Jules Verne ATV question

What if any consideration has been give by our friends in Europe to
designing and procuring a manned version of their Automated Transfer
Vehicle (ATV). Obviously the vehicle is already pressure and
temperature controlled, so beyond the design challenge of fixing an
ablative heat shield, parachutes, and landing rocket of some sort, what
considerations preclude such an endeavor?

It would seem to a casual observer like me that the vehicle itself
presents the ESA with the chance to procure its own independent access
to space and the ISS at a fairly modest cost in money and time.

Bonus question: Obviously the Ariane V would need to be man rated.
Briefly, can anyone explain this civilian the process involved in man
rating a booster. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Cheers,

frank

wrote in news:1124325576.260655.287730
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:


What if any consideration has been give by our friends in Europe to
designing and procuring a manned version of their Automated Transfer
Vehicle (ATV). Obviously the vehicle is already pressure and
temperature controlled, so beyond the design challenge of fixing an
ablative heat shield, parachutes, and landing rocket of some sort, what
considerations preclude such an endeavor?

Well, by the time all that equipment is added to a cylinder
that wasn't designed for reentry, where's the viability of the
thing? That would more than major modifications; it'd be a
complete redesign.

Europe's already tested a conical reentry vehicle that would
be suitable for manned flight, and looks interested in getting
on board with Kliper.

Ariane 5 would be kind of expensive.

--Damon

Am 17 Aug 2005 17:39:36 -0700 schrieb ":

What if any consideration has been give by our friends in Europe to
designing and procuring a manned version of their Automated Transfer
Vehicle (ATV). Obviously the vehicle is already pressure and
temperature controlled, so beyond the design challenge of fixing an
ablative heat shield, parachutes, and landing rocket of some sort, what
considerations preclude such an endeavor?

ATV is designed to something like a "Super-Progress" (or call it a
self-propelled MPLM). It wouldn't be worth to generate any effort in
modification of its concept to a total new direction. But if you count
the similarities between Soyuz and Progress, you could see
similarities between ATV and a possible future development based on
Kliper and ATV by replacing Kliper's orbital module (that on it's
tail, that somehow resembles a Soyuz orbital module)...

Bonus question: Obviously the Ariane V would need to be man rated.
Briefly, can anyone explain this civilian the process involved in man
rating a booster. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Basically Ariane-V *IS* already designed to be man-rated. In it's
original conception, it was thought to be used as the launcher of the
later cancelled European Hermes Shuttle. After Hermes' cancel the
launcher was redesigned to a heavy lift satelite launcher by just
adding an upper stage with standardized satellite dispensers and a
nose cone. I guess, some redundancies needed to be man rated were
removed to gain payload capacity, but these could surely be more or
less easily re-integrated. OTOH, I don't know if it really MAKES SENSE
to ('re-')use Ariane-5 as a manned launcher - there are other
developments, that seem favorable to mee, like Zenit based systems.

cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker)
--
"Abusus non tollit usum" - Latin: Abuse is no argument against proper use.

mailto: http://zili.de

Originally Posted by Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker (zili@home)

Am 17 Aug 2005 17:39:36 -0700 schrieb ":

What if any consideration has been give by our friends in Europe to
designing and procuring a manned version of their Automated Transfer
Vehicle (ATV). Obviously the vehicle is already pressure and
temperature controlled, so beyond the design challenge of fixing an
ablative heat shield, parachutes, and landing rocket of some sort, what
considerations preclude such an endeavor?

ATV is designed to something like a "Super-Progress" (or call it a
self-propelled MPLM). It wouldn't be worth to generate any effort in
modification of its concept to a total new direction. But if you count
the similarities between Soyuz and Progress, you could see
similarities between ATV and a possible future development based on
Kliper and ATV by replacing Kliper's orbital module (that on it's
tail, that somehow resembles a Soyuz orbital module)...

