Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

So in other words, a SSTO makes sense if a space tug is the second stage. Interesting way around staging.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at March 2, 2007 09:46 AM

Rand,
One of the interesting things I found when doing some analysis on tugs was that the amount of propellant needed for a tug was not very sensitive to the tug mass. Which means that designing the tug extra sturdy, making it easy to service, etc. are a lot easier to justify than with many other space systems. A US designed Parom equivalent would probably be possible as well. Especially if Bigelow's station takes off. The one thing I would do differently is add a single mini robotic arm, and go with a berthing interface instead of docking (with all the active stuff on the tug side, and only passive hardware on the station and container sides.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at March 2, 2007 09:46 AM

Karl,
Yup, because that upper stage stays in space, doesn't need reentry equipment, and the staging/stacking processes all occur relatively slowly. No need for huge ground infrastructure like a traditional TSTO design. I'm still more of a fan of TSTO RLVs from a difficulty of development standpoint, but a tug is useful for them as well.
~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at March 2, 2007 09:49 AM

I'm still more of a fan of TSTO RLVs from a difficulty of development standpoint, but a tug is useful for them as well.

Yes, it still has a payoff--it's just not as big a one. Depending on how you assess the risk and cost of the additional operations, it's unclear how it trades.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 2, 2007 09:54 AM

I wonder what CSI thinks about their turf being taken over by the Russians who were their partners at one time.

Posted by lurker lurkenstein at March 2, 2007 10:11 AM

One advantage a tug could have over other delivery means is resolving the "last mile" issue. From what I've read, NASA and the Russians aren't eager to have just anyone try to rendezvous and dock with the ISS. They want to make sure there isn't a repeat of the collision like the one between a Progress and Mir several years ago. You also want to make sure that the thrusters on the docking vehicle won't damage the ISS, especially the solar arrays. If you're trying to build your commercial ISS resupply vehicle, it'll have to be approved before it'll be allowed to dock. However, if all you have to do is deliver your payload to the tug which in turn can take it the last mile to the ISS, then you're facing a simplier problem.

A rugged reusable space tug could greatly lower the cost of delivering a payload to higher altitudes like geosynch or even the moon or Mars. Your booster would only need to be big enough to deliver the payload to the tug's parking orbit. You wouldn't need to carry expensive (and throw-away) upper stages to finish the mission. Depending on the tug's delta-v capacity, it might be able to take the payload all the way to geosynch instead of just to GTO, further lowering the satellite's mass and cost. Once the payload is delivered to the desired orbit (or interplanetary trajectory), you'd need to slow the tug enough for it to return to Earth orbit.

A high orbit/interplanetary tug would really benefit from aerobraking and aerocapture technology. That would really reduce the amount of propellant needed to return it to the parking orbit.

Posted by Larry J at March 2, 2007 10:11 AM

Parom (launched from Kourou) can be used to move the Hubble near the ISS to avoid the VERY EXPENSIVE and RISKY Shuttle's repair missions in 2008 and to repair/upgrade/use this invaluable telescopes in the next 15-20 years! ...just imagine WHAT Hubble will discover if UPDATED with 2015's, 2020's, 2025's (very advanced) sensors/computers/software technologies!

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at March 2, 2007 10:56 AM

Parom (launched from Kourou) can be used to move the Hubble near the ISS

No, it would have nowhere near enough propellant to do that. Hubble is generally farther from ISS, in terms of delta V, than it takes to get into orbit in the first place.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 2, 2007 11:12 AM

MXER tethers also offer "second stage" capability.

Re-boost with solar electric powered interaction with the Earth's magnetic field. Tethers Unlimited (Dr. Robert Forward's company - he is deceased, sadly) has done much work on this.

If a small RLV misses the tether it just lands and tries again later.

Posted by Bill White at March 2, 2007 11:21 AM

Why not build a tug, or whatever, the way they do in science fiction (2001, Space 1999). Build a metal truss as the body so that once in orbit you can attach things (extra engines designed and built later to get you into higher orbit for example).

You don't nee dto design it for every mission from the start, just have some open ended hardpoints.

Posted by rjschwarz at March 2, 2007 11:22 AM

not with a single mission, of course, but, since the Parom can be refueled many times, it can move the Hubble near the ISS in "n" steps/missions

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at March 2, 2007 11:24 AM

Jon Goff writes:

A US designed Parom equivalent would probably be possible as well. Especially if Bigelow's station takes off.

Would a US designed and built Parom cost more or less than just paying to deploy Parom? Plenty of loyal Americans drive Hondas.

I suspect Lockheed or Bigelow or NewSpace LLC could simply buy a handful of Parom tugs (cash on delivery with full transfer of legal title to the vehicle at time of closing) for far less money that designing and building one of our own.

Buy Paroms "off the shelf" and spend our money on the RLVs.

Posted by Bill White at March 2, 2007 11:27 AM

Gaetano

In this case, n is a number well above the total lifetime of the thrusters on the Parom and would cost a LOT of money to ferry the fuel up.

Better to go with Ion propulsion.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 2, 2007 11:29 AM

It would actually make more sense to move ISS down to 28 degrees...

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 2, 2007 11:36 AM

It would actually make more sense to move ISS down to 28 degrees...

Except the instant you reduce the inclination below what it is now, you lose the ability to launch Soyuz, Progress, and Proton missions from Balkinour. They're building a Soyuz (rocket) launch pad down in French Guiana but I know of no plans to build the processing facilities needed to process Progress and Soyuz vehicles there. You need a lot more than a launch pad to launch particular (especially manned) vehicle.

As for moving the HST to the ISS, that's a really bad idea because of contaimination, if nothing else. Nostalgia is not a valid reason to spend hundreds of millions to billions of dollars on a system that's approaching the end of its usable life.

Posted by Larry J at March 2, 2007 11:58 AM

I know of no plans to build the processing facilities needed to process Progress and Soyuz vehicles there.

Building them would be a lot cheaper than continuing to operate at the current inclination.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 2, 2007 12:35 PM

Rand

We had as a consultant who was one of the Arianespace guys who worked the deal for the Soyuz at Korou. He said that the contract explictly calls out that nothing in the design of the facilities would be done that would preclude it being used for manned missions.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 2, 2007 12:57 PM

I would have assumed that, Dennis. To do otherwise would be quite foolish.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 2, 2007 01:04 PM

Flying manned missions from Guiana is certainly possible but not easy. You'd need to recreate or relocate the vehicle processing infrastructure at the new facilities. You'd need all of the vehicle checkout equipment, fueling equipment, personnel, etc. It's certainly doable (especially if they decided to no longer fly those missions out of Balkinour) but non-trivial just the same.

