Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

neviden · 2008-02-19 08:08:36

Yes, those are believable numbers. However, there are none easily findable on the Arianespace or ESA websites. BTW at second stage shutdown the acceleration is zero

Oh yeah. Arianespace or ESA are really bad at providing anything other then the PR. You can find some interesting data, but that is usually buried somewhere in some obscure reports or from “anonymous sources” on the various forms.

Where did that number of €1B come from? Seems low considering they would have to upgrade almost everything on the vehicle and add an abort system. NASA are spending about €8B on Ares I and that is derived from human rated hardware. ESA have a track record of being expensive compared with NASA, they have less experience and more bureaucracy.

That number actually seems high to me, but it’s a “consensus” number that most do agree on. It seems high, considering that the Ariane 5 was designed for the Hermes, but it does include abort system and modifications for the rocket itself.

As for ESA bureaucracy, I think it’s not that bad comparing to NASA. It could be better but since ESA never had any huge program like Apollo, it never grew too big. ESA itself is surprisingly small organization considering what it does. Ariane 5 is expensive rocket, but they kind of compensate this with an excellent launch site (near the equator) and good reliability (if you ignore first “learning problems”). After all they are quite successful with GEO lunches.

Having typed that, ESA said they are considering man rating Ariane 5 ... see my last but one message. There should be details of the previous attempt to do this for the Hermes project.

I don’t know about that.. Soyuz launches from Guyana seems like an indication that Europeans seek some kind of manned launcher, but other than that it’s all fuzzy. But, considering that Europeans are masters at diplomacy and the “red tape”, I wouldn’t dream of predicting what will happen in next decade. We will see.

Crew Space Transportation System is down rated to a technology programme - 15 Feb 2008

Probably a game of cat and mouse.. The Russians are trying to get as much as possible out of “cooperation” and the Europeans want to put ATV technology to good use. Europeans are famous for their looooooong negotiations, but the end results usually aren’t that bad.

cIclops · 2008-02-19 08:24:36

The original design of Ariane 5 was for Hermes, but after it was canceled Ariane 5 was built as a unmanned launcher to be competitive. AFAIK no part of it is man rated.

Compared with NASA, ESA is a pig's breakfast - it's composed of a number of countries, each with their own agenda and run by a council. ESA allocates work on a contributions basis per country, not on price and quality. It does have more predictable funding than NASA, however, projects tend to go on forever. It's very slow to produce anything and what it does do is usually a clone of NASA. Ariane 5 is a good example. Ariane 5, good reliability? It's had four launch failures out of 36 attempts, it's flight record is far worse than Shuttle.

neviden · 2008-02-19 08:48:39

Compared with NASA, ESA is a pig's breakfast - it's composed of a number of countries, each with their own agenda and run by a council. ESA allocates work on a contributions basis per country, not on price and quality. It does have more predictable funding than NASA, however, projects tend to go on forever.

Well.. that is kind of my point. Even though it is a political entity (with problems that come with that) it does have some stability. NASA chooses programs based on which influential figure of the congress (at the time) is in charge of NASA policy, but ESA has more the “nationalistic” feel to it. Italians go for solids, Germans go for manned stuff, and the French are crazy for the rockets. It’s crazy, but the whole EU is crazy, so they are quite acustomized to that “process”.

It's very slow to produce anything and what it does do is usually a clone of NASA.

Well.. that is a side affect of having no leader. It copies what other do. CSTS would never happen on its own if the NASA wouldn’t start their Moon push. And even that is in doubt when it crashes into their (EU) own “political reality” (no money for manned spaceflight).

Ariane 5 is a good example. Ariane 5, good reliability? It's had four launch failures out of 36 attempts, it's flight record is far worse than Shuttle.

If you ignore first flights (they should be counted as test flights anyway) of 5G and 5ECA you get much better picture. Right now watching Ariane 5 launch is almost boring, since you know that nothing will blow up.

cIclops · 2008-02-19 09:10:21

If you ignore first flights (they should be counted as test flights anyway) of 5G and 5ECA you get much better picture. Right now watching Ariane 5 launch is almost boring, since you know that nothing will blow up.

Ha ha. No neviden, we don't know that, all we know is the flight history and it's not impressive. Keep watching.

neviden · 2008-02-19 11:30:39

If you ignore first flights (they should be counted as test flights anyway) of 5G and 5ECA you get much better picture. Right now watching Ariane 5 launch is almost boring, since you know that nothing will blow up.
Ha ha. No neviden, we don't know that, all we know is the flight history and it's not impressive. Keep watching.

