ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Spaceship dies in blaze of glory

Posted: Monday, September 29, 2008 2:50 PM by Alan Boyle


ESA
The unmanned Jules Verne ATV cargo ship breaks up in a spectacular display
during re-entry, as seen on Monday over the Pacific from an observation plane.

The European Space Agency's first cargo mission to the international space station ended in a spectacular fireworks show today, with the fiery re-entry of the unmanned Jules Verne ATV  spaceship over the South Pacific.

"Jules Verne has now successfully completed its mission," ESA Director-General Jean-Jacques Dordain declared at the International Astronautical Congress in Glasgow, Scotland.

The end came at around 9:30 a.m. ET, when controllers back at Europe's mission control in Toulouse, France, directed the 17-ton craft into its final plunge. Jules Verne, the first of Europe's Automated Transfer Vehicles, was launched from the ESA spaceport in French Guiana early March 9. It linked up with the space station almost a month later, delivering tons of food, water and equipment.

During its stay, Jules Verne periodically boosted the space station's orbit, and in fact helped the station dodge a passing piece of Russian space junk last month.

But all good things must come to an end:  Unlike the Italian-built space cargo modules that are carried back and forth inside NASA's space shuttle, the Euroean-built ATVs are not designed for return or reuse. Instead, each spent craft has to be disposed of safely, by directing it remotely on a plunge through the atmosphere. The wide-open South Pacific is the favorite dumping ground for such space junk, as we saw back in 2001 when Russia's Mir space station fell to its doom.

Jules Verne's re-entry was witnessed by an international team of scientists flying aboard a NASA DC-8 observation plane. Studying the spacecraft's controlled fall could lead to fresh insights about the chemical and radiation effects of falling meteors - as well as better computer models for predicting how objects fragment as the blast through the atmosphere.


ESA
The Jules Verne ATV cargo craft glows during its atmospheric re-entry, in a view
captured Monday from a DC-8 observation plane flying over the Pacific. A lens
diffraction flare can be seen in rainbow colors at lower right.

Today's first pictures from the DC-8, posted to ESA's ATV blog, revealed a spray of fireworks similar to those seen during Mir's fall. More tragically, they also recalled what witnesses saw during the shuttle Columbia's breakup five years ago.

Although experts still have to track all the bits of debris, it looks as if Jules Verne's plunge through the atmosphere provided a great light show, but no big impact. There were far more damaging plunges elsewhere on the planet today.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Millions, maybe billions to produce such a spaceship and no parts or pieces can be salvaged or reused?

Seems wasteful

Not that I have a solution as to a less destructive re-entry



Side note : 17 tons huh?... Well, there was an earthquake that measured 7.3 on the richter scale in the Southern Pacific today. I'm sure there's no relation between the two stories but I thought I would point it out. Cool coincidence?
although I can understand them using it as a meteor, I've always wondered why they don't either send these towards the sun or towards the Oort belt and beyond?
Does the Wall Street connection mean the sky is falling?
These people kill me. Instead of dumping this back on our planet and into our ocean, why not fire it towards the sun where it will burn up and cause no problems to anyone. It can't be reused anyway.
After hearing the latest news I hope the Hubble doesn't have the same fate any time soon.
A pity that the Jules Verne ATV modules aren't reusable, kind of a waste of a good spaceship.  A bigger pity is that the shuttle program is ending and our country is caught with it's pants down for 5 years for being able to put our own astronauts in space ourselves.
Thats right fill our oceans with space junk. Nobody knows what kind of hazard's will be created what a bunch of fools.
RE alternate re-entry methods...Gaia Two re-enters Earth's Atmosphere with no blazing burn in...check her out...click the name below...
I agree with Mike, Key West...junk everywhere ya look.
The ATV isn't capable of reaching the sun. It would require far too much fuel to push it out of orbit.  Yes, the sky is falling. It's falling on you...don't look up!
[...] The ISS (International Space Station) is in low earth orbit DEEP in earth's gravitational well.  Orbital velocity is roughly 16,000 MPH.  To reach escape velocity the craft would need to travel in excess of 25,000 MPH.  That is an extra 9,000 MPH just to escape earth's gravity well.  Why expend the significant amount of extra fuel, just to dump the trash?  Besides the fact that it would require significantly more fuel just to get the extra weight of the additional fuel into low earth orbit.

