A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ESA ATVs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 21st 03, 04:13 PM
Jim Kingdon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ESA ATVs

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


I didn't think there was any funding for any of the Research Modules.
If so they'd be at least several years out, if they happen at all.

Which makes me surprised to see them on a manifest ahead of UDM or the
solar power tower (although I guess the latter is going up on shuttle,
last I heard).
  #12  
Old October 22nd 03, 01:00 AM
Jon G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ESA ATVs

There is always PMA3 .. set aside an APAS port for Alternate Access (or
whatever they are calling it in its resurrected guise)

"Jim Kingdon" wrote in message
news
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.



  #13  
Old October 22nd 03, 07:43 PM
HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ESA ATVs


Nikolaj Ravn Hansen a écrit dans le message :
...
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.


Unfortunately, the latest news is that the launch will have to be delayed by
a few month.


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


ATV is also used to reboost the station. And it's much more usefull in this
role than a Progress ( lot more fuel )


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

/Nikolaj




  #14  
Old October 23rd 03, 01:05 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ESA ATVs

Vassil wrote:
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.


Why is it mind boggling that a very small and low capability vehicle
is cheaper and easier than a very large and high capacity vehicle?

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.
  #15  
Old May 3rd 04, 08:41 PM
Daniel S. Wing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ESA ATVs

On 21 Oct 2003 11:08:34 -0400, Jim Kingdon wrote:

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.


There are at least six major logistics supply options for the ISS.
Three of them rely on the shuttle, the Middeck Lockers, SpaceHab and
MPLM modules ... Of these only the MPLM directly connects to the
Station's hatches on Unity and later Node2.

Cargo and supplies in the SpaceHab and Middeck lockers must also
travel through the Pressurized Mating Adaptor 2 into the Destiny Lab
(later Node2).

The principle advantages of the Shuttle based Logistics options are,
increased upmass and also the ONLY available downmass capability.

The Japanese H-II Resupply module flies up to the space station and is
grabbed by the Canadarm2 and attached to the hatches on Unity or Node2
and consists of a pressurized segment and an unpressurized cargo
section that can be accessed by the Japanese Robot Arm or the
Canadarm2.

The Russian Progress Resupply Craft has two variants, the M and M1
with slightly different cargo configurations and docks with the
Russian segment on either Zarya, Pirs or Zvezda.

The European ATV attaches to the Russian Segment and provides reboost
capabilities for the ISS.

Overall, I think the balance of Logistics suppli options for the ISS
is quite robust.

I'm not sure if the H-II has reboost capacity or not, but any full lab
racks that need to be brought up to the ISS that wouldn't be taken up
by the Shuttle would go to the Japanese H-II.

Hope that helps,

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rescue shuttle planning update bob haller Space Shuttle 27 April 1st 04 06:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.