Jules Verne - Future

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ariesr

Guest
<p>Hi,</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I noticed with interest the recent article on Jules Verne craft on it's final voyage.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7598980.stm </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>What surprised me is that the vehicle, as impressive as it is, will now burn up in the atmosphere. To my mind, this is a huge waste of money having to build a new one each time in order to send supplies/kit to the ISS. </p><p>I was slightly relieved when I read the extract from the article below: </p><p><strong><em>The question then remains as to what Esa wants to do with the technology. It is already committed to flying another four cargo missions to the ISS, but there is a strong desire among agency management and in industry to turn the ATV into a crewed vessel. </em></strong></p><p><strong><em>This would see the propulsion and avionics section of the ATV being fitted with a capsule that could survive re-entry and bring astronauts safely back to Earth. </em></strong></p><p><strong><em>EADS-Astrium believes a step-by-step programme with a budget of a couple of billion euros could evolve the current unmanned design into a fully independent European crew space transportation system.</em></strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Any thoughts? </p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
C

Carrickagh

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi,&nbsp;I noticed with interest the recent article on Jules Verne craft on it's final voyage.&nbsp;http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7598980.stm &nbsp;What surprised me is that the vehicle, as impressive as it is, will now burn up in the atmosphere. To my mind, this is a huge waste of money having to build a new one each time in order to send supplies/kit to the ISS. I was slightly relieved when I read the extract from the article below: The question then remains as to what Esa wants to do with the technology. It is already committed to flying another four cargo missions to the ISS, but there is a strong desire among agency management and in industry to turn the ATV into a crewed vessel. This would see the propulsion and avionics section of the ATV being fitted with a capsule that could survive re-entry and bring astronauts safely back to Earth. EADS-Astrium believes a step-by-step programme with a budget of a couple of billion euros could evolve the current unmanned design into a fully independent European crew space transportation system.&nbsp;Any thought? &nbsp; <br />Posted by ariesr</DIV><br /><br />Thoughts:</p><p>1. This is a logical next step, given the investment so far.</p><p>2. Does Ariane V have the ability to launch a (presumably) heavier ATV? How many crew would it carry?</p><p>3. This might provide a better ROI for American taxpayers if NASA and ESA were to team. It seems to me they have most of the tooling, designs, testing, and understanding of this system in place to&nbsp;adapt it into&nbsp;a workable manned vehicle available in the next "few" years.</p><p>4. Of course by NASA we mean aerospace contractors. I'm not sure how agreeable they might be to work with this system. Or how agreeable American politicians might be to a potential shifting/loss of jobs.</p><p>5. Perhaps an alternative to Orion?</p><p>Thank you for the article. I've followed the ATV but hadn't heard of this concept before.</p><p>CK</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

shuttle_guy

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thoughts:1. This is a logical next step, given the investment so far.2. Does Ariane V have the ability to launch a (presumably) heavier ATV? How many crew would it carry?3. This might provide a better ROI for American taxpayers if NASA and ESA were to team. It seems to me they have most of the tooling, designs, testing, and understanding of this system in place to&nbsp;adapt it into&nbsp;a workable manned vehicle available in the next "few" years.4. Of course by NASA we mean aerospace contractors. I'm not sure how agreeable they might be to work with this system. Or how agreeable American politicians might be to a potential shifting/loss of jobs.5. Perhaps an alternative to Orion?Thank you for the article. I've followed the ATV but hadn't heard of this concept before.CK <br />Posted by Carrickagh</DIV></p><p>The "manned ATV" would not need to be heavier. However it could not meet the mission requirements of the Orion due to the restriction of the Ariane 5 payload to LEO capability.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MarkStanaway

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hi,&nbsp;I noticed with interest the recent article on Jules Verne craft on it's final voyage.&nbsp;http://news.bbc.co.uk/. This would see the propulsion and avionics section of the ATV being fitted with a capsule that could survive re-entry and bring astronauts safely back to Earth. EADS-Astrium believes a step-by-step programme with a budget of a couple of billion euros could evolve the current unmanned design into a fully independent European crew space transportation system.&nbsp;Any thoughts? &nbsp; <br /> Posted by ariesr</DIV></p><p>Instead of re-inventing the wheel ESA should negotiate a deal to buy off-the-shelf Orion re-entry capsules and fit them to ATV propulsion modules. The timeline for the development of projects seems to be similar with ESA looking at a crewed system nine years from now according to Spaceflight JUl 2008. The Mk I Orion is due to fly in 2014 so there would be time to develop a European version by 2017. With the ATV having a diameter of 4.5m and Orion a diameter of 5m its appearance would be similar to the current complete Orion spacecraft. Is this viable? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

