Orbital ATK believes in satellite servicing, but not rocket reusability

[kunok]

2 hours ago, Mitchz95 said:

Didn't Elon Must tweet that the rocket they landed in December had no damage and probably could have flown again?

 

1 hour ago, UmbralRaptor said:

He did. But they managed to rather mess up a test firing, and damage 8 of the engines as I understand it.

Or maybe it wasn't ready to reuse, things can be very different from a landed stage engine than from a test-bed reused engine. Laboratory test work a lot better than the real test.

Oh boy, how good world we will live if everything that works in a controlled environment worked in a real one.

1 hour ago, sevenperforce said:

These engines were designed for in-flight restart from the beginning so they are pretty sturdy.

Source? Because they are incremental developments, so I don't think the from the beginning part is ok.

[Kartoffelkuchen]

On 5.3.2016 at 6:40 PM, UmbralRaptor said:

He did. But they managed to rather mess up a test firing, and damage 8 of the engines as I understand it.

Wrong understanding there - that was the CRS-8 core which got damaged after a test fairing at McGregor. Orbcomm-2 core showed problems with one engine.

 

But yeah it's interesting to know, looking forward to seeing that thing develope!

[NecroBones]

 

Reusabability has the potential to revolutionize the spaceflight industry, but my feeling is that there will always be a place for cheap, dumb boosters too. As to which is better for any given mission, it may simply boil down to that mission's requirements.

 

[KSK]

On 5 March 2016 at 5:40 PM, UmbralRaptor said:

He did. But they managed to rather mess up a test firing, and damage 8 of the engines as I understand it.

Was that a second test fire? My understanding is that they did a hot fire after recovery and it generally went OK apart from some thrust fluctuations in one of the engines, which was initially blamed on ingested debris. I haven't  been able to find links to anything they did to it after that.

[Frybert]

Look up about two posts or so.

[wumpus]

Has anybody asked about how in the world they are going to repair the satellites?  The only time this has ever been done is on Spacestations (pretty much full time towards Mir's end of life) and on the Hubble.  All of which was done by humans.  Are they sending a robot?  Has anybody asked Goddard (or some other big satellite assembly location) about letting a robot play with their satellites (even in a gravity field)?  It sounds like it is asking for trouble (refuel I could believe.  Judging by what the Hubble repair involved, I don't believe robots are doing that any time soon).

Scott Manley has a semi-recent tweet stating that "space station freedom" was originally pitched as a satellite repair location, but that it was impossible due to delta-v issues.  Was that due to the ISS requirement that it have an inclination favorable to Kazakstan, or simply that the range of useful orbits even from KSC (and maybe Wallops) is just too wide to deal with (assuming "space station freedom" was launched to a maximum equatorial angle for the equinox (which is as good a place as I can imagine for a Florida-based repair depot).

Finally, orbital most certainly is in the rocket reuse business, and has been longer than space-x.  Its just that their idea of reuse is to take cold-war era surplus and integrate them into rockets capable of firing into space (like ULA/NASA (and the Russians) have been doing since day one, but with actual sitting-in-a-silo-for-years ICBMs).  They might only get fired once, but they are being reused.

[mikegarrison]

On 3/3/2016 at 10:01 PM, kerbiloid said:

According to Musk, one flight costs about 60 M$.
According to wiki, one F22 costs 66 M$.
F22 weight ~= 22 t, Falcon dry weight ~= 30 t.
So, Falcon ~= F22.
Any fighter is by default an expendable resource, that's why they are produced by the hundreds and thousands.

Falcon lifespan say ~= 10 flights (the best of Shuttle engines was used for 19 times afaik).
I.e. any reusable Falcon flight would cost at least 10-15 M$ including the refusbirhing. Not much less than a single-use flight.

So, while F22/F35 are produced by thousands, not much sense in a reusable rocket.

I believe the US produced about 120 F-22s. AFAIK there is no provision for producing any more of them. I highly doubt that the Air Force considers them to be expendable resources.

[Frybert]

On 3/3/2016 at 1:01 AM, kerbiloid said:

So, while F22/F35 are produced by thousands, not much sense in a reusable rocket.

Um, no.

 

Quote

Number built	195 (8 test and 187 operational aircraft)

 

Edited March 11, 2016 by Frybert

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

Has anybody asked about how in the world they are going to repair the satellites?  The only time this has ever been done is on Spacestations (pretty much full time towards Mir's end of life) and on the Hubble.  All of which was done by humans.  Are they sending a robot?  Has anybody asked Goddard (or some other big satellite assembly location) about letting a robot play with their satellites (even in a gravity field)?  It sounds like it is asking for trouble (refuel I could believe.  Judging by what the Hubble repair involved, I don't believe robots are doing that any time soon).

Scott Manley has a semi-recent tweet stating that "space station freedom" was originally pitched as a satellite repair location, but that it was impossible due to delta-v issues.  Was that due to the ISS requirement that it have an inclination favorable to Kazakstan, or simply that the range of useful orbits even from KSC (and maybe Wallops) is just too wide to deal with (assuming "space station freedom" was launched to a maximum equatorial angle for the equinox (which is as good a place as I can imagine for a Florida-based repair depot).

