Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Space Station Crew Lands Safely In Kazakhstan

Posted by Zonk on from the yay-for-earth dept.

loid_void writes "It's being reported on CNN that a space capsule carrying a U.S.-Russian-Italian crew has landed safely in northern Kazakhstan, following a mission aboard the international space station. Search-and-rescue helicopters spotted the capsule as it floated toward its designated arrival site and made a soft landing, upright. It had undocked with the orbiting station less than 3 hours earlier. Mission Control said the crew reported feeling fine. Remaining behind on the space station are Russian cosmonaut Sergei Krikalev and American astronaut John Phillips."

31 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. Yay! they're back by nounderscores · · Score: 3, Funny

    But I wish they'd hit the taco bell target on one trip home.

    Sure, I won't get a taco, but the thing's been built. It really should be used.

    Well, here's to their safe return and the many long months of eating spinach, drinking milk and taking calcium pills as they rebuild their strength.

    1. Re:Yay! they're back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can see it:

      "Allah... Holy shit! Look what we shot down this time!"

  2. I told uI was hardcore by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 5, Funny

    Gotta love how those Russians are willing to drop their space heros onto hard ground.

    None of that fancy schmancy airplane lookalike space vehicles for them!

    1. Re:I told uI was hardcore by TheKidWho · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well they aren't just dropping them straight down into the ground, correct me if im wrong but they use rockets to first slow the capsule down and then use a parachute to get them down. People use parachutes all the time, no biggie =)

    2. Re:I told uI was hardcore by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, parachutes (3 of them) are used first, retrorockets are fired in the very last moment to make landing soft.

    3. Re:I told uI was hardcore by GORby_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At least they don't have too many of their space crews going KABOOM on takeoff or landing ;-)
      When I would have to choose between takeoff/landing in an american or in a russian vehicle, I'd gladly trade some of the comfort for a better chance of returning in one piece.

      Gotta love their safety record when it comes to manned space travel...

    4. Re:I told uI was hardcore by MosesJones · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or put it another way

      "Gotta love hot those Russians have worked out that the cheapest thing to do is build a big parachute and some retro rockets, not invest billions in something they just don't need"

      The Russians have done engineering, while NASA has done politics.

      --
      An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  3. Its terribly sad.... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That we pretty much pull out of the space program and 'invest heavily' into fighting the bugaboo of the day.

    Its now to the point that we're literally afraid to "fly" in space. Thanks to the shuttle entry-blow up, that's retarded apace-flight by how long? 2 years? 4 years? "Until it's safe?"

    The russians have a damned good idea there. They actually fly, knowing the risks. They also are MORE CAPITALISTIC as they actually accept chaperoned flights from 'thrill seekers'.

    Just think, what kind of tech did they have back in the Apollo moon landing? Computers? Hardly. Look what we have now, and look how we ignore to use it. They didnt.

    --
    1. Re:Its terribly sad.... by Adrilla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's why privatizing space missions is clearly the answer. Our government has dropped the ball and it's time for some enterprising corporation(s) to pick it up and run with it. I look forward to seeing what more open-minded people can come up with (if they can get past all the red tape).

      --

      "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
    2. Re:Its terribly sad.... by bleckywelcky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's a bit more complicated than that. You can't just grab a P4 chip and throw it on a satellite or the shuttle. There are 2 immediate problems.

      First: technology readiness level (TRL). In order for a P4 chip to be put into space, it would need to go through about 1000x more testing than Intel currently puts it through. The last thing you want is the guidance chip on a satellite to produce a single error during a trajectory manuever and have the thing come crashing down to Earth or fly out on some highly elliptical orbit. TRL rates from 0 (concept/prototype) to 10 (repeatedly flight-proven hardware). A P4 chip would be somewhere around 2 - production capable, but no flight testing or flight experience. The space shuttle uses stuff in the 6 or 7 and above range.

      Second: operating environment (included in the above TRL, but of particular concern due to the nasty conditions of space). Intense radiation from the Sun and space, inability to easily radiate heat away, etc. RAD-hard components are needed for anything going into space.

      For current space-ready equipment, we're talking on the order of 6 MFLOPS ... aprox 30 MIPS at 20 MHz. You are not going to run Doom or Quake on this stuff.

    3. Re:Its terribly sad.... by Rakishi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Maybe they will in 20 years, there is no profit right now for the type of things the government does and the initial costs are too great for any sane investor. If you're going to complain about how much the Shuttle incident has "set us back" then private space companies are not the answer. You can't have it both ways.

    4. Re:Its terribly sad.... by nounderscores · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can't just grab a P4 chip and throw it on a satellite.

      What about cubesats? They seemed to be a way around the red tape when they were reported on slashdot a while ago. Using unmanned launchers and cheap disposable sats allows you to get up there fast, do your mission and throw away the junk at the end.

