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

[Moe Grills]

   Wow! There are so many good posts here, where can one start?
It's obvious that LM has hit upon a good idea with the Jupiter space tug.
All of your posts indicate it's a good idea and such hardware would have many possible uses.
We might start referring to the Jupiter space tug as the "Swiss Army Knife" of spacecraft;
it can do a lot of things. A short list below.

1) It can service the ISS from LEO (haul oversized equipment, cargo containers, modules to and from).
2) It can remove dangerous large pieces of space debris from orbit (reaching them, connecting re-entry avionic & retrorocket systems)
3) It can maneuver and connect modules in LEO for commercial space stations (like Bigelow plans for).
4) It can reach malfunctioning or dying satellites in GEO, hauling them down to the ISS for repair or refurbishment.
5) It can haul modules, cargo, and other material from LEO to Low Lunar Orbit.
6) NEO asteroids can be reached.

Amazing to think that Bigelow's planned inflatable modules, the planned Jupiter space tug, Falcon Heavy and Dragon variants may all be meant for each other.

[Danderman]

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/parom.html

RSC Energia proposed an ISS based tug over 10 years ago - this tug could also perform other missions, such as propelling satellites.

Where RSC Energia got the idea for an ISS based tug using intermodal canisters is a story in itself.

[Bob Shaw]

Overly complex, and a solution seeking a market.

Huh?

Currently, Cygnus dumps an entire, perfectly good spacecraft into the ocean every mission. That's needlessly wasteful. And how complex is it to build a dozen spacecraft, when you really only need to build one?

I mean, I suppose we should just scuttle Chinese cargo ships when the reach the US, because hey, it's overly complex to reuse them.

NASA needs a capability like this. ISS could have been built this way (or at least finished). Jim has a thread on the topic somewhere on this site. It's essentially a robotic and FAR cheaper version of what Shuttle did with logistics flights to ISS, just with a shorter version of MPLM (although there's no reason in principle they couldn't use a whole MPLM sized container, especially once the tug is placed in orbit).

Actually, regarding the scuttling, that's what happens, in one sense: the containers, which contain the cargo, ought to be reused, but ain't! Daft, yes?

[TrevorMonty]

Overly complex, and a solution seeking a market.

Huh?

Currently, Cygnus dumps an entire, perfectly good spacecraft into the ocean every mission. That's needlessly wasteful. And how complex is it to build a dozen spacecraft, when you really only need to build one?

I mean, I suppose we should just scuttle Chinese cargo ships when the reach the US, because hey, it's overly complex to reuse them.

NASA needs a capability like this. ISS could have been built this way (or at least finished). Jim has a thread on the topic somewhere on this site. It's essentially a robotic and FAR cheaper version of what Shuttle did with logistics flights to ISS, just with a shorter version of MPLM (although there's no reason in principle they couldn't use a whole MPLM sized container, especially once the tug is placed in orbit).

Actually, regarding the scuttling, that's what happens, in one sense: the containers, which contain the cargo, ought to be reused, but ain't! Daft, yes?

One disposable Exoliner can carry twice pressurized mass and over 3 times volume of a reusable Dragon (which is not reused, another story). The reusable Dragon would dispose of two LVs (Draft yes?) to deliver same payload as one disposable Exoliner + LV. Most of the up mass NASA doesn't what back, eg packaging, clothing,human waste (recycled food) so disposing of it in space makes sense.
Being expendable can be a plus, Cygnus has already conducted one fire experiment after it left the station. I'm sure people have plenty of other experiments that would benefit from a disposable space vehicle.

For BLEO missions where Exoliner is supplying a lunar orbit station (on NASAs roadmap), the benefits of a low weight expendable container really shine. A SEP Jupiter can dispose of Exoliner into deepspace for a lot less fuel(mass) than it would take to return 2 Dragons to Earth. 

[Herb Schaltegger]

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/parom.html

RSC Energia proposed an ISS based tug over 10 years ago - this tug could also perform other missions, such as propelling satellites.

Where RSC Energia got the idea for an ISS based tug using intermodal canisters is a story in itself.

Pfft.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/otv.htm

[dror]

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/parom.html

RSC Energia proposed an ISS based tug over 10 years ago - this tug could also perform other missions, such as propelling satellites.

Where RSC Energia got the idea for an ISS based tug using intermodal canisters is a story in itself.

Pfft.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/otv.htm

Why stop there ?

