Talk:Automated Transfer Vehicle

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_Simulations_{User 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)

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)

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. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:16, 21 March 2009 (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 silly article, and idea, artificial gravity 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)

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)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 22:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)