I haven't heard much about this group before, but their idea is close to what we were looking at as a simplest practical µRV. The CASIS unsolicited proposal doesn't sound like it covers development costs, and I'd be surprised if that was less than $2-5M. So it'll be interesting to see if they have the resources to pull this off. I hope so, because it would be really useful for the ISS.~Jon
Wow. Capable of "propulsive maneuver for de-orbit" and "stored in the habitable volume of the ISS." Wouldn't have thought those two features would go together easily....
Quote from: sdsds on 10/19/2014 02:07 amWow. Capable of "propulsive maneuver for de-orbit" and "stored in the habitable volume of the ISS." Wouldn't have thought those two features would go together easily....There are cold gas(CO2) thrusters and refill tanks inside the ISS, see SPHERES.
Quote from: enkarha on 10/19/2014 02:47 amQuote from: sdsds on 10/19/2014 02:07 amWow. Capable of "propulsive maneuver for de-orbit" and "stored in the habitable volume of the ISS." Wouldn't have thought those two features would go together easily....There are cold gas(CO2) thrusters and refill tanks inside the ISS, see SPHERES.Yeah, but precision deorbit requires ~100m/s delta-v. For cold gas thrusters with their Isp in the ~30-60s range, that's a huge deal. You'd need a LOT of CO2 and very heavy tanks. Not saying it can't be done, but it's not trivial.
How is the Intuitive Machines ISS RV defined by ITARS? Is it consider munitions to be regulated by ITARS?
Must be a lot of old MIRV bodies out there already, just aching to be turned into mini Space Clippers. Putin would wet himself, though...
Quote from: Bob Shaw on 10/19/2014 03:36 pmMust be a lot of old MIRV bodies out there already, just aching to be turned into mini Space Clippers. Putin would wet himself, though...Different requirements. MIRVs want to penetrate deep into the atmosphere without slowing down, but this is supposed to glide slowly to a landing, slowing down high in the atmosphere.
The cold gas ISP is 50 meters/second.
{snip}I wonder, though, how hard it would be to make a propellant which is entirely inert and unpressurized, and can be spilled in a habitable area without causing harm, along with a system which, once you get it out of the habitable area and connected to a power supply, converts it into an effective propellant, in a process which needs to be actively powered and can't happen spontaneously no matter which substances are accidentally mixed. For something like this, it would need to happen fast, since they want to do same-day Earth return. Maybe they could sublimate or irreversably decompose something in an insulated pressure vessel, using a simple electric heating element or heated catalyst bed.{snip}
Modern version of the film bucket?
I wonder, though, how hard it would be to make a propellant which is entirely inert and unpressurized, and can be spilled in a habitable area without causing harm, along with a system which, once you get it out of the habitable area and connected to a power supply, converts it into an effective propellant, in a process which needs to be actively powered and can't happen spontaneously no matter which substances are accidentally mixed. For something like this, it would need to happen fast, since they want to do same-day Earth return. Maybe they could sublimate or irreversably decompose something in an insulated pressure vessel, using a simple electric heating element or heated catalyst bed.
"The TRV is designed to be stored in the habitable volume of the ISS and deployed on demand from the Japanese Experiment Module (JEM) airlock"So it will be stored in the pressurised volume until it's needed? For weeks or monthes?The real thing should be sent disassembled and stackable (IKEA style) and shipped in the dragons trunk. Otherwise it will be a huge waste of CRS volume.
Quote from: Nindalf on 10/19/2014 04:36 pmI wonder, though, how hard it would be to make a propellant which is entirely inert and unpressurized, and can be spilled in a habitable area without causing harm, along with a system which, once you get it out of the habitable area and connected to a power supply, converts it into an effective propellant, in a process which needs to be actively powered and can't happen spontaneously no matter which substances are accidentally mixed. For something like this, it would need to happen fast, since they want to do same-day Earth return. Maybe they could sublimate or irreversably decompose something in an insulated pressure vessel, using a simple electric heating element or heated catalyst bed.Doesn't this mostly describe tridyne?Cubesats have talked about splitting water, and using the subsequent Hs and Os, but that requires substantial energy to get enough propellant. Not sure if a battery could store enough, and solar panels are going to be bulky on something where every cubic cm or inch counts. And either the weight of the batteries/solar panels counts against the return mass, or they have to be replaced each time and add to the cost of the system.
This or something like it seems like a good idea.It kind of takes the wind out of the argument for a cargo version of Dream Chaser to compete for CRS2, though. Low-g and cross range like Dream Chaser, but the small scale is much better because it allows frequent small deliveries timed based on the needs of individual experiments.
