ATV as a tug

neviden · 2007-05-16 02:16:12

ESA is planning to launch ATV at the end of this year after testing and developing it for the past 10 years. ATV is supposed to be safe, multiple redundant, bigger Progress. It has a 48 m2 pressurized section and already existing tunnel to the back.

If it is sent on expensive (compared to Soyuz) Ariane 5, can stay at ISS for 6 months, can do multiple firings (it’s job is also to raise ISS orbit), can transfer propellants (to ISS) and has that smart auto guidance, why is it dumped after 6 months on orbit?

Why doesn’t ESA put another docking port on the other side, make it capable of active dockings on the both sides, use it like the Russians would like to use Parom, to retrieve/dump simple canisters and to pick up not-so-smart-modules and deliver them safely to ISS or any other LEO orbit. It could then dock at any Russian docking port, without blocking them. After it has finished it’s primary mission (delivery of the cargo and boosting of ISS orbit), it could stay at ISS permanently. Since one is planed on being built every 1-2 years, it would steadily increase volume.

That volume could be used as a “private space apartments”. It has a nice tunnel, that is surrounded by a lot of mass (tanks) that makes it natural storm shelter and a good place to sleep. Or even better, it’s volume could be used to grow vegetables/grains. That would reduce needed supplies from earth (why bring food from Earth if you can grow your own?) and test everything needed for advanced life support system (= growing food).

There is still a problem with trash that the ATV is supposed to remove, but some of it could be burned, the rest of it could be either packed into (inflatable?) container, that the ATV could deliver to lower LEO so that it could burn up or simply fill the Progress and HTV with it.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/parom.html
http://spaceflight.esa.int/projects/ind … 1&page=379

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-05-16 04:30:21

Why doesn’t ESA put another docking port on the other side, make it capable of active dockings on the both sides

Why would you build multiple ports for an untested vehicle, Shuttle and Soyuz have flown for years. While the ATV looks good there's always a chance something catastrophic could happen on the maiden voyage like the ATV explodes.

It could then dock at any Russian docking port, without blocking them.

Why would Russia want to do this ? Yes it is right that more pressure is on Russia flying NASA to the ISS but economically Russia have a comfortable number since the Shuttle incident.
These days make a lot of money when NASA pays them to bring up astronauts, supplies, and they get money from tourists.

That volume could be used as a “private space apartments”.

You can't just turn into the module of a permenant station, ATV is designed as an add-on to support the station, deliver supplies or boost its orbit but it is not the ISS. If they wanted to leave the ATV up there for years the unmanned ship would have to be 'hardened' to withstand years in space, this would increase cost of the ship, hardening will add more payload and it would add more complications to the design

neviden · 2007-05-16 06:58:46

Why would you build multiple ports for an untested vehicle, Shuttle and Soyuz have flown for years. While the ATV looks good there's always a chance something catastrophic could happen on the maiden voyage like the ATV explodes.

European maiden flights (as have many others) have a history of failures. Both Ariane V G and Ariane V ECA failed. What they do have is a history of following successful flights when the bugs were fixed. But since they have spent all that time testing it, let us assume it will be ok. If it explodes, they find out what went wrong, fix it, try again until they have a working ATV. They plan to send one every 18 months or so. After that basic model is running, developers could start testing on an improved version. When it would be ready it would replace the basic version the same way that the ECA replaced G on Ariane 5.

ESA has an obligation to build and send ATVs as a way to pay for the running costs. Its manned program is very limited, but those ATVs are going to be built (100 million $) and launched on an Ariane 5 (150 million $) either way. It has all those autonomous capabilities, yet it uses them only once. After 6 months stay it gets dumped to make room at the port.

The ATV weighs 20 MT, but its actual cargo upload capacity is only 7,5 MT. The rest of it is a propellant and ATV dry mass. ATV can transfer its propellant to ISS, so it could also transfer propellant into ATV (technology is there). ATV is capable of multiple firings of its thrusters and could even redock multiple times.