Carrickagh

Guest
<p><br /><font color="#3366ff">MarkStanaway:</font></p><p>I'm not sure how viable the Europeans would view that option. </p><p>Given the US economy, the budget deficit, technical hurdles (time and $$$) involving the Orion and Ares1, financial costs of war, financial costs of a generation preparing to retire, the fact that many staunch and long term&nbsp;supporters of the manned space program in Congress are nearing retirement (Weldon), nearing "retirement" of the ISS (2018?)and a potential lack of support from whomever wins the election, it could be VSE is facing a "perfect storm." VSE may not exist in 18 months.</p><p><font color="#3366ff">Shuttleguy:</font></p><p><font color="#000000">The ATV-Ariane system would only need to reach LEO in order to service ISS or some other (future) platform. I'm not sure if the next administration will support VSE, or at least the Destination Moon/Mars aspect (which is its real long-term justification). And besides, don't you need the Ares V for Moon/Mars? And are development dollars likely to be available for that in the next 10-20 years? </font></p><p>CK</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>MarkStanaway:I'm not sure how viable the Europeans would view that option. Given the US economy, the budget deficit, technical hurdles (time and $$$) involving the Orion and Ares1, financial costs of war, financial costs of a generation preparing to retire, the fact that many staunch and long term&nbsp;supporters of the manned space program in Congress are nearing retirement (Weldon), nearing "retirement" of the ISS (2018?)and a potential lack of support from whomever wins the election, it could be VSE is facing a "perfect storm." VSE may not exist in 18 months.Shuttleguy:The ATV-Ariane system would only need to reach LEO in order to service ISS or some other (future) platform. I'm not sure if the next administration will support VSE, or at least the Destination Moon/Mars aspect (which is its real long-term justification). And besides, don't you need the Ares V for Moon/Mars? And are development dollars likely to be available for that in the next 10-20 years? CK <br /> Posted by Carrickagh</DIV></p><p>I would think it would make more sense to develop a return vehicle that could be boosted by Ariane as a separate vehicle to Jules Verne. Convert the Jules Verne to a passenger module, with a launch escape and recovery system to take people to the ISS only and deal with returning as a sparate issue.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Z

Zipi

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I would think it would make more sense to develop a return vehicle that could be boosted by Ariane as a separate vehicle to Jules Verne. Convert the Jules Verne to a passenger module, with a launch escape and recovery system to take people to the ISS only and deal with returning as a sparate issue.&nbsp; <br />Posted by scottb50</DIV><br /><br />Two launches for LEO trip? Sounds pretty expensive... And how about abort at orbit possibility then?</p><p>Ariane 5 can boost 21,5 metric tons to LEO and Ares 1 25 metric tons if Wikipedia information is correct... So there is not so big cap between these two boosters and I think that single vehicle for going up and down is the way to go if we think all safety and cost issues. If my comments about the boosting capasity of Ariane 5 and Ares 1 are incorrect, please someone: Tell the facts.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Two launches for LEO trip? Sounds pretty expensive... And how about abort at orbit possibility then?Ariane 5 can boost 21,5 metric tons to LEO and Ares 1 25 metric tons if Wikipedia information is correct... So there is not so big cap between these two boosters and I think that single vehicle for going up and down is the way to go if we think all safety and cost issues. If my comments about the boosting capasity of Ariane 5 and Ares 1 are incorrect, please someone: Tell the facts. <br /> Posted by Zipi</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I was thinking more along the lines of a crew version of Jules Verne becoming a permanent fixture once at a station rather then making it a round trip vehicle. As for rescue capabilities a launch abort system, available to a point of assured orbit and an orbital recovery vehicle would be fairly simple. Returning from orbit could use a much smaller vehicle as it would not be tasked to take cargo as well as people to orbit. The main thrust is building infrastructure in orbit, the existing Jules Verne could easily become a permanent fixture in orbit and even be used to build free-flying mini stations or adding space to existing facilities.</p><p>A return vehicle that could take a minimal crew to orbit, or launch and dock unnmanned, and return for a conventional landing could be kept small enough to use existing launchers rather then having to build new launchers to fit a new vehicle.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vulture4

