CRS flights.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: baldusi on 10/14/2015 02:56 pm
Everything gets thrown away on Dragon.  Oh, sure, it's sitting in a warehouse somewhere, or in some unused space at Hawthorne, but the next time a resupply flight goes up, it's a new Dragon.

That's only because NASA told SpaceX to bid for a new Dragon every flight on CRS1.  Nobody outside SpaceX and NASA knows if the SpaceX CRS2 bid includes reflying Dragons.

My understanding from another thread indicates that components of flown Dragons are being reused in later CRS flights.
I don't want to get into hijacking the LM thread, but SpaceX failed at its first attempt of reusability in everything (rocket, capsules, etc). Look their evolution from F1 to F9 v1.1 Full Thrust (plus the Grashopper program). Look at Dragon v1, V1.5 and v2. And yet they haven't started with the DragonFly project.
Do you think that LM could hit the right trade in reusability on the first try and gamble your 100B+ project utilization on that? That's the core issue with LM Jupiter/Exoliner proposal. They want to do a high risk/high payoff experiment on the final days of a fully operational multi-decade multi-billion USD project.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: manboy on 10/14/2015 06:57 pm
Everything gets thrown away on Dragon.  Oh, sure, it's sitting in a warehouse somewhere, or in some unused space at Hawthorne, but the next time a resupply flight goes up, it's a new Dragon.
I was referring to future variants which is as real as Jupiter is at this point.

For Jupiter, the solar arrays and batteries, the propulsion and attitude control system, the guidance and communication computers and systems, the rendezvous sensors, all get launched once.  Subsequent launches are purely dumb aluminum cans.
What's the mass breakdown?

Dragon is a bad choice for comparison, because it's a completely different vehicle with many systems involved in reentry capability.  Dragon's down mass ability is a substantial drag on its upmass capability (sorry).
It's a great comparison because they it accomplishes the same goals of Jupiter, has greater re-use, has significantly less complex mission procedures, is most likely cheaper and even has the ability to return cargo to Earth.

Of course it's a very different vehicle but that's what makes it superior and at the end of the day they're both competing for the same Commercial Cargo program.

Then, beyond the price savings, you get an independently capable tug in space.  After Dragon is launched, all it can do is maneuver up to ISS and wait for the Claw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9t5ZqeHcYk) to berth it.  Jupiter has an arm, it can manipulate things...that opens the door to all sorts of shenanigans, at the ISS end or in the general neighborhood of ISS, at the Centaur end where it's used to swap kegs and refuel itself, and ultimately in all sorts of future NASA missions.
Can you please explicitly list the advantages of a ISS cargo resupply vehicle having its own arm?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: savuporo on 10/14/2015 08:41 pm
Can you please explicitly list the advantages of a ISS cargo resupply vehicle having its own arm?

Rendezvous and berthing with relatively simple cargo modules and other spacecraft in space. In theory it could deploy and retrieve free-flying co-orbiting experiments from ISS without its own significant propulsive capabilities.

It could potentially operate as an independent robotic orbital assembly and servicing platform.

From what i understand, the propellant transfer and robotic capabilities would effectively have been up-scaled Orbital Express ASTRO satellite. OrbEx demonstrated monoprop hydrazine transfers, which is the spacecraft bus proposed here is flying on, too. OrbEx also demonstrated orbital replacement units of batteries and other things IIRC.


Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/14/2015 11:35 pm
Those science missions do those complex tasks because there is no other way to achieve their mission goals. It's not comparable because other vehicles have even greater re-usability while accomplishing the same goals but with significantly less complex mission plans. I'm skeptical Jupiter could compete with those vehicles on a cost basis.

They represent developed, proven hardware that DOES DO THOSE THINGS. And they already function reliably over longer duration than the ENTIRE LIFE OF 10's to 100's of "deliveries".

Since one of them is needed to perform the function of 10 or 100 or more, perhaps the cost basis isn't the same as a one-shot?
They do some of those things but they don't capture, perform vessel hand over, fuel transfer or rendezvous with other vehicles.

Yes, thank you Mr Flat Earth. No exact match of flown craft. However, Progress has done this for decades. As well as using Soyuz as a tug (an alternative approach for same, and even cheaper if you want to pay for the service).

Quote
The complex tasks they do are done because there is no other way to achieve their mission goals. It's not comparable because other vehicles have even greater re-usability while accomplishing the same goals but with significantly less complex mission plans.

This virtue is actually a curse, not a virtue.

