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

[manboy]

Can you please explicitly list the advantages of a ISS cargo resupply vehicle having its own arm?

It could berth at CBMs where the station arm would have issues, say at the end of a hypothetical Node 4.

Or help solve problems where the station arm is involved in another operation at the time of berthing.

The arm on Jupiter is most likely too short for that.

I crossed out everything that appeared to be irrelevant to the question asked. Is the ability to retrieve free-flying experiments in ISS proximity a desired capability?

Yes.

Can you list some free-flying passive experiments that should be retrieved by a Commercial Cargo vehicle? What's the risk of these passive experiments colliding with the ISS? What if they begin to drift too far away? Can the cargo vehicle be unberthed in time to retrieve them?

[savuporo]

I crossed out everything that appeared to be irrelevant to the question asked. Is the ability to retrieve free-flying experiments in ISS proximity a desired capability?

Yes.

Can you list some free-flying passive experiments that should be retrieved by a Commercial Cargo vehicle? What's the risk of these passive experiments colliding with the ISS? What if they begin to drift too far away? Can the cargo vehicle be unberthed in time to retrieve them?

Various cubesat micropropulsion technology demonstrators, for instance. There are multiple solutions being worked on. Being able to retrieve the experiment would give valuable insights to durability of the systems.

Doing propuslion experiments at ISS is generally difficult, regular cubesat launches are good but again, being able to retrieve and inspect the systems after a year in space would be very valuable for improving the designs.

There are multiple other technology development experiments that could benefit from deployment and later retrieval.

What's the risk of these passive experiments colliding with the ISS?

That would require a thorough analysis as is standard practice with anything going anywhere close to ISS, and depends on great many variables, including the nature of the experiment, distances involved etc.

[manboy]

I crossed out everything that appeared to be irrelevant to the question asked. Is the ability to retrieve free-flying experiments in ISS proximity a desired capability?

Yes.

Can you list some free-flying passive experiments that should be retrieved by a Commercial Cargo vehicle? What's the risk of these passive experiments colliding with the ISS? What if they begin to drift too far away? Can the cargo vehicle be unberthed in time to retrieve them?

Various cubesat micropropulsion technology demonstrators, for instance. There are multiple solutions being worked on. Being able to retrieve the experiment would give valuable insights to durability of the systems.

Doing propuslion experiments at ISS is generally difficult, regular cubesat launches are good but again, being able to retrieve and inspect the systems after a year in space would be very valuable for improving the designs.

There are multiple other technology development experiments that could benefit from deployment and later retrieval.

I'm guessing same orbit but either infront or behind. Would have to be far enough away so it doesn't pose a risk to VV. If successful they probably wouldn't need to be retrieved because they return themselves. Might be interesting. Would need to be large enough to have some sort of grapple attachment. Kind of reminds me of AERCam Sprint. Propellant would probably need to be non-toxic and the part of the craft that wants to be inspected would need to be small enough to fit through the airlock. That was one good thing about the Shuttle, the massive downmass.

[Space Ghost 1962]

Those science missions do those complex tasks because there is no other way to achieve their mission goals. It's not comparable because other vehicles have even greater re-usability while accomplishing the same goals but with significantly less complex mission plans. I'm skeptical Jupiter could compete with those vehicles on a cost basis.

They represent developed, proven hardware that DOES DO THOSE THINGS. And they already function reliably over longer duration than the ENTIRE LIFE OF 10's to 100's of "deliveries".

Since one of them is needed to perform the function of 10 or 100 or more, perhaps the cost basis isn't the same as a one-shot?

They do some of those things but they don't capture, perform vessel hand over, fuel transfer or rendezvous with other vehicles.

Yes, thank you Mr Flat Earth. No exact match of flown craft.

It wasn't even in the same ballpark. The crafts you were comparing had hardly any similarities.

When we assemble planetary craft with new capabilities (like first landers/rovers/other), we don't have "crafts with hardly any similarities" in your same meaning, and its also why science missions cost so much in proving capabilities will function in their environments. We cobble together from other past mission hardware, revise for environment as needed, and exhaustively test.

Which is unlike ISS modules and VV's. Where as little as possible changes. Suggest a hybrid approach. Jupiter is a kind of hybrid.

