This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

DARPA Next Step for Robotic On-Orbit Servicing

By Marc Boucher
NASA Watch
September 4, 2014
Filed under

DARPA Seeking Ideas for Public-Private Partnership to Jumpstart Robotic Satellite Servicing, SpaceRef Business
“Seeking to “jumpstart” the on-orbit robotic satellite servicing concept, DARPA has issued a request for information (RFI) for companies to submit ideas to enable a flight demonstration within the next five years.”

“We’re asking the space community to think hard about how they want the future of space operations to look and how GEO robotics could help,” said Gordon Roesler, DARPA program manager. “Their insights are essential as we take the first concrete steps toward viable satellite-servicing capabilities in GEO. If we’re successful, we will significantly accelerate development of a capacity to maximize the utility of current space infrastructure and enhance the capabilities of future systems.”

SpaceRef co-founder, entrepreneur, writer, podcaster, nature lover and deep thinker.

29 responses to “DARPA Next Step for Robotic On-Orbit Servicing”

  1. Dennis Ray Wingo says:
    0
    0

    Hmmm… I wonder who has been preaching about this for ten years or more…

    • Marc Boucher says:
      0
      0

      Would that be Dennis Wingo I wonder 😉

    • Bill Adkins says:
      0
      0

      I’m skeptical that satellite servicing is the right approach for the “big picture”,at overall space industry level.

      Sat servicing of a failed mission, or extending life with more prop, fresh batts of an existing mission may seem to make sense in specific cases for that specific mission, but satellite servicing would also seem to imply that industry/suppliers would be building fewer systems, which may actually drive up cost, reduce some opportunities to inject new technology in some areas. Also, given potential threats to satellites, should we be making them more serviceable or more disposable?

      A big problem for the space business/industry and even government, is the lack of rate. Satellite servicing may make sense on an individual basis, but what;s the impact on the industry as a whole?

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        Servicing can increase the use of new technology. If you know you can replace a component, you can risk using a less proven technology (such as off-the-shelf electronics) without significantly shortening the lifespan of your satellite.

        Being able to lower the cost of those satellites by using off-the-shelf systems, means larger constellations of smaller systems are more affordable. Such as Google’s proposal for a 360-satellite constellation of smallsats. There clearly isn’t a fixed sized market for satellite services.

        The servicing craft themselves provide a whole new product for spacecraft manufacturers, and servicing missions also increase the number of small payloads for low-cost launch providers.

        And there are a number of failed satellites (particularly the infamous Envisat) which are prime risks of triggering a collision cascade. Removing them should be an industry-wide priority. Reducing the risk of collisions is good for business.

        The logic you use, IMO, is partly why the satellite and launch industry has been so paralysed for so long. This happens in most industries when there are a small number of providers. They become afraid of innovation because they don’t want to “eat their own lunch”, and the industry stagnates until a novel provider is able to change the business model so dramatically they can bypass the usual cost-of-entry into that market.

        And when you hear comments from the CEO of a major satellite manufacturer, when asked about satellite servicing, “joking” that they’ll have to start welding their fuel caps on, you know you’re looking at an industry in desperate need of a major shake-up.

      • Dennis Ray Wingo says:
        0
        0

        This assumes a static market, which would hardly be the case with on orbit servicing. What do the operators want? More profits. On orbit servicing lowers their costs which generates more profit on their assets. This allows them to expand, which means buying more assets, which leads to more profits.

        To take this position is kinda like telling the Digital Equipment Corporation to not invest in microcomputers as they will cause a loss of market share in minicomputers.

        It is going to happen and the operator with the most vision (and they are out there) to adopt these new approaches will benefit.

  2. Half Moon says:
    0
    0

    How does this time in with the work Goddard is doing on Satellite Servicing?

    • SouthwestExGOP says:
      0
      0

      I have talked to the GSFC Satellite Servicing Capabilities Office recently, and they have some neat technology that is unfortunately stuck on the ground right now. There are some ways to move it into space however…

  3. SouthwestExGOP says:
    0
    0

    The aspect that concerns me is that they are gonna try to jump right to geosynchronous orbit – so a small error could be a serious problem. We should do some more testing of sub scale prototypes in lower orbits first, and then fly the proven system.

