Talk:Automated Transfer Vehicle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Space
Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Spaceflight WikiProject Spaceflight Importance to Spaceflight: Mid

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article is within the scope of the Human spaceflight WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the manned exploration of space. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] ATV Evolutions development

On thuesday, the 14th of may, a press conference was held where EADS and DLR unvailed a project to modify the ATV to become a crew transportation system. Should this go into the article right away or should we wait for more details which are due out during this month's Berlin airshow. Mind the fact that notable news sources published the information (BBC, RTV SLO, businessweek...) look at the first 3 stories U5K0 (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest we hold fire until after the Berlin airshow - we'll get considerably more detail as to exactly what the configuration will be, and a better idea of the performance expected. Colds7ream (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Logo ATV JV H white.png

Image:Logo ATV JV H white.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double wrong

  • The sentence "Nine ATVs are currently in Arianespace's order-book.[4]" is twice wrong. First the ATVs are ordered from EADS Astrium, the ATV prime contractor and not from Arianespace. Second there are only five ATV ordered, Jules-Verne included. Is ESA a valid source ? Hektor (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Will go with the 5 launches but found article that misson managers said 7 launches possible (have added a notice about that at the end of the intro and the two possible launches to the mission table). Anyhow, the launch dates in the mission table are not sourced. The only source I found gave different dates. See next section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ColdCase (talk • contribs) 09:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC) (ah, yeah, forgot to sign, sorry about that) ColdCase (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Launch dates not sourced

  • The launch dates for the ATV launches in the mission table are not sourced. So where are they from? The only source I found (see here) gives totaly different dates (actually different years!). So which launch dates are correct? ColdCase (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Here is a NASA source.Hektor (talk) 09:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I added it as a source to the table... ;) ColdCase (talk) 09:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jules Verne

Hi - I feel that the first flight should be split up from this article into its own. I'd better not do it myself, though, as I expect there are numerous naming and sorting guidelines that I have no clues about ;-) Ingolfson (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Done - see Jules Verne ATV. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 12:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I did it again. The older text looks like "all" Jules Verne's article, now just the relevant part of it is on. Onsly 17:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metric units please

Why is this article infested with imperial units like feet, pounds and miles? This is an article about a european scientific topic where such units have no place. -- Henriok (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I requested this moments ago on the ISS page, so I agree with you. My guess is we can make the (correct) calculations to SI and add them to the articles. Even NASA uses SI. 68Kustom (talk) 09:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree 100%, there is no place in space for these senseless archaic measurements. 86.111.162.127 (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PDE failure

Nothing official or reliable enough to cite yet, but there appears to have been a failure of the PDE controlling some of the engines. See this - obviously we cannot cite a forum, but keep your eyes open for something that can be sourced. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 13:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a bbc source which says that there was a fault with some of the engines don't have any more detail. See this Willotter (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This issue, including refs is already integrated into the main Jules Verne ATV article. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Updated infobox

I've updated the infobox for the first mission, and see a separate article for each ATV mission, with a differnt craft name. I noticed this is a free-form box, compared to the existing {{Infobox Spacecraft}}. Any particular reasoning? LanceBarber (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I figured it out.LanceBarber (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cost

What about costs of the unit? Comparison with one ATV and Space Shuttle flight would be nice.--Kozuch (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image

I had put a free (NASA) image and the fair use image has been put back. I think this is against the rules, you cannot put a fair use image when a free alternative is available. Hektor (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I did not notice that.--Kozuch (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further applications?

There's a note on this BBC News page that says that the ATV could be used as a module for a manned spacecraft -- anyone have a more direct source on this? --Jfruh (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] first automatic docking with ISS, not first with a space station

I changed the text "first time in the world, that a fully automatic spacecraft has docked with a space station" to read "first time in the world, that a fully automatic spacecraft has docked with the ISS", because that is what Alan Thirkettle was quoted as saying by the BBC. There were several dockings with the Mir space station that I believe counted as fully automatic, even if some had problems. Look at page 65 of Bryan Burrough's Dragonfly book, ISBN 0-06-093269-4: "Since 1985 all Russian spacecraft had used the Kurs computers to dock automatically with the Mir station", and "All the Russian commanders had to do was sit by and watch." -84.222.6.66 (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe Russian spacecraft (Progress and Soyuz) sometimes dock automatically with the ISS. Can anyone shed any light on this? GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I guess that what is meant here is that ATV is a fully automatic vehicle. It can only follow its programs, or abort/retreat. Progress and Soyuz can be manually flown by ISS/Ground crew OR use Kurs docking. As such it was the first docking of a fully automated vehicle. Not the first automated docking. (i emphasize "I THINK") Since all of ESA is either german or french, someone probably made a translation error. Most likely Thirkette himself. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems the sentence depends on the exact meaning of "fully automatic". The German wikipedia ATV article qualifies it as (translating) "The docking was the first fully automatic docking manoeuvre in space not carried out by a Russian craft." They do not claim the first automatic docking with ISS. The German wikipedia talk page discussed that phrasing in 2005. The French wikpedia article makes no first claims. The ESA article (english) claims it a first automatic docking for Europe. And indeed Progress dockings are considered automatic, for example in this nasaspaceflight thread. -84.222.6.66 (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manual Controls?

"first...without the ground or space station crew having the backup option of manual flight controls." I looked at the reference for that quote and i can not find evidence to substaniate that claim. Does anyone know a reference for this? Willotter (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right, the Jonathan Amos BBC reference does not support the claim. I have tagged that claim with Dubious. The wording looks to be an attempt to justify Alan Thirkettle's quote that it was a first. This has been discussed above in Talk:Automated Transfer Vehicle#first automatic docking with ISS, not first with a space station and in Talk:Jules Verne ATV#The history of autonomous spacecraft. I would be interested in an article on (BTW I am the same anon as 84.222.6.66) 84.222.5.147 (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed it completely. There is simply no source that I can find that indicates any sort of first... I suspect this is the first ESA docking, but I cannot source it either. (Columbus was less docking and more "berthing" of a module). --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What i was actually trying to find a reference for was the claim that it had no manual flight controls. Which wasn't mentioned in the article either. Sorry i realease now that my first question wasn't very clear. Willotter (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rendezvous and docking sensor

Jena-Optronik claim, "Jena-Optronik developed the Rendezvous and Docking Sensor RVS for the European Space Agency ESA and the Japanese Space Agency JAXA, in order to support and control the automated docking of the European Automated Transfer Vehicle ATV and the Japanese Transfer Vehicle HTV with the International Space Station ISS." Was the Jena-Optronik sensor a sub-component of the Sodem "videometer"? (sdsds - talk) 06:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)