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."

17 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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.

    5. Re:Seems a little funny... by epp_b · · Score: 2, Funny

      My meme sense is tingling...

  2. 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 bennomatic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Two words: space poo.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    2. 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?

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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.
  3. 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 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?