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

[Comga]

Is it common for NASA to essentially do half an award announcement, postponing the official release but saying, almost "letting it slip", that certain proposers had been eliminated?

I do remember something like this happening on the Ares V electronics unit competition, were the proposing teams were winnowed down to two. The net result of which was that one organization knew that they were "first among the losers". 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

For an elimination to be made on price then there must have been a price cap or a price evaluation criteria of elimination of outriders if the price was some factor greater than the average of all proposals.

I am not surprised at a price elimination for LM's proposal in that the development costs of their system being absorbed by just this contract would have made it very expensive. If they had only apportioned a part of the expense of development against the CRS2 and the rest against possible other future customers/contracts then they may have been able to survive this cut. Its a problem in that corporate management still views space as a fully single customer gov funded endeavor and not as a speculative commercial long term multiple customer one.

[manboy]

Charles A. Lurio ‏@TheLurioReport  10m10 minutes ago
Rumors from Lockheed: Jupiter/Exoliner eliminated from CRS2 ISS cargo competition as not competitive.

https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/598580761751588865

A bit of a shame as it was a great concept and was very flexible.

It was a terrible proposal. It was unnecessarily complex and the majority of the hardware would have been manufactured by non-U.S. aerospace companies.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Charles A. Lurio ‏@TheLurioReport  10m10 minutes ago
Rumors from Lockheed: Jupiter/Exoliner eliminated from CRS2 ISS cargo competition as not competitive.

https://twitter.com/TheLurioReport/status/598580761751588865

A bit of a shame as it was a great concept and was very flexible.

It was a terrible proposal. It was unnecessarily complex and the majority of the hardware would have been manufactured by non-U.S. aerospace companies.

Assume "great concept" == "unnecessarily complex" == on orbit, reusable tug with "dumb" cargo containers. Yes?

Assume "majority of the hardware would have been manufactured by non-U.S. aerospace companies" == cargo containers and robotic arm. Yes?

Assume therefor that "very flexible" == " terrible proposal". Because we want to manufacture lots of disposable cargo service modules to feed undernourished US aerospace companies? Yes?

I can't read minds. Tell me straight up instead of vague stuff.

[manboy]

Assume "great concept" == "unnecessarily complex" == on orbit, reusable tug with "dumb" cargo containers. Yes?

Mission plan for most other vehicles:

1. Launch
2. Rendezvous with station
3. Dock/berth
4. Undock/unberth
5. De-orbit

Mission plan for Jupiter:

1. Launch
2. Rendezvous with space tug
3. Space tug grapples new vessel/centaur
4. Space tug re-fuels itself
5. Centaur detaches, joins with old vessel and de-orbits
6. New vessel/space tug rendezvous with station
7. Berth
8. Unberth
9. Wait for new centaur
10. Space tug grapples new vessel/centaur
11. Space tug re-fuels itself
12. Centaur detaches, joins with old vessel and de-orbits

Lots of extra steps that increase the chance of failure and delay the delivery of cargo to the ISS.

Assume "majority of the hardware would have been manufactured by non-U.S. aerospace companies" == cargo containers and robotic arm. Yes?

Assume therefor that "very flexible" == " terrible proposal". Because we want to manufacture lots of disposable cargo service modules to feed undernourished US aerospace companies? Yes?

The pressurized vessel, the first stage engine and the arm. The tug would be American made but it gets re-used. Almost every disposable part is manufactured by a foreign company, the only thing that's not is Centaur. Commercial Cargo is funded by American tax dollars, so it makes since for it to invest back into America's industry. Furthermore if we start outsourcing too many of our critical technologies then we'll eventually loose them.

[ChrisWilson68]

Assume "great concept" == "unnecessarily complex" == on orbit, reusable tug with "dumb" cargo containers. Yes?

Mission plan for most other vehicles:

1. Launch
2. Rendezvous with station
3. Dock/berth
4. Undock/unberth
5. De-orbit

Mission plan for Jupiter:

1. Launch
2. Rendezvous with space tug
3. Space tug grapples new vessel/centaur
4. Space tug re-fuels itself
5. Centaur detaches, joins with old vessel and de-orbits
6. New vessel/space tug rendezvous with station
7. Berth
8. Unberth
9. Wait for new centaur
10. Space tug grapples new vessel/centaur
11. Space tug re-fuels itself
12. Centaur detaches, joins with old vessel and de-orbits

Lots of extra steps that increase the chance of failure and delay the delivery of cargo to the ISS.

Yes, it's like when they tried to get me to use these newfangled horseless carriages.

