Talk:Automated Transfer Vehicle/Archive 1

Launch date
As stated in the following (recent) article, Jules Verne will be launched aboard Ariane 5 in early 2006. Matevzk 07:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Now, I'm a bit confused. It seemed like we now agree on the launch date, but this article states otherwise again: The antennas (to be installed during a March 28 2005 EVA) will be used by the Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV), an unmanned cargo ship developed by the European Space Agency, for docking operations during its first delivery *later this year.* What's real and what's not? --Matevzk 21:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * That article is obviously out of date. I just read an article on space.com that said that the ATV has been delayed and will first launch in 2006.
 * Correction: Just read your article, and I just noted this text: The antennas and GPS unit will be used during docking operations by the European Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) spacecraft when it docks at the ISS next year. So it's not out-of-date, you just misinterpreted it.

bob rulz 10:14, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Would user 217... please stop making uninformed edits? The article stated precisely that AleniaSpazio is to produce the pressurized cargo section, while the ATV itself is assembled in Bremen, Germany. Your edit is non sense. Check up your facts and change appropiately, or I will revert your vandalism. UsagiYojimbo 14:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) It would be nice if people would register, anyway.

100% in agreement, I have had to revert his edits twice. How can someone imagine that a Prime would subcontract Final Integration ??? Hektor 20:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question
Just a question: How much of really new materials technology has been used in the ATV. I'm talking about Kevlar, new ceramics, and state-of-the-art computer-technology? It doesn't appear to be a very advanced design at all.
 * why would you need ceramics on an ATV ???Hektor 06:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * look, carbon fiber and titanium: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/ATV_water_tank_P1220789.jpg --66.251.27.177 (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ATV in Bremen or Torino
I don't know what to do. Misleading info is constantly uploaded about the integration process of the vehicle. Could someone find a reference so that user 217... stops his constant reference to Alenia producing the ATVs? Interesting case study of how erroneous and misleading information propagates though.Hektor 13:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is the best I could find at once; I'll keep checking, though :) --UsagiYojimbo 14:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice but I doubt this guy is reading the discussion anyway. 82.127.253.146 00:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

How many Flights
Just a question: how many flights will the ATV be making? The article says 6 are contracted but is this likely to be extended? It would seem a bit of a waste spending billions on development and then only making half a dozen flights.Subzero788 06:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

How many flights?
Just a question: how many flights will the ATV be making? The article says 6 are contracted but is this likely to be extended? It would seem a bit of a waste spending billions on development and then only making half a dozen flights.Subzero788 06:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably less than 6. In particular, they are trying to use the money earmarked for one of the ATVs to pay for the Exomars overcost. Hektor 14:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One (cited) source says Jules Verne is first of five. Should we make the article conform to that? Sdsds 16:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

ATV Evolution Scenarios
On the ESA Homepage are Plans described for the further Development of the ATV. It seems to me, more up to date than the part: "Abandoned ATV Evolution projects", which was genaratet in the mid of 2006. I think this should be erased. with friendly greetz --Fenrisulfir
 * ESA: ATV EvolutionScenarios.
 * Congratulations my gullible friend, you have replaced accurate information by ESA propaganda. The reality - which was stated in the piece you have erased - is that there is no ATV Evolution project underway. Please revert. Hektor 14:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And from which source do you have your "Accurate Information"? In fact, I beleive more the Press Realeases from the ESA Homepage, than your predictions out of your Christal Ball. --Fenrisulfir 15:51, 18 Februray 2007

Mission schedule

 * There is no possibility of launch of the second ATV in 2008; the integration of this second flight model has not started yet. Hektor 23:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Volume = 9 tons?
In the dimensions, the ATV's volume is given as 9 tons. Now, last time I checked, a ton was a measurement for mass, not volume. So, shouldn't this be more like "Payload = 9 metric tons (or 9000kg)"?

Or are we talking shipping tons here...?

It's also not quite clear if the volume corresponds to the total volume of the ATV, or to the payload sections.

Is there anybody in the know? -- Syzygy 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * has a full 'spec' of the system. In one place it says 7667kg including fluids, in another 7500kg. The volume of the cargo area is (by approximation using other measurements as a guide): length 3m, plus the 'funnel' to the hatch; diameter (external) 4.480m for an estimated internal diameter of 4.1m, for a volume of around 40m3. Peter Ellis 07:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"unsourced" Categories
The article has been written largely from the ESA site and has references and external links aplenty. I can not see how to remove the "unsourced" Category tags, which (IMHO) are not adding to the article, or the urgency for more referencing. I urge someone to add a few more references AND remove the silly tagging. Peter Ellis 06:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The "unsourced" category entry results from the "citation needed" after the sentence "Contracts and accords have been signed for six more ATVs, which should be launched about once every year." (This is in the "Development" section.) The best thing would be for that sentence to get supported by the citation of a specific source. If none can be found, the sentence (and the "citation needed" tag should get removed. Sdsds 14:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

First launch probably delayed to 2008
According to this: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/03/30/212964/vega-third-stage-engine-fails.html

the first launch has been probably delayed to 2008 (the first half of the article is about Vega, but at the end it includes informations about the ATV) --151.44.171.136 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)


 * I think it would be best to include both, Metric being the primary and than have Imperial in parenthesis or something.--Craigboy (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

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 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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 and in Talk:Jules Verne ATV. 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)

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)

Ariane 5 ES-ATV
This article needs some info on the fact that is uses a "special" version of the Ariane 5 rocket, namely the Ariane 5 ES-ATV. --Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Automate archiving?
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A low cost ISS-2 with artificial gravity made with five ATVs
all the ATVs to be launched in space in the next years could be REUSED to build a small ISS-2 with artificial gravity!

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/054atvstation.html

posted by gaetanomarano sept. 29, 2009

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.109.127 (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Its a self-publised article, and questionable idea, artificial gravity, if anything near earth-like, would be a horrible experience on such a small diameter, the coriolis effect would be very pronounced.Aryah (talk) 22:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Docking System
I believe the ATV uses the Common Berthing Mechanism as opposed to the LIDS, or APAS systems. This article seems to be the only one to NOT mention what type is used. Would someone make the contribution and edit please. Signed Darren Hensley, interested party. 0730, 18 Aug 2010


 * You do realize that you can do this yourself if you have a reference for the information, right? As always, be bold!  --U5K0 (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But that information is incorrect. The ATV uses the Russian probe and drogue docking system, not the CBM on the US segment. That is the reason why the ATV docks with the Russian segment and not the US Segment of the ISS. -MBK004 17:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Robotics attention needed

 * Assess using B list

Chaosdruid (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Update needed
After the ESA council of March 2011, the information needs to be updated. The new ATV scenario is explained in this BBC article. Hektor (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Cost
Can anyone add something about development costs and incremental costs per ATV ? How does ATV cost compare to launch cost ? Rod57 (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen that info published, and imagine that (with a multi-national government agency involved) accounting for such costs in standard monetary units might be very difficult. However, I very much second the suggestion of Rod57:  this article would be much improved with some sort of high-level understanding of the cost of a single ATV mission, from beginning to end.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The article did have some very basic cost info until this edit in January. I'll reinstate it. Rwendland (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)