Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russian Cargo Spacehip Declared Lost

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the all-gone dept.

schwit1 writes: The Russians have declared lost the Progress freighter that had been launched to the ISS yesterday. They never could regain control of the craft, plus it was in an incorrect orbit. Moreover, the U.S. Air Force has detected debris nearby, suggesting a significant failure of some kind. The Russians are now considering delaying the next manned launch, scheduled for May 26, while they investigate this failure. Both Soyuz and Progress use some of the same systems, including the radar system that failed on Progress, and they want to make sure the problem won't pop up on the manned mission. At the same time, they are also considering advancing the launch date of the next Progress to ISS from August 6. Based on these reports, I think they might swap the launch dates for the two flights. A Dragon is scheduled to go to ISS in between these missions, though that schedule could be changed as well to accommodate the Russian plans.

108 comments

  1. Well... by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    So much for the superiority of Russian rockets
    Maybe they can make nice with Ukraine and get them to build some for them

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
    1. Re:Well... by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      But 7 astronauts didn't die due to the snafu; only their dinner.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:Well... by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, I'll give you that one. Of course it would not have been an issue for us either if we were still using 1960's technology
      Just imagine how much mass we could have launched into orbit by now if we sunk all of the Shuttle money into Saturn V's

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    3. Re:Well... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Soyuz has killed its own astronauts. Progress is an unmanned Soyuz.

      Crew Dragon and Falcon will kill astronauts too. Much as I cheer for SpaceX and hope for a wonderful future, this really is rocket science and people will die. That is the price we pay.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    4. Re:Well... by swb · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting idea. Could we have used all the shuttle money to have launched enough stuff to have a huge space station in orbit by now, possibly with a large interplanetary ship we assembled in space?

      Or does stuff in space kind of rot away into unusableness and what we'd really have is a huge floating derelict that wouldn't be fixable?

    5. Re:Well... by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 2, Informative

      NASA drew up all sorts of plans for Space Stations, NERVA based space craft, etc all based on the idea that they would have an impressive ability to launch material into orbit.

      The break-even point for cost and materials between the Shuttle and Saturn V was one Shuttle launch a week, a number that we never came close to attaining.

      I remember the Skylab, which was a school-bus sized space station that could go up with a single Saturn V launch that stayed in orbit for six years even though we only occupied it for six months

      Imagine if we were putting a quarter million lbs of gear into orbit a few times a year. Now THAT would be a space program

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    6. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But to be fair, you can count the number of fatal incidents involving Soyuz over the last 40 years on one hand (give or take a few fingers). That's pretty good compared to a lot of endeavors, even ones less inherently dangerous than spaceflight.

      Here's hoping that SpaceX fatalities will be exceedingly rare.

    7. Re:Well... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2

      Saturn V is the ride to orbit, not the vehicle for the astronauts. You can't just count the cost of Saturn V against the shuttle, you need to count the cost of one or more vehicles that were never built, because the Apollo would not have been sufficient to the task.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    8. Re:Well... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      You have to learn to walk before you can run. SpaceX experience with unnamed launches will hopefully build up to manned launch quality.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    9. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All of these recent failues (including the U.S. ones) give some insight
      into the Apollo program's amazing success (except for 13) in the U.S.

      Space ain't easy, completely unforgiving, and rude!

    10. Re:Well... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      That's an interesting idea. Could we have used all the shuttle money to have launched enough stuff to have a huge space station in orbit by now, possibly with a large interplanetary ship we assembled in space?

      Actually, we could have taken the orbiter main tanks to orbit, they had enough fuel lying around in them when we were done with them to do that. There was a proposal to do it and everything.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like they'll be needing a trampoline to get their supplies up now!

    12. Re:Well... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Which is why China may well become a future leading nation in manned space research. When America loses a few astronauts, they shut down the program for the best part of a decade and spend hundreds of millions in investigation and refinement. When China loses someone, they'll carry on with the next launch while investigating quietly, then hold a ceremony to remember the patriotic sacrifice and remind the people what those lives were risked for.

    13. Re: Well... by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      I would have to say that spacex is already manned quality. Even their F9 was designed with numerous sensors and the ability to shut down an engine or more while completing the mission. All that remains is PROVING dragon's ability to abort.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    14. Re: Well... by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      In fact, as musk says that if we do not lose somebody, it means we are not pushing enough.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    15. Re: Well... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Then that will be a lot of dead taikonauts. Corruption and deceit run deep in Chinese industries. Material failure isn't an option, nor should orbiting coffins.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    16. Re:Well... by tsqr · · Score: 1

      All of these recent failues (including the U.S. ones) give some insight into the Apollo program's amazing success (except for 13) in the U.S.

      If you're looking for Apollo failures, Apollo 1 was rather more significant as failures go than Apollo 13. At least in 13, nobody died.