Mission plan before horseless carriage:

1. Go out door
2. Walk to town
3. Arrive in town

Mission plan for horseless carriage:

1. Go out door
2. Find keys
3. Unlock door of horseless carriage
4. Put key in ignition
5. Turn ignition
6. Put horseless carriage in gear
7. Pull out of driveway
8. Drive to town
9. Find parking space
10. Pull into parking space
11. Put on parking brake
12. Turn off ignition
13. Exit horseless carriage
14. Lock door of horseless carriage
15. Walk to destination

Lots of extra steps that increase the chance of failure.

[CameronD]

....
Lots of extra steps that increase the chance of failure.

Sure. But you have to admit it's a lot faster.. if it works.

[pathfinder_01]

The problem here is that it is trying to be the inter-modal cargo carrier before there is enough cargo to be inter-modal. For instance while the pressure vessel could be launched by multiple rockets, the pressure vessel they are building would have been launched by one or sized to that one. (Atlas). It also would be owned by LM instead of some industry standard.

The tug concept is interesting, but something like Cygnus could develop into an tug if need be.  I think an private tug that charges an fee to customers to perform some service for an spacecraft might emerge someday if it is useful, but it is of questionable use here and only an complication for now. While we do have inter-modal cargo containers, we still use container that are not inter-modal for some cargo. I think it might be an great concept if the ISS could have or use 4 different cargo carriers.

But even with 3, given current realities Dragon, CST-100, and Cygnus would be the safest three to spilt the cargo among and both Dragon and CST-100 could be lower cost as they could share workforce with their commercial crew craft. Jupiter needs development and lacks ability to share workforce and somehow is trying to make it up by reusing the service module that probably isn't enough. There is also an need to come on-line quickly to fill as there is not much time for development either.

[ChrisWilson68]

The problem here is that it is trying to be the inter-modal cargo carrier before there is enough cargo to be inter-modal. For instance while the pressure vessel could be launched by multiple rockets, the pressure vessel they are building would have been launched by one or sized to that one. (Atlas). It also would be owned by LM instead of some industry standard.

The tug concept is interesting, but something like Cygnus could develop into an tug if need be.  I think an private tug that charges an fee to customers to perform some service for an spacecraft might emerge someday if it is useful, but it is of questionable use here and only an complication for now. While we do have inter-modal cargo containers, we still use container that are not inter-modal for some cargo. I think it might be an great concept if the ISS could have or use 4 different cargo carriers.

But even with 3, given current realities Dragon, CST-100, and Cygnus would be the safest three to spilt the cargo among and both Dragon and CST-100 could be lower cost as they could share workforce with their commercial crew craft. Jupiter needs development and lacks ability to share workforce and somehow is trying to make it up by reusing the service module that probably isn't enough. There is also an need to come on-line quickly to fill as there is not much time for development either.

I fear you're right -- Jupiter would be great as part of a more ambitious space infrastructure, but it's not really needed for CRS, and its drawbacks may outweigh its benefits.

I wish CRS weren't structured so that NASA was so focused on their immediate needs.  Personally, I'd like to see NASA go for Jupiter because of the capabilities it gives for the future.  But, since NASA is, unfortunately, constrained in the CRS choices by the narrow current needs, Jupiter may not be the choice for them to make.

[pathfinder_01]

I fear you're right -- Jupiter would be great as part of a more ambitious space infrastructure, but it's not really needed for CRS, and its drawbacks may outweigh its benefits.

I wish CRS weren't structured so that NASA was so focused on their immediate needs.  Personally, I'd like to see NASA go for Jupiter because of the capabilities it gives for the future.  But, since NASA is, unfortunately, constrained in the CRS choices by the narrow current needs, Jupiter may not be the choice for them to make.

Cygnus like Jupiter has growth capacity for future needs and in time that infrastructure might arise, but I suspect that the only way an tug will work is if there are clear advantages to it and I think Cygnus could baby step to it better than Jupiter jump into it.

For instance if the pressurized module were to gain the ability to return to earth(reuse or not), then leaving the tug part of it on orbit could be advantageous and reusing said tug could make some sense. But here  Jupiter is trying to under cut developed or mostly developed systems(Cygnus, Dragon, CST-100) and not bringing much to the party(an larger pressure module launched by an larger more expensive rocket).

[a_langwich]

I fear you're right -- Jupiter would be great as part of a more ambitious space infrastructure, but it's not really needed for CRS, and its drawbacks may outweigh its benefits.

