Goodbye Jules Verne: ATV Undocks From Station
Written by Ian O'Neill
The scene inside ESA mission control as the ATV backs away from the station (ESA)
Europe's most advanced robotic spaceship, the Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV), has effectively ended its 6-month mission to the International Space Station (ISS). It successfully undocked today (Friday) at 21:29 GMT to begin its slow 3 week journey toward the Earth's atmosphere where it is set for re-entry on September 29th. This was the first ever ATV to be launched and was named after the 19th Century novelist, Jules Verne; another four ATVs are scheduled for construction. Jules Verne's re-entry is set for night time over an uninhabited region of the Pacific Ocean and NASA will use this opportunity to monitor the fireball so the characteristics of re-entering spacecraft can be studied…
It might seem like a waste - after all, the ATV cost 1.3 billion euros or 1.9 billion dollars to build - but Jules Verne was designed to be a single-use, disposable resupply ship for the space station. However, its duties as a supply ship weren't restricted to grocery deliveries. After it was launched in March, the ATV underwent a series of tests in space to prepare it for arrival at the station on April 3rd. When attached to the station, the ATV surpassed all expectations and performed many tasks that hadn't been considered by mission control. Although the ATV provided a valuable re-boost option for the station (four times in total), it also provided the thrust to slow the ISS down to avoid a chunk of satellite debris in August. The ship was also a welcome retreat for the crew of the station, giving them a roomy volume for recreation and cleaning chores. I think Jules Verne will be sorely missed.
So, like the Russian Progress 29 resupply ship that was dropped from the station on Wednesday, Jules Verne was packed up with several tonnes of trash and unwanted equipment from the ISS and jettisoned into space.
The ATV will now use its remaining fuel to park its 13.5 tonne mass in a new orbit for the following three weeks before it is commanded to drop from orbit and begin re-entry. Jules Verne's fiery suicide will happen at night so scientists can gain an insight into how large objects behave when they burn up in the Earth's atmosphere. To monitor the event, NASA will deploy two aircraft with radar, UV and other sensors to track the incoming ATV.
"Even though our schedule has been very busy at the ATV Control Centre, I couldn't have wished for a better mission," - Herve Come, ESA's ATV lead mission director.
Filed under: Space Flight, Space Station
September 8th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Chuck, I'm curious.
You do know that ESA is not an american agency, don't you? That it has absolutely nothing to do with "your national space agenda"? Don't you?
September 8th, 2008 at 8:11 am
@Chuck Lam
I think, one ought to keep in mind that both NASA and ESA are not your regular businesses. They should probably not imitate Henry Ford and other distinguished business leaders too much. The two are "national" agencies (I'm treating Europe as sort of a nation, it's just semantics at this point). They are supposed to do things no business would dare to do. The main difference is that tax financed organizations try to do as much as possible for the money they get. That's why the shuttle, ISS, ATV and others are so complex: they have to be so many things to so many people. In commercial enterprises you usually make small steps to make sure it really works in order to convince the investors to give some more money. That's why Bigelow, Scaled, SpaceX etc. work on their development projects so much before any new step/release to make sure it makes good impression on the guys with the money. Obviously, it doesn't always work but the important thing is to point to at least some success.
/Adam
September 8th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
There is a mentality left over from Apollo… use something until you don't need it, then jettison it. No doubt that was the only feasible was to go the moon. (and return, of course)
But supplying the ISS, going to the moon again,etc. might be something we can do differently now. Take a moon lander into space, bring it back to earth orbit near the ISS and leave it there for refueling. Why design a vehicle for single use only?
Re the mass driver on the ISS. A few times during spacewalks astronauts threw things from the ISS into orbits that led them to re-entry. So it can be done! I imagine it would boost the ISS too….
September 9th, 2008 at 4:16 am
I have this pcture in my mind of an astronaut sitting outside the space station, tossing trash overboard… maybe a little tennis practice. It gives a whole new slant on taking out the trash…
September 9th, 2008 at 5:42 am
To: Jorge, I thought the ESA is under contract to NASA providing ATVs, thus, from my point of view, our ATV tax dollars burning up in the atmosphere. It's painful to admit ignorance. So be it.