    17. Re:Well... by thrich81 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Modded up by somebody but contradicted by the facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.... After the loss of Challenger there was a gap of 2 years 8 months until the next Shuttle launch. After the loss of Columbia there was a gap of 2 years 6 months until the next Shuttle launch. Neither of which qualifies as "the best part of a decade". Prudent amounts of time to do the investigation of failure of such a complex and expensive system and implement changes to reasonably reduce risk of another loss going forward. Even during the space race days of Apollo when greater risks were accepted, the gap between the planned launch of Apollo 1 and the actual flight of Apollo 7 was 1 year 8 months. Anyone who tries to go quicker or tries to cheap out on the investigation after a loss is likely to lose another crew shortly thereafter which will really shut a program down.

    18. Re:Well... by tlambert · · Score: 2

      You have to learn to walk before you can run.

      It's a trite aphorism.

      I'd point out that in order to run a marathon, you have to train for a marathon. Walking is not a very suitable means of doing this.

    19. Re:Well... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      All of these recent failues (including the U.S. ones) give some insight into the Apollo program's amazing success (except for 13) in the U.S.

      Umm, Apollo had two failures (1 & 13). Out of 17 Apollos (not all of which carried crew). So a failure rate of 11% or so....

      As opposed to Shuttle's failure rate (two shuttles of 133 flights) of 1.5%.

      Admittedly, Soyuz also had two failures, of 117 flights (as I recall - could be off by a few), which amounted to a failure rate of 1.7% or so.

      Oh, look! Shuttle had a lower failure rate than either Apollo or Soyuz! How is that possible?!

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    20. Re:Well... by cmorriss · · Score: 0

      Yeah, yeah. I've been hearing this crap for a while. Putting China's ability to not give a crap about its people on a pedestal as something to be revered and voted as insightful no less. The U.S. space program has accomplished more than all other countries combined with respect to space exploration. We've even become so good at it that companies are now solely taking over many of the near earth tasks that used to be solely in the realm of NASA and its cost+ contracts. We'll have vacationers on Mars before China gets a taikonaut there.

      I mean, what has China done other than try to launch a few people into very limited space missions and a simple probe to the moon. The U.S. has gone far beyond this and will continue to be decades ahead for the foreseeable future.

      --
      10 minutes working on a sig. What a waste.
    21. Re:Well... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      It's said that making a mistake in manufacturing work on equipment for the Russian space program could have consequences a lot worse than just being fired.

      It's true that we place more value on lives of famous astronauts lost than we place on all of those people inconveniently freezing to death because they have nowhere to sleep but our city sidewalks, etc. Nobody's holding a years-long investigation about them.

      And I am totally, totally pissed off at all of the news coverage that goes to a few westerners killed on Everest compared to the 10,000 little people who got buried alive in Nepal.

      But I am not sure any of this says a thing about what nation will lead in space.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    22. Re:Well... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      When America loses a few astronauts, they shut down the program...

      Actually that may be a good thing. Robot probes are far better science for the buck. Let other nations do the costly and risky "tests" on humans in space.

      With the same money, we could have soon* had robotic probes visiting nearby stars and their planets by now traveling in nuclear powered rockets going 15% the speed of light.

      And a boat probe on a Titan lake, a submarine bot in Europa, rock samples from Mars and Venus, etc. etc. etc.

      We'll be watching a Titan cruse on our living room TV's in our pajamas while their x-nauts are roasting on a wayward re-entry or suffocating during an oxygen mishap. Few care if a bot occasionally dies.

      * If we had launched such a probe in the mid 70's, then it could just about be arriving at the nearest stars at 15c.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    23. Re:Well... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2

      I'd point out that in order to run a marathon, you have to train for a marathon. Walking is not a very suitable means of doing this.

      When training for a marathon, walking is a very good training step when you are a 1 year old human.
      WRT to space flight, we are at the 1 year old human stage. We've taken a couple of hundred 'steps'. Not quite mastered the concept yet.

    24. Re:Well... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      You do know that science isn't the only reason to go to space, don't you?

      There is the issue of continuing the existence of the Human race, and whatever other life we choose to bring with us.

      Planets and suns aren't sure things, you know. We sort of take ours for granted, but there is the evidence of the sky around us. And the ominous silence of a galaxy that should be filled with intelligent life...

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    25. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You call that a Saturn V? I call that a roman candle.

    26. Re: Well... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Corruption and deceit run deep in Chinese industries.

      They also don't hesitate to shoot people, especially when something public and embarrassing happens. I'd think that there wouldn't be all that much dishonesty in the space program as opposed to say, dog food for export.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    27. Re:Well... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Planets and suns aren't sure things, you know. We sort of take ours for granted, but there is the evidence of the sky around us. And the ominous silence of a galaxy that should be filled with intelligent life...

