ISS Commercial Resupply Services 2 (CRS2) 2017-2030

[arachnitect]

My understanding is HEART is a tech demo for inflatable heatshields (Mars landing), not a model for an operational cargo return system.

Then why is it attached to a Cygnus returning from the ISS?

It could be developed into a cargo return system, in which case it would have parachutes, etc. But the video is just showing a proposed tech demo mission with no intention of recovering the cargo.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/626775main_November_2011_Cheatwood.pdf

[Elmar Moelzer]

My understanding is HEART is a tech demo for inflatable heatshields (Mars landing), not a model for an operational cargo return system.

Then why is it attached to a Cygnus returning from the ISS?

It could be developed into a cargo return system, in which case it would have parachutes, etc. But the video is just showing a proposed tech demo mission with no intention of recovering the cargo.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/626775main_November_2011_Cheatwood.pdf

Ahh, that makes more sense! thanks!

[baldusi]

Cygnus is currently the platform for destructive experiments, like the on used for flame propagation studies, for example. After the deorbit burn, they will basically set a section on fire and record the flame behavior. ATV and HTV were use to record fragment atmospheric behavior, too. A heat shield, is just too risky to test in another heat shield. But attach it to a disposable craft and you have the perfect study platform. You might eve take advantage of its bus and power for most requirements.

[Prober]

My understanding is HEART is a tech demo for inflatable heatshields (Mars landing), not a model for an operational cargo return system.

Then why is it attached to a Cygnus returning from the ISS?

Another contender from the Orbital ATK merger:   The lightweight composite Orion. It would be like a super sized Dragon return.

[woods170]

My understanding is HEART is a tech demo for inflatable heatshields (Mars landing), not a model for an operational cargo return system.

Then why is it attached to a Cygnus returning from the ISS?

Another contender from the Orbital ATK merger:   The lightweight composite Orion. It would be like a super sized Dragon return.

That thing is only a composite pressure shell. None of all the other stuff required to turn it into a functional space ship is with ATK (or Orbital for that matter). The so-called composite Orion is even more powerpoint then the Liberty launch vehicle is.

[yg1968]

Due date for CRS2 proposals has been delayed to November 14th (it was previously in July):

Release Draft Request for Proposal    6/16/14   
Pre-Solicitation Conference              8/19/14   
Release Final Request for Proposal    10/01/14   
Proposals Due                               11/14/14

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/schedule.asp

[Joffan]

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but would it be possible - with millimetre-tolerance close-quarters manouevring - to have the visiting vehicle dock without arm assistance at what are currently regarded as berthing ports? Would there be any significant practical advantage to that? Would NASA see it as a desirable capability?

[Space Pete]

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but would it be possible - with millimetre-tolerance close-quarters manouevring - to have the visiting vehicle dock without arm assistance at what are currently regarded as berthing ports? Would there be any significant practical advantage to that? Would NASA see it as a desirable capability?

No, absolutely not - CBMs are not designed to take the impacts that docking would impart. There is no capture ring to take the loads, and so the seals of the CBMs themselves would be damaged.

[baldusi]

Due date for CRS2 proposals has been delayed to November 14th (it was previously in July):

Release Draft Request for Proposal 6/16/14
Pre-Solicitation Conference           8/19/14
Release Final Request for Proposal 10/01/14
Proposals Due                            11/14/14

http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/crs2/schedule.asp

I wonder if they found out that they had to specify more than they expected. A very important consideration for further commercial procurement.

[ChrisWilson68]

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but would it be possible - with millimetre-tolerance close-quarters manouevring - to have the visiting vehicle dock without arm assistance at what are currently regarded as berthing ports? Would there be any significant practical advantage to that? Would NASA see it as a desirable capability?

No, absolutely not - CBMs are not designed to take the impacts that docking would impart. There is no capture ring to take the loads, and so the seals of the CBMs themselves would be damaged.

I think the point of the phrase "millimetre-tolerance close-quarters maneuvering" is that we're assuming a future vehicle that can mimic the movements it would be given by the station's arm with its own thrusters.  Obviously, if the vehicle's thruster control is fine enough, it can do anything the arm could do with it and the loads would be exactly those from berthing with the arm.

[A_M_Swallow]

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but would it be possible - with millimetre-tolerance close-quarters manouevring - to have the visiting vehicle dock without arm assistance at what are currently regarded as berthing ports? Would there be any significant practical advantage to that? Would NASA see it as a desirable capability?

