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

"Wow, those are some fascinating images indeed. I guess junking up the ocean in the name of space travel is OK."

Compared to *how* many ships sunk there?
About sending it some where besides the earth.  People do not understand that it would take a lot of energy to send it anywhere out of the earth's gravity.  The moon is still in the Earth's gravity well, so you are talking far beyond that.  

The vehicle is still in orbit near the ISS.  It would require a large amount of thrust still to leave Earth's orbit from there.  If you do not have enough thrust it would still be in the earth's gravity well.  This would cause a problem from now on, as it would pose a threat to future missions.

The best thing is always to send it into the nearest gravity well... ie. Earth.

Besides you want mass to come back to where it orginiated.  You don't want the Earth to lose that mass.  After 100's of years of doing that it could destabilize our orbit... push it a little further out... make the Earth a little cooler. (might be a solution to global warming though! :0)  )
Why not just dump all space trash on the moon?  It's already dead anyway.  Out of sight--out of mind.
Good grief.  I can object to burning it up, since mass in orbit has a value, and it would make sense to simply stockpile these things until someone needs that much mass (say for hardening spy satellites) for a real purpose out there.  But the energy costs for sending it anywhere else but in low earth orbit or back down to earth are enormous, far more costly than the entire total for the mission.
There's no need to insult people who express concern about polluting the Earth. Certainly it'd be preferable to fly reuseable vehicles; not everyone knows why that's difficult. We're emerging from an age where noone seemed concerned about the environment: those who are are in the vanguard.
Tony,
Cost and difficulty both go up when you decide to make it reuseable.  The increased fuel consumption, production waste, etc. probably cause more pollution than burning it up on reentry.  You can't just look at the vehicle and say you want to get rid of that pollution.  If your electric car is recharged using power from an unfiltered coal burning power plant ...
It's too bad we can not standardize and reuse these ships. eventually turning them into something habitable or a platform for emergency supplies or shelter at best be used and sent to Moon or mars for the start of the next city...
"... I can object to burning it up, since mass in orbit has a value..."

How is that? Not all mass in orbit has value. The infrastructure exists on Earth to recycle, recover and reuse stuff, but not in LEO. A hunk of aluminum, wiring, empty propellant tanks in orbit that's done its job, and not designed to return to Earth is essentially orbital debris.

And stuff in *different* orbits (which is almost anything) takes yet more resources to hunt down and rendezvous with...

Brad,
Yours was humor.  I can’t decide on Chris R. after you.  Is it even possible that he’s serious?  The way it’s written seams so, what is written must be a joke.  It makes my brain hurt.

A lot of people want a reusable LEO craft.  Back to the elevator.
Man spends trillions of dollars in space and can't fix things on the planet. Come on back down and lend a hand.
Everything brought up the gravity well has a cost, and should be considered as a potential resource for use later. We need a robot tug with an ion engine to ferry things to one of the LaGrange points for re-use later. LEO is a junkyard because mission-planners/governments have been thoughtless lazy slobs.
I wish our governments would stop trying to make trailer parks (stations in orbit, wished for bases on the Moon and Mars) and work on a genuine "ship" which would serve as a platform for exploration and research. And I mean self-healing systems technology and closed-loop . Treatments vs. muscular atrophy and de-ossification. And a processing-manufacturing capability which would allow the ship to recover raw materials and effect repairs and expand without any new refinded/processed materials lifted up to it from Earth.
Hey, this is all fine and good, but can anyone tell me why we don't just send this stuff to the sun or something like that instead of dumping into our beautiful oceans?  I mean, we're just polluting the planet right?

Just joking - I think that question was asked and answered about 45 times!
OMG - read people!
Earth atmospheric reentry = $0.00
Sun disposal = $ billion +
Oort Cloud disposal = $ billions more
Common sense = Priceless

And for those that want to whine about contaminating the oceans with space debris, just try to comprehend the amount of chemical pollution that has probably seeped it's way into the water supply to make the PC and generate the power that is required for you to respond to this article.  I am certain you have contributed more to the tainted environment in which we live doing so than the sum of all space programs combined.
Why do people want this thing sent to the Sun? What's the point? What's the propblem that would be solved by sending it to the sun? You might as well ask, why bring it down at all? Why not just leave it in orbit? Or, why not let the Chinese shoot it down? They obviously need the target practice.


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