If approved when could you start the new ARV work?
The ARV activities, if approved at the Ministerial Council will start in the March 2009 time frame. Preliminary work is already being performed in preparation of the ESA proposal to the Ministerial Council
credit: ESA / click on image to view larger version in same browser window
Would this help you resolve the issue that you ordered nine EADS Astrium Ariane 5 ECAs from Arianespace originally for ATV?
It could, but the situation is more complex and linked to the final decisions on the life duration of the ISS. More ATV's could be considered in that frame, even before discussing the ARV
How frequently would ARV be needed both for delivery and downmass on an annual basis or over the currently planned life time of the ISS?
If the maintenance approach of the ISS, initially based on refurbishable ORU's, is changed the download is essentially linked to the results of the scientific experiments. We think of a mission every year or year and half as for ATV
Where would the return capsule land?
Probably we would choose to ditch it in water, off the western coast of Africa. But this is part of the studies
Would the provision of downmass capability possibly secure more ESA astronaut time on ISS?
In principle one could think so, but I would expect that the scientists would not like to wait for the download and would ask the astronauts to perform on board all possible analyses in the meantime
on July 23, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply
This Advanced Return Vehicle (ARV) announcment comes as a bit of a surprise. The vehicle appears to be little more than an upgrade to the ATV but including a re-entry system. The Russian involvement will probably be limited to the docking mechanism visible at the front of the craft, which looks identical to teh one already used by the ATV.
For years the Russians and Europeans have been proposing new LEO transportation services utlizizing technologies and hardware from their respective space programs. Until now it seemed that the most logical choice would be to use the Russian Soyuz launch vehcile with European re-entry and avionics technologies. That would be a sensible approach since it combines the low cost reliable launch service of the Soyuz with ESA's long term investments in space systems.
Unfortunately, once again, it appears that completely the opposite approach is being pushed by industry. Rather than opting for the minimum-cost approach they are pushing for the maximum cost approach using the expensive Ariane 5 launcher, and integrating Russian hardware for the spacecraft sub-systems.
Even worse, unlike the Soyuz, the Ariane 5 launcher is not man-rated (although it has been supposedly designed with provision for later man rating). so there would be an enormous cost and time taken to updgrade this proposed system into a re-usable manned capsule that could replace the astronaut transportation capacity that ESA is currently provided by Russia's Soyuz capsule and America's Shuttle, which is soon to be retired.
Let's hope that the beaurocrats in charge of ESA's budget can see through this thinnly veiled attempt to squeeze a few more years of money out of the respective member state's ESA budgets.