Posted by Larry J at March 2, 2007 01:05 PM

Dennis,

Ion propulsion is better and cheaper but needs too much time to design/build/test/launch the hardware, while the "traditional" Parom technology will be available soon

also... "n" is not a so high number using Parom ...maybe, just a dozen of refuels/trips (1/6 of the Parom's operational life)

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at March 2, 2007 01:31 PM

...and using a "special Parom" with additional fuel tanks (like used with military fighters) "n" may fall to "4"

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at March 2, 2007 01:35 PM

...sorry for the triple-posts but I forget an important point... beyond its scientific value, Hubble has an heavy ECONOMIC value (about $5 billion including all repair missions) so, save it with a dozen of (very cheap) Parom missions, is GREAT idea for the NASA/ESA budget!

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at March 2, 2007 01:41 PM

Gaetano

Not hardly.

That dozen flights = about $600M + the flight for the Parom = $50M for the commercial Soyuz + the development cost of the Parom = $100M minimum. Operations, another $10M.

When we proposed our ion solution for ISS we looked at flying in 40 months for less than the price above.

Sorry I don't buy the extra fuel tanks thing either.

One of the problems with using chemical propellant vehicles for HST also is that the telescope, in its current configuration, has a hard time dealing with the loads.

It is far more complicated and costly than you think.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 2, 2007 01:47 PM

Larry,

Hubble don't be moved "exactly" near the ISS but 100-200 miles away in the same orbit/altitude/inclination where there is no "contamination" ...about the costs... Hubble has an so high economic and scientific value that justify EVERY cent spend to save it! ...it's not a matter of "nostalgia" (especially if you think that NASA and ESA have NO MONEY to build and launch the Hubble-2)

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at March 2, 2007 01:53 PM

Hubble does not have an economic value of five billion. We could replace it with a much better one for much less than that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 2, 2007 01:53 PM

GM would be well versed to take to heart the old quote:

"Losers study tactics while winners study losgistics."

I trust Dennis and his decades of experience dealing with the latter. I have found that in almost any endeavor, it't the latter that busts your balls.

Settling space is going to be a game of logistics played on a grand scale.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 2, 2007 01:56 PM

"Hubble does not have an economic value of five billion. We could replace it with a much better one for much less than that."

Well put Rand.

This is why I ditched my 89 Olds and got a Civic last month. It was to the point that it would cost more to keep it running than simply replacing it. Not to mention the hassle and constant down time. No need to spend $2000 on a $500 car. Makes more sense to get another car.

Comes a time to fish or cut bait.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 2, 2007 01:59 PM

Don't confuse "value" with cost. Accepting your number, we've spent $5 billion on the Hubble. That's its cost. Its value is from the data returned and it's much harder to put a number to that. How much value does society get from Hubble's astronomy, especially compared to other things you could've done with the $5 billion?
That's the concept behind opportunity cost. The money spent on Hubble is unavailable to use for other things.

I'm not knocking Hubble. It has returned a tremendous amount of scientific data and has contributed greatly to astronomic knowledge of the universe. Still, it has done so at a high cost to society. Is it worth the cost? I've read that the technology for visible light terrestrial telescopes allows them to surpass Hubble's capabilities in many areas and at a far lower costs. If that's true, we could've bought many large aperature telescopes equipped with adaptive optics for the cost on the HST. Perhaps we only need space based telescopes for those portions of the EM spectrum that don't reach the Earth's surface such as X-rays and Gamma rays. The goal is to maximize the scientific return we get for the cost.

Posted by Larry J at March 2, 2007 02:01 PM

Rand: "Hubble does not have an economic value of five billion."

not the hardware, of course, but the full project is over that price... from Wikipedia [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope ] "...its original total cost estimate of about 400 million dollars, the telescope had by now cost over US$2 billion to construct. Hubble's cumulative costs up to this day are estimated to be several times higher still, with U.S. expenditure estimated at between 4.5 and 6 billion USD and Europe's financial contribution at 593 million Euros (1999 estimate)..."

...and I'm not sure this price includes 16+ years of the "Hubble-Team" that develops and build the Hubble's upgrade, the astronauts' training, etc.

Rand: "We could replace it with a much better one for much less than that."

I'm not optimist on this point...

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at March 2, 2007 02:06 PM

Mike: "No need to spend $2000 on a $500 car. Makes more sense to get another car."

that's an absolutely strong logic ...unfortunately, II don't see any new Hubble/car around ...nor the money to buy it in the NASA/ESA pockets... :)

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at March 2, 2007 02:13 PM

Googl_e up the economic concept of "Sunk Costs".

There was a study done on replacing Hubble several years ago and it was far less than 5 billion dollars. Less than 1 Billion IIRC.

IMO, Hubbles greatest value now is as a engineering experiment regarding the long term operation of an orbital platform at ~380NM.

The information learned from that will hopefully feed into future projects.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 2, 2007 02:16 PM

It stands to reason if we don't have 1-2 Billion to replace it then we certainly don't have 5 Billion to move it the way you want.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 2, 2007 02:18 PM

Dennis: "That dozen flights = about $600M"

Hubble or not, if each Parom trip cost like a Soyuz launch there is NO advantage to further develop it!

Parom may cost the price you quote (around $100M) to develop and launch it, but, while in orbit, it may cost (around) $20-30M to refuel... so, a dozen of Parom trips may cost $250-350M (very cheap, in my opinion)

Dennis: "When we proposed our ion solution for ISS we looked at flying in 40 months for less than the price above."

already said it's better, but we need a solution available NOW (if we REALLY want to save the Hubble, of course)

Dennis: "I don't buy the extra fuel tanks thing either."

extra-tanks needs only some extra-research over the standard parom project (maybe, not easy, but possible)

Dennis: "the problems with using chemical propellant vehicles for HST also is that the telescope, in its current configuration, has a hard time dealing with the loads"

Hubble can close its door while Parom works, like happen with the Hubble repair missions

Dennis: "complicated and costly"

that's true... it's not easy... nothing is "easy" with space... but... after all... if Hubble has just a few years of life... and the price to save it is not so high... why don't try?

