Commercial Cargo FY2011 funds

[libs0n]

I had a thought, and I needed a thread to put it in.  In the FY2011 budget, there are funds for an expansion of COTS, for new capabilities and for increased mission assurance.  The funding total is around 312 million I think.  Might as well come up with some hypothetical use for that money.

Idea for development:

Cygnus Service Module + MPLM sized container(perhaps even a modified legacy MPLM) + Atlas 552 = Shuttle MPLM flight equivalent

An alternative might be the ULA payload bay frame for similar duty.

[bad_astra]

Think a better use would be to increase the number of launches of the normal Cygnus and Dragon cargo vehicles.

[Robotbeat]

I had a thought, and I needed a thread to put it in.  In the FY2011 budget, there are funds for an expansion of COTS, for new capabilities and for increased mission assurance.  The funding total is around 312 million I think.  Might as well come up with some hypothetical use for that money.

Idea for development:

Cygnus Service Module + MPLM sized container(perhaps even a modified legacy MPLM) + Atlas 552 = Shuttle MPLM flight equivalent

An alternative might be the ULA payload bay frame for similar duty.

Cygnus already basically has a down-sized version of the MPLM. Its design was to be the minimum-efficient spacecraft size.

I keep wondering if the Cygnus service module (with more propellant) would work well as a tug instead of using an ATV. Maybe a cygnus module launched without the pressurized section and just a bunch of propellant would stay at the ISS for a while, with enough propellant for many tug missions. (Combined with the Payload Bay Fairing.)

[libs0n]

Think a better use would be to increase the number of launches of the normal Cygnus and Dragon cargo vehicles.

That would be done through additional purchases within the CRS contract, which I believe is already configured to be expandable to meet further demand if required.

SpaceX: "The $1.6 billion contract represents a minimum of 12 flights, with an option to order additional missions for a cumulative total contract value of up to $3.1 billion." http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php

NASA: "NASA has set production milestones and reviews on the contracts to monitor progress toward providing services. The maximum potential value of each contract is about $3.1 billion. Based on known requirements, the value of both contracts combined is projected at $3.5 billion." http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/dec/HQ_C08-069_ISS_Resupply.html

The additional monies for Commercial Cargo have their own discrete purpose, and I should have been more thorough in posting that at the beginning for the purpose of this thread.  I'll quote the FY2011 Budget documents:

"This budget allocates $312.0 million in FY 2011 for incentivizing NASA’s current commercial cargo program to improve the chance of mission success by adding or accelerating the achievement of already-planned milestones, adding additional capabilities, or tests that may ultimately expedite the pace of development of cargo flights to the ISS. Risk reduction activities may include adding milestones to complete the Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) to identify early risks. Accelerating enhanced capabilities may include adding milestones for early development of items such as the high energy engine for Orbital’s Taurus II upper stage, and Block 2 engine upgrades SpaceX’s Falcon 9; a demonstration flight may be added to validate the upgrades. NASA will continue to evaluate the Cargo Resupply Services (CRS) contract to determine if funds can be used to accelerate hardware fabrication and assembly of the CRS vehicles." http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html

edit: Although, yeah, it may not be useful for ISS determined needs in comparison to the near existing alternatives, and it might even be outside the scope of this FY2011 funding, I just thought a larger canister for Cygnus SM coupled to delivery on the Atlas 5 line was a neat idea.  Station cargo demands being based upon actual needs and not spurious Shuttle idiosyncratic capabilities to be duplicated.

[libs0n]

I keep wondering if the Cygnus service module (with more propellant) would work well as a tug instead of using an ATV. Maybe a cygnus module launched without the pressurized section and just a bunch of propellant would stay at the ISS for a while, with enough propellant for many tug missions. (Combined with the Payload Bay Fairing.)

Direct attachment throughout the mission including launch is another possibility.  Use the Cygnus SM in the delivery of new modules for instance, and then decouple and dispose of it.  It's only 1800kg.

[Antares]

An MPLM-sized capsule hanging on a Cygnus service module would require a LOT of re-analysis by both Orbital and NASA.  It's a non-starter.

Cygnus + EELV is not unreasonable if Taurus II and Falcon 9 + Dragon don't pan out.

[libs0n]

I keep wondering if the Cygnus service module (with more propellant) would work well as a tug instead of using an ATV. Maybe a cygnus module launched without the pressurized section and just a bunch of propellant would stay at the ISS for a while, with enough propellant for many tug missions. (Combined with the Payload Bay Fairing.)

You'll get a kick out of this:

see attachment.

I though for a moment reconsidering my thread premise, and having the tug stay in orbit and receive a bare large container, but a page in the presentation outlines some of the services the SM provides to the canister and I would not know how that pans out.  Maybe some kind of "sufficiently smart" container.

[libs0n]

An MPLM-sized capsule hanging on a Cygnus service module would require a LOT of re-analysis by both Orbital and NASA.  It's a non-starter.

Could you go on?  It seems straightforward.  Cygnus SM is a modular space tug capable of supporting swappable mission modules.  One of these is a larger version of their current pressurized mission module; I propose for consideration a somewhat larger variant beyond that. Your argument to me is along the lines that such a concept would have to be looked into to determine it's validity, therefore it isn't worth looking into. I could accept other reasons for not looking into it.  There's no money for new cargo development.  NASA ISS division prefers more frequent smaller sized deliveries.  Orbital likes their launcher.  Antares has other avenue of thought not immediately apparent to libs0n.

edit: according to the document I previously uploaded, the Cygnus SM provides the structural interface between the LV and the mission module, so whether it could support the larger load would be an area to be investigated, and it is most likely only designed to support the load it was expected to be tasked with.  However, modification of the SM to support the load within reason would be something that might be possible.

[Lars_J]

An MPLM-sized capsule hanging on a Cygnus service module would require a LOT of re-analysis by both Orbital and NASA.  It's a non-starter.

A 'non-starter'? Hardly - A lot better than starting from scratch with a new tug development, that's for sure!

[Antares]

Much larger capsule, completely different loads, mostly different thermal, different mass properties means different flight dynamics.  You can't just say "it's a lot like the other one so we're good."  Spaceflight isn't simple, at least when interfacing with an existing facility.  Just stating the facts, folks.

BTW, it's not a technical non-starter.  It's a budget non-starter due to the labor to reanalyze something that has already been done.  Why do you think all of the COTS vehicles and HTV go to the same port?  Why do you think Cygnus is using the HTV rendezvous system?

It's not enough to think like an engineer.  You have to think like a program manager.

[A_M_Swallow]

Much larger capsule, completely different loads, mostly different thermal, different mass properties means different flight dynamics.  You can't just say "it's a lot like the other one so we're good."  Spaceflight isn't simple, at least when interfacing with an existing facility.  Just stating the facts, folks.

BTW, it's not a technical non-starter.  It's a budget non-starter due to the labor to reanalyze something that has already been done.  Why do you think all of the COTS vehicles and HTV go to the same port?  Why do you think Cygnus is using the HTV rendezvous system?

It's not enough to think like an engineer.  You have to think like a program manager.

Docking a 25 mT module for the ISS launched on an EELV - the cost of the calculations would probably be sent straight back to NASA.