Bonus question: Obviously the Ariane V would need to be man rated.
Briefly, can anyone explain this civilian the process involved in man
rating a booster. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Basically Ariane-V *IS* already designed to be man-rated. In it's
original conception, it was thought to be used as the launcher of the
later cancelled European Hermes Shuttle. After Hermes' cancel the
launcher was redesigned to a heavy lift satelite launcher by just
adding an upper stage with standardized satellite dispensers and a
nose cone. I guess, some redundancies needed to be man rated were
removed to gain payload capacity, but these could surely be more or
less easily re-integrated. OTOH, I don't know if it really MAKES SENSE
to ('re-')use Ariane-5 as a manned launcher - there are other
developments, that seem favorable to mee, like Zenit based systems.

cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker)
--
"Abusus non tollit usum" - Latin: Abuse is no argument against proper use.

mailto: http://zili.de

I agree with all what you say (ATV and Ariane). We know that Zenit will probably launch Kliper. But what do you mean or know about """Zenit based systems""" and """other developments"""? Have you any more information?
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20050817/41169676.html
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2....3467&PageNum=1
Rémy

Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker (zili@home) wrote:

ATV is designed to something like a "Super-Progress" (or call it a
self-propelled MPLM). It wouldn't be worth to generate any effort in
modification of its concept to a total new direction. But if you count
the similarities between Soyuz and Progress, you could see
similarities between ATV and a possible future development based on
Kliper and ATV by replacing Kliper's orbital module (that on it's
tail, that somehow resembles a Soyuz orbital module)...


If you were to stick a reentry capsule on Jules Verne, you'd end up with
something a lot like this in conception:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/tks.html

Pat

If you were to stick a reentry capsule on Jules Verne, you'd end up with
something a lot like this in conception:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/tks.html

Pat
Is this related to the Merkur?

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:41:31 +0000 "Rémy MERCIER" wrote:

I agree with all what you say (ATV and Ariane). We know that Zenit will
probably launch Kliper. But what do you mean or know about """Zenit
based systems""" and """other developments"""? Have you any more
information?

No, I do not have more information, but I have hopes and dreams (based
on technical data), what could be possible - especially using already
proven hardware just in new combination. *)

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20050817/41169676.html
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2....3467&PageNum=1

Oh, I already expected such (mostly informal) talks during the Moscow
air show, but I don't expect quick results; give them one or two years
of considerations to come to the conclusion, that Russians and
Ukrainians cannot do really much alone, but can regain strength, if
they put their eggs in one basket.

*) BTW: Zenit has a man rating status nearly similar to Ariane-V; its
1st stage resembles the boosters of Energia launcher, that was
supposed to lift the Russian Buran shuttle somewhen manned. And about
my hopes and dreams: I can see the possibility of a heavy lift
launcher somewhat similar to Atlas-V Heavy, but built from Zenit cores
instead. In general, I would like to see a whole family of launchers
based on RD-170/180/191 engine family, from a single engine / single
chamber Angara up to multi core Zenits, and maybe the larger ones
equipped with LOX/LH2 core stages like on Energia, Ariane-V, Delta-IV
and LOX/LH2 upper stages as well. The technology ALREADY IS around, it
just lacks the will to invest in it...

cu, ZiLi aka HKZL (Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker)
--
"Abusus non tollit usum" - Latin: Abuse is no argument against proper use.

mailto: http://zili.de

"Ami Silberman" wrote in message
...


If you were to stick a reentry capsule on Jules Verne, you'd end up with
something a lot like this in conception:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/tks.html

Pat
Is this related to the Merkur?

I believe that TKS used the Merkur reentry capsule.

http://space.skyrocket.de/index_fram...dat/merkur.htm

http://vsm.host.ru/e_salyut.htm

http://studweb.studserv.uni-stuttgar...ery/models.htm

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

In article ,
Heinrich Zinndorf-Linker (zili@home) wrote:
*) BTW: Zenit has a man rating status nearly similar to Ariane-V; its
1st stage resembles the boosters of Energia launcher, that was
supposed to lift the Russian Buran shuttle somewhen manned...