Everything that "burned up" in the atmosphere will fall to the ground and be recycled by the planet. All the raw materials of the craft that would be dumped into the sun would be forever wasted.

To put it into the “Oort belt” as suggested by "ed davenport" (is this the same as the Oort Cloud?) would expend an even more fantastic amount of energy as you try to escape the Sun's significant gravitational well - a feat that has not yet been accomplished by either Voyager 1 or 2 which happen to be the most distant man made objects ever put into space and have no less than a 30 year head start.

Why don't we simply tear it apart and feed the parts into the space station's "Mr. Fusion" while we are suggesting impossible solutions.  Or maybe just "beam" the trash down to an earthside recycling plant?
Team, there isn't really very much if anything left to fall in the ocean. The cost to make it re-usable is huge, in addition to designing the vehicle to survive re-entry, you need to have someone to pick it up. As for sending it out to space, your talking some very expensive, very sophisticated navigation capability and huge amount of energy to pull free of earth. Notice if you didn't regularly boost the space station it would fall to earth. These are expensive non-trivial considerations. All they did here was use earths atmosphere as a giant trash incinerator.
I have to wonder why it was never questioned about the amount of energy required to send into the sun....it's not like this space adventure isn't expensive enough as it is....billions per flight...I can't wait to see the next generatoin of light composit vehicles and the next generatio of rockets and motors used for launching them....
It's all about Orbital mechanics people, the ATV was never designed for nor would never have had enough fuel to leave the Earth's orbit. The safest, most cost effective way to supply the ISS is an unmanned ATV that is designed to be disposable by burning it up in the Earth's atmosphere. Even weighing in at 17 tons, most of it will be ionized in the atmosphere and only small fragments will make it the the ocean surface. No dangerous chemicals will survive reentry and just about every bit of material (and energy) that was taken from the Earth will be returned to the Earth.
It seems like if they brought the thing in at a slight enough slope they should be able to burn everything up as it slowly gains reentry into the atmosphere rather than having to worry about running around and picking up all the pieces...
Does anyone know why we can't just send it to the sun?
The reason they can't shoot it into the sun or into deep space is because of the massive amount of fuel needed. It took a rocket capable of over two million pounds of thrust to push the New Horizons (the Pluto mission) spacecraft, and that ship only weighs about half a ton.
because it costs a fortune to have enough fuel to reach escape velocity is why you dump it
FYI - it takes a very large amount of energy (fuel) to escape the earth's gravity, and even more to lose enough velocity to drop into the sun.  That is just not practical.  Better is to use a small amount of fuel to drop the vehicle down into the atmosphere, where drag takes over.  That is much less risky and less expensive than launching a huge amount of fuel to head to the sun.
99% of that pile will burn up in the atmosphere. None of it will fill the oceans with space junk, and it wont lead to "global warming". The craft burning up in the atmosphere has ZERO effect on anybody.
Put your foil hats back on everyone.

In order to "shoot it to the sun" it would require a second rocket phase to break earths gravity farther than the ISS, which is why just letting it burn up in the atmosphere is a more feasible option.
Anyone who understands orbital physics wouldn't be whining about space junk in our oceans or shooting things into the sun.  Do you have any idea how much extra fuel would be required to accelerate the vehicle out of orbit?  If you want to use a Saturn V to ferry supplies to the ISS, that's fine.  You pay for it.
Just to clear up a few things:

1. The ship does not cost billions.  The cost for the module itself was probably under $20 million ( plus launch costs).  That money is not lost or wasted; the ship performed its function and its useful life had come to and end.

2. They are not dumping trash into the Pacific Ocean.  The ship burns up in the atmosphere, as the photo at the very top of the article demonstrates.  The reason they deorbit over the ocean is that if some small fragments of metal survive to the ground, they are less likely to hit a person or property.

3.  Sending the trash into the Sun or into the Oort cloud would require a huge amount of fuel, because the ship would have to escape Earth orbit.  Every KG of fuel costs more than USD $20,000 by the time you get it into orbit. When the atmosphere is perfectly capable of burning it up, spending double the money to launch it at the Sun would be insanely wasteful.
by the time these things fall into the ocean, all the fuel is spent.  These things, like old ships, go to the bottom of the ocean and create reefs.