Finally, orbital most certainly is in the rocket reuse business, and has been longer than space-x.  Its just that their idea of reuse is to take cold-war era surplus and integrate them into rockets capable of firing into space (like ULA/NASA (and the Russians) have been doing since day one, but with actual sitting-in-a-silo-for-years ICBMs).  They might only get fired once, but they are being reused.

Well, no, the Shuttle did Hubble repair (and a small amount before challenger on other satellites as well). Robotic refueling  has been done on the ISS by robots, and that's what they're aiming for first (and keeping the attitude correct) but by using the repair ship as a Space tug (it's called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Extension_Vehicle)

Also, Space Station Freedom was more shut down for repair uses due to lack of money to make the "Dual Keel" a reality. These robots can be mass-produced, and sent to various orbits, and use ion propulsion. They are far less susceptible to the inclination delta v problem- but are starting in GEO , which all have similar inclinations. Polar sats are the next place that would be useful for satellite repair. Other satellites have too different inclinations to bother.

Edited March 11, 2016 by fredinno

[Delta_8930]

4 hours ago, KSK said:

Was that a second test fire? My understanding is that they did a hot fire after recovery and it generally went OK apart from some thrust fluctuations in one of the engines, which was initially blamed on ingested debris. I haven't  been able to find links to anything they did to it after that.

Most likely they took the aft section apart and examined the engines. 

[wumpus]

22 hours ago, KSK said:

Was that a second test fire? My understanding is that they did a hot fire after recovery and it generally went OK apart from some thrust fluctuations in one of the engines, which was initially blamed on ingested debris. I haven't  been able to find links to anything they did to it after that.

That really kills the "gas and go" idea.  Of course, the whole logistics of integrating a second stage with the first has always been far more than  "gas and go", but expect a lot more work.

[KSK]

7 hours ago, wumpus said:

That really kills the "gas and go" idea.  Of course, the whole logistics of integrating a second stage with the first has always been far more than  "gas and go", but expect a lot more work.

Depends what it was I guess, and how easy it was to remove. Assuming that debris was the problem, presumably it didn't get far enough into the engine to break anything important. Musk is usually fairly open about calling an explosion an explosion, so I'm inclined to believe that one tweet I found.

Fingers crossed anyway.

[FishInferno]

On 3/3/2016 at 1:01 AM, kerbiloid said:

According to Musk, one flight costs about 60 M$.
According to wiki, one F22 costs 66 M$.
F22 weight ~= 22 t, Falcon dry weight ~= 30 t.
So, Falcon ~= F22.
Any fighter is by default an expendable resource, that's why they are produced by the hundreds and thousands.

Falcon lifespan say ~= 10 flights (the best of Shuttle engines was used for 19 times afaik).
I.e. any reusable Falcon flight would cost at least 10-15 M$ including the refusbirhing. Not much less than a single-use flight.

So, while F22/F35 are produced by thousands, not much sense in a reusable rocket.

I wouldn't design a fighter jet to be expendable.  I would design it to blow the enemy out of the sky and then go back to reload.

 

[Kryten]

http://www.orbitalatk.com/news-room/release.asp?prid=137

Orbital have secured a firm customer for their satellite servicing service, and have started production of the first Mission Extension Vehicle, with launch set for late 2018.

[kurja]

On 3/2/2016 at 9:47 PM, fredinno said:

I doubt fighters last for 10s of flights (being in war) so there's that....

Well for an example usaf alone flew close to 65 thousand sorties in '91 "desert storm". Combined losses of the entire coalition in combat sorties, <50 fixed wing aircraft. So...

[todofwar]

I actually think this is a plausible idea of they just leave the MEV up in orbit, and use big dump boosters to get more fuel for it into LEO. Maybe put a hangar in orbit (doesn't have to be pressurized, just a large container to prevent parts from slipping away) where you can periodically service it, and for really damaged satellites bring them to the hangar for more extensive repairs. 

[kerbiloid]

A repaired old craft =
    +1 old damaged craft.
    -1 unborn new craft.
Satellite and rocket manufacturers will cut production and fire personnel if such refurbishing takes place. Hardly associates with a progress in the space.

Also if all satellites were being repaired, you were still using pagers instead of smartphones.

Mother teaches daughter:
- Do you see our daddy? Everything in our home is always being repaired by his own hands. Furniture? By his own. Electricity? By his own. Bathroom? Also by his own. Even old toasters, kettles and cooking pots. Really golden hands!
So, daughter, if you will ever meet somebody like him...
...Run away as fast as you can, or there will never be at least one new thing in your home!

[Red Iron Crown]

On 4/13/2016 at 2:46 AM, kerbiloid said:

Also if all satellites were being repaired, you were still using pagers instead of smartphones.

Uh, no? The only thing satellite-related that most smartphones use is GPS/GLONASS for positioning, data and voice is done through terrestrial towers.

[kerbiloid]

9 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Uh, no? The only thing satellite-related that most smartphones use is GPS/GLONASS for positioning, data and voice is done through terrestrial towers.

