Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russian Cargo Ship Docks At ISS On Second Try

Posted by Soulskill on from the not-free-after-thirty-minutes dept.

FleaPlus writes "Following up on a story from a few days ago about an unmanned Russian cargo ship's initial aborted attempt at docking with the International Space Station, Space.com reports that the vehicle made a second pass on July 4, which succeeded. Russian engineers believe the initial abort was triggered when the (normally reliable) Progress spacecraft detected interference between a remote control system on the ISS and Progress's camera. It successfully docked on the second try by using the autonomous system instead."

86 comments

  1. I think I saw them... by snowraver1 · · Score: 1

    On Sat night, I was looking up at the sky at dusk and I saw a bright object crossing the sky. I thought it was a plane, but it was not blinking like a plane does, and it was moving pretty fast. There was a dimmer object following by a couple cenitmeters (from my perspective), that I guessed was the russian capsule.

    --
    Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
    1. Re:I think I saw them... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Couple centimeters when talking about radial distance is not a good choice. But BTW, you can quite easily estimate the distance - look at time passing between crossing the same spot for two objects, and remember they are moving at ~7.7 km/s.

      I saw them certainly that night, too; Progress being ~20 km (OK, I had the benefit of star background) in front.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  2. Seems a little funny... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It successfully docked on the second try by using the autonomous system instead.

    Why didn't they use the automated system in the first place? As a programmer I'd be a little pissed if I spent a lot of time working on a system as complicated as docking a shuttle, only to find out its second string to human piloting. Maybe it should be if the automated system fails, THEN try it with human interaction.

    1. Re:Seems a little funny... by adolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why didn't they use the automated system in the first place? As a programmer I'd be a little pissed if I spent a lot of time working on a system as complicated as docking a shuttle, only to find out its second string to human piloting. Maybe it should be if the automated system fails, THEN try it with human interaction.

      Why should they use the automated system in the first place? As an astronaut I'd be a little pissed if I spent my entire life working toward living on the space station and learning the intricacies of operating these sorts of crafts, only to find that my life's work is second string to a fucking computer. Maybe if human piloting fails, THEN try it with the automated systems.

      --
      Kid-proof tablet..
    2. Re:Seems a little funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you read the first article you'd know that they tried the automated system the first time but it couldn't hold a targeting lock on the ISS and they decided to abort the attempt.

      READING: It Teaches you Stuff!

    3. Re:Seems a little funny... by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As an astronaught I'd be a little grateful I made it into space in the first place, spending my entire life working towards living on the space station perhaps doing the stuff that a human is NEEDED for rather than the stuff technology is designed for. I mean the astronaughts themselves didn't do the calculations for the launch pattern, someone else did and trained them.

      When it comes to math, computers have consistently shown to be faster and more accurate.

      And this was just a perfect example on how the automated system worked. So, sorry if I put more trust in a computer to be more precise than a human, and I expect the best option to be undertaken. There isn't even a whole lot of glory with docking with the ISS, like there was with landing on the moon.

    4. Re:Seems a little funny... by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      The DID use the autonomous system in the first try! It got interference from some other equipment and bombed out. They turned it off and tried again.

           

    5. Re:Seems a little funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why should they use the automated system in the first place? As an astronaut I'd be a little pissed if I spent my entire life working toward living on the space station and learning the intricacies of operating these sorts of crafts, only to find that my life's work is second string to a fucking computer. Maybe if human piloting fails, THEN try it with the automated systems.

      Why should they use some ego driven head case in the first place? As a taxpayer I'd be a little pissed if I spent my entire life supporting the organization that created the space station and hoping for advanced knowledge to make my child's life better, only to find that my life's work is second string to a fucking pilot who needs his ego stroked even though the mathematicians and programmers on the ground already solved the problem. Maybe automated systems fail, THEN try it with the dickhead.

    6. Re:Seems a little funny... by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      Regards to Captain Dunsel.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    7. Re:Seems a little funny... by epp_b · · Score: 2, Funny

      My meme sense is tingling...