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/loccetug.htm

[GuessWho]

   Wow! There are so many good posts here, where can one start?
It's obvious that LM has hit upon a good idea with the Jupiter space tug.
All of your posts indicate it's a good idea and such hardware would have many possible uses.
We might start referring to the Jupiter space tug as the "Swiss Army Knife" of spacecraft;
it can do a lot of things. A short list below.

1) It can service the ISS from LEO (haul oversized equipment, cargo containers, modules to and from).
2) It can remove dangerous large pieces of space debris from orbit (reaching them, connecting re-entry avionic & retrorocket systems)
3) It can maneuver and connect modules in LEO for commercial space stations (like Bigelow plans for).
4) It can reach malfunctioning or dying satellites in GEO, hauling them down to the ISS for repair or refurbishment.
5) It can haul modules, cargo, and other material from LEO to Low Lunar Orbit.
6) NEO asteroids can be reached.

Amazing to think that Bigelow's planned inflatable modules, the planned Jupiter space tug, Falcon Heavy and Dragon variants may all be meant for each other.

1) Yes - by design.
2) Limited.  Only if that debris is in or near the orbital plane of ISS.  Jupiter doesn't have the energy to make large plane changes and certainly cannot economically get to polar/sun-sync orbits where a majority of the debris resides.
3) Yes, if near ISS orbit inclination or you build a dedicated Jupiter to service Bigalow
4) No way.  It couldn't raise itself to GEO let alone come back with any payload.  You would likely need to refuel Jupiter 6-8 times on the way to GEO just to get it there.
5) No way.  See 4)
6) Huh?  In what universe?  It can't even leave LEO.

[Robotbeat]

   Wow! There are so many good posts here, where can one start?
It's obvious that LM has hit upon a good idea with the Jupiter space tug.
All of your posts indicate it's a good idea and such hardware would have many possible uses.
We might start referring to the Jupiter space tug as the "Swiss Army Knife" of spacecraft;
it can do a lot of things. A short list below.

1) It can service the ISS from LEO (haul oversized equipment, cargo containers, modules to and from).
2) It can remove dangerous large pieces of space debris from orbit (reaching them, connecting re-entry avionic & retrorocket systems)
3) It can maneuver and connect modules in LEO for commercial space stations (like Bigelow plans for).
4) It can reach malfunctioning or dying satellites in GEO, hauling them down to the ISS for repair or refurbishment.
5) It can haul modules, cargo, and other material from LEO to Low Lunar Orbit.
6) NEO asteroids can be reached.

Amazing to think that Bigelow's planned inflatable modules, the planned Jupiter space tug, Falcon Heavy and Dragon variants may all be meant for each other.

1) Yes - by design.
2) Limited.  Only if that debris is in or near the orbital plane of ISS.  Jupiter doesn't have the energy to make large plane changes and certainly cannot economically get to polar/sun-sync orbits where a majority of the debris resides.
3) Yes, if near ISS orbit inclination or you build a dedicated Jupiter to service Bigalow
4) No way.  It couldn't raise itself to GEO let alone come back with any payload.  You would likely need to refuel Jupiter 6-8 times on the way to GEO just to get it there.
5) No way.  See 4)
6) Huh?  In what universe?  It can't even leave LEO.

You obviously didn't read much about Jupiter. Lockheed Martin intends to upgrade it with significant electric propulsion. So, um, THIS universe.

[GuessWho]

You obviously didn't read much about Jupiter. Lockheed Martin intends to upgrade it with significant electric propulsion. So, um, THIS universe.

Actually I did.  And I probably know a way lot more about it than you do.  But to your comment ...

When are they going to upgrade it?  Under what circumstances would they include EP?  ISS doesn't need it so what market exists that would cause them to invest further sums of money to add EP?  Define "significant electric propulsion".  If LM were smart, they would sit back and let NASA develop a multi-kW EP system and then use that.  But NASA is a long ways from doing that; if ever, given the weak support for ARM.  If NASA holds true to form, ARM will wander along for another year or two and then die a quiet death.  No ARM, no big EP as NO ONE ELSE needs it.

[Danderman]

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/parom.html

RSC Energia proposed an ISS based tug over 10 years ago - this tug could also perform other missions, such as propelling satellites.

Where RSC Energia got the idea for an ISS based tug using intermodal canisters is a story in itself.

Pfft.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/otv.htm

Nope.

