Europe ponders future of ATV space truck

 
ATV (Nasa) ATV: A huge investment of money, time and effort - but where next?

A major decision needs to be taken at the end of this year concerning the future of Europe's space truck - the Automated Transfer Vehicle.

The programme is nearing its end and European Space Agency (Esa) member states will gather in Caserta, Italy, in November to decide on a successor project.

For those who don't know their shuttle from their Soyuz too well, the ATV is a huge robotic spacecraft that delivers supplies to the International Space Station.

With a lift-off weight of 20 tonnes, it is Europe's biggest space vessel, and its sophisticated navigation and docking technologies make it one of the most impressive pieces of hardware Esa has ever put in orbit.

But only five ATVs were ever ordered. Two of them completed cargo runs to the ISS in 2008 and 2011. A third is currently in orbit docked to the station; two further craft are in the late stages of fabrication.

Vehicle four (dubbed "Albert Einstein") will be despatched to the launch site in August for a lift-off in Spring next year. Vehicle five ("Georges Lemaitre") will go up in 2014.

Orion capsule and ATV-derived service module Nasa's preference would be for an ATV-derived service module to shepherd its Orion capsule

The engineers who've been working on the programme will soon need something new to do. The question is "what?"

Esa has just kicked off two studies, valued in total at 13m euros (£10m; $16m), which will consider ATV derivatives.

"We have built up knowledge with the ATV on some technologies that are on the leading edge, and it would be quite a pity if we just stopped after all the time and money we have invested these technologies," Nico Dettmann, who runs Esa's ATV programme, told me.

Astrium, Europe's biggest space company and prime contractor on the ATV, will be leading the feasibility work.

In one study, it will look at how the ATV's service module (propulsion and avionics) could be adapted to work with America's forthcoming Orion capsule.

This is the ship the US space agency (Nasa) is developing to send astronauts beyond the ISS to destinations such as asteroids and Mars.

Orion will need something to push it through space. The ATV certainly has the oomph (it is used to raise the altitude of the space station) and plenty of intelligence (its navigation technologies find and dock with the ISS unaided by human hands).

Given that Orion is a manned capsule, these systems would no doubt need to be taken to a new standard of assurance and adapted for deep-space operation, but the proposition seems very well suited to ATV's capabilities.

The other study would look at new low-Earth orbit applications for an ATV-derived vehicle. There are lots of ideas knocking around on this one.

Some people envisage tug-like vehicles that push infrastructure around in space, such as modules for future space stations.

Other ideas are based around vehicles that are platforms for robotics. A good example here would be some kind of system that could go to a redundant satellite, grab it and then pull it out of orbit. The trick would be in grappling something that may be uncooperative and tumbling. The ISS in contrast is a rock steady target - albeit moving at 27,000km/h.

Cargo module The cargo carrier module could be replaced with other applications

"You can sub-structure the ATV into the service module, which is the part of the vehicle that includes the propulsion and avionics, and does all the flying aspects of a mission," explained Mike Menking, Astrium's head of orbital systems and space exploration.

"Then you have the application part, which is at present an integrated cargo carrier, a pressurised module. So, theoretically, if you cut an ATV in half, you can say the part that is related to the service module is the baseline, and then you add different things depending on the mission."

"I should say that we, Astrium, do not have any preference at the moment. We will be providing information with a cost estimation so that a decision can be made at the ministerial council. And it doesn't necessarily mean it will be black and white, this or that - it could be a combination of both."

The complicating factor in all this future thinking is the subscription Europe must pay to be part of the space station "club".

ISS The ISS structure is so big it will take more than an ATV to bring it out of the sky

On the ISS, none of the partners exchange cash; they do jobs in kind. Europe's ATV missions, hauling tonnes of supplies, have been the way it pays its dues. When the freighters are no more, it will need a new way to contribute to the so called common system operating costs (CSOC).

It means that if the ATV-derived system is to meet any part of the CSOC, its function will have to satisfy the Americans, who are the chief station partner. And Nasa has expressed a preference; it would like to see the Orion service module option being pursued.

Orion may sit outside the ISS project, but the Americans say they would consider such a development an acceptable barter.

Europe has its own needs and desires, of course, and we'll get a clearer idea of where the thinking lies in November.

A while back, it looked like an additional ATV might be ordered just to de-orbit the space station when it reached the end of its mission, sometime in the 2020s.

The latest analysis, however, suggests even this juggernaut of a spacecraft does not have the propulsive might to bring down a structure the size of a football pitch and weighing 400 tonnes.

Current thinking is leaning towards the idea of having three Russian Progress freighters thrusting in unison. But that's quite a way off, yet.

ATV coming up on the back of the ISS An illuminated ATV comes up on the rear of the space station for a docking
 
Jonathan Amos, Science correspondent Article written by Jonathan Amos Jonathan Amos Science correspondent

More on This Story

Related Stories

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 35.

    #34 Lucien

    That's the "build it and they will come" argument. I would love it to be true but it's not. Everyone knows that one day 500 or even 1000 tonne launches will be commonplace. The question is when - and it's not now.

    There are many historical examples of technology being made without a market and bankrupting their creators e.g. Isambard Kingdom Brunel's Great Eastern steamship.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 34.

    #32 Dan

    Ahh! but build a 500 tin payload rocket and a market will form.