There was a discussion about problems with space assembly. To do this you have to have a lot of “smarts” on a vehicle to bring them together. Or, at the very least you would have to have one active vehicle that would do the hard work and one passive vehicle that would have to have docking collar and some thrusters to prevent it from tumbling. Maybe the spin stabilized passive vehicle would be enough. You could launch 20 MT water tank/propellant tank/canister full of food/space module with only passive docking collar and basic stabilization thrusters into 200 km LEO. That would be the passive target to which the ATV would have to dock on one end, transfer now the combined weight to higher orbit, meet with ISS and dock on the other end with it.

That canister could be sent on any possible vehicle that can put payloads into LEO. Ariane, Soyuz, Proton, Ares, Delta, Atlas, Falcon,.. It would not matter what kind of shape it is or what is inside of it as long as ATV could dock to it (ISS inclination). Those canisters would be perfect for testing new and untested (cheap) vehicles. Canned food or water or such things are cheap. Pack them full, send them to LEO. If the rocket explodes or the canister is not placed into LEO, then no big deal. If it does deliver it, then the ATV picks it up and delivers it with “multiple redundant and extensively tested ISS collision proof” electronics to ISS. If it would contain propellants for ATV/ISS, then the ATV could refuel itself like it refuels Zvezda module. It could contain water/gasses, which it could pump to ISS when it docks again. It could be even new module for ISS which ATV could deliver close enough to ISS so that it’s arm could grab it and position it wherever it would be placed. It could be Streached ATV’s habitation module, filled with 20 MT of supplies (reachable through port). That would be filled with waste like it is currently planed with ATV. Only that the only thing that would burn up would be the actual waste (and canister), while the ATV itself could return to ISS.

If there would be any problems with ATV, then it would be allowed to burn up and some other would be sent from ISS to do it’s job. Since ATV’s could dock at any Russian port used by Soyuz/Progress there could be lots of them. The Soyuz/Progress would now dock to ATV and the crew could reach ISS through the ATV itself.

Why would Russia want to do this ? Yes it is right that more pressure is on Russia flying NASA to the ISS but economically Russia have a comfortable number since the Shuttle incident.
These days make a lot of money when NASA pays them to bring up astronauts, supplies, and they get money from tourists.

Why would Russia not want this?

It does nothing about actual number of Soyuz manned flights. It reduces the need for a bunch of Progresses. The costs of running the ISS would fall (more delivered to ISS for less money). More people could actually live on the ISS, since there would be more then enough supplies to support them. That would mean that the Russians could build more Soyuz TMA instead of Progress, which means more paying customers.

Not to mention that the actual space on ISS would increase since every ATV has a 48 m2 pressurized section. ESA could concentrate on payload deliveries with improved ATV + canisters, Russians could concentrate on manned flights. ESA is even adopting Soyuz as it’s “medium” LV to be launched from French Guyana and could easily launch manned missions from there. It would not have to develop it’s own manned Earth to LEO transport or have its Ariane 5 “man rated”.

Win-win.

You can't just turn into the module of a permenant station, ATV is designed as an add-on to support the station, deliver supplies or boost its orbit but it is not the ISS. If they wanted to leave the ATV up there for years the unmanned ship would have to be 'hardened' to withstand years in space, this would increase cost of the ship, hardening will add more payload and it would add more complications to the design

ATV is designed to be there for six months. In that time it acts as “just another part of ISS” and has to have everything needed to survive micrometeorites, temperature changes and be as safe as any other structure.

Yes, it would have to be “hardened”, but if it can survive for 6 months it is pretty much already hardened. Add extra insulation, longer lasting electronics, stress test everything a little bit more and you are set. Cheap, mass produced space modules/tugs. All you then need is enough docking ports and even that is not a problem, since the ATV could dock to the back of another ATV.

