Talk:Jules Verne ATV

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Europe: ESA High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by ESA task force (assessed as Top-importance). Spaceflight: Space stations B‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles B This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the space stations working group.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The part about the PDE error quotes a NASA statement -- ESA describes the events a bit different here. -- 91.19.253.124 (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

on the box on the right, the mass is listed as 20 tonnes, however a tonne is a measurement of weight and not of mass, so shouldnt the mass be expressed in some other form of unit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.28.185 (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? tonnes are a measure of mass, one tonne is equivalent to 1,000 kilograms. Weight is measured in Newtons. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, weight is measured in kilograms, and mass is measured in Newtons. And yes, it should be listed in mass, since the normal earth gravitational acceleration constant (9.8 m/s) doesn't apply.

Are you joking? You have it completely backwards -- a kilogram is a unit of mass, not weight. Weight is a force, measured in newtons. I'd ask that you sign your comments, but if I made a comment like that, I wouldn't sign it either. Fritter (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that since nothing is said about crew on board that this is unmanned, but perhaps we should actually say so in the opening paragraph since that is one of the first things that reader would want to establish.

IceDragon64 (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 00:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says JV will go into a destructive reentry. Does that mean it will be completely burnt up? It would be nice if we could say a little about this, or guide the reader to a link where that is explained. IceDragon64 (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

from [1]

After six months of being an extension of the Station, 'Jules Verne', loaded with up to 6.5 tonnes of material no longer required by the ISS, will separate with the same safe procedures performed for the docking. The ATV will then burn up completely during a guided and controlled re-entry high over the Pacific Ocean. 88.117.96.52 (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "....Jules Verne will also be used to reboost the space station." mean? - have its orbit boosted? --83.105.33.91 (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As you can read in the article about the International Space Station the station is actually continuously falling towards Earth. Progress and Shuttle spacecraft will boost the orbit of ISS at regular intervals to a higher altitude. ATV will now do this as well. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are those Verne manuscripts definitely on board? The NY Times article on the ATV today says:

"Because the mission is considered a test flight, station controllers did not include any irreplaceable or one-of-a-kind cargo on this mission, said Michael Suffredini, NASA’s station program manager."

Surely the manuscripts would qualify? Article here. --Jfruh (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well partly true I guess. from a space.com interview :

"After having named the first ATV Jules Verne because of his visionary writings and the vehicle innovative design opening the doors to future European extraordinary voyages in space, we wanted to pay tribute to his inspirational work by flying on board this fantastic spaceship selected notes from his personal original notebooks," explained Jean-François Clervoy, ESA's ATV Senior Advisor Astronaut, in an e-mailed interview.

"We chose two of his notes directly related to space travel, and selected also one of his own quotes that reflects well the vision of the European Space Agency: 'en avant'... ce doit être la devise de l'humanite!' ('let's charge forward'... it should be the motto of humankind!')," wrote Clervoy, who has flown in space on three shuttle missions, most recently in 1999.

According to Clervoy, the manuscripts and special quote are flying with a copy of "De la Terre à la Lune and Autour de la Lune" published during Verne's own lifetime.

--TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the post docking press conference at JSC, it was clarified they will be brought back with a future Shuttle or Soyuz launch. Hektor (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how much? air or oxygen? how much water? how many altitude miles of reboost?CorvetteZ51 (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the text to first non-russian automatic docking, see discussion here Acer (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It states on the ESA news website that the ATV will be docked for 4 months but for 6 months on another part of its website

"New delivery service

Now that it is docked, the ATV Jules Verne will become an additional module of the ISS for about four months. The astronaut .... http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMORO5QGEF_index_0.html

The ATV will remain attached as a pressurised and integral part of the Station for up to six months. After .... http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ATV/SEMOP432VBF_0.html

Which one is right?