    8. Re:Seems a little funny... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Nobody's there to see your uber piloting skillz anyway. You're there do other things than mucking a day or two (including preparations / refreshing training) with something that can just as well be done automatically.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    9. Re:Seems a little funny... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      However, if you read the second article, it suggests that it was being brought in via remote control and the automated system on the Progress drone detected a problem transmitting the camera data and decided to break off.

      From the second article (my emphasis):

      Russian engineers suspect it was interference between the Progress vehicle remote control system on the International Space Station and a TV camera on the space freighter that forced the incoming spacecraft to abort its first approach on Friday.

      Futhermore:

      For Sunday's docking, Russian flight controllers opted to forgo any use of the remote control system, called the Telerobotically Operated Rendezvous Unit (TORU). Instead, they checked and rechecked the Progress 38's autonomous Kurs navigation system, as well as its backup system, to make sure the spacecraft was completely ready to dock itself at the space station.

      Reading the latest articles can teach you even more stuff!

    10. Re:Seems a little funny... by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      The cockpit crew on the next generation shuttle will consist of a pilot and a German Shepherd. The dog's purpose is to bite the pilot's hand off if he reaches for the controls.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    11. Re:Seems a little funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if human piloting fails, THEN try it with the automated systems.

      So...you're saying computers are superior to humans?

      Sully Sullenberger should have a few words with you.

    12. Re:Seems a little funny... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Why should F-16s use fly-by wire systems in the first place? AS a pilot I'd be pissed if I was presented with a plane that was unflyable except through computer aid.

      --
      Good-bye
    13. Re:Seems a little funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say send up the two of them in separate ships and let them compete - first one in the dock wins, the other gets auto-ejected into the sun.

    14. Re:Seems a little funny... by mavasplode · · Score: 1

      Maybe it should be if the automated system fails, THEN try it with human interaction.

      Maybe if human piloting fails, THEN try it with the automated systems.

      IF there are any humans or automated systems still intact. Some things you can't screw up. It would be a catastrophic failure if it occurred on landing. If it fails the first time, the backup probably won't be of much use.

      --
      ACTUAL SIZE!!!
    15. Re:Seems a little funny... by kav2k · · Score: 1

      Well, Russian TV news said that the reason for the first failure was an unidentified interference with manual control system, which probably overrided the auto system. On the second try, they disabled the manual system, and the auto system worked great. The procedure is always to try auto system first and switch to manual override only if it has problems.

    16. Re:Seems a little funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but what is an 'astronaught'?

    17. Re:Seems a little funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's true that computer don't have ego at all...

      Ok, it's a little offtopic, but by how much ?

    18. Re:Seems a little funny... by youn · · Score: 1

      I think they used the automated pilot because the human pilot had still not completely fully recovered from his hangover ,)

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    19. Re:Seems a little funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AS the pilot, you'd probably be more pissed if somebody turned off that FBW system in-flight, making your F-16 into a brick.

    20. Re:Seems a little funny... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but what is an 'astronaught'?

      "None of the above"

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  3. Humans in the loop by PPH · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Progress spacecraft detected interference between a remote control system on the ISS and Progress's camera. It successfully docked on the second try by using the autonomous system instead.

    So the autonomous system beats having humans in the loop. Explain to me why we need people in space again.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Humans in the loop by Reapman · · Score: 1

      Using your logic, I suppose when unmanned vehicles (such as some failed mars lander attempts) crash and burn, that proves we should not have robots in space?

    2. Re:Humans in the loop by bennomatic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Two words: space poo.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    3. Re:Humans in the loop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Explain to me why we need people in space again.

      Seriously? Maybe we don't need people in space, but there are people who want to go.

      What are you going to say? Sure you can parachute out of planes, dive to the bottom of the ocean, climb Mt. Everest, but you can't go into space because it's too dangerous?

    4. Re:Humans in the loop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the more humans we have in space, the greater the chance of space porno happening. I for one wonder if DVDA could be realized in zero g

    5. Re:Humans in the loop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain to me why the Russians have space travelling Cargo Ships?! That's badass - we're still using ancient space shuttle designs and they must be just retro-fitting their boats with like anti-gravity drives!