Since they would have to be built and launched into space anyway, building them a little stronger would add minimally to the price, but it would improve ESA’s capabilities immensely. And most of those changes could be done gradually and could be tested before being actually used on newer ATVs built. Simple and free test would be to undock ATV that is planed for burn up from ISS and try to catch a Progress that would be also planed for a burn up.

As an added bonus: ATV could house experiments that could be too dangerous to be run on ISS in “a free flying laboratory and if anything goes bad it will burn in the Earth atmosphere” mode.

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-18 23:29:42

This is an awful idea

First of all, only about 40% of the ATV is comprised of the pressurized cargo module. The other 60% is jam-packed with fluid cylinders, fuel tanks, and guidance electronics. There is no good place to put the second tunnel without radical reconfiguration of the whole vehicle. You can't have a dozen of them studded all over the ISS either, since there just aren't that many docking ports.

In addition, you can't just make a big long train of ATVs and stick those on the side of the ISS, there are torque loads involved, as the station has to be rotated periodically in its orbit to keep the solar arrays aligned. The ATVs would be cracked like a whip, albeit slowly, which would put substantial bend stress on them. Besides, what kind of "personal space" has a public tunnel running down the middle?

Secondly, space hardening is not as easy as you make it sound, you are just magic-wand waving: after a year or two, the solar arrays will lose fully half their power from radiation damage, and due to the threat of debris strike, all ISS modules have some pretty heavy-duty armor. Why do you think they weigh tens of tonnes? The electronics would need to be redesigned to protect them from proton/cosmic radiation too probably, especially if ATV were used in a higher orbit.

Thirdly is the nonsense concept of "smart ATV tug - dumb payload canister," if a cargo canister already has power, guidance, and transponders sufficient for a tug to capture it, then the canister might as well be the tug anyway. In which case, just send more ATVs and save having to develop the "not so dumb" canister. The idea of spin stabilization is also right out, there is no possible way to dock with a spinning object reliably, aligning the axis of the spin around the docking grapple after launch does not stay aligned long due to gravitational effects, and if it is un-aligned then capture is impossible. And if the "not so dumb" canister knows how to re-align its spin, it might as well align itself with the ISS docking port and just dock on its own anyway.

And why all this extra space? The ISS has plenty of space for experiments already, what it lacks is crew quarters and a recycling life support system. Green houses aren't worth it, since food doesn't weigh that much and the water content in it isn't wasted.

Garbage must be disposed of carefully, to prevent it from floating around in a big cloud around the ISS (contaminating the external exposure experiments or impacting the station). To do this, you need a rocket powered trash vehicle. There is a lot of trash generated in space too, an ATV full of dry goods will need most of an ATV for trash duty, it won't fit in one Progress I bet.

Mass recycling of garbage by burning is right out too, one of the main problems with supplying the ISS is oxygen, and is the number two supply mass item after rocket fuel. Wasting it to burn trash to save a little volume in the waste vehicle would be criminal, not to mention hazardous (nasty chemical vapors, difficulty in getting complete combustion in zero gravity, thermal issues).

ATV as tug? No thanks!

Soyuz · 2007-05-21 04:25:17

This is an awful idea
First of all, only about 40% of the ATV is comprised of the pressurized cargo module. The other 60% is jam-packed with fluid cylinders, fuel tanks, and guidance electronics. There is no good place to put the second tunnel without radical reconfiguration of the whole vehicle. You can't have a dozen of them studded all over the ISS either, since there just aren't that many docking ports.
ATV as tug? No thanks!

The ESA seems to disagree with you: ATV with two docking ports and tunnel.
And there's this quote:

There is also the possibility of constructing a mini ‘space station’ by equipping ATV with two docking mechanisms – one in front and one in the back – and in the future evolving it into a transfer vehicle carrying tonnes of supplies – including space telescopes and planetary spacecraft – to lunar and Martian orbits.

