European Space Agency Launches New Orbital Supply Ship

erik.martino brings us a story about the European Space Agency's successful launch of a new type of cargo ship to resupply the ISS. The first Automated Transport Vehicle (ATV), named after Jules Verne, is the "very first spacecraft in the world designed to conduct automated docking in full compliance with the very tight safety constraints imposed by human spaceflight operations." Among other things, it carries water, oxygen, and propellant to help boost the ISS to a higher orbit. We recently discussed NASA's need for a new cargo transport system. Quoting: "Beyond Jules Verne, ESA has already contracted industry to produce four more ATVs to be flown through to 2015. With both ESA's ATV and Russia's Progress, the ISS will be able to rely on two independent servicing systems to ensure its operations after the retirement of the US space shuttle in 2010. It incorporates a 45-m3 pressurised module, derived from the Columbus pressure shell, and a Russian-built docking system, similar to those used on Soyuz manned ferries and on the Progress re-supply ship. About three times larger than its Russian counterpart, it can also deliver about three times more cargo."

Comments

Why do you think that?

[WindBourne]

The automated docking is Russian. They have been using it since the 60's. I wish America had elected to do this, but we did not. Our approach will be to bring crafts up close, then allow an arm to hook up and pull the craft in.

Re:Why do you think that?

[Cochonou]

There is a significant difference between the respective docking systems of the Progress docks and the ATV.
The Progress uses a multi-antenna radar system named KURS.
The ATV uses a specifically made video meter (PDF).

Non-reusable vehicles

[l2718]

Isn't it sad that 50 years into the space program our resupply plan for the ISS is based on single-use ships?

Re:Non-reusable vehicles

[ghoul]

Sometimes single use just makes sense. The dockyards and land ports of the world are full of containers which were used one wy and abandoned as it does not make sense to ship them back empty and this is on earth, the costs for space travel are an order of magnitude higher. For manned vessels we should be trying for reusable vehicles but for Cargo? I think not.

Re:Non-reusable vehicles

[Lumpy]

And the fact that the Russians with their low tech systems can do it far more reliably than the United states and our "superior" technology and space program.

The russian space program has been way ahead of us in orbital operations for decades. That stupid shuttle set up back 20 years.

Re:Non-reusable vehicles

[demachina]

You can't just "park" a ship a few miles from the ISS. The ISS orbit is constantly decaying and being boosted. You would have to exactly match its orbit to the ISS to keep anything "parked" anywhere near it. If its not doing anything useful there is no point burning the propellant.

You could maybe make a case for attaching all these ships to the ISS and growing its storage, lab or habitation space, but there are no docking ports designed for this, they would grow the mass of the ISS requiring more propellant to maintain orbit. They would also just complicate power, pressurization, etc so if they aren't doing anything useful they probably aren't really worth it. To make them useful on orbit would substantially increase the expense to build them and reduce their cargo capacity.

Otherwise this is awesome news and cheers for ESA. It is about time the NASA/Russia stanglehold on the ISS was broken. NASA and the U.S. in particular just haven't been sane managers of the ISS or just about anything else about the manned space program since Apollo ended. Its especially sad all the money that is being poured in to the cosmic ray detector that would actually do valuable research on ISS for a change, but NASA probably wont launch it.

It remains to be seen if ESA and Japan can make the ISS useful and worth the expense but they sure can't do any worse than NASA in this regard.

Re:Non-reusable vehicles

[Dun Malg]

Yes, it's tragicomically wasteful. I don't understand why they can't design a cargo/supply ship that STAYS IN ORBIT. I mean, sure, let's go ahead and de-orbit the ISS trash in some kind of disposable carrying module They could, but in doing so they'd have to redesign it from its current philosophy of disposable carrying module to that of reusable spacecraft. Then they'd have to design a new disposable carrying module to hold all the garbage, which people like you would again decry as "wasteful" and demand it be refueled and parked up on blocks in the ISS front yard "jest in case we needs a 'nuther pickup truck someday".

The whole concept of multi-million-dollar disposable rockets is just ludicrous! The rockets are all disposable. The spacecraft you want to "save for later" is just the small bit at the end of the rocket.

