A low cost, all European, manned launcher.

[Alfastar]

Where is it written that by building the A-6, all of the sudden the A-5e along with the ATV just magically goes away?

I give you a simple answer:

Because there is no good reason then to use the Ariane-5e. Also, the Ariane 6 can't put something heavy like the ATV into LEO.

 

[Capt_hensley]

I give you a simple answer:

Because there is no good reason then to use the Ariane-5e. Also, the Ariane 6 can't put something heavy like the ATV into LEO.

Your simple answer, is not so simple. Say you still need the ATV, you can't launch it on an A-6, now what? Russian Proton? I say you man rate the ATV with Capsule version, keep the A-5e for advanced LEO use, and use A-6 with Capsule for BEO use. Both markets benifit from one capsule.

 

[Urwumpe]

Your simple answer, is not so simple. Say you still need the ATV, you can't launch it on an A-6, now what? Russian Proton? I say you man rate the ATV with Capsule version, keep the A-5e for advanced LEO use, and use A-6 with Capsule for BEO use. Both markets benifit from one capsule.

It would still be a matter of economics. And it is doubtful Arianespace and ESA will keep the Ariane 5 alive just for eventual uses. Or increase the ESA budget in one of the biggest economic crises in Europe.

 

[N_Molson]

Your simple answer, is not so simple. Say you still need the ATV, you can't launch it on an A-6, now what? Russian Proton? I say you man rate the ATV with Capsule version, keep the A-5e for advanced LEO use, and use A-6 with Capsule for BEO use. Both markets benifit from one capsule.

No. ESA budget is really much too tight to run that much programs in parallel. Russians have no interest in the ATV, they are happy with the Progress. And I doubt that ATV-Proton integration would be an easy thing.

 

[Alfastar]

Your simple answer, is not so simple. Say you still need the ATV, you can't launch it on an A-6, now what? Russian Proton? I say you man rate the ATV with Capsule version, keep the A-5e for advanced LEO use, and use A-6 with Capsule for BEO use. Both markets benifit from one capsule.

Sorry, but the Ariane 6 we known now become not more, but can launch less into LEO. Also, even when we maybe on a day go cooperate with Roscosmos, then still a ATV from a Proton is very unlikely.

Upgrate the ATV to a capsule version is a good idea, but it don't would be easy. Anyway, it would be a non-profit mission, but we can do that because we make some nice profits also from MEO / GEO launches.

 

[Evil_Onyx]

correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the production of more ATV's after ATV-005 Georges Lemaître will not happen?

off topic: battery low!!!!

 

[Urwumpe]

Yes, you are right there. The number of ATVs is defined by the ISS program politics: Europe has 8.3% of the ISS share, so it has to supply 8.3% to the resupply missions (Not more).

 

[RGClark]

...
In contrast: The European ATV did cost 1.35 billion Euro ($1.76 billion) and costs $300 million per flight. All by the European tax payer, but at least you can tell the exact costs - something that is impossible for SpaceX, since it is simply a private company. What it costs and what
The European ATV weights twice as much, delivers twice as much cargo, does more the than the Dragon. it can't return cargo, but:

• it also does reboost maneuvers,
• fuel transfer,
• can also transfer liquid water directly into tanks of the USS,
• bring oxygen and nitrogen to the ISS
• It does supervised autonomous rendezvous and docking instead of ground controlled manual guidance (Like any other commercial satellite does)

...

I agree the ATV is much more capable than the Dragon, more specifically than the DragonLab version that SpaceX wants to market as a temporary space station.
I was impressed by the videos of the Chinese astronauts in the Tiangong space station linked in the "Shenzhou 10 mission updates, June 11-26, 2013" thread. This is something that could be carried out by European astronauts in the ATV. It is three times the size of the Tiangong and five times the size of the Dragon.
At a cost of $300 million you can imagine it being profitable marketing it to companies or governments for rental that want to do research in space.
Just need that liquid-fueled "Ariane 6"-class launcher to carry crew to make it a fully European operation.


Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

Just need that liquid-fueled "Ariane 6"-class launcher to make it a fully European operation.

As said above, you would need a Ariane 5 with a Vinci engine upper stage in the future for launching the ATV (The EPS stage is only produced for the ATV currently and makes launching it much more expensive as it should). The Ariane 6 will not be able to launch it, not even completely dry.

As you can see with Mars Express, Rosetta and Venus Express, european spaceflight works a lot by economic considerations and reusing a reliable base technology (same applies to Herschel and Planck).

So you can be sure, ISS and CEV won't be the last time we will see ATV hardware in space. But it won't be for fun.