From Europe’s Automated Transfer Vehicle.

cIclops · 2007-05-21 05:01:53

ATV has only one docking port. The space between the fuel tanks inside the service module is unpressurized and AFAIK not accessible. Such a modification would cost a lot of money and what would be the advantage of adding a second port and reducing the cargo capacity?

GCNRevenger · 2007-05-21 06:34:32

Of course such a change is possible but it will mean basically rebuilding ATV's structures from scratch. It will really be a new vehicle with just some engines, electronics, and hatches from the old one. It took the ESA ten years to come up with ATV, it is not alright to claim to that they can just easily make a little bump in the blueprints and "poof" out comes the two-port model.

Furthermore, the new model would be too heavy to ride on the present Ariane-V most likely, so either it would have to go up with little or no cargo, but doesn't that defeat the whole purpose?

neviden · 2007-05-21 13:55:38

First of all, only about 40% of the ATV is comprised of the pressurized cargo module. The other 60% is jam-packed with fluid cylinders, fuel tanks, and guidance electronics. There is no good place to put the second tunnel without radical reconfiguration of the whole vehicle. You can't have a dozen of them studded all over the ISS either, since there just aren't that many docking ports.

There already is a tunnel going through ATV. It's not used right now, but it's there.
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/ATV_E … _nov06.pdf

There is even a place to put the second port on the back of it. If you look at ATV from the behind you can see the 4 engines arrayed around big center "nothing". There would be no need for radical reconfiguration, since it is already designed to be upgraded.

And since you would have two docking ports it could dock on one end to the station and on the other end it would allow docking to itself.

In addition, you can't just make a big long train of ATVs and stick those on the side of the ISS, there are torque loads involved, as the station has to be rotated periodically in its orbit to keep the solar arrays aligned. The ATVs would be cracked like a whip, albeit slowly, which would put substantial bend stress on them.

If I am not mistaken, the ISS is built with lots of ports and modules, right? Kind of like big Mir. One structural/Main module, with universal port for 5 more dockings. And since the ISS was designed to have a lot more ports that are going to be launched now, that means there are some free ports that could be filled with ATVs. Dock them where the space is and if there are no more ports, build another 5 port main module.

Besides, what kind of "personal space" has a public tunnel running down the middle?

The kind of “personal space” that has a Soyuz attached to it. You know, a Soyuz, that must be attached to the station as a lifeboat, but doesn’t go anywhere for a half of year or even a year (the next version Soyuz TMAT will be able to stay for a year).

I am sure the crew would not mind if their “personal space” would be disturbed by passersbys once a year. Especially if that meant that in the case of problems (station decompression?), they could close the hatch and still be able to be rescued/moved.

Secondly, space hardening is not as easy as you make it sound, you are just magic-wand waving:

Sure, your “it can’t be done – it’s impossible.” its better approach. Why can it stay perfectly safe for half a year, but couldn’t for longer? Does it get corroded by some space salt like the ships on the seas do? Is there some kind of black magic that prevents it from staying there more than six months?

after a year or two, the solar arrays will lose fully half their power from radiation damage,

Strange.. I thought there are solar arrays that last for decades. That’s how long normal communication satellites operate. If the ATV’s are not good enough, stick the “hardened” ones on it or simply just connect the cables to the ISS power cables.

and due to the threat of debris strike, all ISS modules have some pretty heavy-duty armor. Why do you think they weigh tens of tonnes?

Why do you think ATV weighs that much? It is designed to BE in space and BE a part of ISS for six months. It’s not made out of paper, just because it doesn’t stay there all the time.

The electronics would need to be redesigned to protect them from proton/cosmic radiation too probably, especially if ATV were used in a higher orbit.

ATV does not have enough delta-v capabilities to go to the higher orbit. But it can serve 800 - 200 km LEO (at the same inclination). This would be good enough. To get any higher it would need a lot more delta-v (3-4 km/s).