    6. Re:Humans in the loop by ceejayoz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Explain to me why we need people in space again.

      It amazes me that people ask this during the current oil spill, where remotely controlled robots have done fuck-all. Sometimes, if you can get a human's hands on the problem, it's dramatically useful.

    7. Re:Humans in the loop by Trent+Hawkins · · Score: 3, Funny

      Aren't those Robots remote controlled? Also, the Robots in Russia have unanimously agreed that nuking the oil pipe is the best option.

    8. Re:Humans in the loop by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      So the autonomous system beats having humans in the loop. Explain to me why we need people in space again.

      Because in the future we won't be mere tourists.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    9. Re:Humans in the loop by Nemilar · · Score: 1

      Because as a child, didn't you want to be an astronaut?

      OK, so you didn't actually become one. But didn't it help to spark your interest in science and technology?

      --
      Nemilar http://www.techthrob.com - Visit Me!
    10. Re:Humans in the loop by Nikola+Tesla+and+You · · Score: 1

      So the autonomous system beats having humans in the loop.

      In Soviet Russia, control systems pilot you!

    11. Re:Humans in the loop by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Interesting

      wow.. shame no-one actually answered your question..

      Short answer:

      http://quantumg.blogspot.com/2010/07/jeff-greason-answers-why-humans-in.html

      Longer answer:

      http://quantumg.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-space.html

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    12. Re:Humans in the loop by selven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Explain to me why we need people in space again.

      Because there are 6.7 billion people on a planet which can only sustain 4-5 billion, and we need to be practicing now if we want to be prepared for when we have to expand to new real estate.

    13. Re:Humans in the loop by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Two things:

      Remotely controlled and Automated are different things. Automated processes do not require humans, remotely controlled systems do. The robots in the oil spill are remotely controlled.

      Since it requires human hands on it, what have Deep Sea Divers done that has helped the oil spill recently?

    14. Re:Humans in the loop by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Hey, that system (used also on Soyuz; and on Progress used for fresh supplies) would be useless without people!

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    15. Re:Humans in the loop by sznupi · · Score: 1

      That's mostly a bad fantasy. For a long, long time the most efficient way will be just to keep this planet fine; with space efforts useful, but in a different way - satellites for Earth science or to guard off against impactors.

      Other than that - we've been in space for half a century and, essentially, none of the Space Age dreams have become a reality. With good reasons, we don't have the required technology, required energy.

      Now, if we would have them - we still wouldn't need to go into space in any large numbers. We would have everything on Earth, easier and more efficiently.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    16. Re:Humans in the loop by epp_b · · Score: 1

      You first: explain to me why some Italian guy should be carting off his ship across a huge ocean in search of some new land that he'll never find. What a waste, huh?

    17. Re:Humans in the loop by PPH · · Score: 1

      I'd expect robots to argue for the use of humans in those cases.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    18. Re:Humans in the loop by epp_b · · Score: 1

      It's a greater shame that I've already commented on this story and cannot use my mod points to bump your comment up as insightful.

    19. Re:Humans in the loop by maxume · · Score: 2, Informative

      He was on a spice run. And many of his contemporaries were pretty sure that he was underestimating the size of the planet.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    20. Re:Humans in the loop by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      So you're suggesting we'll be sending billions of people into space instead of the birth rate declining?

    21. Re:Humans in the loop by espiesp · · Score: 1

      Well, probably because human hands are pretty worthless at 5000 feet under water...

    22. Re:Humans in the loop by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      That's mostly a bad fantasy. For a long, long time the most efficient way will be just to keep this planet fine; with space efforts useful, but in a different way - satellites for Earth science or to guard off against impactors.

      Some of us like to dream of going somewhere else, exploring, not just sitting around waiting to get taken out by the first large asteroid or rogue black hole that wanders our way.

      Also, I'd rather aim for the stars and end up on Mars than aim for LEO and end up in yet another political debate over the latest religious squabble...

      Other than that - we've been in space for half a century and, essentially, none of the Space Age dreams have become a reality. With good reasons, we don't have the required technology, required energy.

