News ATV production terminated as decision on follow-on nears

N_Molson

Addon Developer
Addon Developer
Donator
Joined
Mar 5, 2010
Messages
10,002
Reaction score
4,418
Points
203
Location
Toulouse
[FONT=VERDANA, ARIAL, HELVETICA, SANS-SERIF][SIZE=-2]BY STEPHEN CLARK
SPACEFLIGHT NOW

Posted: April 2, 2012

[/SIZE][/FONT]Confronted by parts obsolescence and waning political support, the European Space Agency has shut down subsystem production lines for the Automated Transfer Vehicle as member states debate how they will contribute to future international space exploration efforts, according to top spaceflight officials.

atv_flight.jpg

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-2]ATV 3, christened Edoardo Amaldi after an Italian physicist, arrived at the International Space Station on March 28. Credit: NASA[/SIZE][/FONT]

The huge cargo freighters, weighing more than 20 tons fully loaded, will stop flying in 2014 when the fifth resupply craft delivers equipment to the International Space Station.

ESA member states decided to discontinue the program after briefly considering redesigning the throwaway cargo craft to return hardware in a hardened re-entry capsule.

Three ATVs have launched since 2008, including a spacecraft now docked to the orbiting outpost. Two more spacecraft are due to launch in 2013 and 2014, and assembly of those vehicles has progressed enough to allow officials to shut down vendor production of the ATV's subsystems, according to Bob Chesson, a senior advisor in ESA's human spaceflight directorate.

The parts for the two remaining ATVs are mostly delivered to assembly plants in Italy and Germany, where the spacecraft's two main components are integrated.

"If we wanted to reopen production lines, there is a significant obsolescence problem at the equipment [and] component level," Chesson told Spaceflight Now.

ESA launched the $2 billion development of the Automated Transfer Vehicle to pay the agency's share of the space station's common operating costs. Instead of exchanging money, the space station's partners prefer to arrange barter agreements to pay debts for operating costs and launch services. Each ATV mission costs about $600 million.

atv_icc.jpg

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-2]The cargo carrier pictured will fly on the ATV 4 mission, dubbed Albert Einstein. It has been delivered to an integration site in Bremen, Germany, for final assembly and testing before shipping to the launch site in French Guiana for liftoff in early 2013. Credit: ESA[/SIZE][/FONT]

Five ATV flights pay off ESA's operating cost burden until 2017. With the space station program extended until the end of the decade, ESA now owes approximately 450 million euros, or about $600 million, to meet its commitments between 2017 and 2020.

ESA managers are consulting the agency's member states on the alternatives to pay their share of the station's operating costs. Officials expect representatives of the member states to decide on an option, or barter element, at a ministerial council meeting in November.

One option, tentatively favored by Germany but dismissed by Italian and French space officials, is to sign an agreement with NASA to supply a service module to the Orion crew capsule, or multipurpose crew vehicle. The service module would be based on the ATV's propulsion section.
Germany is Europe's largest contributor to the space station program, followed by France and Italy.

Engineers in the United States and Europe are studying the scenario. Lockheed Martin Corp., the Orion spacecraft's manufacturer, is currently on contract to build the vehicle's service module.

The ATV service module is built by Astrium Space Transportation.
Chesson said any derivative of the ATV will require major upgrades and a redesign of the avionics system to ensure modern components are commercially available. Such changes could put upward pressure on the cost of a follow-on to the ATV.

atv_avionics.jpg

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-2]Instrumentation, cables and avionics being built up for the ATV 4 mission. Credit: Stephen Clark/Spaceflight Now[/SIZE][/FONT]

The ATV consists of the service module and a pressurized cargo carrier, built in Italy by Thales Alenia Space, to haul supplies, propellant, water and breathing air to the space station.

The robotic spacecraft is the largest resupply vehicle flying to the space station after the retirement of the space shuttle. It is capable of transferring tons of rocket fuel into the outpost's Russian segment, reboosting the lab's orbit, and delivering hundreds of bags of food, clothing, experiments and other gear.

Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for human exploration and operations, said the space station's demand for propellant will decrease in the next few years, curtailing the program's need for a large fuel-carrying freighter like the ATV.

"That's allowed us to essentially fill up the propellant tanks aboard the space station, so at this point, the unique capability of the Automated Transfer Vehicle to carry propellant is not needed," Gerstenmaier said in March 28 testimony to the House Science Committee.

Commercial flights by U.S. spacecraft will make up the rest of the lost capacity with the end of the ATV program.

Acting as the space station program's chief integrator, NASA plans to request the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency to order more H-2 Transfer Vehicles to cover that country's slice of the lab's operating costs.
JAXA is developing a returnable version of the HTV to fly as soon as late 2017, assuming funding to develop the modified spacecraft clears Japanese government budget-writers.

If approved, the re-entry upgrade, called HTV-R, could enter service before the end of the decade, bringing back to Earth up to 3,500 pounds of cargo on each flight.

"HTV provides a unique capability," Gerstenmaier said. "It can carry external cargo, which is important to us. It also has a large hatch where you can carry full research racks across to the space station."

Gerstenmaier told lawmakers NASA would like to have four HTVs fly after 2015. The last of seven HTVs currently on contract would launch in 2016, so two or three additional missions may be required through 2020.

---------- Post added at 04:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:35 PM ----------

At last ESA will be able to launch Progress from Kourou...
 