As far as radiation protection for electronics: On a 20 MT vehicle, some extra radiation protection for electronics would not make that much of a diference.

Thirdly is the nonsense concept of "smart ATV tug - dumb payload canister," if a cargo canister already has power, guidance, and transponders sufficient for a tug to capture it, then the canister might as well be the tug anyway. In which case, just send more ATVs and save having to develop the "not so dumb" canister. The idea of spin stabilization is also right out, there is no possible way to dock with a spinning object reliably, aligning the axis of the spin around the docking grapple after launch does not stay aligned long due to gravitational effects, and if it is un-aligned then capture is impossible. And if the "not so dumb" canister knows how to re-align its spin, it might as well align itself with the ISS docking port and just dock on its own anyway.

That concept was taken from the “Parom” idea. I don’t know how much would it save, but the Russians have claimed that it could halve the costs of payload deliveries. It makes sense. ATV weighs a lot (11 MT to deliver 9 MT of payloads). It needs to, because it has everything with backups. It must dock, have power, guidance, ..

The “dumb canister” would have to: prevent tumbling and have a port to which the ATV could dock. It would get delivered to LEO by the rocket’s final stage like would any other satellite. It would not have to move, It would not have to maintain orbit, It would not even have to communicate with anyone or anything. Doesn’t sound too difficult or expensive to me. The expensive part is everything that the ATV must do anyway.

And why all this extra space? The ISS has plenty of space for experiments already, what it lacks is crew quarters and a recycling life support system.

Which is it? Does it need or doesn’t it need extra space?

ATV are not good enough to make them into labs, but they would be more than spacious crew quarters. Once you remove supplies from it, it’s big empty module.

Green houses aren't worth it, since food doesn't weigh that much and the water content in it isn't wasted.

It’s not about the quantity of the food or the price. It’s about recycling. Food is sent to ISS, Oxygen gets send to ISS, food gets eaten, CO2 gets scrubbed out of air, feces get put into big bag and put on a ATV to burn up.

Why not put florescent light in the middle of the module and plants around it. All you would then need is a fan to circulate the air, agroponic delivery system and the way to cool the module to the right temperature. You scrub the air out of CO2 and get food. You would still need the way to complete the whole cycle with processing of the feces, but we know how to do that on the earth. The 0g makes it more difficult, but it still can be done.

Garbage must be disposed of carefully, to prevent it from floating around in a big cloud around the ISS (contaminating the external exposure experiments or impacting the station). To do this, you need a rocket powered trash vehicle. There is a lot of trash generated in space too, an ATV full of dry goods will need most of an ATV for trash duty, it won't fit in one Progress I bet.

There is a lot of thrash generated, yes. Some of it could be reduced by using biodegradable stuff and “composting” it. The rest of if could be compacted, filled every last part of outgoing crafts and burned up.

Or.. if there would be “ATV as a tug”, the back port of an ATV could dock to inflatable “garbage bag”. It would only have to be able to last for few days in space. After it would get filled and the docking hatch would get closed, ATV would detach from the ISS, lower it’s orbit to make sure the “garbage bag” would burn up, undock it, and return to ATV.

“rocked powered” trash removal.

Mass recycling of garbage by burning is right out too, one of the main problems with supplying the ISS is oxygen, and is the number two supply mass item after rocket fuel. Wasting it to burn trash to save a little volume in the waste vehicle would be criminal, not to mention hazardous (nasty chemical vapors, difficulty in getting complete combustion in zero gravity, thermal issues).

Burning like: You use towels to clean yourself. Burn this towel (Let us assume that some of them are burned on the Earth before to make sure the burning doesn’t produce any dangerous chemicals), put the ash in the bag (if it could not be processed for plant nutrients) and use CO2 to grow food.

Oxygen would get recycled. Oh yeah, I forgot.. growing plants would be “impossible”..

Furthermore, the new model would be too heavy to ride on the present Ariane-V most likely, so either it would have to go up with little or no cargo, but doesn't that defeat the whole purpose?

