Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Yea this is an important one for us as well.

We really hope that they don't screw this one up as it will look bad for our commercial OOS efforts.

Too bad it cost 3.5x not including launch more than the original contract.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 9, 2007 10:04 AM

DARPA is supporting this because there are obvious military uses of this technology. Besides the refueling, a vehicle that can rendezvous with other vehicles in space and then disable them without destroying them (ie creating an orbital debris cloud) is very useful.

Though to give NASA a fair shake here, they did develop part of the autonav system. Let's hope this mission goes better than DART did! This mission can have some great positive repercussions for the space community as its a big step forward towards proving the tech needed for an orbital fuel depot.

Posted by Ryan Zelnio at March 9, 2007 12:40 PM

I didn't mean to imply that DARPA shouldn't be funding it, Ryan. Just that they shouldn't have had to bear the burden alone.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 9, 2007 12:43 PM

As a commercial developer of such systems I am not sold on complete autonomy. After the system has proven itself in many operations maybe, but you can never convince and insurance underwriter that the risks have been completely taken care of for an autonomous system.

Posted by dennis Ray Wingo at March 9, 2007 01:04 PM

Dennis,
I'm kind of with you. Honestly, for low-earth-orbit ops, I'd be much more a fan of a manned tug with a manipulator arm...but that's me.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at March 9, 2007 01:09 PM

one word: teleoperation. works wonders, and has the best of both alternatives ( human-operated, and autonomous )
Sorta like the Predator works ..

Posted by kert at March 9, 2007 02:28 PM

teleoperation, yep that is the ticket, at least for certain sections of the prox ops.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 9, 2007 02:48 PM

Doesn't the Russian Progress dock with the ISS completely autonomously? Do we have no access at all to the documentation of their methods?

Posted by Ed Minchau at March 9, 2007 03:27 PM

The Kurs system is very good. That is the part about demonstrated reliability.

However, Kurs is an active cooperative docking system. This system cannot be used for our application of docking to an existing GEO comsat.

The Orbital Express system is also a cooperative system.

See the difference?

Posted by Dennis Wingo at March 9, 2007 03:41 PM

> teleoperation, yep that is the ticket, at least for certain sections of the prox ops.

For a moment, I almost thought Dennis was actually going to concede the value of humans in space. :-)

All of these capabilities -- rendezvous, refueling, and satellite servicing -- have been demonstrated before. What hasn't been demonstrated is affordability. No one doubts the Shuttle can do all these things, but no one can afford a Shuttle flight.

At $300 million, this test is not much cheaper than a Shuttle flight was in the 80's. The big question is how much would an additional mission cost.

Posted by Edward Wright at March 9, 2007 04:14 PM

Humans in space does zero to increase the near term affordability of On Orbit Servicing UNLESS it is to use humans to assemble the systems to be used for OOS at ISS using OOA.

The price point for OOS as a profitable business is an interesting number and one that we have reached and it required no magic to do.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 9, 2007 04:26 PM

> Humans in space does zero to increase the near term affordability of On Orbit
> Servicing UNLESS it is to use humans to assemble the systems to be used
> for OOS at ISS

I'm sure Bigelow Aerospace would argue with your statement about ISS.

Despite all the humanoid bashing, humans have successfully done on-orbit servicing, while R2D2 hasn't yet.

Posted by Edward Wright at March 9, 2007 04:59 PM

> one word: teleoperation. works wonders, and has the best of both alternatives
> ( human-operated, and autonomous )
> Sorta like the Predator works ..

Contrary to what you hear on television, Predator works for a very narrow range of missions. There are good reasons why the military isn't considering Predators for its next generation of tanker aircraft.

Time lag sucks. An 18-year-old kid on a boom still beats an $80 million teleoperated robot.

Posted by Edward Wright at March 9, 2007 05:11 PM

>Time lag sucks. An 18-year-old kid on a boom still beats an $80 million teleoperated robot.

Simply not cost effective in GEO orbit.

I have the worldwide commercial license for the only operational space qualified teleoperations software and with that I can do a mission at a price point that allows me to make a profit.