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at March 2, 2007 02:33 PM

How can it cost $20-$30M to refuel? A commercial Soyuz costs $50M dollars and I was being charitable and not charging for the fueling system.

Parom is not available now and would take a minimum of 36 months to field.

Hubble will have its life extended by STS in 2008 and the bird will survive in orbit until about 2020 according to recent projections. If the solar cycle is as weak as what many scientists are saying then it will probably last longer.

The loads have nothing to do with the doors open or closed but things like the solar arrays as deployed and some of the internal hardware that was deployed after HST went into orbit and operation.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 2, 2007 02:44 PM

Larry,

just an example: a family buy an house for $200,000, then, in the next 16 years, spends over $100,000 for energy, repairs, phone, methane, tax, etc. ...a total costs of $300,000

of course, they used that house over 16 years (saving the money to rent it) ...but... do you thing this price/value/costs is NOT enough to AVOID to BURN their house... without have another house... nor the money to buy it?!

the scientific community have "used" the Hubble/house 16+ years and have received a great "value" of data, but I don't see it as a good reason to burn the Hubble/house in the atmosphere if we can save it and still use another 15-20 years!

some terrestrial telescopes may surpass Hubble in the next years, but we must evaluate the data/results/images Hubble may give us if UPDATED with 2015-up advanced technologies

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at March 2, 2007 02:51 PM

Dennis: "How can it cost $20-$30M to refuel?"

one Progress launch costs $22M then, a (simpler) Parom-refuel tank launched in orbit MUST cost less than (both) Soyuz and Progress, since, if it will NOT cost less, there is NO advantage to launch a Parom and its refuel, but, simply launch many Progress!

also, a Parom refuel-tank will be VERY SIMPLE and CHEAP since it doesn't need any(Soyuz/Progress-like) engine, navigation systems, etc. ...thanks to the tug technology, Parom will go to its refuel-tanks like a car goes to its gas station!

Dennis: "its life extended by STS in 2008 and the bird will survive in orbit until about 2020 according to recent projections."

I've read a (more realistic) figure around +5 years of life after the 2008 repair mission, then, not to 2020

don't forget that Hubble needed FIVE repair/upgrade missions between until 2008 ...about one every 3.6 years... then, 12 years of extra-life after the next repair mission appears too much

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at March 2, 2007 03:04 PM

One Progress launch to NASA is much more than $22M dollars.

It would actually be much easier to just launch the progress to Hubble and dispense with the Parom.

There are two things to consider here.

1 is the operational lifetime of HST which is supposed to be till about 2013 and then its orbital life. I don't know where you get your "realistic" number but from an altitude of 330 miles and the smaller solar arrays that are on the bird now, I can easily believe 2020, especially if solar cycle 24 is a weak one as is projected.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 2, 2007 03:36 PM

A couple buys a house for $200,000. Suppose they take out a 15 year mortgage at 6%. Depending on where they live, that might give them a PITI (principle, interest, taxes, and insurance) payment of $1500 a month, or $18,000 a year. Suppose their energy payment averaged $2000 a year and they spent an average of $1000 a year (very low) for maintenance, for a total of $21,000 a year. At those figures, it would cost them approximately $315,000 to live in that house for 15 years. Given the mortgage deduction on their income tax, the true total value would be somewhat less, say $275,000. That takes you back to approximately $18,000 a year or $1500 a month for housing costs.

Because they bought the house, they aren't having to pay rent. However, because they're paying an average of $1500 a month for housing, they're not able to take advantage of other opportunities. For example, suppose they could've rented a nice place for $1000 a month. In that case, they're out $500 a month that they could've invested.

Now, if they've been maintaining the house properly, they can continue to live in it long after the mortgage is paid off. Or, they can put it on the market and sell it, perhaps even making a profit on the deal (be sure to factor in interest costs when considering profitability). If they didn't take care of it, then they'll either have to spend a lot of money getting it ready to sell or greatly lower the price.

This is way off topic of the original post, but the point is that we've spent billions to build, maintain, and operate the Hubble. Those billions are the cost of Hubble, not the value. Those billions aren't available to do other things that might have brought in a bigger scientific return. Furthermore, the Hubble needs a lot of fixing just to maintain basic operations for a few more years. Depending on whose figures you believe, the cost of the 2008 Shuttle mission alone is several hundred million dollars not counting the costs of new equipment, crew training, etc. For that money, we could buy at least one and perhaps two or more state of the art terrestrial telescopes with much larger aperatures and equal resolution (visible light) of the HST.

There comes a point in any complex system where the cost of repairs outweighs its value. Whether the HST is at that point is debatable. We can't let nostalgia drive these decisions. There is only a finite amount of funding for science available in the budget. Unless someone else is willing to kick in a lot of money to maintain and operate an old system, then sooner or later, the HST will no longer be economically viable to operate. As newer technology becomes available, it will one day reach the point where it is no longer scientifically viable for the cost.

Posted by Larry J at March 2, 2007 03:43 PM

Dennis,

the price of russian products changes every year since russian economy changes every year

however, the Parom doesn't need a $22M (or more) priced Progress, it needs a very simple TANK (maybe, just an enlarged 2nd stage...) so, every refuel may have a very low price

if you refer to the time Hubble may remain in orbit, it may be 2020 or more, but it needs many repair/upgrade missions to WORK so much time ...unfortunately, the 2008 mission will be the LAST (then Hubble will work just a few years)

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at March 2, 2007 04:48 PM

Gaetano.

How the hell does the fuel get up there? You need a launch vehicle (Soyuz).

You need an active fuel transfer system.

That so called tank has to have active attitude control to maintain its position for the tug to rendezvous and dock with it.

Guess what, I have just described a Progress vehicle.

This is why this is not cheap or easy to do.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 2, 2007 06:33 PM

Dennis,

What we need is something that can cheaply launch a dumb conatiner containing low value consumables like fuel that will stabilize itself via gravity gradient.

Big Cannon? Laser Launch? Giant Slingshot?

Huge-ass inbreddedly retarded booster?

