Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ISS Orbit-Raising Attempt Fails

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the go-for-the-burn-baby dept.

hpulley writes "ITAR-TASS reports that the Progress cargo ship currently docked at the ISS attempted an orbit raising burn this morning but the engine failed three minutes into the firing. Further burns are cancelled until they figure out the problem and meanwhile, the station continues to lose approximately a kilometer of altitude every week, with the rate increasing as the orbit decays. At present, the schedule says the next Progress, 20P, will be launched on December 21st, nearly 9 weeks from now. Normally the shuttle would also raise the orbit of ISS but it is not scheduled to launch until May 3rd at the earliest. Nominally the ISS orbits at 358km but if it drops to 300km, it may decay in a matter of days. It was down to 340km already on October 13th."

4 of 329 comments (clear)

  1. Re:In soviet Russia... by ScentCone · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    our own shuttles keep blowing up

    Twice means "keep blowing up?" I suppose three would mean "always blow up?"

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  2. Scuttle it by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    The ISS is scientifically worthless and squanders huge amounts of resources far better spent on unmanned missions. It is nothing but an excuse to funnel vast amounts of federal money to aerospace and defense companies for little return.

    Manned space exploration inhibits space science and space exploration by wasting the lion's share of space funding on this glorified elitist amusement park ride and hypertrophied high school science fair project. The shuttle is equally worthless and should also be abandoned.

  3. Re:Rather alarmist story... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    There's this thing called 'gravity' that has a tendency to pull objects towards it.

    Yeah, but gravity is only a theory. It isn't a fact

    P.S. Note to mods. No, this isn't flamebaiting or trolling. Having a supposed scientist claim that astrology could fit under the definition of a theory reminds me of the morons who keep using the phrase re: evolution: but it's only a theory, not a fact, when in fact evolution is a fact but the theory of evolution, that which describes the process, is not a fact. Just like gravity is a fact but the Theory of Gravity is not. The Theory only attempts to describe the fact (gravity)

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  4. Flamebait by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    This is the sort of moderating the rules are supposed to prevent. I stated the obvious, but it is apparently a minority opinion. Slashdot sci fi freaks evidently find it too unpalatable.