Both for maturing capabilities for missions that make use of them, and for improving aggregate mission success, because instead of optimizing short chains of consequential actions, you optimize on the larger ones. With ever more complex systems that we fly, at some point we fool ourselves by bounding risk in such a way as you describe, because of the combinatorial explosion of the "simple" mission is not necessarily significant from the "complex" mission, due to the way the factors come together (Boeing has discovered this in airlines FYI, as Intel did with Pentium a decade plus back).

Quote
Depends on the time it takes to recover the cost and/or prove the capability. Break even is typically what you look at, and that was around 10 or so.
Minimum amount of missions to be awarded is 6.

Yes, I know. Tough for evolving HSF resupply. Not my issue.

Quote
Implicit in the form used to eliminate the benefit as risk. I.e. that fewer dependent operations make for less mission risk, thus by induction the fewest operations (i.e. what we have now) is optimum, so you can't improve upon that. QED.

I run into this all the time. It's tiresome.

Business model changes in how we handle space are now essential to the business is my top level point here. This example with Jupiter is otherwise unremarkable.
You haven't even proven there's any benefit.

Nor did I prove a benefit of a Pathfinder rover before flying one. Yet we did fly one, and we don't do Mars landers anymore. Hundred examples like this.

Quote
What's the advantage of Jupiter over Dragon? They both carry internal and external cargo. The only thing that get's thrown away on Dragon is the radiator and solar arrays. There are also many other in-orbit refueling proposals that are vastly superior to Jupiter.

As I said, I'm not an advocate. But you said:

It was a terrible proposal. It was unnecessarily complex and the majority of the hardware would have been manufactured by non-U.S. aerospace companies.

And asked:

I don't understand why so many people feel the need to defend this three-legged dog.

To bring this to a quick end, I'll cut to the chase and go to an extremely simplified Jupiter-like system to make my point (we'll assume Jupiter "additions" to this are LMT "fluff" that does not concern this discussion).

 * Unpowered pressure vessel with self powered environmental as part of cargo as needed. Perhaps no shroud as part of lowest cost (to integrate as well) structure, possibly all carbon fiber with domestic automated fabrication.

 * Handoff from US to existing VV with significant prop reserves (like with Progress, Soyuz, Dragon Rider, ...) - various hard attach and operations outside of KOS. No modification of US.

 * Typical cargo entry to KOS and berthing operations, avoiding the usual issues (incl plume impingement). VV recovery following.

 * Typical deberth following VV operations to on station, as well as escape of KOS with VV. Various deorbit of unpowered cargo pressure vessel, including perhaps a tether. VV recovery.

Now assume the details of the above are chosen in such a way that they aren't the stopper for this approach.

What are you left with? Minimal parasitic mass to payload to HSF facility, in this case ISS. Lowest cost to integrate, quickest payload to process, lowest risk to launch (mostly packing, spin table, etc). On orbit assets have operations risk/cost (staff/oversight), consumables (props, pressurant, ...) consumption.

You also gain maximum launcher diversity. You might even make this "extrudable" to considerable extension beyond approaches like Cygnus to scale up per launcher capacity.

Now, like with the containerized cargo referenced earlier, you can reuse the infrastructure for other HSF payloads.
Lets say you have a component/consumable that does not fit an existing VV cargo, either due to risk or capacity given the bus and shroud. Since you don't have bus or shroud, you don't have the limitations of such.

So what you get as advantage is pressurized payload scaling with launch cost, fast resupply missions (in case of failure), more reliable launch (no bus means no launch risk from bus), and the capability to launch highest risk payloads (margin, volume, hazards) limited by only the launcher itself.

And, as we take HSF further beyond LEO, parasitic mass costs more the higher / further / faster we go. If we get to optimum in LEO, then we can carry that outward with us in terms of margin and mission scope/size/duration.

add:
Almost forgot. All of the items I covered above are a direct translation of the containerized cargo business proven in the case studies, so none of this is hypothetical but proven over 50 years of business. More proven than any space architecture scaling ever. So you don't need my help to figure this one out, go argue with Wharton about it.

It also is key to American economic progress over that time.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 10/15/2015 06:58 am
Everything gets thrown away on Dragon.  Oh, sure, it's sitting in a warehouse somewhere, or in some unused space at Hawthorne, but the next time a resupply flight goes up, it's a new Dragon.