Help me out here.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 2, 2007 06:44 PM

A gravity gradient stabilized system, coupled with a robotic arm on the tug is a good idea. You really need a gravity gradient of only a few degress to make it work worth a hoot.

You still need the fuel transfer system. Also, I really don't buy that low Isp fuels make a lot of sense other than the VLEO (Very Low Earth Orbit), to ISS case. I do think that it makes a LOT of sense there.

The higher the delta v the more the bias is to high isp systems.

Posted by dennis Ray Wingo at March 2, 2007 07:35 PM

What do you think about reviving the Truax Sea Dragon as a 'coaler' to haul fuel to a depot?

I guess in a way the Loral system is a smaller version of the concept.

Still, I like the concept of a large rocket built from cheap steel by welders in a shipyard. Tolerances of tens and hundreths of an inch instead of tens of thousandths.

You could put a naval reactor on the tender ship and have it split the hydrogen and oxygen and make the payload and the O2 for the launcher on site.

An old naval fuel ship could haul the kero for the first stage.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 2, 2007 07:49 PM

Dennis,

Could we combine the tugs robotic arm and fuel transfer lines into one assembly or is that overly complicating things?

I.E. when the tug grabs the container, the tug connects to the containers transfer valve assemblies?

Would the size and flexibility of the transfer lines be constrained by having to deal with cryogenic liquids?

Obviously, we can't use hose from your local gas pump.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 2, 2007 07:54 PM

If a Truax type system was considered it would be very good. I talked with Bob a bit back in the early 80's and I really like the Sea Dragon concept for sending water to space. Water in orbit in mass quantities like that would be good.

My favorite system is a solar electric propulsion system, although it is not good for VLEO but much better for higher orbits.

Combing the arm and the fueling system is a good idea but the problem is that the arm has to be on the tug side of the system as the kinematics of moving the arms will destroy the gravity gradient stabilization.

One thing that most folks don't consider in transferring cryo propellants is that the temperature of the receiving tank is hundreds of degress kelvin above that of the supply tank. A fair amount of propellant has to be transferred and then boiled off in just cooling down the tanks of the receiving system. This boiloff gas has its own effect on the stability of the coupled system and that effect is not small.

There are variations of very simple systems that will work and I think that in the very narrow context of VLEO to ISS such systems could work and even be profitable but for something like HST to ISS I think that an Ion propulsion system is a much superior solution.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 2, 2007 08:22 PM

Dennis,

I was referring to using graviy gradient to stabilize the fuel payload container, not the tug, so the pod need no active attitude control system.

If it was stable enought for the tug to capture a probe, it could then take over attitude control for the whole assembly until the fuel is transfered to the tug.

At that point, the pod could be released in low orbit to burn up and the tug could transfer the propellant in internal tankage to the depot in a higher, more stable orbit.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 2, 2007 08:41 PM

G.M.

One easily understood explanation of sunk costs
is car purchase. Five years ago, my wife got
a new car with $1,000.00 down and $280.00 a month
in payments. Insuring the car was another $70.00
a month. Fuel and maintenance averaged a very low $200.00 a month. That $550.00 a month over
60 months totaled $33,000.00. When it got wrecked last month, the insurance company valued it at $7,700. The book value was $5,700. Either way, the five year old car was worth only a fraction of the money that had been spent on it.

One of my trucks is a 1990 Dodge with 200,000 miles on it. The new price was ~$15,000 plus
interest, insurance, maintenance, fuel, registration, etc. The vehicle has cost $60,000.00 or more over the last 17 years. I parked it because it is cheaper to buy another vehicle than to keep it running.

Just because a lot of money has been spent on Hubble, it does not follow that today it is still worth that amount of money.

Posted by john hare at March 3, 2007 03:36 AM

Larry,
probably my example was not so clear, so, I try to better explain it
you buy that house for $200,000 (the "price") then live in it 20 years having some "costs" but receiving some advantages and savings (the "value") but, after 20 years, you don't say "ok, we have had sufficient advantages from that house, then, it's time to pull it down with a bulldozer" but use it as much as possible! ...especially if this is the ONLY house you have and can't buy another in the next 20 years!
Hubble have had a "price" of $2B and $4B of "costs" over 16 years giving us a "value" of images and data ...well... do you think its sufficient (or too much) so we can burn it? ...and wait 20+ years to have the Hubble-2?
I think this is a CRAZY choice since, near the ISS, it can live much more years, can be updgraded with the BEST future technologies and give us much more incredible images and data!
sorry, but, your claim "For that money, we could buy at least one and perhaps two or more state of the art terrestrial telescopes with much larger aperatures and equal resolution (visible light) of the HST." is a nonsense for (at least) two reasons:
1. NASA and ESA don't build eath telescopes, so, the money saved killing the Hubble will go to rockets, probes, capsules, etc. but NOT earth telescopes
2. earth telescopes will reach the Hubble performances in 2010, but, if you kill the Hubble and use the money saved to build 2, 7, 30 or 500 earth telescopes with the SAME specs of Hubble, you have (near) ZERO scientific results over the Hubble since 2, 7, 30 or 500 telescopes will give us the SAME images of Hubble!
to have "more" you must develop/build just ONE earth telescope with 2, 5, 10 times the resolution of Hubble, not 500 telescopes with the SAME resolution
unfortunately, also the best earth telescopes will always suffer the atmosphere shield, air pollution, weather, etc. so, you can have better results ONLY in space
moving Hubble near the ISS we can save it and hope to UPGRADE with future technologies to have a (e.g.) 2x quality in 2015, 5x quality in 2020, 12x quality in 2025, etc. while NOTHING of that will be possible on earth!
you say "...comes a point in any complex system where the cost of repairs outweighs its value..." that's true, but not for the Hubble, since its repairs/upgrades will end next years ONLY as a consequence of the Shuttle retirement

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at March 3, 2007 08:32 AM

John,
your evaluation is correct for cars (that quickly lose their value) but can't be applied to houses (that, if properly made, can be used for centuries increasing their value) nor for space-grade (and UNIQUE) objects like Hubble
you're right that "costs" are not "value" but I don't suggest to bring back the Hubble to earth and sell it on eBay for $6 billion... :) ...but just suggest to SAVE it, since it can still give us further AMAZING results if UPGRADED (near the ISS)