Component obsolescence after only 10 years?
Then how does the Soyuz/Progress fly for over half a century, and the Shuttle for over a quarter?
 
Component obsolescence after only 10 years?
Then how does the Soyuz/Progress fly for over half a century, and the Shuttle for over a quarter?

Actually, the ATV was in development since 1994. Also the shuttle was obsolete most of the time, many upgrades of it happened because the old parts had been lost.
 
Also, financial starvation and no-future beyond launching commercial satelltes space program...
 
The problem of obsolescence? Just as bad as upgrading a pc every year. There's no major upgrading needing to be done anywhere.

If it worked before, it should work now. Seems something else is broken!
 
If it worked before, it should work now. Seems something else is broken!

Problem is, manufacturing moves on, people move on. If you are happy to stay with how things were you'd be driving a Ford Model T and your computer would be a sinclair spectrum.

It's a shame but it's not unexpected.
 
When doing things, anything, you should generally go with what works. If you break things intentionally, however it may done, then there is an issue with the process and how it's being used.

This is little more than a typical case of upgrade and change for changes sake, not to do something better. Because if we were doing something better, then the better thing would still be able to build the ATV.

Some things in the aerospace mfg business need to not change quickly. And when they do change, they need to spec'd out to accommodate past hardware and infrastructure.
 
I agree but, to save money, the space industry goes out to private companies and those companies need to be paid a lot to keep an obselete line open. Just look at how many changes were made to the companies that supplied the space shuttle?
 
It's strange that the member states of ESA did not go ahead with an "ATV block II", choosing instead to focus investigating on the ARV (and opted not going on with it). Not sure if the states have any Euros left to do any "upgraded ATV" right now....

P.S. I wonder if the European cargo delivery and trash collection service can be done in a COTS-ish way with European aerospace firms? (I was thinking of Astrium, Alenia Space, even smaller firms like the Reaction Engines Inc.)
 
I fear there is currently no money at all for an european space program. Using any spare money to pay the states debts seem to have an higher priority... :(
 
Component obsolescence after only 10 years?
Then how does the Soyuz/Progress fly for over half a century, and the Shuttle for over a quarter?

Because they are not operated by the EU, luckily ;)
 
At this rate I wouldn't be surprised to see the ESA close up shop entirely in the next decade.

Closing down vehicle production without even a hint of replacement, sounds like something they learned from another space agency...
 
Yea. Just like NASA. That has closed shop since our economy screwed up. I just think the human race has no future. and without a future, why should we exist?
 
Yea. Just like NASA. That has closed shop since our economy screwed up. I just think the human race has no future. and without a future, why should we exist?
To make the show slightly more interesting for whoever may be watching? :lol:

Though seriously, time isn't about to stop. The future is still going to happen, it's just not going to be as interesting as sci-fi novels would have it. We're fairly bound to this place for the foreseeable future, whether that's a century or until we're extinct. Upward isn't the only option, just in our opinion the most impressive.

Besides, can't get very far on pessimism. The ATV is gone, but it's not the end of space flight until the hydrogen runs out.
 
Yes, and don't forget China too quickly. 1 terran out of 5 is chinese, and they are developping a promising space program.
 
At this rate I wouldn't be surprised to see the ESA close up shop entirely in the next decade.

Closing down vehicle production without even a hint of replacement, sounds like something they learned from another space agency...

Yes its been done before:

http://www.spaceuk.org/ba/blackarrowcancellation.htm

Commercial applications were non existent. Black Arrow, with its limited payload could no more have launched communications satellites than a microlight could be used to deliver mail across the Atlantic.

Another factor was the frequency of launches. A minimum of at least a launch a year was needed to make the project worthwhile. Launch teams need to be assembled, and once assembled, it makes sense to keep them assembled. Launching every eighteen months or two years means starting again from scratch. The launch site would have to be 'mothballed' between launches unless there was a reasonable frequency of launch. As the R.A.E.'s technology satellites: there was one more after Prospero (X3) - the X4 satellite, named Miranda, launched by a American Scout. The demise of the R.A.E. programme would have left Black Arrow with no prospect of any payload, and thus no purpose at all

The current programme gives us too few Black Arrow to establish the vehicle as a proven launcher in a reasonable timescale, and too many to meet our requirements for satellite launches. It is therefore not a viable programme at present, and there is no easy way out of the dilemma.

The Ministry should determine at a high level the views of British industry on the value of a technological satellite programme. If no such value can be identified the programme should be brought to a stop. If it is established that the programme is worthwhile, a plan should be drawn up for a series of future satellites so organised as to give the maximum benefit to British firms in their attempts to win contracts in the international market.
It is difficult to argue with his conclusions, nor, indeed, with his recommendations.

All very sensible at the time, and that was the end of the UK launch program

N.
 
Yes, and don't forget China too quickly. 1 terran out of 5 is chinese, and they are developping a promising space program.

Three manned flights within 9 years does not look very promising if you ask me. But at least it looks way more promising than what ESA does - nothing, manned (on their own). ESA does not inspire me. And by ending the ATV program it becomes more non-inspiring. But, well, that's Europe. I'm used to expect either little to nothing, or the worst.

The most inspiring stuff at the moment doesn't even come from NASA. It comes from SpaceX if you ask me. If they manage manned flights and make their reusability concepts become reality, then wow...
 
Back
Top