Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hiccup In Space: Orbital Sciences ISS Docking Delayed By Days

Posted by timothy on from the no-one-can-hear-a-hiccup-there-totally-proven dept.

Reuters has a quick report that "[a] software glitch will delay Orbital Sciences' trial cargo ship from reaching the International Space Station until Tuesday, officials said on Sunday. The company's Cygnus capsule, which blasted off Wednesday from Virginia for a test flight, had been scheduled to reach the station on Sunday. ... Orbital Sciences said it had found the cause of the data discrepancy and was developing a software fix. ... The next opportunity for the capsule to rendezvous and dock with the station will be on Tuesday." The WSJ has a more detailed article, and notes "The mission is a challenge for Orbital, which has invested more than five years and about $500 million of its own funds to develop a commercial-cargo capability. But it also presents a dramatic test of NASA's plans to outsource to industry all U.S. resupply missions to the space station. The agency has paid Orbital about $285 million to spur development of the Cygnus and Antares rocket system."

27 of 51 comments (clear)

  1. It's Rocket Science, folks. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    Not much else to add except that the linked WSJ article seemed rather... well... brief (available to subscribers only)

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  2. Re:In space... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    You also can't smell the Musk on this spacecraft from your spacesuit.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  3. Wow by fermion · · Score: 1, Redundant
    Company makes a significant error and jeopardizes it's own investment, not to mention hundred of millions of taxpayer funds. Not that NASA does not make mistakes, but some companies will not survive the initial shake out because they make too many mistakes.

    As others have said, this is rocket science, and rocket science has the reputation it does for a reason.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:Wow by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      jeopardizes ... hundred of millions of taxpayer funds.

      Bring the main hyperbole cannon on line! Maybe you could dial back the rhetoric to 11.

    2. Re:Wow by Teancum · · Score: 4, Informative

      As others have said, this is rocket science, and rocket science has the reputation it does for a reason.

      Building something that gets into orbit successfully, much less performing a rendezvous with another object already in orbit, is something that has such a thin margin of error that almost anything can prevent success and a whole lot of things can cause a failure.

      I see this more as a glass is half-full kind of thing where it is just freaking amazing that Orbital has been able to get this far and even get near the ISS, much less be in a position to actually dock. Not only that, but this is the very first time that this launch vehicle + spacecraft has done something like this. And you expect it to be perfect on the very first try?

      The cargo itself isn't all that valuable BTW, so "hundreds of millions of taxpayer funds" are not on the line. Orbital is only going to be paid for cargo delivered, although NASA did send them some money earlier for meeting previous manufacturing objectives. It should also be pointed out that Orbital wasn't even the original contractor who was supposed to be taking cargo into space, but rather Kistler Aerospace. NASA justifiably dumped that service contract and awarded it instead to Orbital after some pretty stiff competition from some other very worthy alternatives.

      If anything, it sure is a heck of a lot cheaper in terms of the few hundred million dumped into the COTS program than the tens of billions that have been wasted on Constellation and SLS, where there has yet to be anything even close to flying. Those were both programs that were supposed to be operational before the Space Shuttle flights ended, but instead won't even be considered for an initial flight before 2017, and likely will be delayed well past 2020. Without this program, the $100+ billion dumped on the ISS would be wasted because the ISS would have to be splashed by now. That 1000x difference in orders of magnitude for these programs really makes the amount spent by NASA on Orbital to be real chump change and insignificant, especially with the results that have already been earned by Orbital.

    3. Re:Wow by Teancum · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I should add that the items in the Cygnus spacecraft is mainly a bunch of food, what amounts to be toilet paper for the sanitary facilities in the ISS, personal items for the astronauts on this and future missions, and a new computer printer to replace one that broke down on board the station as well as some minor spare parts needed for station maintenance.

      You would be hard pressed to find this whole load of cargo to be worth more than a hundred thousand dollars, although its value is important for the people on the ISS and the fact that it is so expensive to haul anything up to that altitude. Hopefully a competitive cargo delivery service can improve that cost as an issue.

    4. Re:Wow by alexander_686 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, this is a test run. As such nothing critical is on board. The first Dragon payload was the same thing – low priority stuff that would not be missed in case of failure.

    5. Re:Wow by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      jeopardizes ... hundred of millions of taxpayer funds.

      Bring the main hyperbole cannon on line! Maybe you could dial back the rhetoric to 11.

      $285 million sounds like hundreds of millions to me.

      Sounds like small cheese compared to what was thrown down the rat-hole with Solyndra, et al. And when IS Obama-backing GE going to pay taxes? Ever again?

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  4. "The glitch is fixed!" by tlambert · · Score: 4, Funny

    "We have the glitch fixed!"

