#11
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rescue shuttle planning update | bob haller | Space Shuttle | 27 | April 1st 04 06:55 PM |