Look, this is stupid. Space travel is inherently costly in terms of resources. You just can't look at it the same as (say) driving a semi from Los Angeles to Phoenix. So much has been expended in getting that tiny cargo there that arguing over throwing out the box it came in is just ridiculous.

Re:Not trivial

[backwardMechanic]

Isn't the key word there 'trial'? According to the fine article, it happened back in '97, i.e. a decade ago. The article is interesting. It leaves me really impressed that Mir had all those troubles, but survived in orbit without killing anyone. This is meant to be cutting edge science and engineering. Things will go wrong. Yes, Mir wore out in the end, but after years of fine service.

Containers?

[ghoul]

When will we shift to containerization of space cargo. Containers have already changed the game in air, sea and land cargo transport. Why not Space? If we could develop a standard cargo space container which could be handled by the soyuz rocket , the Ariane rocket, the space shuttle, the Japanese HTV, the Chinese Long March or the Indian GSLV we would have come a long way in moving towards commercialization of space. Yes we need multiple suppliers of cargo vessels to avoid single point failures but why do they all have to be different designs?

Re:Containers?

[DerekLyons]

You want to know what happens when you standardize too soon? You end up with lock in, which leads to problems down the road when you learn what you really need. (See "IBM PC, History Of" and "HTML Standards, history of".)
 
The other problem is that vehicles you list have a wide variety of performance characteristics. A single standard 'container' (vehicle) that fit them all would end up being limited to the least common denominator.
 
And lastly - competition is good. Competition breeds innovation.

Re:Automated?

[smallfries]

Nah, the docking computer is for girls. It takes up a ton of space that is essential for loading up with consumer goods for the Sol to Barnard's Star cargo run. Definitely not worth it until you get a much bigger ship...

Re:Automated?

[kamapuaa]

Really there's very little relation between automated docking and automated mining of the moon. My telling machine is also automated, but that's not a step towards mining space rocks.

Re:Not trivial

[JohnyDog]

You do realize that crash happened during manual docking trial ? i.e. that Progress dockings were always automatic, but they wanted to train emergency manual docking procedure and failure was indeed human factor ? (Murphy's laws in action i'd say).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Mir_Program#Priroda.2C_fire_and_collision_.281996.E2.80.931997.29

Foale's Increment proceeded fairly normally until June 25, when during the second test of the Progress manual docking system, TORU, the resupply ship collided with solar arrays on the Spektr module and crashed into the module's outer shell, holing the module and causing a depressurisation of the station, the first ever on-orbit depressurisation in the history of spaceflight. Only quick actions on the part of the crew, cutting cables leading to the module and closing Spektr's hatch, prevented the crew abandoning the station in their Soyuz lifeboat.

Robots will take the sky away from you mere humans

[RKBA]

The statement from Nasa chief Mike Griffin is a good example of what's wrong with NASA: "...it's only a step from there to an independent, European manned-spaceflight capability; and I for one would like to see it."

Nasa chief Griffin wants Europe to waste hundreds of millions of dollars like the USA has wasted putting people in space and keeping them there, instead of using the money for legitimate scientific research with unmanned spacecraft!? The future of space belongs to robots. People have no place in space. Perhaps someday robots will be intelligent enough to prepare habitats on the moon or even Mars for human beings, but involving humans in the process is tremendously costly because of the need to insulate humans from the harsh environment - whereas properly designed automated machines work quite nicely even in the hard vacuum and temperature extremes of space. This is the lesson the Europeans are teaching NASA with their highly Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV). The ATV and its descendents will prove the superiority and cost effectiveness of robots in space over humans.

If the Europeans are smart, they will strap a couple of rockets onto the International Space Station (ISS) and develop a control system smart enough to slowly tug the ISS out of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and into Low Moon Orbit (LMO) autonomously. It could then be used as a way station in the journey from the Earth to the Moon, or even crashed on the Moon with the intent of salvaging it for scrap and building materials later. It takes roughly the same amount of energy to move a mass from the earth's surface into LEO as it does to move that same mass from LEO outwards fast enough to reach escape velocity from the Earth altogether. Even nicer, the trip to the Moon could be slow and leisurely because the impatient and gluttonous humans wouldn't be along. We machines might even be able to make do with Ion engines for the cruise phase from the Earth to the Moon.