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at March 3, 2007 08:46 AM

Dennis,
first of all (as I've already said) the Parom+refuels system MUST be cheap (and cheaper than Progress) to have a "market"
if it (really) costs MORE than launch many Progress, then, doesn't worth the time and the money to further develop it
each Progress has engines, tanks, attitude systems, pressurized module, navigation systems, ISS automated docking systems, water and oxygen refuel tanks, ISS re-supply, etc.
the Parom refuel-tanks don't need to have NOTHING of them, just a (very simple) TANK with a (very simple) fuel resupply port and a (very simple and cheap) minimal attitude system to stabilize the tank while in orbit ...however, if the refuel-tank will be (simply) an enlarged 2nd stage, it can use the standard 2nd stage attitude systems to stabilize it, without any systems' duplication
EVERY operation (rendezvous, docking, refuel, etc.) will/must be accomplished by Parom (if it will be a TRUE space-tug, of course)
about costs... we can't consider the ($100M) Parom's R&D costs since that cost must be shared on 60 trips-per-Parom divided by "n" Paroms launched (so, the shared costs-per-trip will be in the range of $0.5M)
to know the "price" to move the Hubble near the ISS with a dozen of Parom trips we must evaluate two costs: a) Parom launch and... b) refuels
if launched with a ($68M) 22 mT payload) Proton, the Parom can have its tanks full of 6.5 mT of propellent, so, the "first refuel" already is inside it (and it needs only 10-11 more refuels to accomplish the mission)
then, since the Parom can accomplish 60 trips (and we need only 12 of them to move the Hubble) the price for that mission will be $68M / 5 = $13.6M
each Parom's refuel needs 6.5 mT of propellent, but each Proton can launch up to 22 mT ...then 3.5 Parom's refuels per launch ...so, the Hubble moving mission need (about) three further Proton launches for a price of $68M x 3 = $204M
adding the Parom's shared price ($13.6M) we have a total cost of the Hubble-moving mission under $220M ...less than 1/5th of the price of ONE Shuttle launch and 1/10th the price of the Hubble itself!

a mere $220M to save an UNIQUE and INVALUABLE space telescope(costed $6Bn) and give it 15-20 years of extra-life!

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at March 3, 2007 09:47 AM

Mike

A gravity Gradient system is only stabilized to about +/- 4-5 degrees. I agree that this is the way to go but it still costs some money to build and qualify.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 3, 2007 11:20 AM

Gaetano

The original intent of the Parom is not a lot of these other applications that you have been talking about. Where this started, and which I totally agree with, is to reduce the requirements for an RLV. A Parom would be perfect to match orbits, probably as low as 130 km, with an RLV and then boost both of them up to a stable, say 160 km orbit and then do a transfer of hardware, stores, people, whatever. They could alternately be taken all the way to ISS as a destination.

That is a VERY important way of reducing the requirements levied on an RLV and would really help to lower the cost of their development.

Your scenario has a lot of holes in it.

1. Proton launch of enough fuel for several refuels.

First the Parom has to be lofted to the HST orbit at 28.5 degrees. , 307 nautical miles or about 550 km. This cuts the available fuel load on the Parom by about 15-20%. Then you do a docking and then move Hubble by about 1.5 degrees.

Then you launch a Proton to the same altitude and 30 degrees. The Proton has to do a 21.6 degree plane change and climb to 307 nautical miles, cutting the payload by about 20%.

Now you refuel and move HST about 3 degrees. Guess what, you can't. You can only move it about 2 degrees because you just left your refueling system 2 degrees away and the Parom has to go back to that inclination to refuel. Now the Refueled Parom travels back to HST but now can only move it about 1 degree in order to have enough fuel to return to the Proton refueler.

Now after traveling 3 degrees back to refuel, and then 3 degrees back to the HST it can now only move HST about 0.5 degrees.

As you can see the returns diminish rapidly.

Orbital dyanmics really sucks but that is the world that we live in.

For the Hubble misson either an electrodynamic tether or an ion propulsion system would be cheaper.

Forget the Parom for the HST mission, if you were going to go this route, it would be much easier just to use the Progress vehicles directly.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 3, 2007 11:33 AM

A Parom would be perfect to match orbits, probably as low as 130 km, with an RLV and then boost both of them up to a stable, say 160 km orbit and then do a transfer of hardware, stores, people, whatever.

What would the benefit of this be? Unless the tug has a better specific impulse than the space transport (possible, but unlikely to be by much), I don't see any gain, and now you have the complication of the tug trying to move two vehicles (how do you ensure that its engine fires through the CM of the mated pair?).

Better just to take the space transport to a sufficiently high orbit for stability, and meet it there with the tug.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 3, 2007 11:39 AM

Rand

130 km is fairly stable at least for a few orbits. For many applications this is all that you would need. It would reduce the need for life support, power, and would reduce the return energy needed for deorbit. If you used a Joe Carroll lightweight tether you could even do the deorbit of the RLV with the tether and boost the tug at the same time for no propellant cost. If you used a tether 140 or 150 would work as well. Remember that for several of the Shuttle missions they flew no higher than 160 km and that orbit is stable for months.

A parametric study to achive the optimum system would be a very interesting exercise. I bet it would result in some interesting optimizations and weight reductions for the RLV itself.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 3, 2007 01:07 PM

Tethers! I like the sound of that.

At a minimum, RLVs can use tethers to deorbit and thereby save the mass of some/most of the fuel needed to de-orbit.