Extra docking port, some extra insulation and software upgrade will hardly weigh couple of tons, don’t you agree?

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2007-06-14 23:46:37

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM8MIXXV2F_index_0.html
Assessment of ESA’s ATV mission readiness results in a new launch window

14 June 2007
Europe’s first Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) is ready for launch and will be shipped to Europe's Spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana, in mid-July for a launch campaign that will last several months.

The on-going qualification review, launcher availability (a specially built Ariane 5 version) and 'heavy traffic' at the International Space Station towards the end of the year, lead to a revised launch window that sees now a possibility for the Jules Verne ATV to lift-off not earlier than mid-January 2008.

Once in Kourou, the ATV will have to undergo integration and further tests – as is customary for all spacecraft before launch. Only upon completion of such tests and taking into account the schedule of the Ariane launches will it be possible to set a precise launch date....

EuroLauncher · 2007-10-09 22:52:45

Jules Verne dry cargo prepared in Turin

8 October 2007
Around 180 kg of dry cargo which is to be carried into space on board Jules Verne, the first Automated Transfer Vehicle, is currently undergoing final preparation in Turin, Italy, ahead of shipment to the launch site in Kourou, French Guiana.

SpaceNut · 2007-12-09 21:21:39

Jules Verne ATV Given Its 'Wings' four solar arrays are fully deployed, giving the vehicle a total span of 22.3 m,

Since the solar arrays have been engineered to work in weightlessness, their 9.15 m-long structure is so light that they cannot be unfolded on Earth without being supported by several cables. “Otherwise, in Earth's gravity, the solar panels could not hold their own weight of 7kg without bending irreversibly”
Once deployed, the four solar arrays provide electrical power to ATV and to its rechargeable batteries so that the eclipse periods in orbit can be bridged. Silicon-based solar cells, developed and produced in Germany by RWE Space Solar Power, cover the four panels per array with a total surface of 33.6m² (4 x 8.4m²), and are able to produce an average of 4800 Watts.

dryson · 2007-12-11 17:32:36

why not remotely send it to the moon and use it as a habitable environement. It could used to store goods or as a sleeping compartment or like was mentioned above to hydroponical grow foodstuffs. It is a waste to send useable modules back to earth to be burnt up in the atmosphere when they could be used to lower the cost's of a moon base.

cIclops · 2007-12-12 02:52:52

why not remotely send it to the moon and use it as a habitable environement. It could used to store goods or as a sleeping compartment or like was mentioned above to hydroponical grow foodstuffs. It is a waste to send useable modules back to earth to be burnt up in the atmosphere when they could be used to lower the cost's of a moon base.

How many reasons do you want? The bottom line is money, it would cost far more than its worth to use the ATV in this way. Yes, it seems like a waste but there's no choice with current technology. Every spacecraft has to be optimized for mass and that means designing it for a specific task and nothing else. A general purpose spacecraft that can take cargo to LEO and then go to lunar orbit and provide human life support would do neither well. ATV is designed to take cargo to LEO as cheaply as possible and to remove trash from ISS, both are important jobs.

The current plan is for lunar missions to begin in 2019. There won't be any need for extra life support in lunar orbit for a long time, people on lunar missions will go to the surface. See the Orion topic for how complex and expensive it is to design a human spacecraft capable of reaching and staying in lunar orbit.

dryson · 2007-12-12 20:26:06

Its still a waste of money when the module could have a small booster attached to it and sent to the moon.

If you have a container that you bought food in and was able to use it to store more food it after it has been for it's specific purpose. Wouldn't it be a little bit more intelligent to use that container to store more food instead of spending the money to drive to the store and get a specilized container to store the food in when the container that could have been used was right there in front of the whole time? Think alittle bit, it could go a long way.

Sounds like another person that if their idea isn't at the forefront of everones thought or is the only thought then all other ideas and thoughts are irrevelant.