The US Navy has a program that provides old warships and carriers for use as artificial reefs.
The reason that this space junk isn't sent to the sun or out into the deepest reaches of space is extremely simple.  It takes fuel/energy to move these objects out of earth orbit.  It's not a simple matter of just pointing it in the right direction and giving it a tap.
How about a positive comment, eh?
This is the most cost efficent way to eliminate trash in our orbit. It would take a lot of fuel to send something like this to the Sun. In addition this give us some study time on the breakup of debris.
Come on guys. Don't be so negitive.
It is indeed disappointing that the Jules Verne is not reusable.  However, with the successful SpaceX launch of the Falcon 1 yesterday, the stage is set for that company to win NASA's COTS competition and become the commercial cargo and crew launch and spacecraft provider to the ISS, perhaps as soon as 2010 (meaning there will be no gap in which the US must rely upon Russia or Europe to reach the ISS).
Send it to the sun!?!  Do you have any idea how much more fuel is required to leave earth orbit?  That is ridiculous.  Also, it is very costly to try to reuse these ships (more are going to be built).  It is essentially a glorified storage bin, it doesn't have the type of instruments that make it cost effective to reuse.  Let's all try to become more educated before posting.
Kaise B.,
If they are connected it's a whole new warfare.

Mike Sprinkle,
I think one hazard is that it might fall on some fishermen.  But it looked cool so it was worth the risk.  But if it brings back a space virus and kills the oceans then it wasn't worth the risk.
  U.S. space shuttles, three birds in the hand that fly fine and are designed for 100 missions each being retired after less then 50 missions to divert funds to the Orion moon/mars project.  
  Hey! let's use the Wall Street bail-out money to fund the Orion project and keep the shuttles flying until 2015.   Does this make any sense to anyone but me?  
For all those who think sending used ATV's into the Sun is a good answer, they need to remember that even though they have reached orbit the ATV has not escaped Earth's gravity and to shoot it to the Sun would require either more fuel or a bigger rocket engine.  First they have to truely leave Earth.
the ATV didnt have enough fuel to break away from Earth orbit. a controlled diposal is better than the off chance it might hit a populated place.
I am surprised and dismayed by the tone of many of the comments. A simple and reasonable question warrants and deserves a simple answer. Science requires and is best served by polite, intelligent discourse. Leave the petty insults and pseudo-intellectual posturing for the politicians.
actually NEVER ONCE has the space shuttle itself been the cause of failure. Each catastrophe has been due to a failure in the launch apparatus.

Simpler solution? Build a better launch apparatus. One that is 100% reuseable (in my world, it features a external tank and SRB's wrapped in one piece, that glides itself back into the ocean to be recovered).

The shuttles themselves are awesome pieces of machines. They are fully capable of doing the job they were designed to do, and are still capable to this day of doing it. While they are unnecessary for lunar missions, i still think they should keep at least one or two of them ready just in case. Never know when you might need one to recover crewman in case we get another Apollo 13 up there with the new capsules, a Shuttle would be perfect for the task of crewman retrival. Mothball it, and what, depend on the Russians?
Wow, those are some fascinating images indeed. I guess junking up the ocean in the name of space travel is OK.

Jiff
www.privacy.es.tc
1. The Shutles are being retired primarily because they're old and worn out.  Any diversion of funds is necessary because Bush added tasking to NASA withut adding funds. Don't blame NASA for the end of the Shuttle program.

2. As the Shuttle has demonstrated, creating a truely reusable spacecraft is very expensive and very difficult. (Remember that the Shuttle is essentially rebuilt after each mission.) Reusable spacecraft make a lot of sense if they spend their lifetimes in space, out of Earth's atmosphere.  But, adding reuse capability to any vehicle that needs to go through reentry is of debatable purpose.

3. For those worried about the damage done by this vehicle in renetry, remember that thousands of tons of all kinds of stuff falls into the atmosphere every day. It's all alien stuff, to boot.
Scott, the shuttles have an established failure rate of 1 in 44 while most capsule systems have a far smaller failure rate. If you want to see another one of those birds burn up soon, taking another crew with it, then you are more than welcome to. Granted the Orion moon/mars project isn't as cost effective as it could be it's the only thing we have on the drawing board, it's just a shame it's taken NASA so long to start developing a replacement system.
Wow, that's spectacular
Feel sorry for the money that went into it tho...
God... NASA REALLY needs to clear things up when they launch stuff.
I would love, for once, to see a "non-reusable" supply vehicle that was hardened for extended exposure to space.  If properly designed couldn't these vehicles - or even the fuel tanks, for that matter - be converted to "modules" to add space to the ISS?  
I have to say,  I've enjoyed reading the comments on this...both serious and "suspect".  I've not laughed that hard in awhile..