There will be no humans beyond LEO for commercial purposes until the costs for in-space human transporation are low enough to support it.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 9, 2007 05:50 PM

It is amazing what is done in the commercial non space sector that in spaceflight seems hard...everyone talking about in orbit servicing should spend three or four days on the MARS or URSA or MEDUSA rigs...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 9, 2007 06:17 PM

> Simply not cost effective in GEO orbit.

Correction: simply not cost effective *at current costs*.

> There will be no humans beyond LEO for commercial purposes until the costs for in-space human
> transporation are low enough to support it.

No kidding, Dennis. That still doesn't explain why we ought to wait 40 years to reduce those costs.

Is R2D2 afraid of the competition? :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at March 9, 2007 10:33 PM

It is called dealing with life as it is, not as we wish it to be.

When you figure that part out you might become a better advocate for space.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 9, 2007 10:47 PM

> It is called dealing with life as it is, not as we wish it to be.

Dennis, it is possible to reduce the cost of access to space now, not 40 years from now.

That may not be the way you wish, but it's the way it is.

By the way, your comment about "no humans beyond LEO" is really funny, coming from a guy who's working on LSAM. :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at March 9, 2007 11:02 PM

Orbital Express has a substantial NASA component. And the cheap shot at ESAS, given the long time this project has been in development, either malicious or ignorant.

Posted by anon at March 10, 2007 07:16 AM

Yes Ed and we all know that micronukes brought down the world trade center.

Posted by Dennis Wingo at March 10, 2007 01:47 PM

Dennis, can you go into more detail on the difference between an active cooperative docking system and a completely autonomous docking system?

Posted by Ed Minchau at March 10, 2007 09:15 PM

Cooperative Docking

Between a Progress/Soyuz and the station there is active cooperation. (David Anderman may correct me on details here).

The station has either corner cubes or some other method of actively reflecting the radar signals from kurs. There is also a visual target on station that the video system looks at. Therefore there is "cooperation" between the two systems to enable the docking. ISS and Soyuz/Progress also have mutual mechanical systems that allow them to latch together.

On Orbital express there are similar aids for the laser rangefinder. There is also a docking attachement on both of the Orbital express vehicles.

These are by defintiion cooperative systems.

On a GEO comsat and a SMART-OLEV (the new name of our system that will be informative to some people) there is no cooperation from the client GEO comsat. There are no docking attachments, there are no corner cubes, there is nothing that is there to aid in the docking processing. This was the case as well in the 1980's when the Shuttle captured comsats.

Our On Orbit Servicing System uses somewhat similar methods to what the shuttle did in the 80's but is based on the German Space Agency's (DLR) design.

I am not going to get into gross detail on this as there is proprietary technology involved (not ITAR, proprietary).

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 11, 2007 09:46 AM

This might be your point Dennis, but I dont think that the shuttle actually captured "ANY" communications satellites in the 80's.

I might be wrong but as I recall the only robotic arm "capture" in the 80's was a somewhat spinning "Solar Max" Hubble, etc all firmly under some sort of "control"...the com satellites (Westar/Palapa, Leasat, and a Intelsat) or more or less "dead" satellites were all "captured" by the action of Astronauts during EVA...

From memory I might have missed one but I dont recall the "arm" capturing a single comm satellite...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 11, 2007 12:13 PM

I did not differentate between control and non control.

Our business model is based around the docking of our system with a functional GEO comsat. By definition that means that they are under control.

To capture a spacecraft not under control is a whole nuther ballgame and not what we would do, at least at the beginning of the business as there is little money to be made from such a business, unless it failed in the middle of a group of operating birds and was on the way to a collision.

The shuttle used the "Stinger" for the comsats that was inserted into the apogee motor by a crewperson on the end of the robitc arm. Then the arm maneuvered the bird into the cargo bay. The comsats that I remember during the Shuttle operation were all actually operational birds with their control systems at least under minimal operational conditions.

That wild and wacky Pierre Thuot used his hands to capture Intelsat VI in 1992 when the robotic attachments failed to achive capture.

Technically the Shuttle capture via the robotic arm was via telepresence, not via autonomous operation and therefore does not match the definition of what the Kurs/Progress/Soyuz docking to ISS does.