      Well, it would probably have been easier to get something done if NASA and ESA had proper funding, but they don't, really.

      Now, if we would have them - we still wouldn't need to go into space in any large numbers. We would have everything on Earth, easier and more efficiently.

      It would be nice if we actually had the capability to do today what we could do 40 years ago though, like manned crafts leaving LEO...

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    23. Re:Humans in the loop by sznupi · · Score: 1

      I addressed protecting from asteroids... (and "rogue black hole" is such a remote possibility to be really insignificant - we are quite sure how small the chances of them disrupting star systems are, there are too many old binary star systems for that to be a threat; and direct impact is whole lot of orders of magnitude lower than that)

      It's one thing to dream about it, but another thing to actually do it (or work towards some goal in a sensible way). We won't be able for a long time. OK, thousands of individuals, to carry on the species, might be doable - within the confines of our system; but in this case it's better in almost all cases to simply save millions underground. If outside the system - we aren't going anywhere without new physics, even something as fundamental as the basic structure not surviving the journey / containers leaking everything stored inside will stop us. The only plausible scenario with a tech that's certainly within our reach is a colonization using embryos. But in this case nobody would be strictly "saved" anyway (as far as perceptions of people are concerned - even "those will be our children" probably would hardly work, such biological drives work mostly on the basis of "now and here"), giving huge problems with motivating people towards that goal (and there would be surely so called "moral issues" in sending (and training for it, perfecting how those surrogate mother robots work) such automated ships routinely, which would be required for them to succeed; NVM that one every decade or two would be still a very severe strain on the resources of humanity)

      NASA and ESA don't have "proper"(*) funding because doing most things is space is not viable in comparison with doing them here; sad, sure, but was really the point.

      And we do have the capability of manned crafts leaving LEO - Russia has few decades of experience operating a manned vehicle essentially capable of beyond-LEO operation. Hell, if you have 100 million bucks you can have a ride (those are people responsible so far for all private orbital spaceflight, except the first one to Mir around 1990). Doesn't seem to be much of a rush.

      (*) issue here isn't "proper" as far as roughly defined current goals go - I agree that NASA and ESA should get more funding towards them, especially since that's rather easy. But the issue here was about vastly different goals.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    24. Re:Humans in the loop by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      No need. We can barely feed everyone at the moment anyway. Pretty soon we'll farm the crap out of the land so much that it'll become infertile until there's a mass shift in the balance of the nitrogen cycle, for one. Nature has a way of culling large populations very effectively: Stopping stuff from growing.

      3% of the human body is nitrogen. Might need to bury a few before we can go back to stuffing ourselves with foie gras and prime rib.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    25. Re:Humans in the loop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What are you going to say? Sure you can parachute out of planes, dive to the bottom of the ocean, climb Mt. Everest, but you can't go into space because it's too dangerous?

      One of those is not like the others. Specifically, the last one is almost invariably funded by the taxpayer; the others are usually funded by the participant.

      "Because I want to" may be a sufficient reason to do it, but it isn't a sufficient reason for having the public fund it.

    26. Re:Humans in the loop by laughing_badger · · Score: 1

      can only sustain 4-5 billion

      Proof?

      --
      Help children born unable to swallow - www.tofs.org.uk
    27. Re:Humans in the loop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of those is not like the others. Specifically, the last one is almost invariably funded by the taxpayer; the others are usually funded by the participant.

      Dennis Tito, Mark Shuttleworth, Gregory Olsen, Anousheh Ansari, Charles Simonyi, Richard Garriott and Guy Laliberté all paid for their trips into space. You'll notice all those trips were courtesy of the Russian space agency, NASA's mission is too important to endanger it by sending civilians into orbit.

      On the other hand, NASA feels it's important to send school teachers into space.

    28. Re:Humans in the loop by selven · · Score: 1

      http://dieoff.org/page112.htm

      Specifically (emphasis mine):

      Carrying capacity today. Given current technologies, levels of consumption, and socioeconomic organization, has ingenuity made today's population sustainable? The answer to this question is clearly no, by a simple standard. The current population of 5.5 billion is being maintained only through the exhaustion and dispersion of a one-time inheritance of natural capital (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1990), including topsoil, groundwater, and biodiversity.

