Automated Transfer Vehicles

On 3/1/11 10:30 AM, Victor Smith wrote:

> That gives the ATV an inside surface area of approx. 1823, and a volume
> of approx. 5452 according to my, admittedly, bad math. Does anyone else
> see a GREAT WASTE in filling these vehicles with trash and setting them
> to burn up on reentry? If you want to burn up the trash, you dont need
> to put it in a vehicle, just put it in a trash compactor and then eject
> the cubes to burn up on reentry.

You'd need to eject them awfully fast to be sure they deorbit. Though
this wouldn't be as hard in LEO as it would be in a higher orbit; you
pretty much just need to make sure they reach enough atmosphere to drag
them down before they smack into your station on the next orbit.

I think it's a good idea (worth considering further, anyway). And I
also agree with your general principle, which I'd put this way: once you
have some habitable volume in orbit, you KEEP it there; you don't throw
it away. That's valuable real estate.

That is not how government programs roll, but I'm hopeful that once
commercial industry gets involved, they'll take a more sensible
approach. I'd love to see a rocket designed from the beginning to leave
as much habitable volume in orbit as possible on every launch -- maybe
the second-stage tank section, for example, which (unlike the STS
external tank) would be designed with airlocks, etc. Yes, this reduces
your payload a bit, but in exchange your orbital outpost gets a little
bigger with every visit.

Best,
- Joe