"A one track mind can only see's whats in front of it, never able to look to either side or switch rails."

cIclops · 2007-12-13 03:49:16

Its still a waste of money when the module could have a small booster attached to it and sent to the moon.

A small booster? LOL. Even empty ATV is 12 t - it will need about 4km/s to leave LEO and get into LMO, that's a LOT of delta-v (hint: the massive Ariane 5 only gives it 8km/s when it has 9 t of cargo onboard)

Terraformer · 2007-12-14 16:21:46

How about simply having a few astronouts go EVA, strip it down (after all that can be taken without going outside has been tken out), get the solar panels and such like, and have a spare module where they can construct small spacecraft. They don't even have to be manned craft. Small robots which can examine the station from outside and pull in/push away any space junk (depending on whether it is useful or not) from the station would be useful. I still say we should transform the ISS into a shipyard. We're already sending up resources to build craft; all we need is a dedicated module and a couple of spacecraft engineers.

Terraformer · 2007-12-16 13:55:45

I've emiled ESA about it and am now waiting to see if they take any notice.

Could trash be flung out of the airlock towards the Earth?

EuroLauncher · 2007-12-19 20:03:15

Final preparations for first human-rated spacecraft to be lauched from Europe's Spaceport

18 December 2007
For the first time in 40 years of space activities, a silent revolution is taking place at the European launch site in Kourou. Jules Verne, the first human-rated spacecraft to be launched from Europe's Spaceport, is being prepared for launch.
The 48 m3 pressurised module of the largest, most complex automated spacecraft ever developed in Europe has been inspected and closed, fulfilling the most stringent rules of human spaceflight.
Three days later, the two halves of the 20-tonne Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) – the avionics/propulsion module and the pressurised cargo carrier – were mated ready for its launch, scheduled for February 2008, to re-supply the International Space Station (ISS).
“In order to eliminate any risk of disease or contamination for the astronauts on board the ISS, we have disinfected all the surfaces inside the pressurised module with pure hydrogen peroxide. Even if it is launched unmanned, ‘Jules Verne’ respects all the human spacecraft safety requirements. This also applies to the 7 tonnes of cargo carried into orbit”, said Patrice Amadieu, ESA’s ATV Deputy Project Manager.
....

EuroLauncher · 2008-01-01 16:57:17

ESA Training Team ATV
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/ESA_T … V_999.html

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-06-29 05:36:49

Europe considering concepts for human spaceflight
https://spacenews.com/europe-considerin … aceflight/
A bumper crop of applications for the European Space Agency’s astronaut corps is providing a boost to proposals for Europe to develop its own human spaceflight capability.
ESA announced June 23 that it received 22,589 applications in a solicitation that ended June 18. That’s far more than the 8,413 applications it received in the previous astronaut selection round in 2018.
“Having more than 22,000 applicants is quite a number,” Josef Aschbacher, ESA director general, said in a press conference about the application figures. “This is, I would call it, almost a historic moment for us that we have so many applicants that want to become astronauts. From that point of view, I’m more than satisfied. I’m extremely thrilled by these numbers.”

“We hope that politicians at the top level will stand up and say, look, we have noticed that many nations are going into space and have their own astronauts,” he said, citing the United States, Russia and China, as well as India’s efforts to develop its own human spaceflight capability. “What I would really like to raise is, what does Europe want in terms of exploration? Where does Europe want to stand in this international landscape?”
At the Paris Air Forum June 21, Aschbacher was more direct about considering an indigenous human spaceflight capability. “We have the expertise. We can build human-rated spacecraft,” he said. “But if we are not investing, we will be thrown out of the race.”
He compared the lack of funding for human spaceflight in Europe to squandered investments in information technology in Europe that, he argued, caused it to fall behind the United States and China. “This, for me, is a huge danger,” he said. “It cannot be that an economic power, a political power like Europe, which is comparable to the U.S. and China more or less, is not capable today of flying its own astronauts to space.”

