Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Europe's Automated Cargo Shuttle Docks With Space Station

Posted by Zonk on Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:20 PM
from the drones-what-can't-they-do dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A successful docking of the Automated Transfer Vehicle dubbed 'Jules Verne' occurred earlier this week. The first of its kind, the crewless ship reached orbit and lightly touched up against the international space station on Thursday. By now astronauts on the ISS will have opened its doors and begun air circulation in preparation of offloading the nearly 7.5 tons of fuel, oxygen, food, clothing and equipment they need to survive. The EU Space Agency sees this as a historic journey for the program: 'The Jules Verne, named after the visionary French science fiction author, is the first of a new class of station supply ships called Automatic Transfer Vehicles. The craft was built by the nations of the European Space Agency as one of Europe's major contributions to the international station. "The docking of the A.T.V. is a new and spectacular step in the demonstration of European capabilities on the international scene of space exploration," said Jean-Jacques Dordain, director general of the European Space Agency.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Scrameustache (459504) on Saturday April 05 2008, @11:23PM (#22977510) Homepage Journal
    Which would win in a fight? The European robot transport or the Canadian robot manipulator?
    • The Canadian robot manipulators! We've got tons of them! The arms on the space shuttles, the twin-armed contraption on the space station, numerous smaller manipulators on many rovers...

      It's too bad any new ones won't be Canadian anymore with MDA selling out =( Not that MDA Space Missions / MD Robotics / Dynacs / SPAR were "all Canadian" to start with, but at least it had that "built here!" feeling to it.

      Aikon-

      • Get the Canadian robot manipulators to build Canadian robot manipulators and you might take on the universe!
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Which would win in a fight? The European robot transport or the Canadian robot manipulator?
      I would have thought the more relevant question would be:
      One-use European robot transport vs Russian Soyuz spacecraft

      IIRC, so far the Russians have been lifting the majority of supplies to the station, because the Shuttle hasn't been going up regularly. Not to mention they've been getting paid but the USA for the privilege.
  • by I_am_the_cheese (1264298) on Saturday April 05 2008, @11:28PM (#22977530)
    The science is done; between this and automatic capture and exploitation of asteroids is only a matter of scale and engineering.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      between this and automatic capture and exploitation of asteroids is only a matter of scale and engineering.
      .. and will.

      Remember, NASA and the vast majority of the space community are still stuck in the von Braun vision: station, shuttle, Moon, Mars.

      • by M1FCJ (586251) <m1fcj.uk@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Sunday April 06 2008, @01:59AM (#22978092)
        If only...

        If NASA followed von Braun's strategy, by now we would have a permanent moon base already. Instead NASA went for a big-bang project, after initial success, scaled it down very quickly and abandoned everything for a flawed plan and left us with a shuttle which would truck stuff to nowhere. Now they have a place to go (ISS) but they are canceling the shuttle with no spacecraft to replace it. I wouldn't be this bitter at least they had something replacing it.

        Europeans (inc. Russia) will have to step up and replace NASA when they completely abandon ISS in a couple of years and ATV is a step in this. The Chinese and Indians might come aboard pretty soon as well. The world will not need USA for space exploration any more and NASA's current plans are doomed with the budget cuts and everything - all it needs is a pretty failure in one of the first flights and that's it, USA won't have access to human spaceflight anymore - they hardly succeed with their current fleet of vehicles.
        • vision != reality.

          Even if NASA wasn't a bureaucratic mess and got the funding it needed, all we'd have is "science" on Mars.

          Does it really make sense to drag yourself out of a gravity well only to throw yourself into another?

        • by Dun Malg (230075) on Sunday April 06 2008, @03:38PM (#22982210) Homepage

          ...left us with a shuttle which would truck stuff to nowhere. Now they have a place to go (ISS) but they are canceling the shuttle with no spacecraft to replace it.
          The trouble with the STS is that its big selling point was as a shuttle to a future International Space Station. By the same token, the ISS' big selling point was that it could be built, manned, and supplied with the STS. They're both lackluster designs limited to a ridiculous LEO slot that's outlandishly costly to maintain. Really, they're BOTH white elephants.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          The ESA has a low budget compared to the NASA. The major difference is that they do things slowly and step by step. They do one big project (like the ATV development), but a lot of research and engineering is done in smaller missions. And they try to use platforms. For example the Venus Express probe reused the design of Mars Express. They also have a lot "get things cheaper" projects. And they cancelled many expensive projects, which was seen as a set back for Europe at that time. For example the Hermes pr
        • If NASA followed von Braun's strategy, by now we would have a permanent moon base already. Instead NASA went for a big-bang project