I wish CRS weren't structured so that NASA was so focused on their immediate needs.  Personally, I'd like to see NASA go for Jupiter because of the capabilities it gives for the future.  But, since NASA is, unfortunately, constrained in the CRS choices by the narrow current needs, Jupiter may not be the choice for them to make.

Cygnus like Jupiter has growth capacity for future needs and in time that infrastructure might arise, but I suspect that the only way an tug will work is if there are clear advantages to it and I think Cygnus could baby step to it better than Jupiter jump into it.

For instance if the pressurized module were to gain the ability to return to earth(reuse or not), then leaving the tug part of it on orbit could be advantageous and reusing said tug could make some sense. But here  Jupiter is trying to under cut developed or mostly developed systems(Cygnus, Dragon, CST-100) and not bringing much to the party(an larger pressure module launched by an larger more expensive rocket).

One flaw in this argument is that Cygnus is riding on top of an execrable (for this application) solid rocket motor.  If Orbital were using a fantastically capable, space-restartable, high ISP upper stage which could refuel the tug and de-orbit the expended portions, they might easily offer NASA the ability to work on a Tug/Cargo upgrade.  But with the solid, they would only have a one-use tug/cargo system which has little benefit.

In reading back through this thread, as far as I can see the only evidence the Jupiter bid has been discarded was a Charles Lurio tweet and an Andy Pasztor article?  Both of those aren't high on my list of reliable sources.  I'm not sure I would believe Pasztor even if I had just watched the head of the LM Jupiter team whisper something in his ear.   Is there something more definitive in other threads?  Has NSF gotten any sort of statement from LM on it? 

[manboy]

Yes, it's like when they tried to get me to use these newfangled horseless carriages.

Mission plan before horseless carriage:

1. Go out door
2. Walk to town
3. Arrive in town

Mission plan for horseless carriage:

1. Go out door
2. Find keys
3. Unlock door of horseless carriage
4. Put key in ignition
5. Turn ignition
6. Put horseless carriage in gear
7. Pull out of driveway
8. Drive to town
9. Find parking space
10. Pull into parking space
11. Put on parking brake
12. Turn off ignition
13. Exit horseless carriage
14. Lock door of horseless carriage
15. Walk to destination

Lots of extra steps that increase the chance of failure.

That's an apples to oranges comparison. And there's many other architectures that have planned re-use but have significantly less complex mission plans (Ex: Dragon, CST-100, Dream Chaser, etc). And more of the spacecraft would actually be built in the country that's paying for it.

[pathfinder_01]

One flaw in this argument is that Cygnus is riding on top of an execrable (for this application) solid rocket motor.  If Orbital were using a fantastically capable, space-restartable, high ISP upper stage which could refuel the tug and de-orbit the expended portions, they might easily offer NASA the ability to work on a Tug/Cargo upgrade.  But with the solid, they would only have a one-use tug/cargo system which has little benefit.

Not really. You could start the path of upgrade by creating an returnable cargo module with an detachable disposable stage. The inflatable heat-shield could offer some method or Orbital could partner with someone else to develop something that would increase station down mass but be low cost and quick to develop. Once you get re-usability then work on the tug part to make it reusable. Simply hauling an tank of propellant and using the smaller cheaper rocket could make up the difference. Now you won't get as much upmass as Jupiter, but Jupiter isn't the only starting point for an tug and this path could be easier for an company to develop and could run aside with Cygnus keeping the Original disposable form.

Exchanging cargo modules is only one way to get an tug and it limits you to rockets with restart-able upper stages capable of lingering in Orbit and only ULA at the moment has or is very close to one of those. If there were two rockets that could lift and de-orbit then Jupiter could have some immediate benefit(i.e. allow the commercial cargo company to switch flights). But as it stands now there isn't and you would be limited to Atlas(or the un-competitive Delta) until raptor comes online.

[Space Ghost 1962]

And more of the spacecraft would actually be built in the country that's paying for it.

The only truth here. Rest is total BS. Jupiter is essentially MAVEN, routinely works similar maneuvers for years.

Doesn't matter smart or dumb, tshirts/toilet paper or NSS. A payload is a payload to be paid for. Piece of the action.

And that's why it gets fought. Like the dockworkers strikes against containerized cargo in the 70's 80's.

Just a different form of "union". Same protectionism, same stranglehold on the future.

[spacenut]

Yes, before the horseless carriage, if it was beyond walking distance, then you have.

Walk to barn.
Get horses out of stable.
Get horses hitched up to carriage.
Close barn doors.
Make sure all reins and straps are secure.
Make sure horses shoes are good to go. 
Ride to town.
Apply carriage brake.
Tie horses to hitching post.
Walk to store. 

