Comments on: ATV Jules Verne Boosts Space Station to Higher Orbit (Video)

By: elise vander

elise vander — Sat, 24 May 2008 09:51:23 +0000

Im doing a Science Assessment task on space stations and im stuck iv'e searched many websites looking for information but have found nothing yet. Wondering if you could answer this question for me in sentence form. How the technology has aided our understanding of the universe?

By: Adam

Adam — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 09:43:52 +0000

"set it on a slow path to the Moon"

Purely theoretically it could be doable by slowly widening the orbit of the craft. However, getting it to land on the Moon or in any way make it useful somewhere near the Moon would also need major modifications. The ATV was designed as a transporter to the ISS and that probably makes it very customized for this particular task. Keep in mind that it does have a role after it undocks: it disposes of all that trash. Also, ESA is advertising this project as a way to learn and develop autonomous robotic operations in space and thus we could write off the price as the cost of research and development. Hopefully we will all be able to benefit from that. Accidentally, the whole ISS thing is R&D in order to figure out how we can make this space stuff more routine.

By: Vanamonde

Vanamonde — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 04:51:25 +0000

I downloaded this video, it is nice – I just have a different idea of HiRes (at a minimum 640-480!). I was surprise to see it covered the whole life cycle. And it has solar panels! Also learned that the craft using laser when docking. The burnup sequence was not well animated. Maybe Pixar could help (pro bono).

Now, the soundtrack is unneccesary. A fanfare for the logo and then a drone of filtered white noise. Lame.

Some asked why the ATV could not stay and add to the structure. Part of it's mission is to take the garbage down to be burned up!

By: Vanamonde

Vanamonde — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 04:44:10 +0000

Tom Says:
April 26th, 2008 at 7:59 am
"The supply ship provided a thrust of 2.65 m/sâ€¦" ?

Meters per second is not a unit of thrust, nor acceleration, but that's what appears in the original article. I wonder if they meant "â€¦ provided a thrust that accelerated the station by 2.65 m/s â€¦"

I believe that is known as delta-V or a change in velocity.

By: Silver Thread

Silver Thread — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:26:25 +0000

I understand the implications of Price, I suppose what I was thinking was more along the lines of a scrap yard of some kind. I am sure there are salvageable parts on the module.

Since we are looking at placing a lot of gear in Space in the near future it might save us some time and trouble to keep a few parts around to be reused.

Heck if it has Fuel available, enough to boost the Orbit of the ISS, does it have enough to set it on a slow path to the Moon where it can be dropped off and potentially reclaimed by future Lunar missions?

By: michael

michael — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 18:23:29 +0000

Plus, I assume, you would be able to transport a lot less to the ISS with the ATV if it could come back to the earth (with the heatshield and what not). Or you would probably need a stronger rocket. Both of which is â€“ I guess â€“ not really feasible. Plus reusable stuff is not exactly cheap. The Space Shuttle is not exactly cheap.

By: Adam

Adam — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:05:13 +0000

To be able to recycle*) this particular craft would require enhancements to it's technology beyond, WAY beyond, ESA's budget.Sad but true. Using it for extra living quarters would likely be a bad solution because it's not design to be used as such and it would take up a docking port which could probably be put to better use. And, oh, by the way, with Jules Verne parked where it is now you wouldn't be able to use any more of those ATV:s since they can only dock to the aft port of Zvezda. This would make it an extremely expensive project indeed.

*) assuming that by recycling you mean reusability Ã¡ la space shuttle.

By: Neil

Neil — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:59:56 +0000

Instead of incinerating it, why cant they leave it connected to the ISS as extra living space, or an extra set of rocket boosters if needed, i realise it will run out of fuel, but it will still be air tight wont it?

explain this madness!

By: marcellus

marcellus — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 15:52:24 +0000

I don't have a problem with how the ISS disposes of their trash. The Earth and the Pacific Ocean are huge compared to that dinky little spacecraft, which I'm sure would mostly burn up on re-entry.

It all boils down to "Do you really want to be in space or don't you?"

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:59:16 +0000

"The supply ship provided a thrust of 2.65 m/s…" ?

Meters per second is not a unit of thrust, nor acceleration, but that's what appears in the original article. I wonder if they meant "… provided a thrust that accelerated the station by 2.65 m/s …"

By: PHWilson

PHWilson — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:55:29 +0000

Is anyone at NASA keeping tabs of the ISS's carbon footprint? I mean, using the upper atmosphere as an incinerator must deliver tons of hydrocarbons (and God knows what else) directly into the thin layer that keeps Earth from turning into Mars, per se.

This is simply a matter of accountability, as I (like most) am not sure what is really behind global warming.

By: D-wreck

D-wreck — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:38:08 +0000

Cool video.

And yeah, space agencies should really start considering recycling.

By: Silver Thread

Silver Thread — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 04:07:58 +0000

Again we're going to throw away a valuable piece of equipment worth millions of dollars. It seems like such a waste considering that the hard part was getting it up there in the first place.