There are studies in Europe looking at how to develop a human spaceflight capability. At the Global Space Exploration Conference in mid-June, Christophe Bonnal, a senior expert at the French space agency CNES, discussed ongoing work by the agency examining how to launch crewed spacecraft from French Guiana using the Ariane 6 rocket.

tahanson43206 · 2021-06-29 06:19:25

For Mars_B4_Moon re #20

Thank you for this report on the first stirrings of European contemplation of launching astronauts from their population.

This entity (Europe) has the capability of matching the Chinese in building a geosynchronous solar power satellite. Their decision making process (by consensus of the population) is SO much more difficult to manage to achieve anything that I am doubtful they can match the power of the Chinese one-person leader system. On the ** other ** hand, if they CAN (somehow) achieve consensus, then the combined forces should be able to mount a successful team effort.

This topic was about ATV as a tug ... thanks for bringing it back into view.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-06-29 20:50:16

The ATV was reused in the Orion capsule as part of the life support or service module section of the capsule.

Changing the ATV to a tug would require more solar panels, a different engine for the tug most likely ion, and a few new tanks to hold that fuel type for it to make use of.

So stretching the cylinders design to house both, the trick which needs to be had for such a use.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-09-06 18:50:33

The Tug idea seems the best alternative proposal

I wonder if this is possible, the Vega rockets, the Soyuz from Guiana and France Ariane 6 then a bunch of ESA ATV's redesigned and joined up as a space station?

but of course Europe has never directly commited to a rocket for manned space flight.

Thousands of kilometres from anywhere lies Point Nemo, a watery grave where space stations go to die
https://www.theguardian.com/science/202 … -go-to-die

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2021-09-06 18:52:07)

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-11-28 14:50:46

The European Space Agency aims to launch its own astronauts into space in a new proposal
https://www.zmescience.com/science/esa- … m-8263415/

The second envisions sending an ESA probe to one of the moons of Jupiter or Saturn to return samples to Earth.

SpaceNut · 2021-11-28 17:31:55

The ATV was turned into the service module for the Orion capsule so its been mostly mothballed.

As for men going into space that has been happening under the ride purchasing.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-05-16 02:16:12

Re: ATV as a tug

#2 2007-05-16 04:30:21

Re: ATV as a tug

#3 2007-05-16 06:58:46

Re: ATV as a tug

#4 2007-05-18 23:29:42

Re: ATV as a tug

#5 2007-05-21 04:25:17

Re: ATV as a tug

#6 2007-05-21 05:01:53

Re: ATV as a tug

#7 2007-05-21 06:34:32

Re: ATV as a tug

#8 2007-05-21 13:55:38

Re: ATV as a tug

#9 2007-06-14 23:46:37

Re: ATV as a tug

#10 2007-10-09 22:52:45

Re: ATV as a tug

#11 2007-12-09 21:21:39

Re: ATV as a tug

#12 2007-12-11 17:32:36

Re: ATV as a tug

#13 2007-12-12 02:52:52

Re: ATV as a tug

#14 2007-12-12 20:26:06

Re: ATV as a tug

#15 2007-12-13 03:49:16

Re: ATV as a tug

#16 2007-12-14 16:21:46

Re: ATV as a tug

#17 2007-12-16 13:55:45

Re: ATV as a tug

#18 2007-12-19 20:03:15

Re: ATV as a tug

#19 2008-01-01 16:57:17

Re: ATV as a tug

#20 2021-06-29 05:36:49

Re: ATV as a tug

#21 2021-06-29 06:19:25

Re: ATV as a tug

#22 2021-06-29 20:50:16

Re: ATV as a tug

#23 2021-09-06 18:50:33

Re: ATV as a tug

#24 2021-11-28 14:50:46

Re: ATV as a tug

#25 2021-11-28 17:31:55

Re: ATV as a tug

Board footer