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I was thinking more along the lines of a crew version of Jules Verne becoming a permanent fixture once at a station rather then making it a round trip vehicle. As for rescue capabilities a launch abort system, available to a point of assured orbit and an orbital recovery vehicle would be fairly simple. Returning from orbit could use a much smaller vehicle as it would not be tasked to take cargo as well as people to orbit. The main thrust is building infrastructure in orbit, the existing Jules Verne could easily become a permanent fixture in orbit and even be used to build free-flying mini stations or adding space to existing facilities.A return vehicle that could take a minimal crew to orbit, or launch and dock unnmanned, and return for a conventional landing could be kept small enough to use existing launchers rather then having to build new launchers to fit a new vehicle.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by scottb50</DIV> </p><p>Returning a crew safely to earth is the most demanding task for the capsule. None of the capsules has any significant download capability compared to the Shuttle, in fact Orion has no real way to carry significant payloads, such as new racks, to the ISS.&nbsp; </p><p>Conventional launchers, including both the Ariane 5 and the Delta IV, could easily launch a capsule into LEO. Unfortunately Orion was custom-designed to be heavy enough to require the Ares, and oriented to the lunar return mission. It would probably be more efficient to design a new capsule designed specifically for lighter weight and the LEO mission than to continue reworking the Orion design, particularly if ESA wants to use some of the Jules Verne design elements. If the system can also be EELV compatible, that would provide some redundancy and assurance that a design problem in one launcher or the other wouldn't ground the system.</p><p>&nbsp; </p>
 
S

scottb50

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Returning a crew safely to earth is the most demanding task for the capsule. None of the capsules has any significant download capability compared to the Shuttle, in fact Orion has no real way to carry significant payloads, such as new racks, to the ISS.&nbsp; Conventional launchers, including both the Ariane 5 and the Delta IV, could easily launch a capsule into LEO. Unfortunately Orion was custom-designed to be heavy enough to require the Ares, and oriented to the lunar return mission. It would probably be more efficient to design a new capsule designed specifically for lighter weight and the LEO mission than to continue reworking the Orion design, particularly if ESA wants to use some of the Jules Verne design elements. If the system can also be EELV compatible, that would provide some redundancy and assurance that a design problem in one launcher or the other wouldn't ground the system.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by vulture4</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_(shuttle)</p><p>Something similar to this would work. Room for returning people and taking up a minimal crew and payload or passengers. Modified Jules Vernes would carry payloads and people as needed. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

ariesr

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_(shuttle)Something similar to this would work. Room for returning people and taking up a minimal crew and payload or passengers. Modified Jules Vernes would carry payloads and people as needed. <br /> Posted by scottb50</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Just continuing from that original bbc link, here is another.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7612790.stm</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Interestingly, there is talk of ESA linking with Russians on a crew transportation system. </p>
 
L

l3p3r

Guest
<p>Is there any possibility of raising the ISS to a long term stable orbit to keep it as a 'museum' (for want of a better word) documenting space technology in the early 21st century, using a vehicle like these ATVs? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

shuttle_guy

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is there any possibility of raising the ISS to a long term stable orbit to keep it as a 'museum' (for want of a better word) documenting space technology in the early 21st century, using a vehicle like these ATVs? <br />Posted by l3p3r</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Certainly. if you had a few hundred or so ATVs to use for that purpose. The ISS currently has a mass of about 667,000 pounds.&nbsp;<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

shuttle_guy

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;Certainly. if you had a few hundred or so ATVs to use for that purpose. The ISS currently has a mass of about 667,000 pounds.&nbsp; <br />Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV></p><p>When completed the ISS will be well over 800,000 pounds.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
F