Posted by Bill White at March 3, 2007 01:34 PM

.
Dennis,
Parom was mainly designed as Service Module for the (deleted) Kliper's RLV since the latter was designed without engines, but, if Parom is a TRUE space-tug, may accomplish many different missions ...of course, "move the Hubble near the ISS" is an unique (and a little "exotic") mission, but a Parom (or another space-tug) can do it
about the RLV... I don't see any reason an RLV must fly to an "unstable" orbit if (with a little bit of extra-fuel) it can reach a stable orbit without the Parom (while, use the Parom to move a cargo from a stable orbit to another stable orbit seems more rational)
I agree that many plane changes reduce the advantage of multiple-refuels from the same tanks launched with Protons (from Kourou) so, three launches may be not sufficient for the mission, but, also if that mission needs twice the launches, still remains a very good idea, since:
1. the Hubble (itself) had a costs of $2,000,000,000
2. its maintenance, etc. had (so far) $4,000,000,000
3. the LAST repair mission may cost (hardware, training and launch) up to $1,500,000,000
4. Hubble is the ONLY optical space telescope we have
5. NASA and ESA will have no money to build and launch another Hubble for (at least) 20 years
6. a few earth telescopes will reach the SAME Hubble quality (and, probably, its LIMITS) in 2010
7. an UPGRADED Hubble (with 2015-up technologies) may give us 2, 5, 10 times the quality and data an earth telescope NEVER can give
HALF of these points are sufficient to support the saving of Hubble, then, compared with these BIG advantages, the price to move the Hubble near the ISS doesn't matter so much!
one Parom, two Parom, twenty Progress, five Protons, eight Protons, $200M, $450M, $800M
EVERY price worth save the Hubble!
tether and ion propulsion may be better and cheaper but NOT available NOW
Progress is my first choice for that mission, especially a modified Progress with its full payload used to carry extra-propellant (so, less than a dozen of Progress will be sufficient)
however, another option is to launch a Parom and refuel it with a dozen of tanks launched with (future) Falcon rockets (if they succeed) at prices around $10-15M per launch/refuel

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at March 3, 2007 03:52 PM

Dennis, 130KM or 130NM?

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 3, 2007 04:14 PM

Gaetano

1. The principal limitation of the Parom is its use of low Isp propellants.

2. The operational ramifications are not trivial for what you propose.

3. There are much easier ways of accomplishing the same thing.

4. Parom is not available now and I can have an ion propulsion system using the NASA 457M thruster flying in the same time to deploy the liquid system.

5. JWST is under construction now and will fly in 2013 with a 6.5 meter aperture.

6. JWST will be the last ground assembled telescope (unless Mike G buys them off by promising a free ride on an Ares V).

7. The terrestrial planet finder will be an on orbit assembled telescope.

8. I am not in favor of sending massive amounts of cash to the Russians for something that we can do here.

It is not worth an infinite amount of money to save Hubble.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 3, 2007 05:28 PM

Mike

130 km, maybe 140 or 150. The trades are interesting.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 3, 2007 05:31 PM

An orbit of ~80 Statute miles?

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 3, 2007 05:37 PM

Mike

I don't know, I am looking at orbits that are stable for no more than a week at a time for an orbit matching for the tug.

It is my understanding (from memory) that the Shuttle flew at 160 km on many missions. I could be wrong and that it may be miles. In the Apollo era they did a parking orbit at 105 statute miles.

You want it as low as possible to reduce the energy needed for the RLV yet high enough so that drag does not pull your tug down too much, requiring a lot of boost, thereby negating your benefits.

It will be VERY interesting if the prediction of a weak solar cycle for cycle 24 and an extremely weak cycle for cycle 25 comes true. If so the contraction of the atmosphere will allow for these low orbits.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 3, 2007 07:14 PM

Dennis,
a1: if Parom use hypergolics it simply needs 25% more propellent and launches (not a big problem)
a2: if you refer to the multiple plane changes, it can be solved with many low cost single-refuel launches
a3: true, the same mission can be accomplished with a dozen of modified Progress or four modified ATV
a4: Parom is not available now but will be available soon
I doubt a(tested) Ion engine (able to do that) will be available sooner but I'm NOT against it, I just want a "machine" that "does that job" (unfortunately, I feel that "Ion engine soon" is only another trick to kill the Hubble)
a5: JWST is not an optical telescope, I doubt will be launched soon, its position is too away from earth to repair/upgrade it
a6: about... "JWST will be the last ground assembled telescope" ...no, probably it will be (simply) "the LAST space telescope" (in the next 20 years)
a7: I don't know/see around any FUNDED space telescopes to replace the Hubble... only concepts, hope, dreams
a8: NASA and ESA have ALREADY sent "massive amounts of cash to the Russians" and much more will be sent tanks to the Shuttles' retirement and the too late first Orion flight... give them the money to save the Hubble doesn't change so much... especially if you think that $220M is (probably) LESS THAN the amount of money that EVERY DAY the european countries send to Russia for its oil and methane!
about... "It is not worth an infinite amount of money to save Hubble." ...spend money for Hubble will become a BAD idea ONLY when better telescopes will fly in space

Posted by Gaetano Marano at March 3, 2007 07:58 PM

Gaetano

If you can figure out how to make this work go for it. I have said all I can say here.

The ATV is $400M per flight.

I see nothing where the Russians are actually building this. This is in their plan but there have been many plans and very few actual pieces of hardware.

You can doubt Ion propulsion all you want but I work with it every day. NASA has tested the 457M at 50 kilowatts input power.

I don't buy your "last telescope in 20 years" thesis. In my opinion it is good that there are no funded big optical space telescopes. I will force the community to look at building something practical, not something that they can coast in their career on.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 3, 2007 08:29 PM

I meant to say that "It" will force the community to look at building something practical.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 3, 2007 10:24 PM

Dennis,
about "go for it"... it seems I'm alone to support saving Hubble and suggest plans to do that but I've no funds to "go for it"
about the ATV... I know its price per launch, but it's an alternative to save the Hubble without "give money to russians"
about "Ion propulsion"... I've no doubts the Ion technology is interesting and works... I doubt that something "practical" will be ready in time (and used) to save the Hubble
about "force the community"... develop, build and launch a new Hubble needs GIANT FUNDS that "community" never can find

Posted by Gaetano Marano at March 4, 2007 04:18 AM

Why the problem with sending money to Russia? After all, America sends $50 billion per year to Saudi Arabia; a small percentage saving on that would, in terms of balance of payments, easily pay for the entire space programme with money to spare. And we all know how that saving can be made.

The point is that the cost of space is at the moment trivial. A working space infrastructure is within the means of maybe a dozen individuals, never mind corporations or governments.

I only wish that someone (perhaps one of those here?) had got to Bill Gates and/or Warren Buffett to make some investments in space before both men decided to throw their fortunes down the bottomless, festering pit that is Africa. And it would probably have been better for Africans, eventually, than what actually did happen.

(Before anyone accuses me of racism - the "festering" bit refers to political corruption. It is an undeniable fact that a large part of money sent to Africa ends up in Switzerland.)

