Automated Transfer Vehicles

On Mar 1, 2011, at 9:30 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?

The ATV has no heat shield, no parachutes, nor can it maneuver for a
landing. Adding these would add cost and complexity. It's a system
trade. Whether they made good choices, hard to say.

> If you want to burn up the trash, you dont need to put it in a
> vehicle,

The primary mission is to bring stuff up. Getting rid of the trash is
just taking advantage of the fact that the ATV was coming anyway.

> just put it in a trash compactor and then eject the cubes to burn up
> on reentry. Whats wrong with our space program that, with such
> budgetary concerns each year, they can afford to just throw away
> such assets when they could be much better utilized in space?

If you don't get rid of the trash, the ISS will, fairly quickly,
become completely filled with the stuff. It's not valuable, so they
get rid of it.

To simulate the situation, keep all the trash you generate inside your
house for a couple of years. It'll become clear why they throw it away.

Space Solar Power (SSP) can supply massive amounts of electrical power
to Earth with no greenhouse gas emissions and no dependence on the
Persian Gulf. The basic idea: gather solar energy in space and
transmit it to Earth. Today's satellites already use solar energy
and transmission has been demonstrated with 90%+ efficiency. If the
space segment is built from lunar materials, SSP may be the cleanest
possible energy option since most of the work is done in space. The
energy available is far, far more than used today, more than enough
for everyone.

Al Globus
http://alglobus.net

Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.