Depends on the time it takes to recover the cost and/or prove the capability. Break even is typically what you look at, and that was around 10 or so.

Minimum amount of missions to be awarded is 6.

Yes, I know. Tough for evolving HSF resupply. Not my issue.

It is if you're using it as the foundation of your argument.

In the sense that Jupiter, with its use of an expensive bus, ups the number of missions on the break even - that's why its not my issue.

With my suggested "getting to the point", modified approach, yes it likely (due to no dedicated tug) would achieve break even on that so not a stopper.

Now, one of our posters here did an approach without a tug, that also was considered overly complex due to operations of the VV used as tug, so it doesn't matter as an argument due to the "dammed if you do [use a dedicated tug], dammed if you don't [by using a VV as a tug]!"

Nor did I prove a benefit of a Pathfinder rover before flying one. Yet we did fly one, and we don't do Mars landers anymore. Hundred examples like this.

The benefit of a rover vs. a lander is obvious.

The benefit of not reflying a tug with each cargo mission is obvious too. Duh.

Almost forgot. All of the items I covered above are a direct translation of the containerized cargo business proven in the case studies, so none of this is hypothetical but proven over 50 years of business. More proven than any space architecture scaling ever. So you don't need my help to figure this one out, go argue with Wharton about it.

And they apparently don't need to be modified for spaceflight.

No they don't. All that needs modification is removing narrow minded spaceflight bias, which is endemic/obsolete.

[yg1968]

I just noticed this article:

http://www.examiner.com/article/why-nasa-rejected-lockheed-martin-s-jupiter-for-commercial-resupply-services-2

[arachnitect]

I just noticed this article:

http://www.examiner.com/article/why-nasa-rejected-lockheed-martin-s-jupiter-for-commercial-resupply-services-2

That article is filled with elementary errors.

Furthermore, the rumors of LM's rejection are looking increasingly suspect.

[yg1968]

It could be. But I have trouble believing that LM's bid is competitive.

Plus, LM hasn't really refuted these rumors.

[arachnitect]

It could be. But I have trouble believing that LM's bid is competitive.

Plus, LM hasn't refuted these rumors.

LM has said they have not heard from NASA. If they were unequivocally disqualified months ago as rumors suggest, they might as well admit it. Boeing did.

I have trouble believing DC is competitive, but they're still in.

Worth pointing out that the most complex parts of LM's proposal aren't required for IOC. If allowed to modify their bid, they could strip all the space tug stuff. Atlas price reductions helped OrbATK this year, but they could turn the tide in CRS2.

[yg1968]

I suppose that you are talking about this quote from SN:

Allison Rakes said the company had no information beyond NASA’s announcement of the delay.

That sentence is incredibly vague. It just means that LM has only heard about the delay. You would expect LM to know if they are in the competitive range.

[yg1968]

I suppose that you are talking about this quote from SN:

Allison Rakes said the company had no information beyond NASA’s announcement of the delay.

That sentence is incredibly vague. It just means that LM has only heard about the delay. You would expect LM to know if they are in the competitive range.

I asked Jeff Foust for the exact quote from LM, here's what he responded:

the spokesperson I contacted said they “haven’t heard anything from NASA beyond the announcement delay.”

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/662781517677125632

[arachnitect]

I suppose that you are talking about this quote from SN:

Allison Rakes said the company had no information beyond NASA’s announcement of the delay.

That sentence is incredibly vague. It just means that LM has only heard about the delay. You would expect LM to know if they are in the competitive range.

We have on-the-record statements regarding Boeing, SNC, and OrbATK. Spacex has been consistent in not commenting.

But with LM, none of the pieces fit. I believe we have no reliable information one way or the other.

The source selection team at NASA wouldn't be foolish enough to leak results, especially to notorious industry gossips.

My theory is that someone saw LM's numbers, saw that they were high, and assumed LM was out. But NASA doesn't necessarily select the lowest bidder.

CRS2 selection should have taken 20 minutes but keeps dragging on for months. It's obviously more complicated than we all assumed at first. I still think the incumbents will win, but I think it's important to distinguish what we know from what we suspect.