    • Dennis Ray Wingo says:
      0
      0

      This testing has already long ago happened. The DLR/JAXA ETS 7 mission in 1998. The DARPA led Orbital Express in 2003. The DLR Led TECSAS in 2012.

      The technical fact of the matter is that things happen slower in GEO orbit with lower differential orbital velocities and much more valuable assets there…

      The time has certainly come for this to happen. It should have happened in 2008.

      • SouthwestExGOP says:
        0
        0

        With all due respect to Dennis and his accomplishments, we should all still be concerned when anyone tries to make too large of a jump in technology. The US ability to do rendezvous and prox ops depends on Dragon and DragonEye, or Cygnus and TriDAR. Orbital Express, XSS-11, etc have been a few years ago. Technology transfer from even allies can be uncertain. The only (civilian??) rendezvous we do now is with ISS, a large and cooperative target. Some of our corporate knowledge has dissipated with the retirement of the Shuttle rendezvous capability. Going to geo with a new system involves tremendous risk – a newly designed vehicle, probably a new sensor, etc.

        DARPA certainly wants to avoid building a large and expensive and complicated system – and sending it to geo just to find out that a few assumptions were wrong.

        My company has proposed to NASA some rendezvous missions, who ever does it should learn a lot that will reduce risk for more complicated missions.

        • Dennis Ray Wingo says:
          0
          0

          I have no idea what company may be yours but there is a wealth of experience out there in the world today and it is not just U.S. technology anymore. The Europeans, Japanese, and Russians have a lot of experience in the field and the best recent books on the subject are from Europe…

          There is nothing fundamentally different between doing LEO and GEO rendezvous and indeed technically from the work we did, it does seem to be easier. To say that this is too large a jump in technology is head scratching to say the least.

          • SouthwestExGOP says:
            0
            0

            First we could all agree that we need to do something like this project, it is a variation of the Phoenix program but this one wants to involve private industry in more of a design role. The US needs to stay in the design/test/utilize role of rendezvous and on-orbit interaction.

            That said, we have done many missions but many of them (Orbital Express comes to mind) were unique, expensive missions with unique sensors, etc. Rendezvous is not yet a “routine” operation except for the Russians (who are notable for not wanting to share lessons learned) or the two commercial companies (Orbital Sciences and SpaceX) that can be proprietary about their methods. ESA is certainly still doing technology development

            http://www.esa.int/Our_Acti

            but the US cannot. Much of our rendezvous expertise depended on the Shuttle rendezvous radar, hand held laser range finders, etc. Now our rendezvous experience is with the ISS – a very easy target to find. NASA would like to fly the Vision Navigation System again but it is in pieces on a few test benches.

            ESA has a lot of recent rendezvous experience – but they have flown the last ATV, the variant that is supposed to fly with an MPCV will have no need of rendezvous capability.

            The government tends to want to fly large, risky missions that are subject to wrong assumptions. I hope we do not build an expensive vehicle that arrives at GEO – to find that some mechanism does not work. Not that something like that has ever happened. We would be wise to plan a more incremental mission that reduces risk while delivering some incremental results. In my oh so humble opinion.

          • GRspace says:
            0
            0

            Charles: it’s the right time to take this bold step. The technology has been in development, under DARPA sponsorship, for a dozen years. NASA Goddard has been leveraging some of that. The ability to fly these missions in simulators has reached the point that we can be confident in their safety and reliability. Automated responses will minimize the chance of inadvertent contact, and also minimize tipoff forces. It’s time to get to work on orbit.

          • Dennis Ray Wingo says:
            0
            0

            The US needs to stay in the design/test/utilize role of rendezvous and on-orbit interaction.

            There is absolutely no need whatsoever for the USG to stay in that role. Indeed this is one of the impediments that DARPA is addressing in this RFI. You yourself state that Orbital Express and others were too expensive. There is a reason for that, government contracting.