More significantly, Zenit itself was meant to replace the Soyuz launcher
for space-station cargo and crew flights. (Buran was a military vehicle,
not available for such purposes.) In fact, Zenit probably *would* have
taken over that role -- using enlarged versions of the Soyuz and Progress
spacecraft -- by now, were it not for the (in hindsight) unwise decision
to build it in the Ukraine, which is now a separate country.

It's all most unfortunate. Zenit is a sizable improvement on the old
Semyorka family, not least because it's simply *bigger*, and the matching
son-of-Soyuz spacecraft would be much more satisfactory for many purposes
than the cramped and marginal old Soyuz.
--
No, the devil isn't in the details. | Henry Spencer
The devil is in the *assumptions*. |

In article .com,
wrote:
What if any consideration has been give by our friends in Europe to
designing and procuring a manned version of their Automated Transfer
Vehicle (ATV). Obviously the vehicle is already pressure and
temperature controlled, so beyond the design challenge of fixing an
ablative heat shield, parachutes, and landing rocket of some sort, what
considerations preclude such an endeavor?

The fast answer is, it's really not built for reentry and descent. You
can't just slap some ablator on one end; it's the wrong *shape*. You'd
have to enclose it within an aeroshell... which would add considerable
mass to a vehicle that's already a full Ariane 5 load, and would also
increase the diameter to something fairly awkward.

There's little question that ESA could build its own manned capsule
without great difficulty, possibly re-using some of the ATV systems, but
it wouldn't be done by starting with the ATV design itself.

ESA flew an experimental subscale capsule on one of the Ariane 5 test
flights, and the obvious thing to do would be to scale up its aeroshell
and use ATV-based systems to fit out the interior. What's lacking is the
will and the funding.

Bonus question: Obviously the Ariane V would need to be man rated.

Shouldn't be a big deal, since it was meant for this from the start -- the
defunct Hermes spacecraft was going to fly on Ariane 5. (Indeed, Hermes
drove the size of Ariane 5 for a while.)

Briefly, can anyone explain this civilian the process involved in man
rating a booster.

The fast answer is that it's more a political exercise than a technical
one. "Soyuz is not man-rated." (Yes, that really was NASA's official
opinion at one point.) How far you have to go is very much a judgement
call, and how the call is made tends to depend heavily on hidden agendas.
If you don't want to use the EELVs for manned flight, then it's "obvious"
that man-rating them would be difficult and costly, even if it would be
easier than for previous manned launch systems.

Speaking rationally rather than politically, the minimum is a careful
study of the system for ways in which a single failure could kill a crew.
If there are any, you have to fix them somehow. Assuming the spacecraft
has an escape system of some kind, the key issue is generally whether a
plausible failure gives adequate warning time for the crew to activate the
escape system; if not, you must eliminate that class of failure, add
instrumentation to improve warning, or automate escape in that case.

For example, Gemini added redundant guidance hardware and a backup
first-stage hydraulic system to Titan II because analysis suggested that
a first-stage engine-hard-over failure might happen too quickly for
successful manually-activated escape. The added redundancy improved
reliability in general, but its *purpose* was specifically to make that
one class of failure vanishingly unlikely. The second-stage hydraulic
system was left non-redundant, because hard-over failures there were not
time-critical and the payload penalty for redundancy was excessive.

Similarly, Apollo's escape system, although mostly manually controlled,
would activate automatically in a few specific cases where available
reaction time was excessively short.

Man-rating might also involve giving special attention to quality control
in manufacturing for boosters intended to fly manned... although of
course, that raises the question of why you weren't doing it anyway, given
how expensive even an unmanned launch failure is.
--
No, the devil isn't in the details. | Henry Spencer
The devil is in the *assumptions*. |