The point of commonality with STS and comsats is that the comsats have no features that adapt them to be captured, either actively or passively even though they were functional.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 11, 2007 04:09 PM

Sorry no Dennis.

You dont recall things correctly. There are some significant errors (history doesnt seem to be your thing!)

"The shuttle used the "Stinger" for the comsats that was inserted into the apogee motor by a crewperson on the end of the robitc arm"

I dont think so. I think that this was done for Westar and Palapa by EVA crewmen on the "backpack"/jetpack EMU whatever you want to call it. At home I have a very nicely framed photo of Joe Allen doing just that with his signature.

"That wild and wacky Pierre Thuot used his hands to capture Intelsat VI in 1992 when the robotic attachments failed to achive capture."

Sorry no.

There was no "robotic" attachment, just the capture bar that Pierre held in his hand. It failed, twice or three times...I cant recall. EAch time putting "rates" onto the vehicle.

The capture was done by three EVA crewman in the payload bay (first and only time that was done) with Dan Brandensien doing some masterful flying putting the three crewman between the spinning bird.

Again I have a rather nice sign photo at home of the event.

History doesnt seem to be your thing, including space history Dennis (sorry couldnt not take the shot you left yourself wide open).

Hopefully your space model is not based on the faulty information you have presented...

(all in good fun!)

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 11, 2007 06:42 PM

Dennis.

Just continuing on, from memory...the Leasat was nabbed by OX completly by hand...again another picture signed at home.

I think that the only "sats" the robot arm has tagged who were free flyers... are Solar Max, Hubble and the Spartan.......

Unless there really was that secret DoD mission...

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 11, 2007 06:44 PM

Oler

You are still such a moron.

Here is from Pierre's mission. (hint I know him)

The capture required three EVAs: a planned one by astronaut Pierre J. Thuot and Richard J. Hieb who were unable to attach a capture bar to the satellite from a position on the RMS; a second unscheduled but identical attempt the following day; and finally an unscheduled but successful hand capture by Pierre J. Thuot and fellow crewmen Richard J. Hieb and Thomas D. Akers as Commander Daniel C. Brandenstein delicately maneuvered the orbiter to within a few feet of the 4.5 ton communications satellite. An ASEM structure was erected in the cargo bay by the crew to serve as a platform to aid in the hand capture and subsequent attachment of the capture bar.

*******

A capture bar is a robotic element you moron. I don't have the time to refute all of your crap.

Oh, how is that trailer park of yours doing?

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 12, 2007 07:38 AM

LOL

a "capture" bar is not a robotic element, when the main "capture" was done by three space suited astronauts.

They caught it with their "hands" Dennis.

Face it Dennis, you got everything wrong about yoru post.

You dont know history...The robotic arm did not capture the Palapa and Westar satellites...

Sorry.

Have fun. I enjoy teaching!

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 12, 2007 11:55 AM

Not according to Pierre Thout.

He grabbed Intelsat VI with his hands after the capture bar failed, indicating that it was a mechanism. Pierre did this on the end of the robotic arm by himself, using his body to kill the rotational energy of the spacecraft.

If you have a problem with that interpretation then call Pierre, I can give you his phone number.

Yes I remember them using the MMU for the Palapa and Westar birds. The "Stinger" is also classifed as a robotic aid, at least that is what the patent application says.

The point remains that all of the spacecraft were still under control when they were captured by the crew and the point about cooperative and non cooperative systems as well.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 12, 2007 02:56 PM

Pierre did not alone bring the Intelsat into the capture area...he floundered at the solo attempt at it. He didnt kill any rotational energy, indeed he set up some nutating one.

I dont think that all the spacecraft were under control.

The LEASAT was dead...

But thanks for playing Dennis. LOL

It is OK Dennis...I know history isnt your big deal. Hope you are better at your day job.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 12, 2007 03:00 PM

Whatever Oler

You are still a legend in your own mind.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 12, 2007 04:29 PM

at least in terms of knowing history of all sorts vastly better then you !

Hope your day job is going better.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 12, 2007 07:27 PM

You just keep thinking that.

Posted by dennis Ray Wingo at March 13, 2007 10:05 PM

Post a comment