That's only because NASA told SpaceX to bid for a new Dragon every flight on CRS1.  Nobody outside SpaceX and NASA knows if the SpaceX CRS2 bid includes reflying Dragons.

My understanding from another thread indicates that components of flown Dragons are being reused in later CRS flights.
I don't want to get into hijacking the LM thread, but SpaceX failed at its first attempt of reusability in everything (rocket, capsules, etc).  Look their evolution from F1 to F9 v1.1 Full Thrust (plus the Grashopper program). Look at Dragon v1, V1.5 and v2.

There's a big difference between failing to achieve something and still being on the road to achieve it, even if that road has taken longer than planned.

And yet they haven't started with the DragonFly project.

Yeah, because NASA is risk-averse and told them to focus on doing things the way they've been done in the past first.  Since NASA is paying the bills, I think we can forgive SpaceX for giving them what they ask for.

Do you think that LM could hit the right trade in reusability on the first try and gamble your 100B+ project utilization on that? That's the core issue with LM Jupiter/Exoliner proposal. They want to do a high risk/high payoff experiment on the final days of a fully operational multi-decade multi-billion USD project.

Not all reusability is created equal.  Reusability of F9 and Dragon is difficult because they have to re-enter the atmosphere.  Remove that and you basically have a static fire.  And SpaceX had no problem mastering re-use after a static fire.

Re-usability of Jupiter is totally different.  It doesn't have to go through the ordeal of re-entry.  It just stays in orbit and continues operating -- just like hundreds of satellites have been doing for decades.  The kind of re-usability Jupiter is talking about is a solved problem.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: manboy on 10/15/2015 07:35 am
Can you please explicitly list the advantages of a ISS cargo resupply vehicle having its own arm?

Rendezvous and berthing with relatively simple cargo modules and other spacecraft in space. In theory it could deploy and retrieve free-flying co-orbiting experiments from ISS without its own significant propulsive capabilities.

It could potentially operate as an independent robotic orbital assembly and servicing platform.

From what i understand, the propellant transfer and robotic capabilities would effectively have been up-scaled Orbital Express ASTRO satellite. OrbEx demonstrated monoprop hydrazine transfers, which is the spacecraft bus proposed here is flying on, too. OrbEx also demonstrated orbital replacement units of batteries and other things IIRC.

I crossed out everything that appeared to be irrelevant to the question asked. Is the ability to retrieve free-flying experiments in ISS proximity a desired capability?

Those science missions do those complex tasks because there is no other way to achieve their mission goals. It's not comparable because other vehicles have even greater re-usability while accomplishing the same goals but with significantly less complex mission plans. I'm skeptical Jupiter could compete with those vehicles on a cost basis.

They represent developed, proven hardware that DOES DO THOSE THINGS. And they already function reliably over longer duration than the ENTIRE LIFE OF 10's to 100's of "deliveries".

Since one of them is needed to perform the function of 10 or 100 or more, perhaps the cost basis isn't the same as a one-shot?
They do some of those things but they don't capture, perform vessel hand over, fuel transfer or rendezvous with other vehicles.

Yes, thank you Mr Flat Earth. No exact match of flown craft.

It wasn't even in the same ballpark. The crafts you were comparing had hardly any similarities.

Depends on the time it takes to recover the cost and/or prove the capability. Break even is typically what you look at, and that was around 10 or so.
Minimum amount of missions to be awarded is 6.
Yes, I know. Tough for evolving HSF resupply. Not my issue.
It is if you're using it as the foundation of your argument.

Nor did I prove a benefit of a Pathfinder rover before flying one. Yet we did fly one, and we don't do Mars landers anymore. Hundred examples like this.
The benefit of a rover vs. a lander is obvious.

Almost forgot. All of the items I covered above are a direct translation of the containerized cargo business proven in the case studies, so none of this is hypothetical but proven over 50 years of business. More proven than any space architecture scaling ever. So you don't need my help to figure this one out, go argue with Wharton about it.
And they apparently don't need to be modified for spaceflight.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: savuporo on 10/15/2015 06:14 pm
I crossed out everything that appeared to be irrelevant to the question asked. Is the ability to retrieve free-flying experiments in ISS proximity a desired capability?
Yes.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Danderman on 10/15/2015 07:10 pm

Can you please explicitly list the advantages of a ISS cargo resupply vehicle having its own arm?

It could berth at CBMs where the station arm would have issues, say at the end of a hypothetical Node 4.

Or help solve problems where the station arm is involved in another operation at the time of berthing.