    "Outstanding! Resume ramming speed!"

    1. Re:"The glitch is fixed!" by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      You realise that the "I" in ISS stands for "international" so Russia doing some of the work doesn't really mean that NASA is outsourcing.

      --
      Is 1563649 a prime number?
  5. Shit, I always mess up some mundane detail by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    It's not a software bug, it's a "data discrepancy" that software will "fix".

    1. Re:Shit, I always mess up some mundane detail by confused+one · · Score: 1

      The purchased the interface for the docking datalink. Apparently the values being returned did not match the expected format. Boils down to testing, essentially.

    2. Re:Shit, I always mess up some mundane detail by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Testing, smeshting, light the damned thing up. What is this, science or somethin'?

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    3. Re:Shit, I always mess up some mundane detail by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Seriously, you guys need to stop camouflageing the metric system with these silly inches and pounds nonsense.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  6. Extended downtime on the forums... by osu-neko · · Score: 1

    No doubt this is a result of the extended downtime on the forums. They need to download the latest MechJeb and they can't until the forums are back online...

    --
    "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
  7. Re:Cargo my ass... by Teancum · · Score: 1

    So a company who is launching satellites for the military is also delivering cargo to the International Space Station. Did I miss something?

    Or do you really think that the ISS is a part of some global conspiracy to conquer the Earth?

  8. Re:Cargo my ass... by stoploss · · Score: 1

    So a company who is launching satellites for the military is also delivering cargo to the International Space Station. Did I miss something?

    Or do you really think that the ISS is a part of some global conspiracy to conquer the Earth?

    I think what djupedal is saying is, why conquer the Earth when you can hold the nations hostage and demand ONE... MILLION... DOLLARS?

  9. New or old data link format? by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's a data link between the ISS and docking vehicles. A new version of that was developed recently. Here's the presentation on that. But it doesn't seem to be operational yet. NASA has been talking about the new C2V2 system for years, and commercial spacecraft were supposed to be designed to use it. But it's not ready yet.

    So Space-X and Orbital Sciences had to also develop a temporary capability to use the old automated docking system, which, I think, is derived from the Soviet-era Kursk system.

    1. Re: New or old data link format? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If I only had mod points, or an account.

      ...or something interesting to say.

    2. Re:New or old data link format? by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Informative

      iirc OS capsule just goes close enough and then they dock it with the robot arm.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  10. Hahahaha by porcinist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I worked on this program a few years ago. This doesn't shock me at all. It was a clusterfuck from beginning to end. OSC managers had no clue how to do software development on this kind of program. OSC is mostly a testament to value of lobbying over competence. This is also in line with how things have gone with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbiting_Carbon_Observatory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(satellite) Here is the really good one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DART_(satellite) Orbital science crashed two satellites trying something almost identical in 2005!

  11. NASA was not a success from the jump. by ralphaostrander · · Score: 1

    It took them time to get it all in one bag and shit still goes wrong the nature of infant space voyages.

  12. Re:Open the pod bay doors HAL! by khallow · · Score: 1

    Our cheap energy is running out and the value of putting people into tin cans in low Earth orbit will be highly questionable. Your fantasies will be totally impractical by then.

    The Sun outputs roughly 4*10^26 watts of power, all of it free for the taking. And the Earth intercepts a part of that.

    Also, we'll just have to find other sources of cheap energy.

    As to who owns what in the Solar System, I'll just wait and see what happens. The US doesn't have a lock on space development nor is it doing much for the vast sums it spends on space development.

  13. Re:Open the pod bay doors HAL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    "The Sun outputs roughly 4*10^26 watts of power, all of it free for the taking."

    Your definition of "free" seems to include massive technologies that simply don't exist, and if they did would require the resources of several Earths to use.... Very interesting use of the word "free".

    Here's how I would use the word: your posts are fact-free. How you like that you uncritical Space Nutter?

  14. Re:Open the pod bay doors HAL! by khallow · · Score: 1

    Your definition of "free" seems to include massive technologies that simply don't exist

    Like a tree.

    Here's how I would use the word: your posts are fact-free.

    I note two facts in my so-called "fact-free" post, the power output of the Sun and that no one is charging you to use energy from the Sun. Two things is not zero things.

  15. Re:Cargo my ass... by fuzzywig · · Score: 1

    Pretty much every space launch company in the US does work for the DoD/NRO if they can. Military contracts are where the big money is.

  16. Re:Open the pod bay doors HAL! by khallow · · Score: 1

    You mean the things that grow on this planet only

    And which need only a degree of gravity, sunlight, and the right mix of nutrients. Those can all exist elsewhere just as they do on Earth.