franontanaya

Guest
<p>Would they be able to pursue the same objectives than in CSTS with Jules Verne?</p><p>Particularly, the plan to use two or three modified Arianne launches to dock the lunar module and the propulsion modules. It sounds quite neat to use a modular design and proofed rockets for missions beyond LEO. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p>One final experiment for Jules Verne...</p><p>The reentry of the Jules Verne Automated Transfer Vehicle craft was deliberately delayed in order for it to occur during the nighttime so it can be well observed. Dr Peter Jenniskens, who has run numerous meteor and elcipse flights to gain informatoon about these subjects is working with the JV staff to coordinate this. It will be an interesting experiment, hopefully actually watching a satellite break up under well observed 3D conditions.</p><p>Story here: http://www.space.com/searchforlife/080925-seti-atv-breakup.html</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>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One final experiment for Jules Verne...The reentry of the Jules Verne Automated Transfer Vehicle craft was deliberately delayed in order for it to occur during the nighttime so it can be well observed. Dr Peter Jenniskens, who has run numerous meteor and elcipse flights to gain informatoon about these subjects is working with the JV staff to coordinate this. It will be an interesting experiment, hopefully actually watching a satellite break up under well observed 3D conditions.Story here: http://www.space.com/searchforlife/080925-seti-atv-breakup.html <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br /><br />Well, Jules Verne should have met it's fiery demise by now, hopefully there will be something on the eveing news tonight, if it can squeeze in between the other fiery demise, the US economy :) <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>
 
O

oscar1

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, Jules Verne should have met it's fiery demise by now, hopefully there will be something on the eveing news tonight, if it can squeeze in between the other fiery demise, the US economy :) <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Talking about that squeezing bit, next time ESA should send a dustbin along, fill it at ISS, and robotically push th&agrave;t towards&nbsp;the fiery demise. The ATV vehicle, the solar panels, etc. could next be sold to the Chinese as a building block for their&nbsp;future&nbsp;station. And you know what, I am not joking, for who in his right mind decided to let let burn-up a tonne or two of perfectly good material that&nbsp;did cost megabucks&nbsp;per kilo to get it where it was, and then burn it?</p>
 
T

tadpoletriker

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Talking about that squeezing bit, next time ESA should send a dustbin along, fill it at ISS, and robotically push th&agrave;t towards&nbsp;the fiery demise. The ATV vehicle, the solar panels, etc. could next be sold to the Chinese as a building block for their&nbsp;future&nbsp;station. And you know what, I am not joking, for who in his right mind decided to let let burn-up a tonne or two of perfectly good material that&nbsp;did cost megabucks&nbsp;per kilo to get it where it was, and then burn it? <br /> Posted by oscar1</DIV></p><p>Might work.</p><p>IIRC their hatch is compatable with the Russian and ATV ones.</p><p>Might have to create a Node, or FGB.</p><p>JB</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
Z

Zipi

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Might work.IIRC their hatch is compatable with the Russian and ATV ones.Might have to create a Node, or FGB.JB&nbsp; <br />Posted by tadpoletriker</DIV><br /><br />The ATV hatch is not compatible with Shenzhou hatch... ATV is using "Russian Probe and Cone" mechanism and Shenzhou is using APAS89 compatible docking mechanism:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgynous_Peripheral_Attach_System</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p>First few images released from Jules Verne Reentry:</p><p>http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMSB76EJLF_index_0.html</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>
 
O

oscar1

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The ATV hatch is not compatible with Shenzhou hatch... ATV is using "Russian Probe and Cone" mechanism and Shenzhou is using APAS89 compatible docking mechanism:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgynous_Peripheral_Attach_System <br />Posted by Zipi</DIV></p><p>Couldn't either the one or the&nbsp;other side make it compatible then? That what we've got engineers for, no?</p>
 
Z

Zipi

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Couldn't either the one or the&nbsp;other side make it compatible then? That what we've got engineers for, no? <br />Posted by oscar1</DIV><br /><br />True. It can be done, but as I said it is not compatible at the moment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Great pictures, I hope to see the video ! <br />Posted by shuttle_guy</DIV><br /><br />I correspond with Dr Jenniskens, maybe I can get a full video :) <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>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY