Japan's H-II Transfer Vehicle instead of shuttle for logistics?

[PJay_A]

Over the past few months, NASA has quietly added two shuttle flights to its manifest. Both are dedicated for logistics, carrying supplies and rack equipment. Considering the risky nature of adding more shuttle flights to the manifest, wouldn't it be more prudent to buy H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) launches from Japan, considering that, like the shuttle and unlike Russia's Progress and ESA's ATV supply and logistic vehicles, it's capable of carrying US standard racks. Is there any logical reason why we can not do that other than having to bite our national pride and buy launch services from a foriegn country? With the shuttle fleet set to retire and no US substitute for immediate availablity, it simply makes sense for us to buy H-II/HTV launch services from Japan for its practicality, availability, smart economics, and (most important of all) the safety of our astronauts.

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Over the past few months, NASA has quietly added two shuttle flights to its manifest. Both are dedicated for logistics, carrying supplies and rack equipment. Considering the risky nature of adding more shuttle flights to the manifest, wouldn't it be more prudent to buy H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) launches from Japan, considering that, like the shuttle and unlike Russia's Progress and ESA's ATV supply and logistic vehicles, it's capable of carrying US standard racks. Is there any logical reason why we can not do that other than having to bite our national pride and buy launch services from a foriegn country? With the shuttle fleet set to retire and no US substitute for immediate availablity, it simply makes sense for us to buy H-II/HTV launch services from Japan for its practicality, availability, smart economics, and (most important of all) the safety of&nbsp;our astronauts. <br />Posted by PJay_A</DIV><br /><br />AFAIK, NASA has not added them to the manifest (I will check), Congress has ordered them with insufficient funding to accomplish the missions.</p><p>ALso, logistics is one thing, spare parts is another. No other vehicle can deliver things the size of the Shuttle.</p><p>For all others, the payload has to fit through the hatch. The shuttle can carry objects far to large to be put inside the station itself.</p><p>Be back in a bit when I have time to check the actual current Shuttle manifest.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<p>These missions have always been an option.</p><p>Jon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[tadpoletriker]

<p>Just how different are the ATV and Multi-Purpose Logistics Module?&nbsp; Could theh not be attached to CBMs from Ariane 5sm, with racks inside?</p><p>JB</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[Zipi]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just how different are the ATV and Multi-Purpose Logistics Module?&nbsp; Could theh not be attached to CBMs from Ariane 5sm, with racks inside?JB&nbsp; <br />Posted by tadpoletriker</DIV><br /><br />ATV cargo space has developed from MPLM's. So they have similarities... But...</p><p>MPLM's don't have the propulsion module. Then there is the issue with docking because CBM docking procedure cannot be automatized as Russian Probe and Cone mechanism allows. It maybe can be docked with Canadarm2 like HTV is planned to dock, but...</p><p>What is the reason to develop a completely new space craft since HTV is already being developed and it will soon fly? By adding propulsion module to MPLM and figuring out all other needed stuff the end result would be pretty much HTV which is also able to carry the racks.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Hiro2008]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is the reason to develop a completely new space craft since HTV is already being developed and it will soon fly? Posted by Zipi</DIV><br /><br />(1) NASA doesn't believe capability of HTV. (^_^.<br />(2) NASA wants to give space industry of USA the opportunity to develop new space cargo.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Zipi]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>(1) NASA doesn't believe capability of HTV. (^_^.(2) NASA wants to give space industry of USA the opportunity to develop new space cargo. <br />Posted by Hiro2008</DIV><br /><br />MPLM's are built in Europe (in Italy) and there are only four of them. And somewhere I have red that NASA is planning to leave Donatello at ISS, but I don't remember where and how reliable source it was.</p><p>ATV has also plenty of room for racks inside it. The only minus is that there is no way to move complete racks from ATV to ISS. However nothing prevents moving single rack mounted units from ATV to ISS which is enough in many cases.</p><p>I surely welcome all new space craft development, but I don't believe there is any change&nbsp;for NASA to develop such space craft at the moment. NASA is simply too busy and underfunded at the moment.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[elguapoguano]

HTV has yet to fly and Japan has been less than successfull with thier H2 Rockets. but IMHO the more the merrier. I wish Japan luck and hope she flies with no problems. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[PJay_A]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And somewhere I have red that NASA is planning to leave Donatello at ISS, but I don't remember where and how reliable source it was.Posted by Zipi</DIV><br /><br />That's an interesting idea! I haven't heard that anywhere. Would Donatello need some kind of upgrade or outfitting in order for it to survive attached to ISS for a long duration? Is&nbsp;there anything preventing it right now as is to function in the role of permanently attached module?