Horses have to be fed daily also.  Vehicle doesn't.  Horses also have to be put in a barn at night, vehicle doesn't have to be put in a garage.  Quite a few trade offs, and more apples to apples comparison.  If you can walk before horseless carriage, you can walk after.  Only distance and time matter. 

Back to topic.  Jupiter would be a better deal if it took satellites to GSO from LEO or took them to L1 or L2 then returned.  Moving around in LEO doesn't mean much, unless it picks up old satellites and space debris and shoots is back into the atmosphere over an ocean for destruction. 

[manboy]

And more of the spacecraft would actually be built in the country that's paying for it.

The only truth here. Rest is total BS. Jupiter is essentially MAVEN, routinely works similar maneuvers for years.

Significantly increased complexity for minimum return. Jupiter would be doing many things MAVEN is not, rendezvous, capture, vessel hand over and fuel transfer. Once again other vehicles are capable of even greater re-use but with significantly less complex mission plans. I don't understand why so many people feel the need to defend this three-legged dog.

[Space Ghost 1962]

And more of the spacecraft would actually be built in the country that's paying for it.

The only truth here. Rest is total BS. Jupiter is essentially MAVEN, routinely works similar maneuvers for years.

Significantly increased complexity for minimum return. Jupiter would be doing many things MAVEN is not, rendezvous, capture, vessel hand over and fuel transfer.

Science missions do remarkable things (drop landers/rovers, reposition, some have even been planned to dock/capture and even be refuel able!). Testing all of this is what makes the difference between a successful science mission and an abrupt failure. Point here is that all of this goes with the territory of such hardware.

And why such are so expensive!

Once again other vehicles are capable of even greater re-use but with significantly less complex mission plans. I don't understand why so many people feel the need to defend this three-legged dog.

Because you can compete multiple ways. You can be paid for an expensive S/C that carries highly profitable delivery services of cheap containers of goods (containerized shipping), or you can have expensive containers of goods that self deliver.

So if you allow cheap/frequent cargo flights, you make as much just retrieving the "dumb" containers and delivering them, as you did with the expensive self deliverers. If you look at the business model, you actually do better in the long run, because the economics "knee in the curve" at about 10 deliveries shift to your advantage.

So the cost of historical pessimism potentially is to hold off reasons for flight frequency increase. Stepping on one's anatomy.

Take it up with the transportation sector, its a well known case study (I think Wharton still invokes it in their B-school). It's why you have so many cheap foreign goods.

But we must not lower the cost of spaceflight! Or increase its frequency! Or improve its reliability... And don't fly those complex missions like Philae, won't work ...

"Trees are for leaning against. And that's all."

[ChrisWilson68]

And more of the spacecraft would actually be built in the country that's paying for it.

The only truth here. Rest is total BS. Jupiter is essentially MAVEN, routinely works similar maneuvers for years.

Significantly increased complexity for minimum return. Jupiter would be doing many things MAVEN is not, rendezvous, capture, vessel hand over and fuel transfer. Once again other vehicles are capable of even greater re-use but with significantly less complex mission plans. I don't understand why so many people feel the need to defend this three-legged dog.

The reason Jupiter is exciting is that it would be the first case of a vehicle that moves around in space and doesn't have to come back to Earth's surface to get refuelled.  That's pretty big.  Once space vehicles don't have to come back to Earth's surface for fuel, whole new levels of economics become possible.

Like I said, it may not work out to be worth it for the very narrow case of ISS resupply, but if we have larger aspirations, such a capability has very clear, huge advantages.

[savuporo]

The reason Jupiter is exciting is that it would be the first case of a vehicle that moves around in space and doesn't have to come back to Earth's surface to get refuelled.  That's pretty big. 

Uh .. this has been done since Salyut 6 IIRC.

Yeah, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_6_EO-1#Progress_1
Progress: Refuelling things in Space (TM) Since January 29, 1978.

[ChrisWilson68]

The reason Jupiter is exciting is that it would be the first case of a vehicle that moves around in space and doesn't have to come back to Earth's surface to get refuelled.  That's pretty big. 

Uh .. this has been done since Salyut 6 IIRC.

Yeah, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salyut_6_EO-1#Progress_1
Progress: Refuelling things in Space (TM) Since January 29, 1978.

That's why I said "moving around".  There's a difference between a station being refuelled for maintaining its orbit and a vehicle that does substantial movement between orbits, and is, in fact, designed precisely for moving things from one orbit to another.