Should NASA buy the ATV?

[cuddlyrocket]

HI. Newbie. Great forum. (Don't worry, I'm not going to start threads like it's going out of fashion!)<br /><br />From what I've read, Administrator Griffin seems to want to the CEV to carry people to LEO (esp to the ISS); carry cargo to the ISS, and carry people to the Moon. These are very different missions, and I think there's a high risk of getting a craft that can do all three moderately well, but none of them very well.<br /><br />I can see how a people-to-LEO CEV can also act as a command and Earth-return module for a Moon shot. But, at least in the earlier years, you don't need a CEV that can carry more than 3/4 people and a small amount of cargo (rocks!). (By the time you need to send more people at once, it'll be time to build a dedicated, re-usable Earth-Moon shuttle.) With a Russian Soyuz or successor also at the ISS, you'd have 6/7 astronauts there at once, which was the original plan.<br /><br />Such a CEV is not going to carry much cargo. The current Lockheed proposal would carry 5,000 lb to the ISS. Compare this with the ESA ATV, which will carry 7.2 tonnes (= 15,840 lb). It will launch for the first time next year.<br /><br />My suggestion is that NASA goes for the simplest, smallest design that will get 3/4 people to the ISS and which can act as a command etc. module for Moon shots. And that they buy the ATV for ISS cargo missions.<br /><br />Points to consider:<br /><br />NASA can either buy the entire cargo missions outright. Or, since the ATV is designed to be launched by an Ariane 5, and can therefore presumably be launched by an EELV without too much modification, just buy the ATV. Or just by the specs, and manufacture their own.<br /><br />NASA doesn't have to pay dollars. It could barter access rights for ESA astronauts (NASA doesn't have a need for as many astronaut-years at the ISS as it used to think it would).<br /><br />Private sector companies may shortly be able to do the ISS cargo job much better and cheaper than either a cargo CEV or

 

[mattblack]

>>Should NASA buy the ATV?<<<br /><br />If I were Mike Griffin, I'd seriously consider it. If the USA purchased 6x ATVs and their launch services, they could cut the number of needed Space Shuttle missions by a similar amount and save money to boot. However, if they subsidized the development of T-Space's CXV as well, those savings would probably be cancelled out. <br /><br />It's pretty much an Apples-and-Oranges concept. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[flynn]

First of all, lets let the ATV get a successfull launch and docking under its belt. <br /><br />Personally I'd like to see it but it this is unlikely to get the go ahead whilst politics exist. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#800080">"All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring" - <strong>Chuck Palahniuk</strong>.</font> </div>

 

[alpha_centauri]

<font color="yellow">NASA can either buy the entire cargo missions outright. Or, since the ATV is designed to be launched by an Ariane 5, and can therefore presumably be launched by an EELV without too much modification, just buy the ATV. Or just by the specs, and manufacture their own.</font><br /><br />NASA buying cargo missions outright is most likely but there will probably be problems with this. ESA isn't likely to let the ATV be launched by anything other than an ESA launcher. The ATV is part of ESA's evolutionary steps towards developing space infrastructure and is as such a major development on current operations with many of the technologies used becoming parts of future systems, it won't be let out so someone else can use it. As for buying the specs, are you serious? After spending so much effort in developing such a craft ESA is just going to give the plans away?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">NASA doesn't have to pay dollars. It could barter access rights for ESA astronauts (NASA doesn't have a need for as many astronaut-years at the ISS as it used to think it would).</font><br /><br />I'm not sure ESA would agree with that as they are annoyed as it is with the current situation which is why they are almost certain in the future to use systems closer to home like the European owned Soyuz, which is also relatively cheap. Besides it looks like ESA will have a co-owned manned craft of it's own in the not too distant future anyway. NASA would have to pay cash if your plan was to happen. Anyway NASA has it’s own problem with many of it’s astronauts facing the possibility of not actually going into space.<br /> <br />I don’t see it happening

 

[alpha_centauri]