          Um, no. NASA was ordered to do the big bang project by the Kennedy and subsequent Administrations. NASA originally planned to go to the moon possibly sometime in the 70's, maybe.

          after initial success, scaled it down very quickly

          Um, no. Of the landing sequence NASA planned (through Apollo 20), two flights (what would have been 15 and 19) were cut in 1967 and

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Asteroids come with retroreflectors preinstalled [esa.int]? Asteroids provide such a predictable environment that the exact same approach can be rehearsed countless times in a lab beforehand?

      IMHO, the DARPA Urban Grand Challenge moved the science closer to unpredictable real-world mining than this. (though admittedly, both relied heavily on laser rangefinders)

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Yeah. Never mind the fact that asteroids are typically tumbling, don't come equipped with docking system, and don't provide a nice homing beacon and control assistance.
  • Was not Soviet Progress [wikipedia.org] a first crewless freighter ?
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      The Progress isn't even the first automated Soviet freighter, so, no, this is far from the first automated transport spacecraft. They even used some Russian parts. Typical ESA over-statement (or outright lie). Just the latest in a long line - "first ion thruster" (although theirs was a Russian design that had been in use for 20+years) and NASA and some commercial entities has also used them), "first 3-axis stabilized spacecraft to be operated without any gyro" (although numerous US missions have used gyrol
      • by timeOday (582209) on Sunday April 06 2008, @12:47AM (#22977874)
        RTA: "Only Russia has previously achieved a successful automated docking in space," Dr. Griffin said in a statement.
      • Why no gyro? Gyros don't need any fuel for attitude control, just solar power. What advantage does not having gyros give you?
        • Gyros need to be heavy - eliminating them saves mass.
          • Directional-control gyros do -- but not nav gyros. There are small versions weighing well under 1kg, for use in model helicopters etc.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        ..... Their terminal guidance and overall control appeared to have been *far* superior to the typical Soviet system. Much smoother and neater and apparently much finer control.
        Perhaps this is what they were talking about -- As I remember it, the final approach of Progress was far from automated. If this new system is mostly or fully automated, then it does qualify for a first...
      • by dddno (743682) on Sunday April 06 2008, @03:14AM (#22978338)

        Kindly separate what some inaccurate media summary says and what the ESA itself states. Where exactly does ESA claim to have "the first automated transport spacecraft?". They say it is the first of its kind, i.e. one that navigates and docks fully automatically, which is neither a lie nor an overstatement. And quoting from the Smart-1 (probe with ion drive) site:

        This was only the second time that ion propulsion has been used as a mission's primary propulsion system ...

        I haven't bothered checking your "first 3-axis stabilized spacecraft to be operated without any gyro" example but frankly I'm sure I'd not find an "outright lie" here or even a overstatement either.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Typical ESA over-statement (or outright lie).

        Depends on how you interpret the meaning of the word "first of its kind". It is definitely not the first automated space craft, you are right. But this is probably not what was meant. In fact, the words "first of its kind do not even appear in the NY Times article, it is the words of the "anonymous reader" who submitted this to Slashdot.

        The New York Times article states:
        "[It] is the first of a new class of station supply ships called Automatic Transfer Vehicles"

        And it definitely is a new class of suplly sh

  • That's already in use! Why not UTV = Unmanned Transfer Vehicle?
  • I guess they were pretty freakin confident that this thing wouldn't blow up or get lost. Ballsy much?
  • 7.5 Tons (Score:3, Funny)

    by cwraig (861625) on Sunday April 06 2008, @12:03AM (#22977698) Homepage
    They must be some strong astronauts to carry all that in zero gravity
  • Thursday ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dbcad7 (771464) on Sunday April 06 2008, @12:22AM (#22977768)
    I gotta wonder.. If the US had done this, would we be reading about this on Thursday or Saturday ?
    • Re:Thursday ? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WindBourne (631190) on Sunday April 06 2008, @07:34AM (#22979106) Journal
      Keep in mind that it is up to the /. editors to pick what interests THEM. As such, there is a bit of a built-in bias about what appears here. 10 years ago, on slashdot, this would have been posted right away. But I have noticed that a number of space articles tend to be posted later and later. I suspect that this has little to do with EU, and a lot more to do with less interest in space by younger folks. Hopefully, with spacex, bigelow, and even virgin, we will see this passion about space rekindled again.

      If not, it will probably be re-kindled in about 6-7 years, when china puts a man on the moon, with the obvious intention of building a base there. Just as sputnik spurred America, I think that the realization that China has about 1.5 times the number of ppl working on their space program of what America had in total during the Apollo program will cause nations to re-think their priorities, and how to work together.
  • Maybe we don't need people making dangerous supply runs in the Space Shuttle.
  • by Davemania (580154) on Sunday April 06 2008, @02:49AM (#22978288) Journal
    With the Russian accident in mind, why do they still dock the same way ? From what i've read, a collision could, due to the size of the capsule could be catastrophic. Couldn't they make the capsule approach the space station in a parrallel course rather than heads on, than use the robotic arms or something equivalent to pull the capsule in ? of couse that would mean that they would have to redesign the capsule.
    • by john.r.strohm (586791) on Sunday April 06 2008, @09:32AM (#22979672)
      There is no such thing as a "parallel course" in orbit.

      Read Bate, Mueller, & White, "Fundamentals of Astrodynamics", (Dover Books). (Caution: Math required.)

      Imagine two coplanar circular rings, of very slightly different diameter, with a common center. They're concentric. Tilt one slightly with respect to the other, retaining the common centering. The rings now cross at two diametrically opposed points.

      Those rings represent non-coplanar orbits. Objects traveling along the two orbits appear to be in parallel course at widest separation, then they start coming together, collide, and start moving apart again.

      The cheap way to do rendezvous is get the two spacecraft onto the SAME orbit, with some separation, and then GRADUALLY maneuver one of them to bring it closer. It is extremely touchy work. (This is why Project Gemini spent so much time learning how to rendezvous the Gemini spacecraft with the Agena target: they had to be able to do rendezvous to do the Apollo moon landings.)

      Read "Carrying the Fire", by Mike Collins, for some interesting insight into the problem. (Mike Collins was Apollo XI Command Module Pilot.)
  • ...toilet. Beware of the brown rain.

    Seems to me they could use human waste propulsion to offset atmospheric drag, so long as its directed at the earth.
    put the waste under pressure and release it in a directed manner.

    Ok, so that's a shitty idea.
     
    • by Anonymous Coward
      With so much energy invested in boosting the transport into orbit, you'd think that they'd want to hold onto the materials once up there. They'd be very valuable in due course.

      Unfortunately the ISS is in too low an orbit for that, ie. a scrap yard at that low altitude would reenter pretty soon. The space station itself needs to be reboosted up periodically (a really daft design decision).

      There's no reason why the transport couldn't boost itself much further out once it has delivered its cargo though. The
      • by demallien2 (991621) on Sunday April 06 2008, @01:00AM (#22977906)
        They actually use the transport to remove all of their rubbish. They can't just throw waste outside, that would present yet another orbital risk. So, they load everything into the supply module (Progress, ATV, or the new Japanese HTV which should get it's first launch next year), and then the supply module burns its engines to re-enter Earth's atmosphere and burning up.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      According to Wikipedia, it is designed with room for a docking port at the other end.
    • Full Article (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The full article doesn't say that this is a first. In fact, it contains the following sentence.

      Only Russia has previously achieved a successful automated docking in space, Dr. Griffin said in a statement.

      I wonder what kind of system the Russians were using and are still using? It took this long for others to catch up and, from the article once again, they had to use GPS and other systems. I'm sure the Russians had it much simpler.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Doh,

      You certainly need to find out who's actually behind much of the success of U.S. space exploration,
      start with these

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun [wikipedia.org]
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmut_Gr [wikipedia.org]öttrup

      Just to mention two and leaving out too many to list here. Make sure you understand why von Braun
      was so important to NASA and U.S space race with Russians, even though he had Nazi background.

      Many of the great engineers of 19th and 20th century came from Germany and from Europe in general
      as in many