Thanks
Two other disadvantages of sending space junk to the sun:  (1) If we start to do it, everyone will do it, and the mass of the sun will increase significantly.  Currently, it's scheduled to become a red giant a few billions years from now....add too much mass, and it will exceed the limit and go supernova much sooner, causing a bad day for our great, great, great (to the power of 1000) grandchildren; (2) The mass of the earth would decrease such that our orbit would be effected, causing havoc with the seasons.   //////  JUST KIDDING!!!!!   //////   (Hope this thread can stand some humor...any good comebacks?)
As to the comment about sending the space junk to the Sun, not a good idea. A 17 ton module doesn't seem like very much debris to something a large as the Sun, and it isn't. Humans have a nasty habit of overdoing things. It's cumulative effects we need to worry about.

Example: 1 Rhino virus cell invades your body, no problem. we can deal. Now add 100,000 rhino virus to your body, now you have a problem.

Over simplified, but you get the picture.

Our sun converts Hydrogen to Helium. It converts Helium to Lithium. It converts Lithium to Deryllium. The process of Element conversion continues until the Sun finally converts Manganese to Iron. Only at tthe Supernova stage can a star generate the other elements on the Periodic Table.

Adding Heavy Metals to the sun, over time, will cause the fusion reaction to slow and will age our Sun faster the more we dump into it.
Scott,
I think 1% of the Wall Street bail-out money would be enough keep the shuttles flying and get Orion/
Ares finished on time.  Unfortunately, the way things are going with the economy, I would not be surprised to see the next administration cancel all human spaceflight programs.
From space.com Q&A:
"Estimates vary, but the USGS says at least 1,000 million grams, or roughly 1,000 tons of material enters the atmosphere every year and makes its way to Earths surface".
So, why worry about an extra 17 tons?

Duh, "let's just fire it into the sun...", that can't possibly have any ill effects for the entire solar system when a single solar flare could incinerate the entire planet.

[ALAN ADDS: I'm sure others will weigh in here, but for one thing, throwing a 17-ton object into the sun is like throwing a particle of dust onto a fire. For another thing, solar prominences wouldn't come anywhere close to reaching as far as Earth. And for yet another thing, as other commenters have pointed out, shooting Jules Verne out toward the sun just wouldn't be worth the required fuel and trajectory management.]

Its great to see another group - even if it is a group of foreign countries - able to send cargo to the space station. Another step forward in the eventual migration of the human race into space.
Simplify this conversation by realizing that it has only been a few years since the vast majority of Humans felt that we couldn't possibily mess up Earth's Oceans with a little Human waste...get the idea through yer gourds that Outer Space is your next Ocean...don't start messing it up!
This waste is all the more reason a totally reusable craft is needed.  Something like the shuttle was supposed to be.  We need "airliner like" access to low earth orbit.

The real question should be, does anyone know of any technologies we are not exploring that would solve this issue?  Are there any new types of propulsion out there that we can use?
Hey, how 'bout making useful in space as the shell of a new station module instead of sending back to earth?  Could that be so hard?  No extra fuel necessary!
"Millions, maybe billions to produce such a spaceship and no parts or pieces can be salvaged or reused?"

'Billions' perhaps in the original research and development to learn *how* to make one. That knowledge and capability didn't burn up, any more than it does with a Russian Progress vehicle.

"...why not fire it towards the sun ..."

That takes far more energy (propellant that could have been other cargo, instead of the small amount needed to de-orbit) than you think. You not only have to get to Earth escape velocity (which would still only put you in a slightly different orbit around the Sun), but *cancel* enough of that solar orbital velocity to fall into the Sun. In fact, it would take less energy to send an object out to Jupiter and do a 'reverse' slingshot that throws you back to the inner solar system (instead of outwards), than to go direct to the Sun.

Why bother?

Even Lunar disposal would be easier, though still not enough to be practical.



SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1464747

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google