The refuelling hardware on the Restore-L are government furnished equipment. Are they a copy of the equipment attached to the ISS's Dextre? Or something from the Department of Defence?
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 06/17/2015 04:54 amThe refuelling hardware on the Restore-L are government furnished equipment. Are they a copy of the equipment attached to the ISS's Dextre? Or something from the Department of Defense?The people in charge of this are the people doing the experiments on ISS, so it's probably pretty similar to that.
The refuelling hardware on the Restore-L are government furnished equipment. Are they a copy of the equipment attached to the ISS's Dextre? Or something from the Department of Defense?
Collectspace's similar article says that Landsat 7, which was launched in April 1999 atop a Delta II, will be refueled by Restore-L in 2020.http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum33/HTML/000661.html
Quote from: ZachS09 on 12/06/2016 03:09 pmCollectspace's similar article says that Landsat 7, which was launched in April 1999 atop a Delta II, will be refueled by Restore-L in 2020.http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum33/HTML/000661.htmlAn interesting, indirect connection, IIRC:One of the Vandenberg Shuttle flights was to be a refueling of Landsat 4 or 5. They were constructed with larger than otherwise needed propellant tanks so it would have sufficient propellant to lower its orbit prior to the Shuttle rendezvousing with it.
FISO presentation on sat servicing, including restore-L:http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/%7Efiso/telecon/Reed_1-11-17/
I'm kinda disappointed they didn't go with the name Restore-R
Quote from: Hobbes-22 on 01/14/2017 07:28 pmI'm kinda disappointed they didn't go with the name Restore-R Isn't the L for "LandSat" the satellite they're targeting for servicing?~Jon
Why refuel satellites? Why not let the "Restore-L" instead tug the satellite with its own engine? It should be much easier and safer and one doesn't need to care about what fuel type the satellite originally had.
Quote from: TakeOff on 01/18/2017 06:54 amWhy refuel satellites? Why not let the "Restore-L" instead tug the satellite with its own engine? It should be much easier and safer and one doesn't need to care about what fuel type the satellite originally had.Because a "tug" isn't needed. No "engine" is need. The propellant is for attitude control. Attaching another spacecraft is not that simple. The mass properties of the stack is different. The attached spacecraft would interfere with look angles of sensors and instruments. It would require sending commands to two spacecraft to point and take data.
OrbitalATK intend to start with a space tug then evolve it add servicing and refuelling capabilities to it. The space tug will latch onto satellite engine bell and take over all propulsion jobs. Have signed customers for 2019-2020 launch.See OA thread for more info.
Also, then again, they don't need a "tug" with an engine. Just some station keeping thrusters.
Hubble is pointed with reaction wheels and was boosted to higher altitude by the space shuttle. Wouldn't that be applicable to many satellites in LEO, but with a small tug in place of the shuttle? During satellite operations the tug could be undocked and at standby nearby until next orbital correction is needed, or go off to another servicing mission.
What about designing satellites such that its fuel tank with thrusters is replaceable? When it is getting empty, it is undocked and discarded while a tug brings a new identical fuel tank with thrusters to replace it. No need then to transfer fuel in microgravity.
Talking of JWST, guy from Restore L fiso webcast is trying to convince JWST team to paint a pattern on JWST which makes capturing it easier. JWST is not serviceable but that doesn't stop a tug attaching its self and taking over propulsion. Could even bring it back to cis lunar station for investigation if not repair.
It is, however, optional. It just makes machine vision easier. But could be done without it.
(Snip)Hubble should have resided at L2 like JWST and SIRTF for science(snip)
NASA’s satellite servicing technology development and demonstration mission, Restore-L, passed a milestone today, successfully clearing Preliminary Design Review (PDR). The Trump Administration wants to downscale the program significantly however, and while the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have rallied to its defense, only one approved the money needed to keep it on course....