<font color="yellow"> The USA buying the plans to the ATV does not interfear with the "steps" to the european space program.</font><br /><br />Yes it does. The whole point of the program was to, while investing capital in Europe instead of paying a contribution to the ISS partners, also to develop superior technologies to give the agency an edge in future exploration plans, perhaps part of international endeavours. It’s pretty pointless if you then go and give away this advantage on the cheap isn’t it? It would be like the USA spending huge amounts on a Saturn V to then turn around and give it to the Soviets so they could beat America to the moon! You are right the money would be useful but it’s really not worth it.<br /><br />Last time I looked there were to be at least 7 ATV’s but more could be built depending what happens to the ISS. With the amount of experimental projects for future systems being planned by ESA right now the ATV should really be considered part fully fledged vehicle, part technology test bed. There is a precedent with things like this such as Smart-1.<br /><br />Btw, as he is focussing on being an alternative to a current CEV design I would guess he means that the ATV could be used post construction. <br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"Private sector companies may shortly be able to do the ISS cargo job much better and cheaper than either a cargo CEV or the ATV, so the ATV seems a good stop gap. Why compromise the design of a people CEV to have a purely US Government solution for these few years? "<br /><br />You make some good points. But looking at the nature of compromise though, if the CEV is developed into a manned and cargo version similar to what was done with the Soyuz and Progress spacecraft, what is most likely compromised is the cargo mission not the manned mission.<br /><br />The ATV is a pure expendable cargo lifter, that's partly why it is so efficient. A CEV stripped of crew accomodations and even stripped of TPS and parachutes will still have a moldline designed for all the features stripped out and that moldline would compromise it's cargo carrying ability.<br /><br />Even so one possible advantage of a cargo CEV would be if you wanted to return material from orbit safely back to Earth (assuming the cargo CEV still had TPS and parachutes). That is a job the expendable ATV cannot do. But I can't see the practical need for such a cargo to earth return capability that the manned CEV doesn't already do (at least the Lockheed CEV with 5,000 lbs. capability).<br /><br />But I also agree I can't see what a cargo version of the CEV could do that the ATV doesn't do better for typical expendable cargo delivery missions. Plus the ATV is already here, no development neccessary. Using funds to derive a cargo version of the CEV therefore seems like a great waste of money.

 

[steve82]

ATV is awfully complex and and expensive for a throwaway vehicle. It's several Progresses worth of reboost though, depending on how it's loaded. I suspect it may have in it's design the groundwork for a permanently manned module.

 

[nacnud]

One point about the ATV I'd like to mention. It docks to the ISS using the probe and cone docking ports, the same as the Soyuz and Progress vehicles use. Which also means that the payload has to fit into through those ports, Interntional Standard Payloads Racks are too big to fit. That means that while the ATV can be used to re-supply the ISS it would be hard for it to out fit modules in the same way as the Mulit Purpose Logistic Modules. It might not be possible to replace MPLM flights with ATV flights.

 

[cuddlyrocket]

In fact, the ATV 48 m³ pressurised cargo section is based on the Italian-built Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM). It has room for up to eight standard racks, which can be unloaded through the door.<br />

 

[nacnud]

You can't unload a full ISPR through the docking mechanism that the ATV uses, it just won't fit. You can take draws out and pass them through individually. Take a look and the below pictures if you don't believe me.<br /><br />The payload section of the AVT is very similar to a MPLM but it has two doors. The one on the right is the cone and probe docking mechanism used to joint the ATV to the station. In this view the other door is hidden, it is this second access that is used to load most of the payload into the ATV.<br />

 

[nacnud]

In this view you can see the other access into the ATV, this can only be used on the ground as this is also where the ATV service module joins the pressurised section.

 

[ehs40]

i think that nasa should buy it if they can use it to build the iss faster because nasa needs some way to take the burden off the shuttle fleet. the shuttles are curently the only thing being used to ferry pieces to the iss so i say buy it

 

[cuddlyrocket]

Nacnud: After some research I discovered that an ISPR is 2.03 x 1.05 x 0.97 metres in size, whereas the ATV's cargo hatch is 'almost' one metre. So, nope, won't fit.<br /><br />Obviously, individual shelves of equipment can go up. And possibly you can send up a rack in 'flat-pack' form. It's more complicated than I originally thought, though I still feel that NASA should consider it as an option.