-
ISS: Enabling a new era of robotic satellite refuelling in space
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Jul, 2011 21:50
-
-
#1
by
Danderman
on 06 Jul, 2011 21:52
-
Isn't ISS robotically refuelled all the time?
-
#2
by
rdale
on 06 Jul, 2011 21:53
-
No, the press conference today had some great imagery and plenty of hardware too. It's worth a watch.
-
#3
by
Space Pete
on 06 Jul, 2011 22:53
-
No, the press conference today had some great imagery and plenty of hardware too. It's worth a watch.
And here is that press conference:
-
#4
by
Robotbeat
on 07 Jul, 2011 04:37
-
Isn't ISS robotically refuelled all the time?
This is a demonstration for robotically refueling satellites which were not designed to be refueled... like a typical GSO bird.
-
#5
by
Garrett
on 07 Jul, 2011 12:33
-
Quote from the article:
This is because it is impossible to accurately simulate how robotics systems will behave in microgravity environments without first testing them in space.
Is this true? I find it hard to believe. Surely simulation software for space hardware must be sufficiently advanced for such purposes by now?
-
#6
by
Chris Bergin
on 07 Jul, 2011 17:41
-
This is getting a ton of attention. Even NASAGoddard (official) noted:
"Outstanding article on nasaspaceflight.com about the Goddard co-developed robotic refueling mission on STS-135."
That's the nicest thing NASA PAO's ever said about the site. Nice one Pete
-
#7
by
hop
on 07 Jul, 2011 19:47
-
Surely simulation software for space hardware must be sufficiently advanced for such purposes by now?
No. Plenty of examples can be found in the history of ISS.
-
#8
by
DarkenedOne
on 07 Jul, 2011 20:31
-
Isn't ISS robotically refuelled all the time?
This is a demonstration for robotically refueling satellites which were not designed to be refueled... like a typical GSO bird.
Question is why do not just design the satellite to be refueled. I could not imagine that doing so would add much cost to the satellite, but it would make any refueling operations.
-
#9
by
rdale
on 07 Jul, 2011 20:34
-
Question is why do not just design the satellite to be refueled.
Because you'd have to go up and bring them down (which we can't do) and then add the refueling design and then relaunch them. Not cheap
-
#10
by
DarkenedOne
on 08 Jul, 2011 15:49
-
Question is why do not just design the satellite to be refueled.
Because you'd have to go up and bring them down (which we can't do) and then add the refueling design and then relaunch them. Not cheap
I am talking about the new ones of course.
-
#11
by
rdale
on 08 Jul, 2011 15:50
-
This project isn't for the new ones, it's for the existing ones.
-
#12
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Jul, 2011 17:40
-
Not only that, but... Maybe modern satellite manufacturers don't want refueling capability? After all, that cuts down on how many satellites they can sell. It may be a while until after the capability is already proven for the feature to be in demand by customers.
-
#13
by
rdale
on 08 Jul, 2011 17:42
-
Manufacturers will make whatever the customer wants to pay for...
-
#14
by
Robotbeat
on 08 Jul, 2011 17:48
-
Manufacturers will make whatever the customer wants to pay for...
And the customers aren't going to want to pay for a capability which isn't proven, yet... especially if they'll only get any benefit from it in a decade or two.
-
#15
by
rdale
on 08 Jul, 2011 18:25
-
Exactly, which should make it clear why this invention could be a big deal...
-
#16
by
DarkenedOne
on 08 Jul, 2011 19:54
-
Manufacturers will make whatever the customer wants to pay for...
And the customers aren't going to want to pay for a capability which isn't proven, yet... especially if they'll only get any benefit from it in a decade or two.
It all depends on the cost of making it serviceable. In any case many satellites launched today have design lifetimes of 10-15 years. Thus any decision one makes must take into account the capabilities that could exist then.
-
#17
by
hop
on 08 Jul, 2011 20:27
-
It all depends on the cost of making it serviceable. In any case many satellites launched today have design lifetimes of 10-15 years. Thus any decision one makes must take into account the capabilities that could exist then.
People building multi-hundred million dollar payloads tend to be risk averse. Changing the design adds risk. It's not just a matter of whether your re-fueling widget will work, you also have to evaluate the risk your refueling widget will cause premature failure.
Making the payload serviceable will cost mass, schedule and money. Spacecraft projects tend to have tight margins in all these areas. It is difficult to justify expending this margin on some ill-defined capability that might become available in the future.
-
#18
by
DarkenedOne
on 08 Jul, 2011 20:50
-
People building multi-hundred million dollar payloads tend to be risk averse. Changing the design adds risk. It's not just a matter of whether your re-fueling widget will work, you also have to evaluate the risk your refueling widget will cause premature failure.
Making the payload serviceable will cost mass, schedule and money. Spacecraft projects tend to have tight margins in all these areas. It is difficult to justify expending this margin on some ill-defined capability that might become available in the future.
The greatest advantage of servicing is that it is risk reducing. It allows for you to recover from a problem that otherwise would of doomed a satellite or mission.
Like I said it is a engineering and management decision.
-
#19
by
Patchouli
on 15 Jul, 2011 17:20
-
Another issue with com sats is their avionics esp the communications payloads are often out of date by the time they need servicing.
But someone could make use of an older com sat if they can get a slot but cannot afford a new one.
But this may be of more benefit to LEO sats which must burn fuel or Geo com sats that use ion engines to stay out of plane.
