Comments on: ATV Jules Verne Surpasses All Expectations (Videos)

By: zifferman

zifferman — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:27:06 +0000

The flood waters of ignorance are rising every second of every day and you want me to remain calm about it all?

All I got is a bucket and I intend to use it.

By: kcuhC

kcuhC — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:04:41 +0000

Honestly I think things like the space station funcction more as a distraction from some real ground-breaking space exploration. In the last mission at least some time was spent "unclogging" a toilet (ok, not literally). I appreciate that if we want to exist in space and in distant places we need to learn to exist in such environments, but it consumes way too much time/energy for the benefit. One Hubble space telescope is worth 2 space stations.

By: Brad

Brad — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:54:07 +0000

My original thought went along the lines of… set up a stack of docking points on the ISS. Once you get half a dozen or so of them (either progress or Soyuz I don't care), bolt them together and attach an ion engine to them, then send them out to luna orbit to sit until we have a use for them. I could imagine that they'd be really useful if you could refit them to land on the moon. Think ahead, not throw away.

By: Chuck Lam

Chuck Lam — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:17:15 +0000

Hey Zifferman, Lighten up a little. I just finished reading Dick and Jane. Clearly you have recherche` knowledge. That's great.

By: Chuck Lam

Chuck Lam — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:04:04 +0000

To: PaulS, You are correct about the propellent requirement. It would be very significant. However, the size of the ISS appears to be about the minimum to transport a science team to Mars. Sending the ISS to a moon orbit from an earth orbit might be good practice for a Mars attempt with a cluster of solid fuel rockets. It might be possible to reliably retrofit rockets and central control to a beefed-up ISS structure. The ISS is capable of life support for a several month round-trip with 3 or 4 physicists. And finally, you might be right about the fear thing, though I don't think so. Don't lose sight of the rashness inflicted on our troops you know where.

By: IKE:) the Alien lifeform

IKE:) the Alien lifeform — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:43:54 +0000

HaHa, having read the comments, I just remembered thinking, that those old Saturn5 pieces could have made a nice permanent (rotating) like in SO 2001 station. THAT I would consider a Space Station. AND, it could be used to build the next craft to go to the Red Planet or elsewhere. Is it lack of creativity or am I thinking in the wrong direction…?
The problem with the ISS is it does not provide artificial gravity (inertia rather). Well, now that Bill MicroSoft is retiring:), maybe he could help build that old idea of A.C. Clarke… Biiillll, are you listening?

By: Al Hall

Al Hall — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:16:20 +0000

Seems as if the first ATV try has been going quite well. Good for ESA. I wish the ATV project only success.

By: zifferman

zifferman — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:43:59 +0000

Hey, Chuck – stop watching Star Dreck and
open up a physics book.

By the way, the ATV looks like a little bug flitting around.

Maybe we could send that to the Moon.

By: trux

trux — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:47:14 +0000

> This most certainly will impress the world and probably strike fear into our political adversaries.

You mean fear of stupidity? Hm, I am afraid you cannot beat the stupidity of the current Government even with such a ridicule nonsense.

By: PaulS

PaulS — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:20:48 +0000

@Chuck:

The amount of propellant needed to move ISS into a lunar orbit, and back to Earth orbit, would be prohibitive. It's just too big.

And I don't think striking fear into political opponents is a good thing … they're likely to do something rash!

By: Chuck Lam

Chuck Lam — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:03:03 +0000

Here's an idea. Let's encourage NASA to send the ISS to the moon for perhaps a six month moon orbit. Then bring it back into earth orbit. This most certainly will impress the world and probably strike fear into our political adversaries.

By: Jorge

Jorge — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:47:31 +0000

As Maxwell says, it's a supply ship. Its function is essencially the same as that of the russian Progress ships, that have been invaluable since the beginning of the construction of the ISS (and before). The only difference is that the ATV is a whole lot more sophisticated (The basic design of the Progress is the good old reliable 70's soviet technology). And, like the Progress, its destiny is delineated from the start: burn up in the atmosphere. That's what it was made for.

Adding to that, Jules Verne is an experimental ship. It's the first craft of its type, and its performance will be carefully analysed and used to improve it further. This includes knowing how it performs during atmospheric insertion, how well it burns up, aso.

This said, I still hope it can be adapted for crewed flights. With the end of the shuttle program and the hiatus before Constellation is up to fly, we'd be a whole lot better off if we had an alternative to Soyuz flights, just in case something happens to the russian program.

By: Chuck Lam

Chuck Lam — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:52:22 +0000

Something is wrong with NASA's thinking!

By: Maxwell

Maxwell — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:51:20 +0000

Its a supply ship.
Once the fuel is expended and they load the thing up with station garbage, its weight will be a hindrance and its space will be unfit for use.
When re-certifying a module for reuse is going to cost as much as building a new one (and that price trumped by its launch costs), what is the point to bringing it back?

This is just a fact of operating in space with our current level of technology.

By: Sili

Sili — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 09:47:16 +0000

My guess is that ATV is simply not engineered for a permanent residence in space. There will no doubt be safety concerns if it were to be stuck permanently to the ISS.

As for just leaving it parked in the vicinity I doubt that's possible – too big a risk of collision. And there'd be no way to boost it when the ISS is boosted.

Yes, I think it's wasteful, but let's face it. We haven't been in space long enough to be efficient. If Apollo was the Wright brothers, we're now at the dogfighting biplane stage.

But go Europe! For a first this is a tremendous boon. I hope this success means that the future ATVs can be made more efficient. Perhaps even to the point of delivering new sections to the ISS that could then be affixed with the help of the robotic arms already there.

By: Silver Thread

Silver Thread — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:27:37 +0000

Good grief yes, with the multitude of space junk floating around up there, why are we trying to get rid of something we can actually use!? It's a triumph for the ESA and it's obviously an asset if for no other reason than we may have a use for the parts later on, Keep the damn thing!

By: Tyler Durden

Tyler Durden — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 03:58:00 +0000

I was just thinking the same thing. Way not weld it to the side of the ISS and then cut an opening through, and use it for extra space?

Or if that's too difficult, just leave it docked until there's another ship coming, then decouple and nudge it out of the way to let the other ship dock.

What a collosal waste!

By: Brad

Brad — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 03:01:30 +0000

I've said it before and I'll say it again… why the hell are we dumping this valuable resource back into the gravity well? Surely we could park it somewhere for later use and use some other method of taking out the trash?