Well, you are right. We don’t know what will happen. But, Arianespace has a history of screw-ups at the beginning followed by a good track record.

And anyway, that is why manned flights should always have an escape tower. Even 1:100 chance of failure is not something that is too comforting without it.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2008-02-22 11:40:37

Joint ESA/Russian team in Moscow ready to support Jules Verne
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ATV/SEM30E3CXCF_0.html

It's had four launch failures out of 36 attempts, it's flight record is far worse than Shuttle.

Much more reliable than the Delta-3, or the over-rated Falcon that the US media keeps dishing out heaps of praise for
and we will see how good Ares-1 goes.
Early history is not good but I know one of its failures was reported incorrectly - it was only a partial failure. Its satellite was put into the wrong orbit but by way of its ion drive the satellite was able to adjust its orbit to the correct position. Yet the media still reported the launch as another Ariane disaster

cIclops · 2008-02-25 04:00:23

Early history is not good but I know one of its failures was reported incorrectly - it was only a partial failure. Its satellite was put into the wrong orbit but by way of its ion drive the satellite was able to adjust its orbit to the correct position. Yet the media still reported the launch as another Ariane disaster

Interesting concept this "partial failure" and typical ESA speak. Redefine success as putting two satellites into the wrong orbit and when one is able to reach the right orbit by using its own fuel, then call it a success. By doing that the satellite will reduce its operational lifetime. If someone ordered two cars from halfway around the world, and the transport company lost one and the other arrived with 10,000 kms on its odometer, would the customer be happy with the transportation service? This is PR spin, the launcher failed to do its job.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2008-02-27 12:59:13

No cIclops your nationalism is showing once again, it is also typical American speak. Delta IV's first launch its heavy launcher was a "partial failure" Atlas V had a very recent one rated "partial failure", numerous of the OV1 sat launches were classed as "partial failures". The reason why they use the term partial failure is because the mission wasn't a total loss aka the US Navy's Flopnik or SeaLaunch Jan07
I'm glad to see more space agencies launching manned support vessels, the ATV spaceship looks good. The ariane might have a coloured record but I think it should do well this time. As for these flag wavers cheering that Ares-1 will be the best launcher ever, well I guess we will see how good it goes soon enough.

DonaldSpace · 2008-02-27 14:06:06

I understand why some don't like it, its about a launcher's weight class. But the issue here should be the ATV. The debate should be the Verne unmanned payload and not an off-topic conversation about its Ariana launcher, if people want to say the launcher is bunk another thread ought to be created. Ariana won't be as reliable as the Soyuz but it is a much better heavy weight. I understand why some have hostility toward the Ariana because it could soon be a competitor to the Ares-I (planned super sized german hand grenade from NASA). Ariana had a few flops but since then it made twenty plus successful launches without incident. Ares-I will never get that chance, if it flops, and our astronauts are forced to abort or come plummeting down in Siberia its trips to the Moon will be effectively over. Ares-I will be over or forced to truck unmanned payloads to the ISS. A recent GAO report put the development cost of Ares I at $14.4 billion, which is already several billion more than the estimate for FY08 budget. Ares-I will not be able to compete with Ariana for price, Hillary or McCain will fume at Griffin and we will be forced to re-open the whole EELV debate once again.

cIclops · 2008-02-27 14:11:15

Delta IV's first launch its heavy launcher was a "partial failure" Atlas V had a very recent one rated "partial failure", numerous of the OV1 sat launches were classed as "partial failures".

If a launcher does not safely deliver its payload to the required orbit, then it is a failure. Apparently the first stage of the Delta IV Heavy demo test flight shut down early and the second stage could not compensate, if this is true then it was also failure. BTW Boeing didn't call that flight a "partial failure" they called it "successful".

cIclops · 2008-02-27 14:41:24

I understand why some don't like it, its about a launcher's weight class. But the issue here should be the ATV. The debate should be the Verne unmanned payload and not an off-topic conversation about its Ariana launcher, if people want to say the launcher is bunk another thread ought to be created. Ariana won't be as reliable as the Soyuz but it is a much better heavy weight. I understand why some have hostility toward the Ariana because it could soon be a competitor to the Ares-I (planned super sized german hand grenade from NASA). Ariana had a few flops but since then it made twenty plus successful launches without incident. Ares-I will never get that chance, if it flops, and our astronauts are forced to abort or come plummeting down in Siberia its trips to the Moon will be effectively over. Ares-I will be over or forced to truck unmanned payloads to the ISS. A recent GAO report put the development cost of Ares I at $14.4 billion, which is already several billion more than the estimate for FY08 budget. Ares-I will not be able to compete with Ariana for price, Hillary or McCain will fume at Griffin and we will be forced to re-open the whole EELV debate once again.

Hi DonaldSpace, it's always good to see a new poster. Going off topic is almost a fact of life here at newmars

Who said Ariane 5 is "bunk"? The point is that its flight history so far is poor, the facts speak for themselves. Ariane 5 has had 26 successful flights since its last failure, but that's not many for a launcher. Shuttle had far more than that after its first failure and then Columbia broke up. Ariane 5 is Arianespace's flagship launcher, it has a cryogenic first stage that makes it very efficient but complicated, they will surely improve it in time.

At the risk of going even further OT, Ares I is in preliminary design and so far looks good. NASA intend it to be an order of magnitude safer than Shuttle and much cheaper to operate. As with all new launch systems, only time will tell how well it performs. The cargo version will probably never happen. NASA want, and should, use COTS for ISS supply. Ares I is not a competitor to Ariane 5, EELVs or COTS for cargo. It will be used as the primary crew launcher for exploration missions beyond LEO.

Got a reference for that GAO estimate of $14.4B for the development cost of Ares I? Griffin has said in testimony to Congress that the cost is about $10B. GAO don't understand the technology, they overestimate everything, and they seem to work in inflated future dollars.

GCNRevenger · 2008-02-27 18:53:31

Nor does the GAO think long term about how many Ares-I parts will be reused for Ares-V.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2008-03-08 21:54:06

[url=http://wenatcheeworld.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080308/NEWS02/974756089/-1/NEWS03]ATV article here
(also puts an alarmist spin on NASA's space gap)[/url]

On Saturday night, a European spacecraft is scheduled to blast off from French Guiana on its maiden voyage to the international space station, giving NASA and the world a new way to reach the orbiting laboratory.
For NASA, however, the launch of the Jules Verne also highlights a stark reality: In 2 ½ years, just as the station gets fully assembled, the United States will no longer have any spacecraft of its own capable of carrying astronauts and cargo up to the completed station, in which roughly $100 billion is being invested.

I think let's see the ATV launch successfully first before we starting ringing any alarms about Europe, Russia etc challenging NASA's dominance

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-09 01:35:08

Nor does the GAO think long term about how many Ares-I parts will be reused for Ares-V.

only the SRB-5 (that is the biggest part in weight but the smallest in value) and it's not 100% they can use it on the Ares-5 since, official claims, say it's undepowered, so, probably three standard SRB will be used to add some extra-power to a flawed design (yes, the Ares-5 should use also the J-2X but in a completely different stage, then ZERO savings on R&D costs)

.

gaetanomarano · 2008-03-09 01:45:39

Griffin has said in testimony to Congress that the cost is about $10B. GAO don't understand the technology, they overestimate everything, and they seem to work in inflated future dollars.

assuming the Ares-1 will fly... $10 billion of R&D costs ALREADY too much for a rocket that will carry (IF will carry) just 30% more payload than Ariane5 or 20% more than a Delta IV Heavy

apart thee fact that all rationally driven company or agency should use the rocket that already exist rather than build a new one (at very high costs) maybe using two of them for bigger payload, I believe GAO may be right for, at least, two reasons:

1. the experience says us that nearly all space programs in all countries goes soon in big time delays and costs overrun

2. the knowlenge of ECONOMY (not of technology) is (exactly) those they need (and have) to evaluate costs' growt

.

cIclops · 2008-03-09 03:25:49

Ariane 5 orbits the Automated Transfer Vehicle on a historic mission in support of the International Space Station - 9 Mar 2008

The ATV mission lasted just over 1 hr. 6 min. During its first phase, the Ariane 5 ES climbed away from the Spaceport on the power of its cryogenic core stage and two solid rocket boosters. The boosters were jettisoned at about two minutes after launch, with the cryogenic core stage operating for seven more minutes.
Ariane 5’s EPS upper stage then performed its initial propulsive phase lasting approximately eight minutes, reaching an intermediate orbit with a perigee of 130 km. and a 260-km. apogee. The stage’s second ignition, which occurred some 45 minutes later, was followed by a 30-second burn that circularized the orbit at 260 km. and positioned the EPS upper stage for its successful deployment of ATV. A final EPS ignition was planned 90 minutes later, propelling the upper stage on a safe atmospheric re-entry for splashdown in the Pacific Ocean.

Launch & background video - 19:38 mins

Rxke · 2008-04-01 04:35:50

general repetition for docking looking very good

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7323275.stm

cIclops · 2008-04-03 10:06:18

WASHINGTON -- The following is a statement by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin after today's successful docking of the European Space Agency's Jules Verne Automated Transfer Vehicle to the International Space Station at 10:45 a.m. EDT Thursday.
"I am incredibly proud of and pleased for our European partners with this demonstration of a successful automated docking of the ATV cargo vehicle with the ISS. Only Russia has previously achieved a successful automated docking in space. This accomplishment showcases yet again the progress which has been made by the international partnership in bringing this incredible program to fruition. Together with the arrival of the Columbus Module at the ISS earlier this year, the success of the ATV marks the arrival of Europe as a full-fledged space power. I applaud their achievement."

Statement by NASA Administrator on ATV Docking - 3 Apr 2008

pete · 2008-04-05 03:55:17

Ha ha. No neviden, we don't know that, all we know is the flight history and it's not impressive. Keep watching.

Well, Ariane hasn't had a major problem since 2002. Proton had three launch failures during the last 24 months. Sealaunch had a launch failure. Atlas 5 is the only commercial US launcher. It has got a good track record in terms of reliability but it's too expensive.

For all these reasons, Ariane 5 has more commercial launch contracts than all it's major competitors combined. Don't forget that Ariane 5 has now a series of 23 successful launches in a row and almost each time they launch, they launch a dual payload. I think it's a really good program. I just hope that they will eventually finish development of the ECB upper stage with the Vinci motor. This will not only increase payload to GTO by two tons but also increase flexibility with mutliple burns in orbit. Remember, to launch the ATV they had to rely on the old Aestus engine with storable propellant in order to have multiple burns.

Ah well, don't forget the extraordinary reliability record of Ariane 4. Ariane 1-4 had some reliability issues in the 1980s, but by 2002 when the program was finally shut down, it had become one of the most reliable launchers ever. This just demonstrates that even the most reliable launchers can have problems during the first couple test launches.

cIclops · 2008-04-06 09:16:00

It hasn't been updated since Dec 2006, but Ed Kyle's reliability statistics are quite detailed and show the differences between launch systems. Note that several systems have perfect flight records, Atlas 2 is probably the most impressive with no failures in 63 flights.

Terraformer · 2008-04-06 09:57:50

How much to LEO?

pete · 2008-04-06 13:42:11

Atlas2 ? About 5.6 tonnes to LEO

Terraformer · 2008-04-06 13:45:08

Is it manrated under current regulations? They used it to launch mercury, didn't they?

pete · 2008-04-06 13:50:35

Well, the whole program was discontinued in 2004. Given the small payload capacity, you couldn't even launch a Soyuz.

Terraformer · 2008-04-06 13:55:03

Even with new composite structures and other mass-slimming techniques?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2008-02-19 08:08:36

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#27 2008-02-19 08:24:36

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#28 2008-02-19 08:48:39

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#29 2008-02-19 09:10:21

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#30 2008-02-19 11:30:39

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#31 2008-02-22 11:40:37

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#32 2008-02-25 04:00:23

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#33 2008-02-27 12:59:13

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#34 2008-02-27 14:06:06

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#35 2008-02-27 14:11:15

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#36 2008-02-27 14:41:24

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#37 2008-02-27 18:53:31

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#38 2008-03-08 21:54:06

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#39 2008-03-09 01:35:08

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#40 2008-03-09 01:45:39

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#41 2008-03-09 03:25:49

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#42 2008-04-01 04:35:50

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#43 2008-04-03 10:06:18

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#44 2008-04-05 03:55:17

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#45 2008-04-06 09:16:00

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#46 2008-04-06 09:57:50

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#47 2008-04-06 13:42:11

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#48 2008-04-06 13:45:08

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#49 2008-04-06 13:50:35

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

#50 2008-04-06 13:55:03

Re: Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) - ESA ISS cargo carrier

Board footer