Lockheed Martin's "Jupiter" reusable space tug, CRS-2 bid

[ChrisWilson68]

The total maximum value of any contract awarded will be $14 billion. The total amount of all task orders under all contracts awarded shall not exceed $14 billion.

That's a lot more than CRS-1, presumably because of the number of years and the need to fill in for ATV.  I'd imagine it's also why it piqued the interest of Lockheed Martin this time.  If we suppose they're only hoping to split a contract win with a couple other competitors, even if the combined winning bids don't quite get to $14B, they could still be looking at $3B or $4B of business with CRS-2.

I think it's a mistake to assume the actual amount spent will be anywhere close to $14 billion.  That's just a very high upper bound to say that if the cost is that much, it's so ridiculously high NASA will cancel the whole thing rather than pay that much.

[acrotti]

Has anyone said in this thread that LM with this system may be able to deliver standard racks to ISS, due to the large diameter of the pressurized section? If I remember well, only HTV has this capability today (no more Shuttle/MPLM), and only a few HTV missions remains available.

[ChrisWilson68]

Has anyone said in this thread that LM with this system may be able to deliver standard racks to ISS, due to the large diameter of the pressurized section? If I remember well, only HTV has this capability today (no more Shuttle/MPLM), and only a few HTV missions remains available.

Yes, that has been mentioned on this thread several times.

[Jim]

I think it's a mistake to assume the actual amount spent will be anywhere close to $14 billion.  That's just a very high upper bound to say that if the cost is that much, it's so ridiculously high NASA will cancel the whole thing rather than pay that much.

No, the upper bound is so NASA doesn't have to recompete the contract.

[Patchouli]

Low thrust (1kN or so) engines are easy to certify. Doing a 4000 seconds or even a 40,000 second certification with a vacuum chamber is a week's work or so. Hall thrusters, on the other hand, might take months. Basically because to get the same impulse you need to run the Hall engine 20X longer (or more). So if you are worried about a crash program, chemical is quite doable. Let's not forget the MAVEN's propulsion probably had over 1,800m/s of delta-v budget, while Jupiter only has to circularize the insertion orbit (granted, with a lot more mass). But quite "easy" to do as certification goes.
Now, big rockets (many kN size) or long thrusting (like Hall thrusters), those are expensive and slow to certify. Probably the reason they are not proposing the SEP version from the start. Once they commercial GTO market does proves them, they will be sort of a commodity.

The also also can add more engines or just larger ones for more thrust in this application.

[TrevorMonty]

Jupiter has additional advantage with secondary payload missions that will run after leaving ISS. If there is any problem with payload they can return to ISS and have payload inspected, maybe even removed and brought in station for repair.

NB the secondary payloads would most likely be commercial so ISS crew being involved could be an issue.

[a_langwich]

This system is an elegant architecture.  It's like windshield wipers and electric starters on automobiles; once used, it's hard to imagine going back to the old way.  I'm not predicting whether LM will win a CRS-2 entry or not; that depends on the specific prices their particular implementation has.  Of course Atlas V 401 is not the cheapest launch vehicle;  the ATV "can" was designed for reasonable but not necessarily low price; I'm not sure MDA has designed and executed arms for anything other than big government projects; and the MAVEN bus certainly prioritized reliability above any cost concerns.  So their prices might be high.  But in the same way, I don't know whether the very first car to include windshield wipers or an electric starter was a commercial success, but as soon as they got a reasonable working version, it had to be clear that no commercially successful auto could do without them.  I think the tug-and-cargo model, like a tractor-and-trailer truck system, will certainly be the way forward.

The key pieces of the design, with regard to future versatility, will be the attachment interface of the container (Exoliner) to the Centaur, and the attachment interface of the Jupiter tug to the Exoliner container.

The following conceptual missions have occurred to me, and reading the posts, it seems to others also. 

Unmanned "Station Two" forming

Example:  a private company designs orbital fabrication equipment (3D printers, extruders, composite layup machines, etc) as a self-contained module inside the Exoliner (if non-vacuum is desired) or in the unpressurized volume (if not).  Or both.  It gets launched to ISS.  Why there?  Well, at ISS it gets checked out, tested, debugged, with humans inspecting it, plenty of cameras, human intervention for troubleshooting, etc. 

This fabrication equipment, still in the Exoliner, gets towed to some comfortable (for NASA) stand-off distance by Jupiter.  Why?  Perhaps because it presents vibration concerns to sensitive instruments on ISS, or because it is "noisy" electromagnetically.  Or perhaps because the owner of the equipment wants to arrange their own cargo deliveries (for consumables) , and the timing is easier to arrange and the prices are cheaper if they don't go through ISS and man-rated safety concerns.  Or perhaps the item being fabricated is large and the bulk of the ISS would get in the way.  Speaking of which, consumables come up in/on an Exoliner, which could in an automated manner select and retrieve them using an extensible gripper traversing a pole from hatch to back.  Or similar pick-and-place hardware on a standardized external rack.  This gets handed, hatch to hatch, to a similar gripper in the fabrication container, to be inserted like a toner cartridge into the fabrication unit.  Upon completion of the fabrication, a Jupiter tug can carry it to the customer.  Easily, if the customer is ISS or another LEO station.  SEP required for delivery of a large antenna to GEO, for example.