Small Payload ??....looks very small from the pictures.....what kind of experiments on ISS would use and pay for this return capability vs. just waiting for a Cargo Dragon to do the job ??
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 10/19/2014 04:27 amThis or something like it seems like a good idea.It kind of takes the wind out of the argument for a cargo version of Dream Chaser to compete for CRS2, though. Low-g and cross range like Dream Chaser, but the small scale is much better because it allows frequent small deliveries timed based on the needs of individual experiments.Agreed, seems very useful. Not sure it really competes with DC though; DC's fundamental problem for CRS2 was where to get the several hundred million needed to bring it up to the operational level. I don't think CRS2 is about _developing_ new visiting vehicles, that was the pre-CRS1 set of contracts. Funding several hundred million through a billion or two contract means no profit would be possible for all of CRS2, and that big subcontract for Atlas V launches limits how much cost-savings they could generate in-house. Assuming DC were funded and available, I think the rapid sample return might lessen in a small way the urgency for returning vehicles, but the big vehicles will still handle all the bigger cargo, probably be required for all the frozen and powered returning cargo, and probably be preferred for nearly everything since it's nearly "free" after the delivery up to ISS is paid for. (This RV, on the other hand, costs upmass and upspace, and is a separate additional cost.)
This is relevant: http://blog.altius-space.com/2011/02/iss-micro-return-vehicle-concept/Almost like they ripped off your idea, Jon. (That, or JSC's idea.)...either way, fascinating how ISS is actually becoming something a lot more interesting than anyone would've guessed 10 years ago. I mean, Nanoracks has launched a heck of a lot of nanosats. A whole constellation for Planetlabs, even.
This seems bizarre to me - but what do I know. - What tiny/small payload is so time critical that this becomes economical? - It will take up significant pressurized payload space (& mass) going up - Handling this thing *inside* ISS seems dangerous.But again, I could be way off base.
Has there even ever been a pressing requirement for unmanned low-g wide-crossrange reentry? This looks like another one of those solutions to an inexisting problem that are so common in the "new space" sectorIt seems to me that anything that was robust enough to be brought up on a rocket should be capable of coming down in a Dragon. There might be a handful of exceptions that could benefit from low-g reentry, but wouldn't it be cheaper to design a special packaging for those experiments rather than a whole new reentry vehicle?
Time Sensitive. Think biological samples.
Quote from: mfck on 10/20/2014 08:02 amTime Sensitive. Think biological samples.Surely you could schedule such a time-sensitive experiment so that the samples are ready just before closing the hatch on a Dragon, or you could plan them to go up and down on a crew rotation. In any case, it sounds like a tiny niche that doesn't justify a whole new reentry vehicle to be developed.Has such a need actually been formulated by a science team? Or is it a fantasy requirement made up to fit the idea.
Quote from: Lars-J on 10/20/2014 04:28 amThis seems bizarre to me - but what do I know. - What tiny/small payload is so time critical that this becomes economical? - It will take up significant pressurized payload space (& mass) going up - Handling this thing *inside* ISS seems dangerous.But again, I could be way off base.Reentry opportunities are only quarterly at best. For commercial research they often need as fast of iteration cycles as they can get, and right now the current transportation can mean only 1-2 cycles per year. Even though microgravity is amazing, if you force research to stretch out over too much time, it can be better to use a lower quality research environment that you can access frequently.It is true though that it will take up significant payload mass and space to make this happen. ~Jon
Industry-wide research and investment reached a record $65.3 billion in 2009. While the cost of research in the U.S. was about $34.2 billion between 1995 and 2010, revenues rose faster (revenues rose by $200.4 billion in that time)
That won't happen at ISS. Also, pharma R&D is a much smaller market than the total space industry which is hundreds of billions.
Quote from: jongoff on 10/20/2014 08:12 pmQuote from: Lars-J on 10/20/2014 04:28 amThis seems bizarre to me - but what do I know. - What tiny/small payload is so time critical that this becomes economical? - It will take up significant pressurized payload space (& mass) going up - Handling this thing *inside* ISS seems dangerous.But again, I could be way off base.Reentry opportunities are only quarterly at best. For commercial research they often need as fast of iteration cycles as they can get, and right now the current transportation can mean only 1-2 cycles per year. Even though microgravity is amazing, if you force research to stretch out over too much time, it can be better to use a lower quality research environment that you can access frequently.It is true though that it will take up significant payload mass and space to make this happen. ~JonBut it doesn't provide more re-entry opportunities, really, it provides *one* additional one for a very small cargo. It would be one thing if they could be launched on a small & cheap sat launcher to rendezvous with ISS on its own, then you can send up as many as you want. But stocking up multiple of these inside ISS just isn't practical. Nor can we reasonably expect multiple of these to be sent up on each CRS mission to realize those frequent downmass opportunities.