    5. Re:Its terribly sad.... by Mandoric · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because private shipbuilders can do fine cranking out cargo barges, cruiseliners, and yachts doesn't mean there's no use for battleships, icebreakers, and submarines.

      While a strong private presence in space will certainly increase the level of traffic, the fact remains that when it comes down to building the largest ships, those designed for the longest hauls, and those with arcane research purposes, only "national interest" and "national security" can drum up the funding even on the Earth's oceans.

      That said, what's an "arcane research purpose" can change drastically with time... Columbus once undertook a research voyage funded by Spanish royalty, that's today a routine cruise or cargo shipment. As human presence beyond the Earth increases, clear, safe profits will open up, and businesses will go for them.

      It's just that any man landing on the moon today will be there to plant a flag. His sucessor will be there to build a home. And then, after that, comes room for the enterpreneur offering the comforts of Earth shipped up and cheap vacation fares back.

    6. Re:Its terribly sad.... by Adrilla · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How about this: Instead of paying the gov't tax dollars to plunder natural resources, we decide where our "surplus" income goes to? What if the tax form included a checklist where you decided yea or nay on things like social security, defense spending, paying back national debt, NASA's budget and so forth?

      The problem with this is a lot of important programs will be underfunded.

      Perfectly healthy people could end up not caring about disability, and that leaves disabled people without enough money for their healthcare. Rich people wont care about Social Security (they fund a significant amount of it currently) because they'll never need it, so your mom won't have that money to fall back upon when she retires if a few years.

      Little, yet important programs that you never think about get no money because no one will think they're worthy (music in schools, homeless iniatives, public libraries, could be anything).

      Not to mention the extra work of having to read a thousand+ page book every tax period that explains all the programs you'll be voting on, I'm sure after you've done all your taxes and deductions, (adding line C to line E, subtract section 12) you wont be wanting to have to read about and pick from thousands of programs so you can choose which deserves your money.

      It's simply not the answer.

      --

      "Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
    7. Re:Its terribly sad.... by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Even better, how about some Non-governmental, non-profit space agency that gets funded by a bunch of geeks with nothing better to spend their money on? (and by the way, avoid paying taxes altogether) I bet there's already a web site...

      Like the Planetary Society? On May 31, they'll be launching Cosmos 1, the first solar sail spacecraft. Here's a Nature article. According to the page, it'll be "the first space mission ever flown by a non-governmental advocacy group."

      Another interesting philanthropic project was Elon Musk's Mars Oasis project to put an experimental greenhouse on the surface of Mars. He hired a team to do some preliminary designs and cost analysis, and found that actually building the thing was pretty affordable for him. However, the launch costs weren't as affordable as he wanted (they would've been the most expensive part of the entire project), so he decided to redirect his efforts towards SpaceX to lower those costs. I suspect the Mars Oasis project is still on the back-burner, and he may pursue it again once he gets launch costs low enough.

    8. Re:Its terribly sad.... by robertjw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Columbus once undertook a research voyage funded by Spanish royalty

      That's an interesting example. The difference between Columbus' voyage an NASA's work is that the Spanish royal family was interested in making money. In fact, I can't think of one of the early exploration voyages to the Americas that was motivated primarily by research or national security. Magellen, Cortez, Hudson, Drake, they were all motivated to find a way to India, or to take riches from the new world. Some of that exploration may have been funded by the governments, but much of it was private, and nearly all of it was motivated by money.

      --
      Find coupons in Greeley
  4. template journalism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    This article must have been written before the landing took place. The capsule landed on its side. Futhermore, the crew were transferred to Arkalyk where medical staff awaited them, not the other way around.

  5. In my country there is problem... by charlie763 · · Score: 4, Funny

    And that problem is the shuttle.
    Throw the shuttle down the well
    And my country will be free

    --
    Welcome to the land of the free...pay toll ahead...no photography...please open your bag...
    1. Re:In my country there is problem... by TheKidWho · · Score: 2, Informative

      The shuttle isn't the problem... Not to mention, the shuttle is getting retired in 5 years right after it finishes getting the ISS "Core Complete(all the US stuff up there basically)"

      The problem is the gap between 2010 and 2014 when there won't be a shuttle or a man rated CEV to get us into space. Thankfully the new NASA administrator Michael Griffin is fully aware of that problem and is working his butt off to eliminate that problem. That's why I love the new NASA administrator and whoever is president 4 years from now, I swear if they change the NASA administrator, im going to kick their ass!

  6. Kazakhstan Television by DNAspark99 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Where they interviewed by Borat ?

    "first we have a party...then we shoot dog!"