NASA is one step closer to robotically refueling a satellite and demonstrating in-space assembly and manufacturing thanks to the completion of an important milestone.In April 2021, NASA and Maxar Technologies successfully completed the On-orbit Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing 1 (OSAM-1) mission spacecraft accommodation Critical Design Review (CDR). This milestone demonstrates that the maturity of the design for the OSAM-1 spacecraft bus is appropriate to support proceeding with fabrication, assembly, integration, and testing.OSAM-1 will, for the first time ever, robotically refuel a U.S. government satellite not designed to be serviced. The spacecraft will consist of a servicing payload, provided by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, with two robotic arms that will be attached to the spacecraft bus. The bus will also incorporate a payload called Space Infrastructure Dexterous Robot (SPIDER) that will demonstrate in-space assembly and manufacturing. SPIDER will use a third robotic arm to assemble a communications antenna and an element called MakerSat built by Tethers Unlimited to manufacture a beam. The spacecraft bus and SPIDER are being built by Maxar Technologies.This image, taken by Maxar in their Palo Alto, California, facility, features the OSAM-1 spacecraft bus under development. The 14-foot-tall bus will provide OSAM-1 with power and the ability to maneuver in orbit. To make these maneuvers possible, inside the main cylinder are two large bi-propellant tanks, and the upper and lower deck of the spacecraft feature thrusters. The two silver spheres are filled with mono-propellant fuel that will be used to provide OSAM-1’s target client satellite, Landsat 7, with more fuel to demonstrate that robotically refueling a satellite is possible.Upon completion of the OSAM-1 spacecraft bus and related testing at Maxar’s facilities in mid-2022, it will be sent to Goddard. NASA will complete the integration and testing of the OSAM-1 components, including the spacecraft bus, servicing payload, and SPIDER, in preparation for launch.OSAM-1 is funded by NASA’s Space Technology Mission Directorate through its Technology Demonstration Missions program.
Recently, the @NASA’s On-orbit Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing 1 (OSAM-1) project management team visited @Maxar in California to view progress on the OSAM-1 spacecraft bus. Later this year, the spacecraft will journey to @NASAGoddard for final integration and testing.
On Sept. 20, 2023, the On-orbit Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing 1 (OSAM-1) spacecraft bus arrived at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, after its journey from a Maxar facility in California. Following this critical milestone, engineers at Goddard can begin to integrate the mission’s servicing payload onto the bus and begin to test the integrated spacecraft in simulated space environments.When integration and testing are complete, OSAM-1 will be ready to demonstrate robotic satellite servicing technologies in space. The OSAM-1 mission is planned to be the first to robotically refuel a spacecraft not designed for on-orbit servicing. The servicer will rendezvous with, grapple, and berth the government-owned Landsat 7 spacecraft, and then use a suite of tools to replenish its hydrazine fuel tank.In addition to the mission’s servicing objectives, OSAM-1 will also include an assembly demonstration provided by commercial partner Maxar, the same company that provided the spacecraft bus. That demonstration will use a robotic arm from the Space Infrastructure Dexterous Robot (SPIDER) payload to assemble a functional Ka-band antenna on orbit from stowed hexagonal pieces.Previously, the mission included a manufacturing demonstration called MakerSat, which planned to use the SPIDER arm to manufacture a beam. However, that component of the mission has been descoped as mission managers refocus resources on the servicing and assembly components of the mission.
mission has been cancelled.https://www.nasa.gov/mission/on-orbit-servicing-assembly-and-manufacturing-1/
Following an in-depth, independent project review, NASA has decided to discontinue the On-orbit Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing 1 (OSAM-1) project due to continued technical, cost, and schedule challenges, and a broader community evolution away from refueling unprepared spacecraft, which has led to a lack of a committed partner. Following Congressional notification processes, project management plans to complete an orderly shutdown, including the disposition of sensitive hardware, pursuing potential partnerships or alternative hardware uses, and licensing of applicable technological developments. NASA leadership also is reviewing how to mitigate the impact of the cancellation on the workforce at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
NASA is shutting down the OSAM-1 (On-orbit Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing 1) project, for which Maxar was a prime contractor.QuoteOSAM-1 was years behind schedule and expected to cost over $2 billion:NASA's Inspector General published a detailed report on the OSAM-1 project in October 2023, going into detail about "Maxar’s poor performance:"
OSAM-1 was years behind schedule and expected to cost over $2 billion:
Maxar was "no longer profiting from their work on OSAM-1" and the project no longer appeared "to be a high priority for Maxar in terms of the quality of its staffing."
Shades of Psyche?
Yeah, we asked that question 12 years ago. If it's really hard, why not just not do it? Why not only service spacecraft that are designed for servicing? It just didn't make much sense. This was an earmarked project.
But I think NG demonstrated that for propulsion, attaching a jetpack (ala their MEV or MEPs attached by their MRV) is way easier than trying to MacGyver your way through fill/drain valve closeouts that were never intended to be serviceable. That's the direction that most of the industry players going after providing life extension to legacy satellites have decided on (NG, Astroscale, Atomos, etc).
I do not understand the economics of satellite refuelling. Can someone check me on this?
