Build the thing... then sell it to NASA when Boeing can't get their act together with the Vega system....

".....would rather ride in a European or American ship at the moment."

Given the known in-case-of-cockup outcomes of "excessive G forces" or "BANG", I'm not too sure about that latter option being preferred by anyone.

Silly me; I should stick to doing my research before typing. I meant Lockheed and the Orion of course.

@TeeCee The ATV based system would probably have the same ballistic fail-safe mode as the Soyuz and there is no room left on the Soyuz rocket to upgrade the Soyuz capsule so the Russian system would likely need a new rocket anyway. All the Euro system needs is the re-entry capsule and to man rate the Ariane 5 with abort sensors and escape system.

This seems like the most realistic option for a domestic Euronaut capability yet all without being beholden to the whims of Putin and Co.

Mines the one with the Nomex lining.

I'd like to see this plan come to fruition.

Before actual people try to go up and come down safely, every part of the system -except live support inside upgraded ATV - has been in operation a couple of years.

From Mark Wade's Encyclopaedia Astronautica:

Mercury Mark I,

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/mermarki.htm

Gemini, the project:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/gemini.htm

Gemini, the spacecraft (and proposed variants):

http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/gemini.htm

Just thinking about this whole repurposing-JV-for-manned-ops issue here, and it got me thinking of the whole repurposing-Mercury-for-two-man-ops idea from back in the day...once ESA's engineers are done retrofitting the interior for life support, seats for the crew, RCS/engine throttling controls, instrument panels, viewports/rendezvous windows -- not to mention the all-important parachute deployment apparatus and heat shielding -- wouldn't they have better spent the cash designing a CTV new, from zero? True, they've proven the basic JV autonomous robotic design, and manuvering systems, and pressure vessel, but still...building that design out for manned flight is certainly a bigger PIA than going the opposite direction, as the Russians did with Soyuz > Progress.

This is pretty much the conclusion NASA came to after all the Project Mercury followup "Mark i/II" proposals to repurpose Mercury for two-man crews, orbital-change manuverability, etc.; if we're going to go this far, why not just design a whole new spacecraft from the ground up? About the only similarity Gemini ended up having was in the command module -- black iconel corrugated hull, cone-joined-to-cylinder shape -- and some of the environmental controls, iirc.

PS @ stizzleswick: I think ESA would do better to try and sell it -- or, more accurately, rides aboard it -- to countries who have astronauts in training but no craft of their own. I'm afraid NASA would still rather be Earthbound than stoop to using something Not Invented Here.

When ave we ever seen a european based project of this sort of scale come in on this sort of budget. I can't help thinking that this is money that could be better spent elsewhere.

PS I wanted to be an astronaut when I was a kid!

@Robert Hill - Define "man-safe qualified". The NASA Shuttle doesn't meet their requirements, nor will the Aries launcher they're planning to use for the Orion.

The Ariane 5 was intended to launch the Hermes mini-shuttle, and is used to launch satellites costing hundreds of millions each. The NASA man-rated spec is considered to add huge amounts to the cost of a launch for almost negligible benefit.

From the referenced article (astronauts toss old fridge out of the airlock)

>but pieces of the EAS as large as 39lb might make it down to strike the surface when it de-orbits in a year or so's time

Hmmm, given the date of that story (July 2007), we can expect the debris any day now

Shoot me down if I'm wrong but aren't all these expensive "manned missions" really about nationalistic ego battles rather than anything of real, lasting benefit to ordinary people? All this renewed interest in space is more likely to do with putting more weapon systems in orbit than anything that benefits the sane majority of humans.

Robots can do most "space jobs" people can and at a fraction of the price and with zero risk to human life.

I have no doubt that Lockheed (full disclosure- I work for LM, but am not one of the Rocket Boys) will be able to build the capsule. After all, we have a fully built Atlas V that could be used to launch anything being contemplated worldwide right now, not that NASA is interested in hearing that. Hence, the huge and unneeded expenditure of funds to build the chronically underpowered Ares I and it's bigger brother, the Ares V.

At least one of the alt space companies has contracted with LM to use those Atlas V's to launch their own yet unbuilt capsules. I think that the more programs out there actually flying, the better off the human race will be, as long as they don't toodle around in LEO as the Aardvark has already pointed out, but actually get out and explore the neighborhood. We need to be looking at the nearby asteroids, and figuring out how to prevent them from ruining some of our real estate in the future, and going out to those same rocks and moons, to figure out how to mine them, instead of wrecking the Earth, our own selves.