To: Adam, Maybe NASA and ESA should consider operating like Ford did after the turn of the last century. My sense is the world space programs just might be operated more efficiently and economically. Ford succeeded, and I dislike this term, "thinking outside the box" in his management of design and materials. Concerning your investor comment, I suspect my thinking is affected on the issue of investors because I have never needed to convince anyone for project money. The space effort waste I perceive just might be real and perhaps should be simply regarded as a premium the world must pay for scientific advancement.
September 9th, 2008 at 6:44 am
The ISS is governed by a multi-layered international treaty, if I understand correctly. That in itself makes the ISS a complex device subject to the whims of policy making. A treaty written one day is the broken treaty of another. There is some validity to the argument that effeciency is in our best interest, as we are a partner of the program; it is in our best interest to evaluate the costs of maintenance (whether or not we directly incur them) as we are a partner in the venture. The Jules Verne issue is simply a reflection of the larger issue of maintaining the project in the long term. The US consistently evaluates programs using a "current political climate" mentality, meaning that they submit budget projections that potentially exceed the term/election cycle of elected officials. Granted, NASA recognizes some cooperation with private enterprise insofar as the ISS is concerned. Nevertheless, a majority of funding comes from taxpayers, which is subject to change. The larger issue is evaluating the costs of maintaining the ISS, both from US investments and other countries' investments. Jules Verne must be factored into such evaluation. The US is in an unstable economic climate that potentially could undermine future space investment dollars. I imagine that at some point the servicing modules such as Jules Verne will factor into someone's consciousness as to whether future commitments are honored to a 10-year-old treaty.
September 9th, 2008 at 6:59 am
NASA, ESA and a few other agencies are partners in the ISS. I don't know what the specifics of financial arrangements are, but everybody pays for the station. The developement of the ATV was payed by the european states that are members of ESA, and at least most of its operational costs should be also payed by ESA. After all, it's an ESA vehicle and ESA has every interest in cooperating, yes, but keeping its autonomy. Some money transfers should happen, though: if the ATV carries NASA payloads, it's only logical that NASA pays for the ride. That's business as usual in the space industry. In any case, the vehicle itself is european property, payed by the europeans.
So, I'd wager there's much more of my ATV tax euros there than your ATV tax dollars. And I'm all for it. You need to invest money in experimental vehicles if you later want to have a tested, reliable, and profitable infrastructure to base future developments on.
One additional bit of food for thought: have you ever considered that you have to spend a whole lot of money to put stuff in orbit, but you also have to spend a whole lot of money if you want to bring it back to Earth in one piece? Have you ever imagined that perhaps the perceived wastfulness of letting sophisticated equipment burn is indeed a sound financial option? After all, NASA spends much, much, much more money in the reusable shuttle program than all the other spacefaring nations combined with their discardable 1-use vehicles.
Space is a fundamentally different medium. Everything behaves differently. Up there you can't think was you would down here.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Sheesh… so many typos…
Preview/correct button, pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease? No?
September 9th, 2008 at 10:47 am
"Space is a fundamentally different medium. Everything behaves differently. Up there you can't think [as] you would down here."
That's why we need to send our elected officials to space. Of course, I'm assuming that this would lead to a positive outcome in their decision making skills. The zero gravity conditions could alter their brain-wave activity, leading them to make space research and development a top priority. Of course, we would need to leave them in space to preserve their newfound skills. That would cost serious cash, considering the habits of the average political creature. But seriously, the US's issue is a "perfect storm" of economic conditions. Mounting debt (including annual defecit spending), potentially and drastically different (and expensive) policy agendas from the election cycle, and conflicting objectives (including military and domestic spending) all lead to the same uncertainties for NASA. They have ambitious goals but are unrealistic in terms of the overall US budget…The average elected official will see the cost of a Jules Verne and freak out. I do agree, it's probably the most cost-effective means of servicing…but the person crunching the numbers only sees dollar signs. That's why I say we gamble and send them all to space.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Actually, there's no such thing as another Jules Verne. That was it. That particular ATV was christened Jules Verne and I suppose the next one will receive some other name. It would be nice if they kept on with the Science Fiction pioneers' theme, calling the next one H.G.Wells, the third oh, I dunno, Mary Shelley, or something, and so on.
Regarding the budget, US budget for space, and in fact science in general, is a fly dropping compared with the US budget for the military. You'll excuse me if I shed no tears regarding current american budgetary difficulties.
September 9th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Ok guys, I get it! The ISS is "governed by a complex multi-layered international treaty." That pretty much explains everything I've been moaning about. Damn! This takes all the fun out of my NASA critique.