It doesn't matter how big the pharmaceutical industry is if zero-g won't help them with what they're trying to do. CASIS has been trying to get industry to use the ISS for anything it can, but so far it's found close to zero interest.Maybe there's a lack of understanding in the industry or maybe CASIS has done a poor job. But there's also the possibility that zero-g just isn't useful for developing drugs.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 10/21/2014 03:34 amIt doesn't matter how big the pharmaceutical industry is if zero-g won't help them with what they're trying to do. CASIS has been trying to get industry to use the ISS for anything it can, but so far it's found close to zero interest.Maybe there's a lack of understanding in the industry or maybe CASIS has done a poor job. But there's also the possibility that zero-g just isn't useful for developing drugs.The bigger problem is that the Congressional legislation that created the National Lab required them to retain IP and data rights for all research run through the national lab. They got some relief on the IP part, but not yet on the data rights. Because of that pharma researchers have largely kept their research to-date focused on unpatentable basic research. CASIS is trying to get relief on this (I think one or both of the NASA Authorization bills working their way through Congress address this), especially since NASA had previously waved this requirement for other organizations like NanoRacks. ~Jon
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 10/19/2014 10:58 amHow is the Intuitive Machines ISS RV defined by ITARS? Is it consider munitions to be regulated by ITARS?Isn't everything, these days? You'd have a really hard time selling just cubesat parts in the US without running in to eyeTAR, let alone a guided reentry vehicle.
...Launch vehicle technology and launches themselves have specific breakout language in ITAR.(6) A launch vehicle or payload shall not, by reason of the launching of such vehicle, be considered an export for purposes of this subchapter. However, for certain limited purposes (see §126.1 of this subchapter), the controls of this subchapter may apply to any sale, transfer or proposal to sell or transfer defense articles or defense services. ITAR Matters when you try to export, share, or relinquish control over an item or even an idea to an entity or someone who is not a U.S. Citizen or an entity on the exempt list. So these guys can sell their ships in the U.S. without bumping into ITAR so long as the above requirement is met. They can't, however build or originate the machine in the US without bumping into ITAR if they try to show it off, sell it, or transfer control to a foreign entity. They can launch it and recover it (even on foreign soil) so long as it remains in the custody of U.S. personnel, but- as Jim has pointed out before- the chain of custody would have to be approved, and that's tricky.Here's the list: https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/documents/official_itar/2014/ITAR_Part_121.pdf
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/19/2014 03:52 pmQuote from: Bob Shaw on 10/19/2014 03:36 pmMust be a lot of old MIRV bodies out there already, just aching to be turned into mini Space Clippers. Putin would wet himself, though...Different requirements. MIRVs want to penetrate deep into the atmosphere without slowing down, but this is supposed to glide slowly to a landing, slowing down high in the atmosphere.Interesting point - I always assumed that terminal velocity would be relatively slow for MIRVs, high subsonic or thereabouts, which isn't too different to an object that's 'flying' to a landing (I say 'flying' because most returning vehicles fly in exactly the way which a brick doesn't (to quote Douglas Adams, almost)).
Quote from: Nomadd on 10/19/2014 12:44 pm Modern version of the film bucket?Yes, that seems like it would be very relevant experience. How did the spy satellite film return systems handle reentry? Was it guided return or just ballistic? What sort of TPS did they have? How big was the parachute and when did it open?
With this design philosophy we at Intuitive Machines are able to move from concept to first launch of the TRV within 24 months. Follow our progress through our first successful launch in October 2016.
They are costly to deliver, every cubic metre the TLV takes up in Cygnus is a cubic metre of pressurized cargo that can't be delivered. The Dragons trunk could handle a few, but more often than not the trunk has payloads these days.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 12/04/2015 01:48 amThey are costly to deliver, every cubic metre the TLV takes up in Cygnus is a cubic metre of pressurized cargo that can't be delivered. The Dragons trunk could handle a few, but more often than not the trunk has payloads these days.Bringing stuff in and out of the ISS is currently pretty time consuming, isn't it? Pretty much have to do an EVA unless it's small enough to go in through the JEM airlock? Eventually NanoRacks has their airlock they're developing that could make that easier, but bringing stuff in-and-out isn't currently very easy.~Jon
