DARPA Phoenix

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
14 August 2009
Messages
9,707
Reaction score
2,021
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Published on Apr 4, 2014

DARPA's Phoenix program seeks to enable robotics servicing and asset life extension in geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO), while developing new satellite architectures to reduce the cost of space-based systems. Specifically, Phoenix's goal is to develop and demonstrate technologies that make it possible to inspect and robotically service cooperative space systems in GEO and to validate new satellite assembly architectures.

http://youtu.be/OeKzdk0sWjI
 
On a related note, there's a new NASA project (more like a paper study at this stage) which is an (extremely belated) attempt to partially replace the space shuttle's capabilities. However, under the current circumstances, it's probably Dead On Arrival.

Via Slashdot: http://news.discovery.com/space/orbiting-rest-stops-to-repair-crumbling-satellites-150618.htm
 
Grey Havoc said:
On a related note, there's a new NASA project (more like a paper study at this stage) which is an (extremely belated) attempt to partially replace the space shuttle's capabilities. However, under the current circumstances, it's probably Dead On Arrival.


It is neither a paper study nor is it DOA. There is hardware on the ISS being tested for this. As well as ground tests.
 
Grey Havoc said:
On a related note, there's a new NASA project (more like a paper study at this stage) which is an (extremely belated) attempt to partially replace the space shuttle's capabilities. However, under the current circumstances, it's probably Dead On Arrival.

Via Slashdot: http://news.discovery.com/space/orbiting-rest-stops-to-repair-crumbling-satellites-150618.htm

That thing has been around for a while. I saw hardware being tested at Goddard back in 2012. I've probably got photos somewhere.

The interesting question is why they keep getting funded, and where the money comes from. They've been getting earmarked money for years. But why? And who is doing it?

Now the background is that Goddard developed Hubble and servicing for Hubble as well as servicing for other satellites back in the 1980s. They have the expertise. This is just the latest iteration of that. But somebody has been sending them cash and not even their leadership understands why it is happening.
 
Some of the photos I took of the NASA work back in 2012. This was at Goddard.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3848.jpg
    IMG_3848.jpg
    206.2 KB · Views: 809
  • IMG_3847.jpg
    IMG_3847.jpg
    259.7 KB · Views: 772
  • IMG_3844.jpg
    IMG_3844.jpg
    299.5 KB · Views: 725
You can find good sources about this NASA project on the internet. I just saw one recently, cannot remember where.

If I remember correctly, they were working on several related issues. The first issue was rendezvous with an uncooperative target, which essentially meant a satellite that was dead and no longer under control. That model that is mounted on the wall in one of the photos was a model of their theoretical test target in orbit. If I remember correctly, it is a dead comsat (Update: might be a dead weather satellite). (I seem to remember that they said that they had done a survey of the best possible test targets and unfortunately the best one was then owned by a French company, so it was not something they could count on. But this was three years ago, and they may have picked an entirely different target by now.)

I think that what they were doing was working out rendezvous software connected to imaging equipment. So they had (again, I'm trying to remember) a camera mounted on a robotic arm and that arm was programmed to act like it was a satellite. And then it was supposed to acquire the model on the wall, figure out which way the model spacecraft was oriented, and then maneuver itself up to rendezvous with it. Naturally you would assume that the target might actually be rotating, and this thing was fixed, so I don't know how they accounted for that. Possibly they had a software patch that tricked the primary program into thinking that the satellite was rotating. Dunno.

The screens were them working on one of these rendezvous projects.

The other major things they were working on was a system for capturing the target considering that the target was never built with grapples or anything like that, unlike Hubble or some other spacecraft in the 1980s. I don't know the particulars, but one of the problems is that there is no guarantee that you know EXACTLY what the satellite is even if you have the manufacturer's blueprints in front of you. That's because often changes are introduced during manufacturing that are not recorded. So you could fly your servicing satellite up thinking "We will grab hold of this antenna bracket" and then you get there and discover that the bracket doesn't exist, or doesn't have the strength you expected. So I think that they were trying to develop adaptive software that could deal with stuff like that.

Finally there was a really tough issue--how do you service a satellite that was never designed to be serviced? For instance, because many of these satellites use toxic fuels, often what happens is they fill up the tank through a valve, and then they install a permanent cap on the end of the fill-up pipe. It might be welded on or secured in some other way. It was NEVER designed to be opened up again. So how do you then refill the fuel tanks? That was a really tough issue and I think that is what they have already tested on ISS. That involves things like cutting through the side of a satellite, cutting into a fuel line, and installing a plug. Dangerous things to try.

Remember, the big problem here is that these spacecraft were never designed for servicing, so the question is how do you deal with that?

Major caveat here: I simply got a tour of their facility three years ago when I was there with some VIPs and I am not an expert on any of this stuff. I could be wrong about multiple facts. If you are really interested in the subject, you'll have to do your own research.
 
ISS work continues:

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-robotic-servicing-demonstrations-continue-onboard-the-space-station
 
blackstar said:
The interesting question is why they keep getting funded, and where the money comes from. They've been getting earmarked money for years. But why? And who is doing it?