    --

    --
    Society has traditionally always tried to find scapegoats for its problems. Well, here I am.
  7. The saddest part for me... by FireballX301 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...is that this was an actual news event.

    Seriously. Before Columbia, the 'successful' missions were always tucked away in some 'World Update' column on page 10 inside the paper, or never got a second glance by most readers. The fact that this is both on CNN and .\ is kind of unnerving to me.

    How long will it take before we can clear the aura of fear surrounding space missions?

    1. Re:The saddest part for me... by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How long will it take before we can clear the aura of fear surrounding space missions?

      Indeed. I look forward to the day that a spacecraft landing or taking off is as routine and non-newsworthy as an airplane landing or taking off.

    2. Re:The saddest part for me... by Colol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No kidding. This U.S. has become the equivalent of a dog with its tail between its legs. Space Shuttle tragedies and terrorism didn't stop us before, but nowadays every shuttle is destined to explode and the next Osama Bin Laden is lurking in every shadow.

      At this rate, newspapers might as well start running "Sun rose this morning" on the front page to lull us into safety from the deadly evil things waiting at every bend.

      On the one hand, maybe it's relatively major news because they came down in a Russian capsule (but then again, this isn't the first time). On the other, buck up, America! We didn't get ahead in anything by sitting idly by because it's safer. Shit happens.

      Now let's explore something, for crying out loud. Scientific discovery doesn't (usually) happen by itself.

    3. Re:The saddest part for me... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Call me crazy, but I like it this way. Previously people complained that no one cared about space and that all these missions. This was a very valid complaint. I've heard way too many people say stuff like "What are we wasting our taxes on?"

      And no, I'm not saying that its lucky that NASA lost another batch of astronauts as much as I'm saying space-travel is dangerous and these kinds of things will happen. We do space-travel and space mission because they are important. The important of space means risk taking and spending money.

      Not to mention, when events are in the news frequently they become more important to people. They talk about them. They might get a better understanding of the issues, the science, etc. Considering space isn't very politicized outside of missile defense, you can usually get some decent information from the mainstream media.

      Thanks to things like Hubble, the Mars rovers, the Chinese manned orbit, Rutan, etc space certainly feels more real and important to me, and I assume to many others. I hope it never goes back to page 10 of the World section.

  8. Re:funny comedy scene... by 36+6_42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I fail to see the link between astronauts landing in Kazakhstan and a gun battle in Falluja. Would it be funny if there was a tornado in Regina while SpaceShipOne landed in Nevada?

  9. Forgiv me ..... by NegativeOneUserID · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, space station crew lands safely you!

  10. and by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 5, Funny

    As a sign of kazakh hospitality, the crew were each given one donkey and a jar of insecticide.

    --
    GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
  11. The problem with the U.S. program by eastshores · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is that NASA is not afforded the opportunity or direction to involve the hearts and minds of the average American in their missions. They are forced to rely on outside help for that (e.b. KSC Visitors Complex) The truly appealing quality of the early missons were that it was NOT safe and was far from routine. That's what brings out the crowds.. thats why Nascar is the fastest growing sport in the U.S. Yet, the primary focus of the NASA mission is Safety!

    Safety is no different than security, there is a point where it is a limiting factor. It has to be balanced reasonably to achieve the primary objectives, otherwise it's value is lost.

    Return to flight will draw a good portion of Americans back into the program. For that mission everyone will waive their flags and cheer upon success. Shortly thereafter shuttle launches will again be routine and Americans will not involve themselves as much as would please me. But then what government program can't you say that about?

  12. Geez, guys, it's just a return capsule by Alex+Belits · · Score: 3, Informative

    And yes, Kazakhstan is a country (formerly USSR member), where the Baikonur Cosmodrome is located -- this is where Russian ISS-related flights are launched.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  13. Soyuz safty record is comperable to shuttle by A+non-mouse+Cow+Herd · · Score: 5, Informative

    They had 2 fatal accidents (Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11) and a number of *extremely* close calls. The reentry of Soyuz 5, and the first launch attempts of Soyuz 18 and Soyuz-T 10 come to mind. (the latter very much went KABOOM on the pad, the crew were only saved by the escape system, which pulled them away at about 20 Gs...)

    Soyuz has less total fatalities than the shuttle, but it carries less people per flight, and has flown less flights.

    The fact that the most serious Soyuz failures were early in the program is somewhat in its favor, but from a statistical point of view, it is pretty much a wash. Although the system is in many ways simpler and more robust than the shuttle, the recent Soyuz flights have had their share of problems. The people building and operating it have done an amazing job, but have a severely limited budget and a crumbling infrastructure.

    So if you get a chance to ride either, you may as well jump on it :P

  14. PIcs of .kz by caluml · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why not have a look at Kazakhstan?

    --
    Get your own free personal location tracker