OTV was intended to move stuff from the space station up to GEO or whatever. The station itself would be supplied by Space Shuttle; in that sense, OTV was basically the same as any other upper stage, except that the exchange between Shuttle and the tug happened at the station, rather than in the Shuttle payload bay.

The concept of supplying the station with intermodal canisters that are orbited and stabilized in orbit by a conventional rocket upper stage and then transferred to the station by a station-based tug is a relatively new thing. RSC Energia got the patent for that concept in Russia.

The reason I know it is new is that a lot of experts told me at the time that upper stages could not support the docking as they didn't have the necessary pointing capability.   Apparently, that turned out not have a lot of truthiness.

[john smith 19]

I'll have to go reread the source selection document but I don't think the advantage for CST-100 was so much "more cargo" as just having a really specific plan for how they were going to accommodate it. I may have missed it, but I haven't seen a rendering or mockup of Dragon2 or Dreamchaser in an ISS mission configuration, but well before the CCtCap bids went in there were renderings and mockups of CST in its ISS configuration showing exactly where all the lockers and freezers were, how they would be accessed, etc.

NASA does like a nicely presented picture. 

[newpylong]

You obviously didn't read much about Jupiter. Lockheed Martin intends to upgrade it with significant electric propulsion. So, um, THIS universe.

Actually I did.  And I probably know a way lot more about it than you do.  But to your comment ...

When are they going to upgrade it?  Under what circumstances would they include EP?  ISS doesn't need it so what market exists that would cause them to invest further sums of money to add EP?  Define "significant electric propulsion".  If LM were smart, they would sit back and let NASA develop a multi-kW EP system and then use that.  But NASA is a long ways from doing that; if ever, given the weak support for ARM.  If NASA holds true to form, ARM will wander along for another year or two and then die a quiet death.  No ARM, no big EP as NO ONE ELSE needs it.

Apparently you don't know as much as you think. " Waiting for NASA to develop " would get LM nowhere considering NASA is going to contract out further SEP development. That would be like LM waiting for themselves to do something.

[GuessWho]

Apparently you don't know as much as you think. " Waiting for NASA to develop " would get LM nowhere considering NASA is going to contract out further SEP development ...

No sure what you are trying to say here.  Waiting for NASA to develop a significant EP system is bad because NASA is going to develop one? 

Whether NASA does it in-house or by contracting it out is still spending NASA money.  Why would LM spend its own dollars if NASA is going to spend theirs?  And given that currently NASA is the only "customer" interested in high power EP (several 10's to 100's of kW), and that interest is only for a manned-space architecture that can't seem to find a purpose, LM would be foolish to invest any of their own money.  If you have an example of a non-NASA customer that has expressed a need for high power EP, then by all means share that with the community so we can be as enlightened as you are.

[john smith 19]

I'm a bit late to thread so I've been playing catch up.

LM have certainly lost none of the ability to play the NASA procurement  game. At a single stroke
they have a solution that handles ISS resupply, setting up a deep space habitat and there's more. On an SLS it could supply the habitat to Mars ! Lots of boxes ticked.

Exciting stuff. I certainly was. 

Now take a few deep breaths and step back a minute.

Development was meant to be under the CCiCAP programme, not in CRS 2, by which time the vehicles and their payloads should be mature.

So how will LM fund this? Internally? Additional price on the payload launches? I'll leve those with more knowledge of the workings of large government and aerospace contractors to answer that one.

The core task of CRS2 (like CRS 1) is resupply to the ISS.

This is a very complex approach to carry out that task. (and it still delivers no down mass. Presumably that's CTS 100's job). The various bits all have pedigree but of course the jokers in the integration.

Anyone remember the "Sergent York" anti aircraft gun fiasco? All bits individually OK but together....

I'm not sure if LM didn't show for CTS or CRS 1 or they and got rejected but it's taken them a long time to turn up for this.

Their narrative seems to be roughly "Sure it'll probably be a bit more expensive than others but heck, look at what it will do in the future"

Sure it's a clever concept (but not original. Tug concepts have been around since at least the STS phase A studies)

It's a clever idea, not least because it appeals to a lot of peoples wishes.

That alone should make people suspicious. 

Incidentally I thought the idea of CRS and CRS 2 were to lower the cost per unit mass.

$18 000 000 000??  That's the entire projected SABRE/Skylon development budget + 50%. 

[Robotbeat]

If you haven't noticed, electric propulsion is a fairly common technology in the commercial satellite industry. Why is everyone acting as if it's rare and would be especially hard to do?