Allows passive containers to be used to carry cargo, with an intermediate berthing prior to arrival at the station.


Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: manboy on 10/15/2015 08:03 pm

Can you please explicitly list the advantages of a ISS cargo resupply vehicle having its own arm?

It could berth at CBMs where the station arm would have issues, say at the end of a hypothetical Node 4.

Or help solve problems where the station arm is involved in another operation at the time of berthing.
The arm on Jupiter is most likely too short for that.

I crossed out everything that appeared to be irrelevant to the question asked. Is the ability to retrieve free-flying experiments in ISS proximity a desired capability?
Yes.
Can you list some free-flying passive experiments that should be retrieved by a Commercial Cargo vehicle? What's the risk of these passive experiments colliding with the ISS? What if they begin to drift too far away? Can the cargo vehicle be unberthed in time to retrieve them?
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: savuporo on 10/15/2015 08:24 pm
I crossed out everything that appeared to be irrelevant to the question asked. Is the ability to retrieve free-flying experiments in ISS proximity a desired capability?
Yes.
Can you list some free-flying passive experiments that should be retrieved by a Commercial Cargo vehicle? What's the risk of these passive experiments colliding with the ISS? What if they begin to drift too far away? Can the cargo vehicle be unberthed in time to retrieve them?
Various cubesat micropropulsion technology demonstrators, for instance. There are multiple solutions being worked on. Being able to retrieve the experiment would give valuable insights to durability of the systems.

Doing propuslion experiments at ISS is generally difficult, regular cubesat launches are good but again, being able to retrieve and inspect the systems after a year in space would be very valuable for improving the designs.

There are multiple other technology development experiments that could benefit from deployment and later retrieval.

Quote
What's the risk of these passive experiments colliding with the ISS?
That would require a thorough analysis as is standard practice with anything going anywhere close to ISS, and depends on great many variables, including the nature of the experiment, distances involved etc.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: manboy on 10/15/2015 09:27 pm
I crossed out everything that appeared to be irrelevant to the question asked. Is the ability to retrieve free-flying experiments in ISS proximity a desired capability?
Yes.
Can you list some free-flying passive experiments that should be retrieved by a Commercial Cargo vehicle? What's the risk of these passive experiments colliding with the ISS? What if they begin to drift too far away? Can the cargo vehicle be unberthed in time to retrieve them?
Various cubesat micropropulsion technology demonstrators, for instance. There are multiple solutions being worked on. Being able to retrieve the experiment would give valuable insights to durability of the systems.

Doing propuslion experiments at ISS is generally difficult, regular cubesat launches are good but again, being able to retrieve and inspect the systems after a year in space would be very valuable for improving the designs.

There are multiple other technology development experiments that could benefit from deployment and later retrieval.
I'm guessing same orbit but either infront or behind. Would have to be far enough away so it doesn't pose a risk to VV. If successful they probably wouldn't need to be retrieved because they return themselves. Might be interesting. Would need to be large enough to have some sort of grapple attachment. Kind of reminds me of AERCam Sprint. Propellant would probably need to be non-toxic and the part of the craft that wants to be inspected would need to be small enough to fit through the airlock. That was one good thing about the Shuttle, the massive downmass.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 10/28/2015 05:13 pm
Those science missions do those complex tasks because there is no other way to achieve their mission goals. It's not comparable because other vehicles have even greater re-usability while accomplishing the same goals but with significantly less complex mission plans. I'm skeptical Jupiter could compete with those vehicles on a cost basis.

They represent developed, proven hardware that DOES DO THOSE THINGS. And they already function reliably over longer duration than the ENTIRE LIFE OF 10's to 100's of "deliveries".

Since one of them is needed to perform the function of 10 or 100 or more, perhaps the cost basis isn't the same as a one-shot?
They do some of those things but they don't capture, perform vessel hand over, fuel transfer or rendezvous with other vehicles.

Yes, thank you Mr Flat Earth. No exact match of flown craft.

It wasn't even in the same ballpark. The crafts you were comparing had hardly any similarities.

When we assemble planetary craft with new capabilities (like first landers/rovers/other), we don't have "crafts with hardly any similarities" in your same meaning, and its also why science missions cost so much in proving capabilities will function in their environments. We cobble together from other past mission hardware, revise for environment as needed, and exhaustively test.

Which is unlike ISS modules and VV's. Where as little as possible changes. Suggest a hybrid approach. Jupiter is a kind of hybrid.