No, absolutely not - CBMs are not designed to take the impacts that docking would impart. There is no capture ring to take the loads, and so the seals of the CBMs themselves would be damaged.

I think the point of the phrase "millimetre-tolerance close-quarters maneuvering" is that we're assuming a future vehicle that can mimic the movements it would be given by the station's arm with its own thrusters.  Obviously, if the vehicle's thruster control is fine enough, it can do anything the arm could do with it and the loads would be exactly those from berthing with the arm.

The spacecraft does not have to manoeuvre that accurately, just the connector.  Elevators have few problems aligning floors to a fraction of a millimetre.

[Joffan]

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but would it be possible - with millimetre-tolerance close-quarters manouevring - to have the visiting vehicle dock without arm assistance at what are currently regarded as berthing ports? Would there be any significant practical advantage to that? Would NASA see it as a desirable capability?

No, absolutely not - CBMs are not designed to take the impacts that docking would impart. There is no capture ring to take the loads, and so the seals of the CBMs themselves would be damaged.

I think the point of the phrase "millimetre-tolerance close-quarters maneuvering" is that we're assuming a future vehicle that can mimic the movements it would be given by the station's arm with its own thrusters.  Obviously, if the vehicle's thruster control is fine enough, it can do anything the arm could do with it and the loads would be exactly those from berthing with the arm.

The spacecraft does not have to manoeuvre that accurately, just the connector.  Elevators have few problems aligning floors to a fraction of a millimetre.

Well, I wasn't going to specify a particular mechanism, but yes, my idea was that the final mate-up would use an actively-positioned interface rather than trying to move the whole spacecraft by a millimetre or less. By contrast, though, the elevator analogy suggests it could actually be the whole vessel that is aligned.

So as I said, assuming that we have this capability, however achieved, would there be value in it for station operations?

(The reverse capability - departing the station without arm assistance - seems trivial, and I don't really understand why it isn't happening now.)

[baldusi]

Plume impingement is not trivial matter.

[Will]

It seems to me that a licensed HTV variant with enough domestic content to satisfy Congress, launched on an EELV, would have a pretty good chance of capturing half of the launches and most of the payload.

[JBF]

It seems to me that a licensed HTV variant with enough domestic content to satisfy Congress, launched on an EELV, would have a pretty good chance of capturing half of the launches and most of the payload.

The problem with that is storage; unless you are willing to let the large cargo module stay berthed to the ISS for 4-6 months there is not enough room aboard to store everything. Heh 53t of supplies in one heavy launch.  Plus you want to rotate science experiments faster to get more through the pipeline.

[baldusi]

It wouldn't be difficult for Orbital to offer a bigger Cygnus. The Super long Cygnus only need 6.5tonnes to LEO and has something like 20% on both volume and weight. I don't believe anybody else has such a mature and scalable solution for cargo right now.

[Joffan]

Plume impingement is not trivial matter.

OK, perhaps "trivial" was over-reaching. But plume impingement has certainly been controlled satisfactorily by departing docked vehicles. Why not vehicles using the ports currently restricted to berthing?

[yg1968]

Here is an article on CRS2:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40903iss-cargo-shippers-face-competition-from-space-taxis

[yg1968]

Another series of questions and answers on CRS2 has been posted:
https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160022-OTHER-004-001.pdf

[arachnitect]

Another series of questions and answers on CRS2 has been posted:
https://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/160022-OTHER-004-001.pdf

39.
Q: In our research, there are many communities that would like to see a requirement for low-g (2 g or less) return upon landing. Will NASA consider a requirement for this type of payload return similar to the timing of cargo access following landing (6 hours or less as currently stated)?

A: NASA will evaluate the suggestion and will consider potentially implementing this suggestion when developing the draft RFP.

40.
Q: The RFI states that critical cargo should be turned over within 6 hours of landing. In our discussions with the user community many of them would like a capability of 1 hour or less (near-immediate) access. What is the driver for the 6 hours and if a capability to provide critical cargo turnover within 1 hour will that receive special consideration? Will NASA also consider more immediate access, as it seems consistent with CASIS demands as well?

A: NASA’s 6 hour capability is driven by certain science payloads that are affected once the vehicle has come back into the gravity field. Evaluation criteria will be defined in the draft RFP regarding critical cargo access.

Who might have asked those two questions...?