            We went all the way through PDR with a tougher crowd than the U.S. government, the satellite operators and the insurance underwriters. These guys have far more to lose for a stupid idea than anyone else.

            That being said, we had tremendous support from DLR Institute of Mechatronics and Robotics and the technical support they provided gave confidence to the customers that we were doing things right. That is a good role for government to have in this development. Much more of a NACA model.

          • SouthwestExGOP says:
            0
            0

            I certainly agree that the US needs to stay in the design/test/utilize role, but not necessarily the Government as we have in the past. The government tends to want to fly large, risky missions since they can absorb the risk. Commercial organizations want to take more incremental steps, they do not have such deep pockets. Of course sometimes in The Old Days, commercial companies did risk a lot on one system – as Boeing did on the 747.

            Let’s just hope that DARPA can get something going and let’s see what they are able to do.

  4. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    I’ve also been trying to bring up this idea, which was NASA’s original mission (when it was NACA). But so far all I hear is “We’re going to Mars. Ain’t that great?”

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      DARPA doing something that NASA should be in the same way SpaceX is doing what NASA should. One thing’s for sure Hubble will decay from LEO long before NASA’s finest ever venture BEO, so clearing the mess up there is definitely a priority for NASA. Or it can outsource it to commercial companies.

      • david says:
        0
        0

        I knew someone would put in a SpaceX plug, it doesn’t matter what the subject is

        • Anonymous says:
          0
          0

          Not a “plug” because I don’t work for SpaceX nor am affiliated in any way, shape or form. I really want to see NASA doing those things Musk and co are doing. Why it isn’t is the issue.

  5. BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
    0
    0

    Seems to me that this could be a case of too little too late. Launch costs are on the down, satellite lifespan is increasing out to what 15 years, becoming less expensive due to improving technologies e.g. electric propulsion (well it’s a bit more expensive at the moment but expect that to drop as it develops), and communications technologies will continue to improve so obsolescence is a real possibility beyond existing satellite life.
    All this indicates that refuelling at least is likely to be irrelevant and repair is a real unknown. What to repair, how, are there commonalities between satellites, what’s the cost to design and build repairable satellites, etc, etc.
    Cheers,

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      I always thought that as commercial space stations appear sat tech will just be on stations. Just plug in new components and upgrades whenever they arrive.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Old light houses come to mind. Nice way to help pay for your commercial stations 🙂 No sense letting the robots have all the fun.

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        Vladislaw,
        Indeed, one of the steps on the classic (Rockwell) Integrated Space Plan is “Man-tended GEO comm platforms”. Sort of Clarkesque, but we took the long way ’round.

        DTARS,
        A better analogy is the big broadcast towers in cities. Common infrastructure used by multiple broadcasters.

        BeanCounter,
        Thing is, satellite owners seem keen on the idea of refuelling/servicing, especially major constellation owners. It’s satellite manufacturers who are deeply hostile. (Well, major satellite manufacturers, I suspect the little guys are up for anything.)

  6. Jeff2Space says:
    0
    0

    I seem to recall a recent Soyuz launch by ESA which has placed two satellites in useless orbits. Placing these satellites into the proper orbits would seem to fall under “cooperatively assist in orbit adjustments”.

  7. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    We will look back on this little program fondly, reminiscing from a future where activity BEO challenges the value of Earth-based construction.

  8. SJG_2010 says:
    0
    0

    Anyone who honestly thinks that DARPA has never built a spacecraft that can perform “servicing” of satellites in GEO is delusional….
    Now what KIND of “servicing” is definitely in question.
    We dont make sensors that can detect “targets” moving in the junk orbit beyond GEO for nothing….

  9. Courtney Bailey says:
    0
    0

    Dave – NASA released two RFIs seeking input on use of GFE NASA technology for commercial on-orbit servicing in 2011 and 2013. DARPA’s approach is very similar to the model described in NASA’s 2013 RFI: http://go.usa.gov/yArH

  10. GRspace says:
    0
    0

    Thank you, Dave. I look forward to chatting with you on this important subject.