Quote from: jongoff on 03/02/2024 05:18 amBut I think NG demonstrated that for propulsion, attaching a jetpack (ala their MEV or MEPs attached by their MRV) is way easier than trying to MacGyver your way through fill/drain valve closeouts that were never intended to be serviceable. That's the direction that most of the industry players going after providing life extension to legacy satellites have decided on (NG, Astroscale, Atomos, etc).I have vague memory that we asked about refueling. We were told that satellites often have fill valves that are completely sealed after fueling and cannot be reopened. It's not like a screwcap on a car's gas tank. We asked why satellite designers couldn't simply design the fill valve with a screwcap or something similar that could be opened again. The answer was leaks, they want a system that won't leak. I could have some of that wrong, but like so many things, there are specific reasons why systems are designed the way they are, and it's not because the designers are dumb, it's because they are trying to address known problems.But the Goddard effort in 2012 seemed like they were not serving a need, they were playing around with their technology. Maybe they reoriented the program and it made more sense. Dunno.
I do not understand the economics of satellite refuelling. Can someone check me on this?A satellite in orbit can either be refuelled or replaced. If refuelled, its life is extended . If replaced, the newer satellite would presumably have a longer life than the extended life of a old satellite and would benefit from newer technology. Thus the cost of the refuelling mission needs to be considerable lower than the cost of a replacement mission.But launch costs are now dramatically lower than they were in 2012 when OSAM-1 was being contemplated. Sure this lowers the cost of a refuelling mission, but it also lowers the cost of a replacement mission, including the cost of the replacement satellite. It seems like the potential customer base of refuelling candidates is vanishingly small.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/03/nasa-cancels-a-multibillion-dollar-satellite-servicing-demo-mission/"A report by NASA's inspector general last year outlined the mission's delays and cost overruns. Since 2016, the space agency has requested $808 million from Congress for Restore-L and OSAM-1. Lawmakers responded by giving NASA nearly $1.5 billion to fund the development of the mission, nearly double what NASA said it wanted."Note how that is consistent with what I posted above, that this project had earmarked money from Congress.
Absolutely. If Mikulski hadn't been the Senator from the same state as Goddard, there's zero chance it would've gotten the level of support it did. The thing that surprised me is how much it kept getting funding even after Mikulski retired.
Quote from: jongoff on 03/06/2024 03:24 amAbsolutely. If Mikulski hadn't been the Senator from the same state as Goddard, there's zero chance it would've gotten the level of support it did. The thing that surprised me is how much it kept getting funding even after Mikulski retired.Yes, I vaguely remember that when we discussed this back in 2012 (we were doing a review of NASA's strategic direction), somebody said that the person who ran that lab at Goddard was just really good at selling his work to Congress. And I vaguely remember that the center director at the time was unhappy about that, because he didn't have control over what work his center did and did not do.It's something that you discover when you get involved with how NASA actually works, that there are always centers and even individual labs within centers that can make end runs around the leadership. As to how they continued getting money after Mikulski left, I am as puzzled as you. As a sidenote, DART at APL was something similar. If you look at the public record (Aviation Week, Space News, any other public sources) you will be hard-pressed to find out how and why that mission happened. But that too was an earmarked mission where somebody managed to get Congress on board even though NASA leadership didn't want it to happen. So these things are not uncommon.
Plus much of the successful servicing technology, mostly Hubble, was done at contractors, Ball Aerospace predominantly. Bringing the work in house to GSFC undid that dynamic.
https://spacenews.com/on-orbit-servicing-mission-planned-for-military-satellite-in-2025/
While the bill broadly supports the administration’s request, it does criticize some decisions by NASA to cancel or cut missions. That includes the On-Orbit Servicing, Assembly and Manufacturing (OSAM) 1 mission to demonstrate satellite servicing technologies that NASA announced in March its intent to cancel. NASA requested $11 million for OSAM-1 in 2025 to close out the project.The Senate report, though, directs NASA to spend up to $174.5 million on OSAM-1 in 2025, pending a report requested by the 2024 appropriations bill on how the mission can meet a 2026 launch. The Senate language seeks a new report not later than 30 days after the final bill is enacted on those plans, as well as the potential for cost-sharing with the Defense Department and use of the spacecraft in an extended mission for national security or commercial applications.
NASA is exploring potential partnerships for alternate use cases for the On-orbit Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing 1 (OSAM-1) flight hardware, test facilities, and experienced personnel. Through a Request for Information for OSAM-1 Partnerships released Sept. 5, 2024, NASA seeks interest from U.S. organizations that will benefit commercial, civil, and national objectives, thereby advancing domestic leadership in In-space Servicing, Assembly, and Manufacturing (ISAM) capabilities. A comprehensive list of OSAM-1 resources and technologies organizations can consider using are outlined in the full Request for Information for OSAM-1 Partnerships available at www.sam.gov. Responses are due Sept. 30, 2024, by 11:59 p.m. EDT.