    29. Re:Humans in the loop by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      Since it requires human hands on it, what have Deep Sea Divers done that has helped the oil spill recently?

      Diving suits don't work down there. Space suits work fine on Mars, the Moon, etc.

  4. Gotta trust the Russians by bogaboga · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Nuff said!

  5. Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by damburger · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Progress, like any spacecraft, is a complex system. Things won't always go to plan - that said it has, like a lot of the old Russian hardware, a decent track record. This isn't the first time one has gone a but funky, but it is very far from the first time one has been sent up to a space station.

    These things have been supplying stations in LEO since 1978, but to hear the media tell it this is a flaky, experimental piece of equipment just waiting to go wrong, and the failure of just a single docking attempt might put the whole ISS program in danger.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    1. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Interesting

      These things have been supplying stations in LEO since 1978, but to hear the media tell it this is a flaky, experimental piece of equipment just waiting to go wrong, and the failure of just a single docking attempt might put the whole ISS program in danger.

      The Space Shuttle has been flying since 1982 - but according to the media it's a flaky experimental piece of equipment just waiting to go wrong.
       
      And you might ask the crew of Mir what a single docking attempt can result in.
       

      Progress, like any spacecraft, is a complex system. Things won't always go to plan - that said it has, like a lot of the old Russian hardware, a decent track record.

      It has pretty much the same track record as Soyuz and the Shuttle at about 98-99% reliable.

    2. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      That this even was reported on surprises me. Are we going to get a media scare every time they don't do something on the first attempt, and instead rely on their back-ups? This is nearly as bad as the JAXA scandal!

    3. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The American media still love to jab the Russians. It's an old, childish resentment going back to the Cold War and the space race. Even today, you'll find thousands of American-made documentaries about the space race in which the Soviets are only mentioned as an afterthought (even though they pioneered almost every space "first" from 1957-1969). I've only seen one English documentary that even tried to deal seriously with the Soviet space program (and, of course, you can't buy it in the U.S., it was only released in Region 2 and only aired once in the U.S., on the National Geographic Channel)

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by GooberToo · · Score: 0, Troll

      even though they pioneered almost every space "first" from 1957-1969).

      Except they didn't. America literally had rockets and satellites placed in storage waiting for Russia to catch up. America understood the potential for intelligence gathering and desperately hoped the Russians would play into their hands. They did with the launch of Sputnik which created a precedence of allowing a foreign satellite from a foreign power to overfly another sovereign nation. Had America been first to actually execute, they feared the Russians would make a huge international incident about any overflights and would therefore establish an international precedent of it being illegal.

      American was literally two or more years AHEAD of Russia in almost everything that mattered, right out of the gate. And their plan worked like a champ. The only thing they failed to account for in their plan was the American backlash against the incorrect perception of the Russians being years, if not decades, ahead of the US in space technology, after the launch of Sputnik went public.

      The simple fact is, the Russians have almost always been far, far behind of the US in almost anything space related.

    5. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Source?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by damburger · · Score: 1

      Yes, so its *partial* failure isn't some kind of ZOMG SKY IS FALLING NO MORE SPACEFLIGHT event. The only reason it was so with shuttle failures is because human lives were lost and thus answers were required before proceeding.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    7. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by damburger · · Score: 1

      LMFAO

      Super sekret plan to trick the Russians? Bullshit. Show some evidence outside your redneck survivalist conspiracy websites. The R7 derivatives kicked the arse of the Redstone and Vanguard rockets - and that is a historical fact I dare you to disprove.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    8. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      It has pretty much the same track record as Soyuz and the Shuttle at about 98-99% reliable.

      Except Soyuz made three times less casualties while transporting 6-7 times more humans.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    9. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Uh... Ok mod me down, I inverted two lines. Failure rates are similar (slightly lower for Soyuz)

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    10. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      It has pretty much the same track record as Soyuz and the Shuttle at about 98-99% reliable.