You can easily imagine a similar arrangement with a private lab, doing some automated drug testing or materials handling.  The benefit to fabrication is that the customer is in orbit, so any competing equipment has to pay millions to get launched, which helps even out the economics.  Perhaps the module is a sensitive scientific instrument, or has a giant rotating antenna like SMAP, and so it is towed some distance away to avoid conflicts.  With Electric Jupiter, it could be towed to a quite different orbit.  Perhaps NASA designs a cargo container with self-contained radiation experiments, perhaps mice for example, and tows them using Jupiter EP out through the radiation belts and back in to ISS.  The benefit to basing it out of ISS here is having mice-handling facilities at ISS, and Dragon to bring back frozen samples, and the ability to keep a control group at ISS that went through the same launch and LEO radiation environment.

Manned station splitting

Similar idea, but for actual full station modules.  These would get launched to ISS.  Why?  Again, because they can be checked out and verified by people.  Perhaps also it would be convenient for some final configuration and installation to be done on orbit, perhaps for an inflatable module to get some additional internals installed after inflation.  At some point, this human check-out-and-repair function could be split from ISS into a separate station, in which case _that_ station would be a split as outlined here.

So Bigelow has his BEAM or BA330, it's outfitted at ISS.  Now he's ready to move his modules off to his own area.  Jupiter tug!  After movement, he won't have to get approval from a half-dozen member nation governments to launch customers.  He might even be able to accept Chinese citizens as guests. 


Not Related to ISS


Rhymes with "gruel pee-poh"*                                    *(at least in my dialect, YMMV)

Some future "Advanced Centaur (C-X)" or "Next-Gen Upper Stage (NGUS)" launches with Jupiter plus unpressurized-cargo.  Perhaps this cargo includes a deployable heat shade.  Perhaps it includes umbilical and pressurant if needed (or perhaps the stage's IVF handles that).  It need not launch to LEO, perhaps it goes into a highly elliptical orbit suitable for subsequent beyond-Earth targeting but stable enough to last a bit.  At some later date, a second launch occurs, with a C-X topped by an outbound payload.  Jupiter tugs the second stack near the first.  Fuel is transferred from the first C-X to the second--that's the main capability required for this stage to be "advanced" or "next-gen"--which now has a full tank for its outbound burn.  How does our kg/C3 curve look now, Scotty?  Can we do better than a D4H?

Of course this can be extended to multiple tanks and multiple payload assemblies, and if it were envisioned to be a repeated need to a destination like the moon or Mars, a more suitable location like the LaGrange points etc could be chosen.

Now, maneuvering a big Centaur or equivalent (especially with partially filled tanks) with a little tug will probably take some learning.  It's a good thing there were practice maneuvering sessions available back during the ol' CRS-2 days, right?  Consider them efforts to extend in-space reusability, much like a certain other company has done for terrestrial first-stage recovery.


To the moon, Alice, to the moon!

One of the more obvious applications of Jupiter + a Bag o' Tricks is toward DARPA's Phoenix program.  Maybe the ideas or some of the hardware sprang from that direction.  Even if NASA does not include LM's entry for CRS-2, NASA might join up with DARPA and USAF to fund some demonstration missions.

Suppose LM got a contract from DARPA/USAF to perform some Phoenix-related GEO salvage/repair/swap-out, and used an Electric Jupiter.  Primary mission completed, check.  Now suppose a Google Lunar X-Prize competitor is launched as a secondary payload behind a GEO-bound bird, but they weren't willing to let a secondary to include a large propulsion element.  So GLXP team packs a little xenon or argon tank, and waits in its extended GTO.  Here comes Jupiter EP on its secondary mission!  Hang on, this is going to take a while...there, dropped off in lunar orbit.  Ready to head back toward another competitor.  As with electric-engined satellites, supplementation with chemical propulsion can balance travel time with mass.

Suppose NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate organized and funded a series of small technology demonstrators which used the moon as a place to develop lander technology, shelter building, ISRU tech, and interplanetary cubesat sensors and systems.  Electric Jupiter could ferry them, allowing them to ride as secondary payloads.

[TrevorMonty]

The idea of using Exoliner as free flying dedicated automated lab has some possibilities especially if it can tap into ISS freight service. This could be a case of docking with ISS occasionally for restocking, offloading manufactured goods and servicing.

[Ruaridhmc]

I'm guessing their CRS2 bid is all Atlas, all the time.
[/quote]

No WAY that is happening after what happened to Antares, NASA will know they need at least 2 different launchers this time

[TrevorMonty]

Using Atlas only shouldn't be an issue. Redundancy is provided by other vehicles using different LVs ie Dragon & F9, Cygnus & Antares.