[GuessWho]

If you haven't noticed, electric propulsion is a fairly common technology in the commercial satellite industry. Why is everyone acting as if it's rare and would be especially hard to do?

At the few kW level, you are correct.  To do the kinds of things attributed to Jupiter in the future (beyond ISS LEO), you would need systems in the several 10's (50+) to 100's of kW which has not been demonstrated yet either in terms of thrusters or power processing systems.  That is just orbital mechanics.  Solvable? Yes. Economical? Highly unlikely, but that is one person's opinion.  Your mileage may vary.

[JasonAW3]

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/parom.html

RSC Energia proposed an ISS based tug over 10 years ago - this tug could also perform other missions, such as propelling satellites.

Where RSC Energia got the idea for an ISS based tug using intermodal canisters is a story in itself.

Pfft.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/otv.htm

Nope.

OTV was intended to move stuff from the space station up to GEO or whatever. The station itself would be supplied by Space Shuttle; in that sense, OTV was basically the same as any other upper stage, except that the exchange between Shuttle and the tug happened at the station, rather than in the Shuttle payload bay.

The concept of supplying the station with intermodal canisters that are orbited and stabilized in orbit by a conventional rocket upper stage and then transferred to the station by a station-based tug is a relatively new thing. RSC Energia got the patent for that concept in Russia.

The reason I know it is new is that a lot of experts told me at the time that upper stages could not support the docking as they didn't have the necessary pointing capability.   Apparently, that turned out not have a lot of truthiness.

Actually, you might want to recheck that.  the original idea for an otv was published before we even had space stations. Von Baun and a number of other Nasa types had been thinking about it back before they eve3n launched men into space.

[JasonAW3]

If you haven't noticed, electric propulsion is a fairly common technology in the commercial satellite industry. Why is everyone acting as if it's rare and would be especially hard to do?

At the few kW level, you are correct.  To do the kinds of things attributed to Jupiter in the future (beyond ISS LEO), you would need systems in the several 10's (50+) to 100's of kW which has not been demonstrated yet either in terms of thrusters or power processing systems.  That is just orbital mechanics.  Solvable? Yes. Economical? Highly unlikely, but that is one person's opinion.  Your mileage may vary.

one has to wonder if anyone has considered electrical generation via heat differential between lit and unlit surfaces, direct heat to electrical conversion and even converting stray RF to electricity.  All oth these techniques exist, although they may not be too effective, but if they're low enough mass, they might be something to consider, as every watt is usefull in space.

[Danderman]

Actually, you might want to recheck that.  the original idea for an otv was published before we even had space stations. Von Baun and a number of other Nasa types had been thinking about it back before they eve3n launched men into space.

The classical paradigm used the tug to lift payloads from the station to the Moon or a higher orbit, and used a Shuttle to get payloads to the station.

What Lockheed is proposing is to use a rocket to lift a payload to a parking orbit, using the rocket upper stage to stabilize the cargo payload, send a tug from the space station to rendezvous with the upper stage, and then return to the station with the tug.  Von Braun never considered that architecture.

Another approach Back in the Day was to have a "Shuttle" or Apollo type vehicle carry a Resource Module launched together with the crewed vehicle, and use the crewed vehicle to carry the cargo module to a station. That was considered and rejected for SkyLab.

As an aside, one of the benefits of operating a space station is that it provokes new thinking about operations in space. The more the station is used, the more operational alternates emerge from station requirements. Von Braun lived in a world where there was no station, so he could not see all the requirements.

[JasonAW3]

     Some of the designs I find interesting are the ones that use aerobraking for deceleration.  One of the OTV designs was a lifting body, which, in theory, could allow two additional capibilities that a disc shaped aerobrake lacks.

First, change of orbital inclination.  The self same capibility that allows a lifting body reentry vehicle to have a vastly extended crossrange versus a capsule, would also allow an aerobraking craft to adjust it's orbital inclination by several degrees without the use of fuel.  In surfer's terms, you'd be carving a wicked cut to go in a different direction, by using the atmosphere, and the craft's aerodynamic capibilities, to change the orbital inclination.

Second, if also equiped with landing gear, it would also allow the OTV, to be used as a lifeboat for a Earth return landing.  In theory, it could make a water landing, but this would be an exceptional risk.  Although the disk design would allow atmospheric entry, final deceleration could prove problimatic, even assuming a rocket fired final decelleration into the ocean.  Cold seawater and hot rocket nozzles don't really make for a too friendly combination.