Please note the differences between ATV in general and the Jules Verne ATV. An ATV in general will stay docked to a station for up to 6 months. HOWEVER, since Jules Verne is the first ATV, which has many more safety restrictions, and because it had to perform test maneuvers which cost a lot of additional fuel, and due to scheduling constraints in the ISS schedule, this Jules Verne ATV will only be used until mid August (4 months). There might be a slight possibility that if it performs beyond expectations, they might leave it there just a tad longer, and push the next Progress a week or 2-3. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The final decision on this will not be made until early July or something. With the current busy ISS schedule this is very normal, almost every week something shifts in the schedule. The current date for ATV undocking seems to be August 7. This information was gathered by space enthousiasts from all kinds of sources and collected here.

It is an appropriate and notable bit for the article. It provides some history. I can easily imagine someone reading the article & wondering what the history of it is... I don't think removing the bit is better. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 17:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What should it read then? Everything that has been added so far has been complete fiction. It's not really important anyway. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is another instance of that sentence in the 3 April – Docking section Acer (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction? E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 20:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far, it has been described as:

• The first ever autonomous docking
• The second ever autonomous docking
• The first non-Russian autonomous docking
• The first autonomous docking to a space station
• The first autonomous docking to the ISS
• One of very few autonomous dockings

None of those statements contains a shred of fact. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 20:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir. Few autonomous dockings is incorrect? How many are there? If you know, it would be a nice addition to the article. It is fully relevant, it passes the notability requirements, and fits nicely. I don't understand your "it's not important" or "complete fiction" statements. I'm surprises to hear this. I was able to find a few references to support the material. They're fiction? Truly mystified here... I'm not going to further my argument because i really don't mind if it stays or goes. Just voicing my surprise over some weird statements. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 21:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a figure for autonomous dockings, but I would guess somewhere in the region of 200. (mostly Progress, and possibly Soyuz - I'd need to check) - clearly not the first or second. America tested automated docking last year (Orbital Express), so it's not the first outside Russia. Progress spacecraft have made automated dockings to the ISS so that rules out both the first such docking at the ISS or any other station. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times reports NASA administrator Micheal D. Griffin as saying during his speech congratulating ESA on the ATV's success: "Only Russia has previously achieved a successful automated docking in space. This accomplishment showcases yet again the progress which has been made by the international partnership in bringing this incredible program to fruition." Seems unlikely he'd be mistaken on this issue. Link: [2] 66.130.156.84 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well GW - I wish your edit summary summarized this info instead of what you wrote: "this is getting less and less notable, and more trivial. I'm going to be bold and remove it altogether". It's clear you have a ton of understanding in this area. Why didn't you say "no - check out progress & soyuz" or something... I'm done then. No worries. No response necessary. Thank you. Bye. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 21:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is however the:

• first European docking of a european spacecraft
• first automated docking with a space station that did not have the option of falling back on manual flight controls

And I really wish we had proper sources for that. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first one you meantion is notable, the second one is kind of pushing it.. notice how long you had to make the sentence? (besides not being able to fall back to human control is not really an advantage...) Acer (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah-- If everything added is fiction I also don’t see how it’s really that important. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed all of it. Did some searching for an hour or so, and could not find any source for any sort of "first". I still think it's the first European docking with a space station (i'm counting columbus as a berthing here), but there is no source that claims the same. My 2nd explanation for the words of Thirkettle that I had was based on the emphasis of "automated", figuring that there would be no automated space station craft that did not have manual controls available to it. But, Progress used to do automated dockings with Salyut 3 and later for instance. Only in the early 90s, Russia developed the Progress TORU remote controlling system. So that theory is out the window as well. Conclusion. Thirkettle got carried away :D --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Length? Diameter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.209.128 (talk) 09:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They've unveiled a mockup of a manned version of the Jules Verne in Berlin recently. Should this manned development of the ATV be mentioned in the article? Source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.148.47 (talk) 12:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is mentioned in the generic ATV article, and should not be needed in an article about a specific ATV. Martin451 (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jules Verne ATV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://asimov.esrin.esa.int/SPECIALS/ATV/SEMRFB5QGEF_0.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109155408/http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/iss_reports/reports2008/08-28-2008.htm to http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/iss_reports/reports2008/08-28-2008.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]