THRILLER
 
Regarding this program, which has now evolved into Robotic Servicing of Geosynchronous Satellites (RSGS):

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/lawmakers-orbital-atk-denounce-darpa-satellite-servicing-program
 
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/orbital-atk-sues-darpa-over-robotic-satellite-servicing-program

Oh for the love of....

[Facepalm]
 
Note that Orbital-ATK is suing DARPA and not the NASA project. I don't know why.

Is the Orbital-ATK project really real? Or is it just more empty hope? Dunno.
 
DARPA picks SSL as satellite-servicing partner despite Orbital ATK lawsuit - See more at: http://spacenews.com/darpa-picks-ssl-as-satellite-servicing-partner-despite-orbital-atk-lawsuit
 
Irrespective of the merits of the lawsuit, it's really politically tone deaf on DARPA's part to award this contract given
the current political climate, the written objections of Congress and the fact that it's budgetary silly season.
 
marauder2048 said:
Irrespective of the merits of the lawsuit, it's really politically tone deaf on DARPA's part to award this contract given
the current political climate, the written objections of Congress and the fact that it's budgetary silly season.

Isn't being contrarian (aka advocatus diaboli) pretty much part of DARPA's mission charter though?

Martin
 
martinbayer said:
marauder2048 said:
Irrespective of the merits of the lawsuit, it's really politically tone deaf on DARPA's part to award this contract given
the current political climate, the written objections of Congress and the fact that it's budgetary silly season.

Isn't being contrarian (aka advocatus diaboli) pretty much part of DARPA's mission charter though?

Martin

Well, not in that manner.

But I think marauder has it wrong. OrbitalATK probably filed the suit to prevent the awarding of the contract. If the government halted awarding contracts simply because a wounded party filed suit, nothing would ever get done. Heck, it would become common practice to simply file suit all the time to wound your competitors. Also, just because a couple of members of Congress object to a contract does not mean that they are right and everybody else is wrong. They might be full of baloney.

I'm not saying that this contract by DARPA is a good idea. I'm just saying that if DARPA thinks it is a good idea, these things should not be deterrents to action.
 
It's not a matter of the merits of the concept or the contract award just the horrible timing and the political maladroitness.

These aren't a couple of random members of Congress; they sit on the HASC and on the very subcommittee that oversees DARPA.

DARPA awarding the contract:

a. over their objections
b. during budgetary silly season
c. while DARPA has a directorship vacancy* that needs to be filled

is just stupid.

* And IMHO, the current acting director should get the nod for that role but this contract award may be a career limiting move
 
marauder2048 said:
b. during budgetary silly season

You may have noticed that it is ALL SILLY SEASON ALL THE TIME right now.

Tell me when the crazy is going to end.
 
blackstar said:
marauder2048 said:
b. during budgetary silly season

You may have noticed that it is ALL SILLY SEASON ALL THE TIME right now.

Tell me when the crazy is going to end.

I don't see DARPA's budgetary hearings on the HASC/SASC schedules yet but they are normally late winter or early spring.
 
Flyaway said:
DARPA picks SSL as satellite-servicing partner despite Orbital ATK lawsuit - See more at: http://spacenews.com/darpa-picks-ssl-as-satellite-servicing-partner-despite-orbital-atk-lawsuit

http://spacenews.com/ssl-sues-orbital-atk-over-confidential-data-breach/

Apparently relates to a NASA project codenamed 'Dragonfly', which aims to 'to advance technology for the in-space assembly and repair of satellite antennas'.
 
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Robotic_Payload_for_RSGS_Mission_Moves_to_Next_Phase_of_Development_999.html
 
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Maxar_Technologies_SSL_Terminates_its_Participation_in_DARPAs_Robotic_Servicing_of_Geosynchronous_Satellites_Program_999.html
 
Grey Havoc said:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Maxar_Technologies_SSL_Terminates_its_Participation_in_DARPAs_Robotic_Servicing_of_Geosynchronous_Satellites_Program_999.html

That may have something to do with cash shortages at Maxar:

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3653/1

DARPA has a poor track record for space projects. There are probably a lot of interesting reasons for that (I have heard some stories), but I think there might be a fundamental reason. DARPA only funds projects for a short period of time, and they rotate program managers out relatively quickly. Few space projects can work on those short timescales, especially when you're trying to revolutionize the technology.

But robotic servicing of GEO comsats is still being looked at by a few companies. I have my doubts that there's a business case, but it's still an active area.
 
Not the first time a DARPA project has died because the companies involved tanked. *cough* Heliplane *cough*
 
DARPA budget highlights


Robotic Servicing of Geosynchronous Satellites (RSGS) — $46.3 million, a slight slip from $47.3 allocated in 2020. The RSGS program is aimed at establishing the capability to provide a variety of robotic services for satellites in GEO such as re-fueling or repairs. DARPA’s budget request says the program will be transitioned to a commercial partner who will provide the satellite to carry the robotic payload and operate it. DARPA has been looking at a launch date of 2022 for RSGS, after a series of problems that included the withdrawal last year of its commercial partner Maxar. The RSGS funds also support the Consortium For Execution of Rendezvous and Servicing (CONFERS) that brings together private sector and government experts to develop voluntary standards for on-orbit operations involving maneuverable satellites.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom