ESA ATVs

Will the grouded Shuttles have any impact on the planned launch of the first
ATV 'Jules Verne'? The last thing I saw mentioned was a planned launch in
September 2004.

Does it actually make any sense "wasting" an ATV as long as the station is
only manned with a caretaker crew?

What will the main cargo be on the ATV (when it eventually will be
launched)? Can it carry racks for i.e. Destiny?

/Nikolaj

Nikolaj Ravn Hansen wrote:
Does it actually make any sense "wasting" an ATV as long as the station is
only manned with a caretaker crew?

ATV would be VERY needed during this time. Tha lack of shuttle makes for a big
deficit in cargo deliveries to the station. If ATV were available now, you
wouldn't have a caretaker crew because there would be enough supplies to
support 3 crewmembers.

However, if the Shuttle does launch in Semptember 2004, it will be interesting
to see when ATV gets launched. It would make sense to wait for a period where
supplies are needed but Shuttle can't go up due to restriction on daytime
launches only. On the other hand, since this would be a test flight, would the
ISS partners really want to rely on the first ATV launch as a critical
resupply mission ?

What will the main cargo be on the ATV (when it eventually will be
launched)? Can it carry racks for i.e. Destiny?

ATV should be seen as a Progress on steroids. It docks to the Russian segment.
It supplies fuel and air and water to the russian segment's plumbing. And
because it uses russian segment hatches, US segment racks cannot be sent
because they don't fit through those hatches. (Unless NASA contracts with IKEA
to produce racks that could be assembled with a single allen key while in
space :-)

Ideally, ATV should have been ready by March 2004. If it succeeded, it would
then have enabled 3 crewmembers to come up to the station in April. And it
would have given the russians some breathing room to catch up on Progress production.

"Pavlov Checkov" wrote in
And because it uses russian segment hatches, US segment racks cannot be
sent
because they don't fit through those hatches. (Unless NASA contracts with
IKEA
to produce racks that could be assembled with a single allen key while in
space :-)

This is a VERY important point, glad to see it made so clearly. It's still
only what
fits through an 80-cm circle instead of a 130-cm rounded-corner square. BIG
difference.

"Pavlov Checkov" wrote in
fits through an 80-cm circle instead of a 130-cm rounded-corner
square. BIG difference.

Agreed. However, could we have some examples of actual equipment (not
racks) that needs the bigger space, how much it will cost to redesign and
what the usefulness of this equipment will be?

Don't get me wrong, I agree now (before I did not) that 130-cm is better
but at what cost? Watching the latest Soyuz being assembled and launched
by this small and efficient rocket (7.2 tons payload) and comparing this to
the massive effort involved in launching a 100 ton shuttle (not to mention
the difficulty in bringing it back) was just mind-boggling.

Vassil

Vassil wrote:
Agreed. However, could we have some examples of actual equipment (not
racks) that needs the bigger space, how much it will cost to redesign and
what the usefulness of this equipment will be?

On the USA segment, most of the equipment was designed as a rack as opposed to
something that is put into a rack.

Many of these are ready to be sent to Alpha. But there is nothing big enough
to carry them.

Obviously, there are some field replacable components inside those racks, and
those would fit through the russian hatches. But some components are probably
too big to fit through the hatches (microbiology glovebox comes to mind). And
some components can't really be disassembled (the WORF rack that is to fit
over the only window in Destiny is an example).

Delani Sisters writes:

On the USA segment, most of the equipment was designed as a rack as
opposed to something that is put into a rack.

Many of these are ready to be sent to Alpha. But there is nothing
big enough to carry them.

So then we will have to wait for the shuttle to resume flying.

In the longer term there is the Japanese HTV which should be able to
handle the racks just fine. Unfortunately it will not be available
before 2007 IIRC, and then there are not enough of them scheduled.

Maybe NASA could copy the HTV design and fast-track the production?
An alternative cargo capability is needed anyway.

--
Manfred Bartz

Russia also launched mid-sized components on Progress missions by replacing
the middle tank-module with an unpressurized frame that holds the big stuff.
It was EVA retrieved for installation on the exterior of the Mir. In theory,
I suppose, something big could be carried, then inserted by SSRMS into the
CBM hatch that was open to vacuum -- if the Node can be depressurized
safely. The US Lab apparently can't. Could be pretty hairy.

And it would have given the russians some breathing room to catch up on
Progress production.

I found a Russian launch manifest at:

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/russia-man.txt

According to this, all Progress launched in '04 will be the M1 version
except 15P in March (Version M)

Also later flights in both '05 and '06 seems to be a mix of these two
versions. I thought the M1 was the only version being produced from now on?

BTW: Is a ISS-8R/RM-1 launch next March realistic? I would expect the UDM is
needed for this(?) And that one is not flying until Nov '06?

/Nikolaj

"James Oberg" writes:

Russia also launched mid-sized components on Progress missions by replacing
the middle tank-module with an unpressurized frame that holds the big stuff.
It was EVA retrieved for installation on the exterior of the Mir.

Really? Searching...

Here we go (from http://www.astronautix.com/craft/proressm.htm):

16 August 1992 Progress M-14 Program: Mir. Mass: 7,176 kg. Perigee:
187 km. Apogee: 221 km. Inclination: 51.5 deg. Duration: 67.04 days.
Unmanned resupply vessel to Mir. Progress M-38 was specially modified
to carry the first VDU (Vynosnaya Dvigatel'naya Ustanovka, External
Engine Unit) propulsion unit. The VDU was mounted externally on a
special structure between the cargo module and the service module,
replacing the OKD fuel section present on normal Progress
vehicles. The crew spacewalked to extract the VDU from Progress and
place it on the end of the Sofora boom extending from the Kvant
module. The VDU was used to provide attitude control capability for
the Mir station.

It also looks like Progress M-38 brought up a replacement VDU in March
of 1998.

I'd like to see a picture of that Progress and what it's modified
structure looks like.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

But some components are probably too big to fit through the hatches
(microbiology glovebox comes to mind). And some components can't
really be disassembled (the WORF rack that is to fit over the only
window in Destiny is an example).

Well, in the short run there isn't the mass budget for such equipment
anyway. Maybe if the ATV flies well before shuttle, but even then ATV
only flies once per 14 months, and Russia presumably can't maintain
their current Progress rate indefinitely without new funding.

Longer term, if NASA retires shuttle, there is an open question of
what size hatch should be considered a requirement. I remember some
back and forth about whether OSP and its predecessors in various
studies should dock to CBM, or a custom hatch, or APAS, or what. The
obvious way to do this trade is "how much does it cost to design
payloads for assembly once they reach station?" versus "how much does
it cost to build a vehicle with a bigger hatch?" but saying so is
easier than actually making that comparison.