[Nibb31]

I don't understand how this system can deorbit the spent Exoliner. From what I understand, the Centaur brings up the full Exoliner, Jupiter takes the empty one from the station, then has to swap them around on the Centaur? How can it do that if both the Centaur and Jupiter can only be attached to one Exoliner at the same time?

Either the Jupiter has to handle two Exoliners while it swaps them around, or it has to do several empty runs between the ISS and the Centaur, which can hardly be very efficient in terms of propellant. How long can a Centaur loiter on orbit anyway?

How does the spent Exoliner reattach to the Centaur ? Does it berth with a CBM on the Centaur? The Jupiter's arm looks a bit short for that.

I think it would have been more elegant for the tug to have two identical docking systems, one on each end. That way, it could remove the full canister from the Centaur, turn around, and plug the empty one into the Centaur for disposal.

[docmordrid]

>
I'm not sure MDA has designed and executed arms for anything other than big government projects;
>

MDA had prototypes of a lightweight telescoping 15 meter arm and a 2.58 meter mini-arm in 2012.

http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/news/generation-canadarm-unveiled/

[baldusi]

I don't understand how this system can deorbit the spent Exoliner. From what I understand, the Centaur brings up the full Exoliner, Jupiter takes the empty one from the station, then has to swap them around on the Centaur? How can it do that if both the Centaur and Jupiter can only be attached to one Exoliner at the same time?

Either the Jupiter has to handle two Exoliners while it swaps them around, or it has to do several empty runs between the ISS and the Centaur, which can hardly be very efficient in terms of propellant. How long can a Centaur loiter on orbit anyway?

How does the spent Exoliner reattach to the Centaur ? Does it berth with a CBM on the Centaur? The Jupiter's arm looks a bit short for that.

I think it would have been more elegant for the tug to have two identical docking systems, one on each end. That way, it could remove the full canister from the Centaur, turn around, and plug the empty one into the Centaur for disposal.

In fact, if you look at the video, you'll notice that Jupiter has an extra End Effector on the back. It must be part of the use strategy.

[TrevorMonty]

If DARPA XS1 program is successful we could have vehicle that can deliver 1-2000kg to LEO for $5m a flight by 2020. Jupiter could rendezvous with this payload and deliver it to ISS.

Currently NASA are paying around $50m per 1000kg to ISS.

The XS1 may only be good for non precious/delicate cargo, but that still makes up a large portion of ISS supplies.

[Danderman]

Has anyone said in this thread that LM with this system may be able to deliver standard racks to ISS, due to the large diameter of the pressurized section? If I remember well, only HTV has this capability today (no more Shuttle/MPLM), and only a few HTV missions remains available.

I suspect that cargo Dragon could deliver a rack to ISS in a pinch.

[daveklingler]

I suspect that this proposal is the product of many water fountain discussions internal and external to LM over the past few years, that the CRS2 reviewers already knew it was coming, and that they will award at least a few extra point for creativity.  I'd love to see it get chosen, just because of all the enormous capabilities it will bring (and prove), all at once.

Anyone other than SpaceX and Orbital bidding on CRS2 obviously has to prove that their system is better than the ones already flying.  This sort of proposal is the only sort I can imagine that could make a clear claim to that description, if extra capability is a factor.

And the really big thing, IMHO, is that the thing that rhymes with gruel peepoe would become relatively routine.  Not to mention that I can imagine big chains of smallsats being towed into different orbits with one of these.  No, not chains.  Trains...

[deadshot462]

This video got posted on the LM CRS-2 website:



Watching it now..

[TrevorMonty]

The Jupiter tugs adds a few more options to a station in Lunar orbit.
Supporting a reusable robotic lander (eg MoonExpress MX1) lander to do sample returns. The Jupiter tug would capture and return it to Station where it can drop off the samples and refuel. The next visiting capsule Orion would return the samples to earth. Alternatively the samples could be analysed on the station either remotely (ie station unmanned ) or by crew member.

[Danderman]

This is a really great idea - an intermodal container and an ISS-based tug.

How come nobody ever thought of this before?       

[MattMason]

The Jupiter tugs adds a few more options to a station in Lunar orbit.
Supporting a reusable robotic lander (eg MoonExpress MX1) lander to do sample returns. The Jupiter tug would capture and return it to Station where it can drop off the samples and refuel. The next visiting capsule Orion would return the samples to earth. Alternatively the samples could be analysed on the station either remotely (ie station unmanned ) or by crew member.

I don't see Jupiter used in this way. The infrastructure for lunar operations requires a stronger reusability aspect, in my mind. Things arrive in lunar orbit, are safely taken down and used. But nothing of mass is coming back from the lunar surface, unless some mining is going on.

I can envision Jupiter handing off arriving Exoliners or other modules from Earth and mating them to landers that help build a base or other structure. The vehicle that gets the Exoliner there could be an extended-fuel Jupiter itself that can move between Earth and the Moon. For samples, human intervention, with a return capability, is more desirable.

But Jupiter certainly has the cargo shuttling within any orbital or trans-orbital frame down pat in principle.