Space Forum / Shuttle / November 2005

ATV's cargo space is primarily loaded through the aft portion of the
pressure hull which is a huge opening. Only last minute items are loaded
thorugh the russian sized hatch on forward portion of cargo module. So
it seems likely that ATV could easily be outfitted with racks to hold
experiment units which could then be transfered to racks on the ISS.

So the question is whether the russian hatches can accomodate the width
of modules that are fitten into racks. For instance, if they  use 19"
computer racks, and the hatch opening is only 18", you wouldn't be able
to fit such modules through. (unless they can fit in another direction).

If CEV is to DOCK to the station, it will have the same size hatch as
Shuttle to Station since it will use PMA2.
And remember that CEV is just a glorified double decker apollo capsule.
It doesn't have significant cargo space.

Since HTV is meant to berth to a CBM port,  why coudn't ATV ?  

For ATV, since one of its functions is to provide tons of reboost
capability, docking on aft port of Zvezda makes sense.

Ideally, ATV would "eject" an MPLM type of can after docking to the
russian segment to be picked up by the canadarm and berthed to a CBM
port. Unfortunatly, the canadarm was not given a grapple point where it
can reach the aft docking port of Zvezda. It wouldn't be that hard to
do, just string a cable from Z1 to Zvezda outdoors, and drill screws
into Zvezda to secure the PGDF to Zvezda :-)

Since the europeans are now planning some form of canadarm for the
russian segment, I wonder if an MPLM in an ATV could be picked up by the
europena arm and handed over to the canadarm and then berted.

In hindsight, had the europeans designed ATV to carry an MPLM from the
start, they could probably launch many of the modules destined for the
ISS. ATV would then have the naked equivalent of a cargo bay. In front
of it would be the docking equipment (and perhaps a mini pressurised
area for food and perishables that the crew can access immediatly upon
docking), and behind the cargo bay the traditional propulsion/guidance module.

The problem is that NASA doesn't say "we need to launch 15 tonnes and
return 10 tonnes to earth safely". They say "we need a winged vehicle
made by either lockeed or boeing whose construction will employ people
from michoud, stennis, thiokol, which has the following shape,
structural elements and materials.

Even ATV, which was designed to use "off the shelf" commercial Arianne
launchers ended having to have a customer version of Arianne launcher
for it. (due to weight, centre of gravity etc).

If you want to advance human spaceflight beyond sending humans up in a
telephone booth, you need hardware to build bigger hardware in space.
Apollo/CEV may be great to send people to space, but it does nothing to
help build structures big enough to support very long trips. The shuttle
was designed not only as a great cargo and people carrier, but also as a
space truck, capable of doing work in space.

CEV is nothing more than the american version of Soyuz with a more
modern look.

Assuming CEV isn't cancelled and actually does fly. The problem isn't
CEV. The problem is that NASA is doing nothing to replace the cargo and
space-work capabilities of the shuttle. And that is where the United
States had a HUGE lead over all other nations. A lead which is to be
totally squandered when shuttle is not replaced. CEV is not a
replacement for Shuttle. It is a replacement for Apollo.

Actually, they are.... they hace a mockup of Kipper already built, used
as a great backdrop for photo shoots of politicians ;-) :-)

I think there is one major difference between Klipper and CEV:
commercial operations.

I can see russians going through with Klipper because, by increasing
capacity of their "Soyuz taxi", they can also increase commercial
revenus from rich people as well as other nations wishing to send
crewmembers to the ISS.

Remember that for the ISS, it is the one who provides the escape pods
which has a big say on who gets to stay on the station. If Russia
increases escape pod capacity from 3 to 6, they can then sell seats to
europeans and japanese so they can use their labs.

Lunar stuff is going to be nothing more than some recreation of Apollo.
A few flights, people get tired and flights to the moon will be stopped.
Don't expect Moon Base Alpha to be built. (like the one that existed
back in 1999 :-)

In the end, the USA will be left with CEV which does nothing more than a
soyuz spacecraft and ferry people to/from the ISS.  The USA will have no
cargo capacity to/from the ISS.

With only a glorified Soyuz/Apollo capsule and with very murky
commercial capabilities, NASA will not be such a big key player in
space. Russia, with openness to commercials human space flights is
likely to be more important player simply because it remains politically
much easier to fly on a Soyuz than on any NASA spacecraft.

If Bush had really wanted to advance NASA's philosophy, it would have
simplyu told NASA that from now on, it was OK to carry paying customers
on the shuttle and to stop preventing people like TITO from flying into
space. Until this happens, NASA will be quite limited in space travel.

You can't yet justify a full space programme on commercial customers
only. But when you combine paying customers with "government" customers,
you greatly reduce reliance on governmment funds and have a drive to
carry as many people as you can and improve efficiency.

What percentage of Soyuz rockets are used to the ISS (soyuz+progress) in
a given year ? Doubling production of soyuz rockets for ISS may not mean
doubling production of Soyuz rockets. Doubling Soyuz orbital spacecraft
means going from 2 to 4 a year. Progress may not need to be doubled to
allow 3 crewmembers back to the station. Besides, if ATV ever flies,
Progress won't need to be increased much to allow 3 crewmembers on station.