Quote
Depends on the time it takes to recover the cost and/or prove the capability. Break even is typically what you look at, and that was around 10 or so.
Minimum amount of missions to be awarded is 6.
Yes, I know. Tough for evolving HSF resupply. Not my issue.
It is if you're using it as the foundation of your argument.
In the sense that Jupiter, with its use of an expensive bus, ups the number of missions on the break even - that's why its not my issue.

With my suggested "getting to the point", modified approach, yes it likely (due to no dedicated tug) would achieve break even on that so not a stopper.

Now, one of our posters here did an approach without a tug, that also was considered overly complex due to operations of the VV used as tug, so it doesn't matter as an argument due to the "dammed if you do [use a dedicated tug], dammed if you don't [by using a VV as a tug]!"

Quote
Nor did I prove a benefit of a Pathfinder rover before flying one. Yet we did fly one, and we don't do Mars landers anymore. Hundred examples like this.
The benefit of a rover vs. a lander is obvious.
The benefit of not reflying a tug with each cargo mission is obvious too. Duh.

Quote
Almost forgot. All of the items I covered above are a direct translation of the containerized cargo business proven in the case studies, so none of this is hypothetical but proven over 50 years of business. More proven than any space architecture scaling ever. So you don't need my help to figure this one out, go argue with Wharton about it.
And they apparently don't need to be modified for spaceflight.
No they don't. All that needs modification is removing narrow minded spaceflight bias, which is endemic/obsolete.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: yg1968 on 11/06/2015 07:34 pm
I just noticed this article:

http://www.examiner.com/article/why-nasa-rejected-lockheed-martin-s-jupiter-for-commercial-resupply-services-2
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: arachnitect on 11/06/2015 07:41 pm
I just noticed this article:

http://www.examiner.com/article/why-nasa-rejected-lockheed-martin-s-jupiter-for-commercial-resupply-services-2

That article is filled with elementary errors.

Furthermore, the rumors of LM's rejection are looking increasingly suspect.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: yg1968 on 11/06/2015 07:53 pm
It could be. But I have trouble believing that LM's bid is competitive.

Plus, LM hasn't really refuted these rumors.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: arachnitect on 11/06/2015 08:17 pm
It could be. But I have trouble believing that LM's bid is competitive.

Plus, LM hasn't refuted these rumors.

LM has said they have not heard from NASA. If they were unequivocally disqualified months ago as rumors suggest, they might as well admit it. Boeing did.

I have trouble believing DC is competitive, but they're still in.

Worth pointing out that the most complex parts of LM's proposal aren't required for IOC. If allowed to modify their bid, they could strip all the space tug stuff. Atlas price reductions helped OrbATK this year, but they could turn the tide in CRS2.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: yg1968 on 11/06/2015 09:12 pm
I suppose that you are talking about this quote from SN:

Quote
Allison Rakes said the company had no information beyond NASA’s announcement of the delay.

That sentence is incredibly vague. It just means that LM has only heard about the delay. You would expect LM to know if they are in the competitive range.
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: yg1968 on 11/06/2015 11:04 pm
I suppose that you are talking about this quote from SN:

Quote
Allison Rakes said the company had no information beyond NASA’s announcement of the delay.

That sentence is incredibly vague. It just means that LM has only heard about the delay. You would expect LM to know if they are in the competitive range.


I asked Jeff Foust for the exact quote from LM, here's what he responded:

Quote
the spokesperson I contacted said they “haven’t heard anything from NASA beyond the announcement delay.”

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/662781517677125632
Title: Re: Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid
Post by: arachnitect on 11/06/2015 11:22 pm
I suppose that you are talking about this quote from SN:

Quote
Allison Rakes said the company had no information beyond NASA’s announcement of the delay.

That sentence is incredibly vague. It just means that LM has only heard about the delay. You would expect LM to know if they are in the competitive range.

We have on-the-record statements regarding Boeing, SNC, and OrbATK. Spacex has been consistent in not commenting.

But with LM, none of the pieces fit. I believe we have no reliable information one way or the other.

The source selection team at NASA wouldn't be foolish enough to leak results, especially to notorious industry gossips.

My theory is that someone saw LM's numbers, saw that they were high, and assumed LM was out. But NASA doesn't necessarily select the lowest bidder.

CRS2 selection should have taken 20 minutes but keeps dragging on for months. It's obviously more complicated than we all assumed at first. I still think the incumbents will win, but I think it's important to distinguish what we know from what we suspect.