Jules Verne break up

Biggles

[url=http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMI696EJLF_index_0.html]Beautiful, yet melancholy[/url]. Watch for tank explosions.

Stingray

I didn't even know the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules_Verne_ATV"]Jules Verne ATV[/URL] was in orbit and for what reason.

Nice SFX, though the shaky cam look is less impressive. :cool:

sinclair

I wonder how much one 'unit' costs... I mean, for me it just sounds a big waste of money to destroy these things in the atmosphere.

Biggles

Not entirely. When you consider that it does a lot before being destroyed, and that atmospheric reentry is possibly the world's best garbage incinerator, as well as the cost of developing and adding reentry capability and a heat shield (and reduced launch capaticy that brings with it), not to mention refurbishment costs for reuse... it all adds up rather quickly.

Sanfam

Also keep in mind that if they did not de-orbit the module, it would have just ended up as another blip on the RADAR clogging up space. As silly as that sounds, space is packed with dead bits and pieces of satellites, various stages of launch stacks, and all sorts of other garbage left over from orbital insertions, adjustments, and the like.

As Biggles said, the Jules Verne ATV was enormously productive before being sent to its demise. And that, as mentioned, getting up there is only one of the problems. Getting something back in just one single piece roughly like what it started off as is a difficult proposition that adds weight and complexity, increasing development time, launch costs, and potentially reduces the overall probability of a successful GTO launch due to these factors.

It's just better to avoid it. Also, it was basically used as a giant metal garbage bag. I believe this particular instance was rated at 6.5 tons of waste capacity. Why expend effort to bring back garbage?

Though I'd love someday for someone to include a de-orbit camera as the Soviets did on one of their older milestone projects. I don't know where this film is anymore, but it was spectacular in all of its lo-fi glory. Of course, that's added weight and complexity, so not likely to happen.

JohnnyOnTheSpot

I thought it was fake?

Stingray

[QUOTE=Biggles;175919]Not entirely. When you consider that it does a lot before being destroyed, and that atmospheric reentry is possibly the world's best garbage incinerator, as well as the cost of developing and adding reentry capability and [B][U]a heat shield[/U][/B] (and reduced launch capacity that brings with it), not to mention refurbishment costs for reuse... it all adds up rather quickly.[/QUOTE]

If I'm not mistaken, the Russians use [B][U]wood[/U][/B] as heat shield material. Now how cheap is that? :D (At least they do/did with the Soyuz reentry crew modules AFAIK.)

The simple truth is that it's cheaper to build than to refurbish. The Shuttle program has shown that it's not the most inexpensive way to get into space, as has the Russian counterpart by remaining grounded.

I think I'm starting to see a trend, NASA wants private enterprises to take over orbital missions while pressing on to more noble goals (whatever those may be).

The way things are going right now, I don't know if there will be any budget left for any future missions at all.

Biggles

[QUOTE=Stingray;175924]If I'm not mistaken, the Russians use [B][U]wood[/U][/B] as heat shield material. Now how cheap is that? :D (At least they do/did with the Soyuz reentry crew modules AFAIK.)[/quote]

I've never seen any evidence for that, just idle speculation on the internet. There may have been wood behind it as part of the insulation, but the heat shield itself wasn't wood, it was fiber glass and abestos. I wish Snopes would do a thing on it so we'd know for sure. By the way, these days it's the in thing to say it's the Chinese who "simply use wood as a shield." :p

[quote]I think I'm starting to see a trend, NASA wants private enterprises to take over orbital missions while pressing on to more noble goals (whatever those may be).[/QUOTE]

NASA wants private enterprise to take over the relatively procedural stuff of cargo and crew launches, so it can go back to doing what it was created to do, which is pushing the envelope in terms of what we can do.

Vorlons in my Head

HAHA! My plan has worked perfectly and nobody suspects a thing! The explosion flash is in fact my invasion fleet FTL jumping into orbit. The multiple fire streaks afterwards are my ships during atmospheric entry, hidding amongst the debris.

[QUOTE=sinclair;175918]I wonder how much one 'unit' costs... I mean, for me it just sounds a big waste of money to destroy these things in the atmosphere.[/QUOTE]
Thats what NASA believed once which led to that more expensive to refurbish reusable ship, the shuttle.

Stingray

[QUOTE=Biggles;175928]I've never seen any evidence for that, just idle speculation on the internet. There may have been wood behind it as part of the insulation, but the heat shield itself wasn't wood, it was fiber glass and asbestos. I wish Snopes would do a thing on it so we'd know for sure. By the way, these days it's the in thing to say it's the Chinese who "simply use wood as a shield." :p[/QUOTE]

I'm hard pressed to find any credible evidence what exactly was used as heat shield material by them at all, for all we know it was pork skin. :D They certainly used different materials in their research but I don't know if they used wood in the actual production models. Since they eject the heat shield at an altitude of under 6km on reentry, I doubt you'll find many pictures of shield remains.

I did find some interesting articles about the US program though. ([URL="http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/reentry/Tech19.htm"]Here[/URL] and [URL="http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Evolution_of_Technology/advanced_reentry/Tech20.htm"]here[/URL].)

Biggles

It took me ages to find anything specific, too, and the best I got was an unsourced sentence on wikipedia. I suspect the answer is buried in a book somewhere, but lacking an English library nearby I can't do any real research on the subject.

From a practical point of view, we can make an educated argument that they didn't use wood for the shield itself because the thickness of wood necessary to ablate (remembering that any left over burnt wood, if there were any, is very crumbly and wouldn't hang around long under the pressure) would probably be prohibitively heavy. This doesn't rule out using wood [i]behind[/i] the shield as a thermal insulator, and if that were the case it'd probably be the source of the Internet rumours.

Messiah

Post yourself in a roleplaying environment

What the title says, your class is your field of work, your level is your age.
Give yourself a value from 1 to 5 in the 5 basic Abilities:

Strength
Agility
Constitution
Intelligence
Charisma
Wisdom

e.g. Intelligence 1 = dumb as a post, 2 = below average, 3 = average, 4 = member of mensa and 5 = genious.

Round off with skillz. You should not have more skills than a fifth of your level, rounded up.