      Except Soyuz made three times less casualties while transporting 6-7 times more humans.

      ROTFLMAO, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Hint: Shuttle, 120 odd flights with an average crew of 5+. Soyuz, 90 odd flights with an average crew of 3. You do the math.

      On top of which, the number of people killed is roughly as relevant as the number of times someone has flown into space wearing orange underwear. (For the terminally clueless like yourself that means "not fucking relevant at all".)

    11. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by GooberToo · · Score: 0, Troll

      LMFAO

      Super sekret plan to trick the Russians? Bullshit. Show some evidence outside your redneck survivalist conspiracy websites. The R7 derivatives kicked the arse of the Redstone and Vanguard rockets - and that is a historical fact I dare you to disprove.

      LMFAO!

      If only you understood how much of a fucking idiot you look like now!

      The launch of Sputnik effectively ended those concerns by establishing a precedent that national boundaries did not extend into space.

      In July 1955, President Dwight Eisenhower proposed an "Open Skies" policy whereby either nation would be allowed to fly reconnaissance aircraft over the other. He did that because they were nearing completion of their rocket which would be capable for orbital range and velocities.

      Von Braun: I actually had the satellite in the trunk of my car; in 1957 Von Braun so was pissed by the order directly from Eisenhower to stop and mothball development, he continued development in secret but ALSO built the satellite despite presidential order to the contrary.


      Tomorrow night PBS's NOVA will air Sputnik Declassified, which tells the story of how the U. S. could have beaten the Soviets into space, had it not been for military spy priorities that wanted the Soviets to, indeed, be first, thus establishing a precedent for our planned spy satellites that were very soon to map every Soviet ICBM launch site without fanfare or public pronouncement.

      Vanguard was given the green light while Von Braun's project was mothballed by the president. Immediately after Vanguard's failure, Von Braun's project was removed from storage, prepped for launch, and launched. Their design worked right out of storage; having been placed there over a year before Sputnik's launch.

      LMFAO! What a fucking idiot!!!! LOL!!!

      Why are stupid people so fucking stupid they can't even bother to use something magical like a search engine - which is there EXACTLY for this fucking reason - to allow you to stop being so fucking stupid and lazy! What a fucking loser!

      Now then, take your smug head out from your ass and think for but one second of your life. After the Russian's telling the US to piss off and that overflights would absolutely NOT be allowed, what would the world look like now had the US been the first to orbit? Absolutely NOTHING like the open sky policy the world currently enjoys today.

      Basically, history, facts, people of high renown, and common sense all say you're a fucking idiot.

    12. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      The US government. Reams of paperwork. Von Braun. All the people working on the project. The US Air Force.

      I must admit, of all places, I expected this FACT to be much more widely known. Especially since it wasn't modded up. The only thing I messed up was the time line. They were ready to go roughly a year before sputnik - not two or more as I originally asserted.

    13. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The only thing those sources point out is that Eisenhower had mothballed Von Braun's research project in the 50's. That was well known. But that's a LONG way from saying the U.S. already had superior technology throughout the space race and was just hiding it out in some secret warehouse (presumably with the aliens spaceship from Rosewell and the Lost Ark). Von Braun may have been able to put a satellite up earlier if he had adequate funding and support, or maybe not. We'll never know. All we know for sure is that he DIDN'T, and that once his project was restarted it took him years to catch up to the Soviets.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    14. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      The only thing those sources point out is that Eisenhower

      No, those prove you need to learn to read. I fucking quoted a portion which is reporting on entire documentary which proves everything I said. And the quote about the show says every fucking thing I said. Holy shit! Learn to fucking read AND COMPREHEND!

      There are even videos on some of the links but I'm now sure on what they actually report.

      Holy shit! If I type slower will you be able to comprehend it?

    15. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I seems /. didn't like an edit I made and it decided to eat one of the links.

      Basically if you can't figure out everything I said, minus the minor mistake in timeline, from the provided material, you have zero reading/learning comprehension. This isn't about reading between the lines. Its about simply reading and comprehension - or perhaps watching a video. Either way, if you don't have the same conclusion as to what I asserted, you dumb and lazy. Period.