Posted by Fletcher Christian at March 4, 2007 06:07 AM

Christian,
it's clear from my posts that I've no problem with sending money to Russia
USA and Europe have send very much money to Russia in the past to help its economy
and now that Russia is a capitalist country (and a prime source of oil and methane) hundreds billion$$$ travel every year to and from Russia (to buy everything this growing country needs: computers, cars, luxury products, etc.)
using cold war/nationalist arguments against "send money to Russia" is a further trick to kill the Hubble
but the real problem is: "why so many peoples are aganist saving the Hubble and/or moving it near the ISS?"
some possible answers are:
- NASA wants the Hubble ends to move its funds to the ESAS/VSE plan (as already done with other projects)
- there is a secret project to move the Hubble with Ion engines but NASA is not ready to announce it
- space agencies and privates want the Hubble ends soon hoping to receive BIG funds for a new Hubble
- the teams that works on JWST and/or earth telescopes and/or future space telescopes HATE a strong "competitor" like an (upgraded) Hubble that may arrive first on the best future discoveries (vanishing their work)
so, a "killed Hubble" will make ALL happy... :)

Posted by Gaetano Marano at March 4, 2007 07:32 AM

Gaetano

My position is that I would much rather see the USG give American companies money to increase our operational capabilities in space rather than give it to ANY other country. Sorry but I think that robust space operational capability is a key technology in the 21st century and I don't want to subsidize the Russians in building that any more than I want to support Any oil producing country.

I am completely in favor of saving Hubble and I think that there is a good possibility for that to happen privately. I do think that the NASA mission will happen in 08, giving us at least six or seven years beyond that to put together a mission.

Where did you get the idea that NASA is wanting to end Hubble funding to put it in the VSE? Barbara Mikulski has been quite adept at getting money for HST and there is no indication that this will change as long as she is in the Senate (she is getting a little long in the tooth but will probably be around for another decade).

The problem with HST is the same problem that the Palomar Telescope has, it has an aperture that is not going to change. The 5 meter Palomar scope has been surpassed by the 8.3 meter single and binocular telescopes.

I have been working in this area for several years now and it is entirely feasible to assemble a 10-20 meter aperture telescope at ISS today, and then move it to an operational orbit wherever we like. This can happen cheaper than building a new Hubble.

This is why I like the idea of a Parom coupled with an RLV, whether a TSTO or an SSTO system. If we can get parts into a low orbit and then transfer them with a Parom type system ( I don't like any system that uses toxic propellants) with better propellants to do the transfer to ISS, then this helps to continue down the cost/performance curve. This is also why ISS is so incredibly important as it is a destination. If Bigelow ever gets his station up so much the better.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 4, 2007 11:28 AM

Dennis,
to-day, great part of shoes, suits, computers, etc. are "made in China" (that still is a communist country :) but I'm sure you don't go to your office naked nor use a Commodore 64 to avoid "give money to China"
move the Hubble with FedEx is better for your economy, but, if Russia already has (or will have soon) the right vehicle to accomplish the mission, there is no reason to wait the Hubble death (and, move the Hubble, is not a strategic/military/spy/key technology affair, it's simply a "box moving" job)
the lack of a "robust space operational capability" is not blame of Russia (read "Shuttle retirement and Orion in 2015") also, Russia has the money, the technology and the engineers to compete (also) WITHOUT the extra-profit of a few Progress sold
privates can't save the Hubble... excluding one SpaceX's lift-off and a scale-model Bigelow module in orbit (launched with a russian rocket...) privates have made nothing (so far) nor have the money and the experience to accomplish a complex mission like this
the main costs of the HST proiect are: Shuttle repair mission, new repair/upgrade hardware and astronauts training, then, since the next mission will be the LAST possible (away from ISS) NASA will SAVE hundreds million$$$ per year from 2009...
Hubble can't be upgraded with a bigger mirror, but considerable image quality upgrade may come from (future) new sensors, computers and image processing software
about new space telescopes... I don't know/see any real (FUNDED) project of "assembled" (or non-assembled) space telescope around, then, until we have something of "concrete" Hubble has NO alternative
to "get parts into a low orbit and then transfer them" there is no need of a new SSTO/TSTO RLV ..any (ready available and cheap) rocket can do the same job at a fraction of the price... then, the "low orbiting payload" can be moved to the ISS with many different vehicles (Soyuz, Progress, ACTS, Parom, Orion, COTS, ATV, HTV, Shenzhou) just having the right docking port

Posted by Gaetano Marano at March 4, 2007 05:29 PM

this is a little off-topic post... :)

since Mr.X of Chair Force Engineer has no email address (but, maybe, he read this blog) I post here a link for him (about the TeamVision's plan) http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=937768&postcount=522 (thank you for your link to my ghostNASA blog)

Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at March 4, 2007 05:58 PM

again about "move the Hubble"... a fast, rational, cheap and 50/50 (USA/Russia) solution may be: one (russian) Parom tug refueld with a dozen of tanks launched with (american) SpaceX's Falcons

Posted by Gaetano Marano at March 4, 2007 06:10 PM

Gaetano

I know that you sincere but you are just wrong.

Here are the facts.

NASA is going to fly the Shuttle Hubble mission in 2008.

HST is working within 1% of its diffraction limited optical performance.

HST is being fitted with an LIDS passive docking adaptor on the upcoming mission in order to set it up for future servicing/disposal/movement.

It is far too early to worry about anything else related to Hubble.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 4, 2007 06:14 PM

Dennis,

then (you claim) in the last repair/upgrade mission a LIDS docking port (the SAME planned for the lunar-Orion and LSAM) will be mounted to the Hubble

if TRUE this is a GREAT news!!!

but... it's your opinion/guess or do you are SURE of that?

do you have an OFFICIAL source about that?

Posted by Gaetano Marano at March 4, 2007 06:23 PM

Gaetano

Yes it is true. I have it from the folks at GSFC that are doing the mission. I don't know if it is in any official public stuff yet but I do know that they are doing it.

They are not stupid and know that the next STS mission is the last and are doing something to prepare for that. I was specifically told that it was a passive LIDS.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 4, 2007 09:31 PM

Dennis,

since this option was NEVER planned/announced/claimed before (not even in the recent Griffin's press conference about the 2008 mission) that means they "are not stupid" OR (simply) they read the Universe Today's forum in their spare time...

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=50793

however, I prefer to have an OFFICIAL source about this very important point rather than rumors and gossip...