Smartphones themselves - yes.
But smartphones are just hand-held terminals of the content distribution in total.
They have appeared ~10 years ago - when the data traffic (TV, internet, etc) achieved the level when a handheld phone+TV+computer pack became economically reasonable.
So, with old data infrastucture the smartphones would be mostly used as mobile phones, rather than portable media&game center.
OK, maybe not pagers, but Siemens S60.

[Red Iron Crown]

Just now, kerbiloid said:

Smartphones themselves - yes.
But smartphones are just hand-held terminals of the content distribution in total.
They have appeared ~10 years ago - when the data traffic (TV, internet, etc) achieved the level when a handheld phone+TV+computer pack became economically reasonable.
So, with old data infrastucture the smartphones would be mostly used as mobile phones, rather than portable media&game center.
OK, maybe not pagers, but Siemens S60.

Only an absurdly small amount of internet traffic flows through satellites, not sure what you're on about. 

[kunok]

6 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:

Only an absurdly small amount of internet traffic flows through satellites, not sure what you're on about. 

I always wondered why so many people thinks that the principal interconnection of internet is done by satellites and not by optical fibber

[fredinno]

On 4/13/2016 at 0:05 PM, Kryten said:

http://www.orbitalatk.com/news-room/release.asp?prid=137

Orbital have secured a firm customer for their satellite servicing service, and have started production of the first Mission Extension Vehicle, with launch set for late 2018.

Cool

I think this will be the next big "rocket landing".

Then everyone will think OrbitalATK is a newspace company

(the Orbital side technically is, though)

On 4/14/2016 at 8:40 PM, todofwar said:

I actually think this is a plausible idea of they just leave the MEV up in orbit, and use big dump boosters to get more fuel for it into LEO. Maybe put a hangar in orbit (doesn't have to be pressurized, just a large container to prevent parts from slipping away) where you can periodically service it, and for really damaged satellites bring them to the hangar for more extensive repairs. 

They do leave the MEV in orbit. Only problem is that this probably isn't big enough yet to justify a Xenon refueling station (unless OrbitalATK extends this system to a full-on reusable Xenon Space tug, which is probably the next logical step).

But a servicing hangar is pointless, it's way too big, and honestly, unless it's pressurized and astronauts can get to it, it's probably no better than the MEV-esque repair solution.

On 4/14/2016 at 10:16 PM, kerbiloid said:

A repaired old craft =
    +1 old damaged craft.
    -1 unborn new craft.
Satellite and rocket manufacturers will cut production and fire personnel if such refurbishing takes place. Hardly associates with a progress in the space.

Also if all satellites were being repaired, you were still using pagers instead of smartphones.

Mother teaches daughter:
- Do you see our daddy? Everything in our home is always being repaired by his own hands. Furniture? By his own. Electricity? By his own. Bathroom? Also by his own. Even old toasters, kettles and cooking pots. Really golden hands!
So, daughter, if you will ever meet somebody like him...
...Run away as fast as you can, or there will never be at least one new thing in your home!

No, Satellites need to be replaced every so often to adapt to new tech, even if its parts are repaired and replaced. Look at the Hubble. It's 20 years old, and despite numerous servicing missions, it's becoming antiquated.

 

GEO sats are designed to last 15 years. This repair service is probably to allow for a lower design lifetime of maybe 8 years on launch (and to be repaired to extend the lifetime) and for sats that prematurely fail (or are in a partial launch failure and use too much propellant to get to GEO.)

[Kryten]

 I think it's more likely that they'll use it support either old or malfunctioning satellites for maybe a year or half a year at a time; that means they don't have purchase a replacement as quickly, and could save them a bunch of money in the long run. It's doubtful it would make much economic sense for a smaller provider (Intelsat is the biggest, 50+ sats), but it's possible multiple small providers could share a vehicle and do something similar.

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, Kryten said:

 I think it's more likely that they'll use it support either old or malfunctioning satellites for maybe a year or half a year at a time; that means they don't have purchase a replacement as quickly, and could save them a bunch of money in the long run. It's doubtful it would make much economic sense for a smaller provider (Intelsat is the biggest, 50+ sats), but it's possible multiple small providers could share a vehicle and do something similar.

This is the current plan, you grab the rocket nozzle of the target and then take over the station keeping and orientation task until you get an replacement.
That can be done on lots of satellites.
However I don't think the service satellite would last for many rounds, perhaps two maximum.  

An more advanced task would be refueling, this would require an docking port designed for this, probably most relevant for the huge military satellites in leo. 
Final step would be to add / replace parts, reaction wheels comes to mind, this is likely to require an berting interface and an trapdoor for electrical interface. 

[Kryten]

The whole point of this thing is to last a lot of rounds. Think about it, it has most of the systems of a mid-size and high-power GSO comsat; if it only extends the life of one or two comsats, it's not going to make any economic sense relative to just buying a new satellite. One old enough to be on it's last legs and needing this sort of thing will be a decade or more out of date to start with, hanging on for another half decade or more means you end up with a worthless dinosaur.