      And since you clearly do have reading comprehension problems, here are the videos on You Tube. So there's no excuses for not learning the truth; despite your learning problems and laziness.

    16. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      You're a nutball. None of your those sources say any such thing (none of the credible ones anyway). Time to take off the tin-foil hat. I'm not continuing this discussion anymore, as it's pointless to try to reason with your kind.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    17. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by damburger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Idiot.

      Yes, von Braun *might* have been able to trump Sputnik with a Redstone - but a Redstone is a far smaller rocket, basically just a stretched V-2. Anyone arguing that Redstone is a more advanced rocket than the R-7 series is someone lacking a basic knowledge of rocket science.

      Your random googling of PBS documentary is not evidence, you complete tool. The idea that this was some cunning ploy by the US to fool the Russians, and that US rocket technology was simply superior in the late 1950s, is not supported by facts.

      You are proposing a completely ridiculous revisionist history, that even NASA and the US government don't hold to. Go to fucking Cape Caneveral you total retard - they will tell you the US didn't start to take the lead until Gemini.

      --
      If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
    18. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by Dr.Syshalt · · Score: 1

      All failed Soyuz flights have happened more than 30 years ago, due to some bad design mistakes that were corrected, and there were no human casualties since then. OTOH Shuttles still tend to blow up and take all those 5+ crews with them even in 21st century.

    19. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by identity0 · · Score: 1

      This is nearly as bad as the JAXA scandal!

      Just curious, what scandal is that?

    20. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      All failed Soyuz flights have happened more than 30 years ago, due to some bad design mistakes that were corrected, and there were no human casualties since then.

      That's true - but only important if you're ignorant enough to believe that a problem can be ignored until it kills someone. On the other hand, if you aren't so ignorant, you'll note that Soyuz has an ongoing pattern of failures and problems.
       

      OTOH Shuttles still tend to blow up and take all those 5+ crews with them even in 21st century.

      But at a rate no worse and no better than any other space vehicle - thus 'tend to' is an ignorant exaggeration as no intelligent person would call a 1-2% rate a trend.

    21. Re:Idiotic media coverage of a non-event by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      The scandal that the probe went all the way to an asteroid, landed, took off and flew all the way back, landed here (!) and may not have managed to get a sample (though more recent news hints at dust in the sample container). It did all those individually amazing things, but still had nothing to show for it.

  6. Performance by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    detected interference between a remote control system on the ISS and Progress's camera

    Can''t perform on camera, huh. Wont make a very good porn star with that attitude.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  7. It seems a little funnier by socheres · · Score: 1

    lulz they docked on the 4th of July ;)
    and the the first try thy say was not a fail but a failsafe system functioning properly.

    You gotta give it up to both russian humour and diplomacy

  8. There was a NASA quote from the apollo days... by Ga_101 · · Score: 1

    "No Buck Rogers, no bucks."

    I think that answers your question.

    1. Re:There was a NASA quote from the apollo days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "No Buck Rogers, no bucks."

      I think that answers your question.

      Actually it was the reverse, "No bucks, no Buck Rogers."

  9. You wouldn't last on the Enterprise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Captain Picard insists that ever 1st Officer be able to reconnect to the saucer manually, no automation. You might be better off doing scut work on a garbage scow, slinging drinks on Babylon 5 or picking up tricks on the Kessel Run.

  10. Where? At the Sizzler? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PICS or it didn't GTFO onto her face!

  11. Automated docking system by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

    If I remember correctly, Soyuz and Progress originally didn't have manual docking system, and used automated one to dock with Salyut and Mir. Then, probably to provide more flexibility in emergency situations, manual system was introduced on Mir, and in initial tests it was less reliable than automated one. That was a long time ago, so I guess, manual system was fixed, but automated one remained in use.

    Why was manual system involved on the first docking attempt is a mystery for me -- it would make little sense to use it when automated docking is available, and known to work after decades of successful use.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  12. New meaning for Independence Day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Freedom from astronauts!