LIDS has no "passive" versions since it's an androgynous docking system

Posted by Gaetano Marano at March 5, 2007 05:46 AM

Gaetano

Sorry dude, my sources remain intact. I don't really care if you believe it or not. Watch the fun in 2008.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 5, 2007 08:28 AM

I might as well add another one to your list.

The Hubble servicing group at GSFC is putting together a plan (along with a facility) for exploring how to use the CEV to service Hubble and the JWST telescope.

Dennis

Posted by dennis Ray Wingo at March 5, 2007 08:32 AM

Dennis,

I've already evaluated in my BAUT thread the option of to use the Orion for future Hubble servicing missions but I doubt they will happen because...

- that Orion missions will always be too away from ISS then risky like a Shuttle mission

- each Orion repair mission may cost like a Shuttle mission (and I don't believe they will have that funds)

- sending some Hubble's spare-parts to the ISS will allow many simple repair missions (with a Soyuz or an Orion sent for crew rotation) saving MANY billion$$$

about sources... I don't want that you reveal the name of your friends at GSFC

EVERYTIME a project is REALLY planned at NASA a detailed DOCUMENT is released... then, if the LIDS option is TRUE, a document that explain it MUST be available somewhere...

I just want to read it :)

Posted by Gaetano Marano at March 5, 2007 08:48 AM

this is another BAUT thread about "move the Hubble": http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=52801

Posted by Gaetano Marano at March 5, 2007 09:04 AM

Gaetano

There are a lot of things out there where there are documents but they are not released to the public. I have had the lunar lander stuff that Kcowing just posted for about four months as I am working on a contract related to that.

I have some images of the CEV servicing the JWST that I can release as I have permission to do so. YOu want them on your site?

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 5, 2007 09:25 AM

Dennis,

I'm happy to publish your images about JWST servicing on my site

about the Hubble repair... I know that it's a complex repair/upgrade mission that the Hubble-team develops from years and also the hardware is ready from years, so, detailed documents about it must surely be available/released somewhere

Posted by Gaetano Marano at March 5, 2007 09:43 AM

Gaetano

Available and released are two different things.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 5, 2007 10:45 AM

maybe, that documents already are released but we don't know the right links

Posted by Gaetano Marano at March 5, 2007 11:18 AM

Dennis,

I am sending an email to your mailcity address.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 5, 2007 07:31 PM

With all the talk about using Parom to service Hubble, and since Parom is essentially a docking tunnel with the tanks around it, could you use the Parom itself as a telescope capable of self-orbital-assembly? Say, dock a big lens package at one end and a lens/instrument package at the other? Both packages could be fairly long too.

Or, keep the big lens package and swap the instrument package for one suitable for commercial earth observations.

You could dock it at the ISS for service, move it to a cleaner environment for operations. And you still have the option of undocking both packages to get your Parom back.

Posted by Roger Strong at March 5, 2007 10:07 PM

Roger,
modify a Parom to become a telescope seems complex, costly and may limit the telescope's dimensions
Parom CAN be used to move a new telescope from/to the ISS but the main problem is HAVE a new telescope (without funds)

Posted by Gaetano Marano at March 6, 2007 06:10 AM

did not get your email

Resend with the subject line Transterrestrial

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 6, 2007 06:16 PM

Dennis,
Mike Puckett talks of a mail sent to you in his post

Posted by Gaetano Marano at March 6, 2007 06:23 PM

Ah, Ok, then Mike needs to do the same thing. I get hundreds of spam mails there per day and it is my spam toilet.

Dennis

Posted by dennis Ray Wingo at March 7, 2007 11:35 AM

Leaving the HST discussion aside, lurker lurkenstein at asks "I wonder what CSI thinks about their turf being taken over by the Russians who were their
partners at one time."

CSI is pleased that the space community is starting to focus again on the economic value, flexibility, and robustness provided by space tugs. Since 2000, CSI has discussed with NASA how an space station tug would solve the ISS last-mile challenge for many launch vehicles while providing an increase in cargo delivery mass efficiency.

CSI's LEO Express(SM)* intermodal system is designed to quickly, easily, and affordably provide cargo delivery services to space stations using existing vehicles and technologies. Yet it is flexible enough to provide a gateway for the use of new launch vehicles, improved spacetugs, and better cargo container technologies when they become available.

This flexibility is a major benefit of CSI's cargo system. Standardized containers allow you to disaggregate the supply chain into its components, making it easier to independently improve each part of the total cargo system. On Earth, because of intermodal standardized containers, when companies invest in bigger and more efficient cargo ships they don't worry about whether such a change will impact the trucks on the highway or the trains on the railways. CSI's intermodal cargo system does the same in space.

Our system can accommodate launch on existing vehicles such as ULA's Atlas V and Delta II & IV, and on future vehicles such as SpaceX Falcon 9, Rocketplane Kistler K-1, and AirLaunch QuickReach when they become available.

Similarly, CSI's first generation system uses the existing ISS-certified Progress spacecraft as a space tug. This system provides a significant improvement in cargo mass over current "direct ascent" systems, providing up to 100% increase in dry cargo delivered to ISS on the same launch vehicle vs. the standard Progress. But once we move to a tug-based architecture, it makes economic sense to invest in space tugs that can operate in orbit for longer periods of time, and with greater re-use.

Therefore, RSC-Energia's Parom and CSI's cargo container plans are not in conflict, and in fact are synergistic since Parom in intended to delivers cargo containers. CSI has worked with RSC-Energia on our ISS cargo delivery system since 2002, they were a subcontractor to us on our bid in 2006 for the NASA COTS program, including the eventual development of an all-U.S. system to comply with ISNA restrictions.

More importantly, our intermodal system can accommodate the use of future U.S. spacecraft in the space tug role, such as Lockheed's Orion CEV, SpaceX's Dragon, and t/Space's CXV, resulting in a major jump in efficiency for space station cargo delivery over those systems used by themselves. If any of these spacecraft are developed and certified for space station operations, CSI intends to plug them into our cargo delivery system.

Benigno Muñiz Jr.
Chief Technical Officer
Constellation Services International, Inc.

* "LEO Express" is a Trademark and Service mark of Constellation Services International, Inc. (CSI).

Posted by Ben Muniz at March 29, 2007 11:02 AM

Post a comment