 

[RGClark]

As said above, you would need a Ariane 5 with a Vinci engine upper stage in the future for launching the ATV (The EPS stage is only produced for the ATV currently and makes launching it much more expensive as it should). The Ariane 6 will not be able to launch it, not even completely dry.
...
So you can be sure, ISS and CEV won't be the last time we will see ATV hardware in space. But it won't be for fun.

Yes, I am aware the Ariane 6 would not be able to launch the ATV. That's why I'm in favor of both the Ariane 5 ME and the Ariane 6. I edited the previous post to make it clear I meant the "Ariane 6"-class launcher would be used to carry crew to the ATV space station.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

I edited the previous post to make it clear I meant the "Ariane 6"-class launcher would be used to carry crew to the ATV space station.

As said above, it won't. It will not be designed for manned applications. If you would put requirements for manned spaceflight into the specification, this all has to be tested as well. And tests make rocket expensive. The less you need to test, the cheaper the rocket will get.

 

[RGClark]

As said above, it won't. It will not be designed for manned applications. If you would put requirements for manned spaceflight into the specification, this all has to be tested as well. And tests make rocket expensive. The less you need to test, the cheaper the rocket will get.

Yes, most likely not, for political reasons. That's why I said "Ariane 6"-class. It's still possible a commercial venture could produce such a rocket.

Bob Clark

 

[Urwumpe]

Yes, most likely not, for political reasons. That's why I said "Ariane 6"-class. It's still possible a commercial venture could produce such a rocket.

Bob Clark

Not such a rocket - it is pretty much anti-commercial. SpaceX also only does such studies for feeding the hype and have NASA pay their bills... well, Von Braun also did that as well.

It is more likely that we will see Skylon do the manned flights and maybe travel to a Ariane 5 II launched ATV derived space station. And that is less likely as the Skylon itself.

Remember: Why should we stop international cooperation? It is a comfortable position for us currently.

 

[N_Molson]

And after all we have a man-rated economical launcher... The R-7. Now that we have the launchpad in Kourou, it's a matter of buying a TMA and painting it white with some European stickers

 

[Urwumpe]

And after all we have a man-rated economical launcher... The R-7. Now that we have the launchpad in Kourou, it's a matter of buying a TMA and painting it white with some European stickers

Rebranded as "EADS Unity XL".

 

[MattBaker]

And after all we have a man-rated economical launcher... The R-7. Now that we have the launchpad in Kourou, it's a matter of buying a TMA and painting it white with some European stickers

And making it safe to have an abort into the Alantic Ocean.

Although I don't know if that's a "ESA says not safe" or an "actual technical not safe" thingy.

But the Soyuz already accomplished the first and only non-intentional splashdown so it should be fine.
Nevermind the nearly dead crew, imperialist propaganda!

 

[N_Molson]

And making it safe to have an abort into the Alantic Ocean.

AFAIK, the Soyuz has floatation bags for such emergencies...

Nevermind the nearly dead crew, imperialist propaganda!

That was quite a long time ago, don't you think ?

 

[Urwumpe]

AFAIK, the Soyuz has floatation bags for such emergencies...

No, has not. But they moved the air inlet to a better suited position, should you ever land in water again.

 

[N_Molson]

I'll check in the book, when I'll get time.

I know that a Soyuz capsule sunk because a worker had forgotten a wrench on the heat shield, which caused the shield to be pierced during reentry. The capsule splashed in a lake and quickly sunk. But I think it was a "Zond", or unmanned flight.

But well, I don't think that adding floatation bags to a TMA-M would be an impossible task. Launched from the equator, it could carry more mass, so no impact on the mass budget.

 

[RGClark]

And after all we have a man-rated economical launcher... The R-7. Now that we have the launchpad in Kourou, it's a matter of buying a TMA and painting it white with some European stickers

It's possible to do better. You can do it cheaper than $70 million per seat.

Bob Clark

---------- Post added at 08:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:58 AM ----------

Not such a rocket - it is pretty much anti-commercial. SpaceX also only does such studies for feeding the hype and have NASA pay their bills... well, Von Braun also did that as well.
It is more likely that we will see Skylon do the manned flights and maybe travel to a Ariane 5 II launched ATV derived space station. And that is less likely as the Skylon itself.
Remember: Why should we stop international cooperation? It is a comfortable position for us currently.

I don't say such a rocket has to be done by one country. It could be a European conglomeration, for instance supported by the EU.
We're clearly not going to agree on SpaceX. On my side of the argument, Orbital Sciences also cut the cost of launchers by 80% to 90% by the commercial space approach.

Bob Clark