    A 550 ton PL rocket might cost $10 billion to develop + $500 to 800 million per launch.
    Imagine launching a large 500 ton space station into orbit.
    - Large rocket = 1 launch ~ $1 billion.
    - Current rocket = 25 x 20 tons PL at $200 million ea = $5 billion + $5 to 10 billion extra costs of multi-part assembly in space.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 33.

    ESA, NASA and other space organisations need a long term strategy that is joined up and has clear goals. We should be planning for 10, 20 and even 50 years into the future. I bet the Chinese have such plans for their space programme.
    Also, we need a national strategy in the UK for science, education and technology rather than just the drift into decline that we have had for the last 50 years.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 32.

    #27 Lucien

    The technology already exists to launch 500 tonnes in one throw - it was investigated in the early 1960s and found to be fully viable by NASA. The idea was to build the rocket out of steel rather than aluminium and use a sea rather than land launch.

    Problem was and is, no design is viable if you build just one or two. There just isn't a ready market for 500 tonne class payloads.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 31.

    As SpaceX have a much cheaper system that is not only capable of re-entry but promises to be reuseable maybe the Europeans could offer the guidence system to help them self dock. The mistake of de-orbing MIR just to ensure that Russia was commited to ISS should not be repeated, If we need to take it out of LEO then boost it! The SSI proposed multy gravity research station will be better longtime

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 30.

    #23 rf_41
    'Deorbiting the ISS seems such a waste. I wonder if someone like Bigelow would buy used space station?'

    By 2022 or whenever the inside of the ISS will smell like a tramps basement, but I totally agree refurbishment and reuse is infinitely better than simply destroying it. As an outside it could be pushed into a much higher orbit and left as a memorial to the future.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 29.

    It troubles me that so much money, so much time is being spent on "outer" space - almost as though some secret cabal knows that there is life out there, possibly here to (on earth) & these operations are necessary for elitist escape. It used to be undergound bunkers, but could it now be space "flight" - literally?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 28.

    P2 ...
    The great huge joke of large scale space is that is that its often a lot cheaper than doing things on a smaller scale. The big step is in someone having the confidence that puts say several hundred billion into finding and exploring the different next generation space technologies. -

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 27.

    #26 Little_Old_Me

    A lot of us totally disagree on that. If you don't look beyond the horizon of current tech then there is no future for manned operations in space obviously. But there are maybe a dozen technologies that are all capable of putting us into space on a large scale. The rules change completely if you can put 500, 1,000, or 10,000 tons into orbit on a single launch…
    cont

  • rate this
    -3

    Comment number 26.

    Manned flight into anything other than low earth orbit is a red herring - we're never going to relocate the human specieis to A N Other planet out there......automated flight is cheaper, less dangerous if things go wrong and can do some pretty wonderful science too. Maybe not as good as humans could, but worthiwle none the less.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 25.

    The ISS was a huge investment. It should be the platform to launch the return to the moon and a lifestation. To de-orbit and destroy this structure is a statement that the US and the other partners are abandoning future manned space flight. If the ISS is destroyed it will be the shame of NASA and the aerospace industry. Perhaps the Chineese are the only future for manned space flight.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 24.

    One of the suggested uses is for the clean up of old satellites and refuse. Presumably this would employ the vehicle's fine precision docking and manoeuvring capabilities. That seems to be an over engineered solution to what, after all, is scooping up rubbish. Why not just get ahead of the rubbish and deploy a large net to trawl it in?

    Am I missing some obvious barrier?

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 23.

    Deorbiting the ISS seems such a waste. I wonder if someone like Bigelow would buy used space station?

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 22.

    I cannot see the Europeans doing their own thing when the US have said "we want your ship to power ours"

    ATV should not be stuck in earth orbit. It's an exceptionally capable system that should be on the cutting edge of space exploration.

    Leave the orbital tug and other earth orbit activities to SpaceX, they will do an excellent job which doesn't need to be duplicated elsewhere.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 21.

    #20 knowles2

    Think of the ATV service module as a spacegoing Ford Transit chassis.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 20.

    If it is to be a service module then it needs to be a universal one, capable of connecting up with anything on the drawing board, not just Orion capsule, Dragon, and even Skylon.

    I think they should be look at a few options and see if they can turn the ATV into general space vehicle but at a cheaper price than the current version.

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 19.

    The X programmes were going in the right direction. By the X15 you had a vehicle with most of the properties required of a rocket launched orbit capable spacecraft
    Heck, mount it on an SR71 and it might have reached orbit on its own!

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 18.

    " The high energy ....of the structure also continually threatens to cause instant, catastrophic destruction."

    This is from the Space Fountain description, but it applies to most of these large structure. While physically possible they would not pass any engineering safety review.

    I would not like to be sharing a continent with any of them if the structure or the power failed!

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 17.

    13 Robert Lucien - I'd say that (rather ironically) the development of satellites also held back the space programme. No longer were superfast spyplanes like the SR-71 needed, you could just stick up a satellite. As such supersonic jet technology was abandoned and ideas like scramjets never took off (boo, terrible pun!). Only now we're catching up with that brilliant SABRE air-breathing rocket.

  • rate this
    +3

    Comment number 16.

    14 Entropic man - I think the "Space Fountain" is the best idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain

    Mainly for its diagram.

 

Page 1 of 2

 

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.