      Well unless you're planning to live underground and powering your colony by magic, there's nowhere even near hospitable in this solar system. And you can forget traveling to any other star system. So yeah, we sort of ARE stuck here.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    28. Re:Well... by trout007 · · Score: 1

      You are right. It didn't even slow them down when they killed about 500 people due to crappy range safety.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    29. Re:Well... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      So a failure rate of 11% or so....

      Ahh numbers. Yeah, as far as the crew of Apollo 1 is concerned, the failure rate was 100%.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    30. Re:Well... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      We are far from ready to colonize space. It's my opinion we need to wait for technology to catch up to make it practical. We are prematurely blowing our wad.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    31. Re:Well... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Robot probes are far better science for the buck

      The Apollo manned missions returned 2200 moon rocks, soil, and core samples weighing 382 kilograms. Soviet lunar probes returned 2 samples of soil weighing 0.362 kilograms. The Apollo program cost $20 billion. The Luna program's estimated cost was $4.5 billion.

      So we spent 4.5x the money and got 1000x the samples. Whether the "science" was better because of this is debatable, but at least by one measure, your theory doesn't necessarily pan out.

      To me, the advantage of probes is that, individually, they are easier, cheaper and quicker than a manned mission. If I were a middle-aged scientist wishing to confirm a theory about Mars, I'd rather have a probe that would arrive in 8 years than I waiting another 30 years and, assuming I was physically able to make the trip, be able to test out my theory on the surface of the planet.

    32. Re:Well... by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I'd count Apollo 1 as a flight incident, there wasn't even fuel in the rest of the rocket. It was a training/simulation accident, more of a systems integration failure than a flight accident. So in my view Apollo only suffered ONE serious in flight failure and even though we nearly lost the crew, this failure only really cost the mission. As a system it's record is pretty darned good, considering how far out on the bleeding edge of technology it was in it's day.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    33. Re:Well... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      I am not confident that the world will remain a hospitable place for life until we are ready by your standard.

      Getting the resources and people there is very close to being within our technical capability. The task ourselves, if we perform it, will take care of the remaining gaps.

      Creating a self-sustaining colony outside of the Earth's environment is going to need a lot of work, but it is not work that can ever be achieved on this earth. We have to actually put people in space to achieve this. Our best experience so far is with submarines. Academic research has so far yielded only farcial frauds like Biosphere II.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    34. Re:Well... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The long-run difference is that China does not give up on technology after a failure occurs. They learn by it and press on. Lately, we have been giving up even when the failure is totally imaginary (No GMOs because Jenny McCarthy!). That's why they have a functioning network of bullet trains while we don't.

    35. Re:Well... by dbIII · · Score: 2

      So you are comparing 50+ years of work kickstarted by even earlier stuff (Von Braun's body is a moulderin' in the ground so we aint got the moon no more) with something that started relatively recently?
      Blind patriotism is good for parades, but for this not so much, because the Chinese are going to use Russian, European and American stuff to get the job done just like Americans are using Russian stuff now.

    36. Re: Well... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      The Apple Watch just suffered a massive setback. There's a component failure that's traced to China. Japanese side seems just fine.

      Ok, so lives weren't directly on the line, but the livelyhood of the employees were. When you fuckup with Apple, there are no second chances. In fact, this has to anger CCP officials very much.

      Taking action after the fact means squat; especially if it's a habitual cultural attitude against excellence and quality.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    37. Re:Well... by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      China's space program is several decades old, kickstarted by missile programs in the 50s, and drawing significantly on Soviet help and designs. Their first human in orbit was 12 years ago (note that NASA sent people to the moon in less time after its first person in orbit). For all that time and help, it's not very impressive. They're behind India in unmanned flight and not showing any apparent progress in manned flight. Occasionally publishing ambitious papers saying they want to go to the moon/mars doesn't count.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    38. Re:Well... by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Astronauts are expensive. They have highly valuable skills and training is costly.
      Even if you neglect the value of human life, it is still a huge loss. And you'd better make sure it doesn't happen again.

    39. Re:Well... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      note that NASA sent people to the moon in less time

      WTF? Do you really know so little about modern history that you do not know why? If you do, it's pretty fucking insulting to assume I do not and pull a fast one just so you can blow some patriotic bugle or similar shit.
      It's all a flimsy excuse to compare apples to aardvarks anyway. It's funny how you are comparing it to NASA in the 1960s and not the modern, much smaller, internationally spread NASA of today.

    40. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not what your dad said last night.

    41. Re:Well... by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      there's nowhere even near hospitable in this solar system

      Thats why you build it and launch it into space.

      One day billions of human beings will live on millions of space stations, each its own island in the void between your limited only-gravity-wells imagination.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    42. Re:Well... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Actually I was thinking nuclear power rather than magic.

      I agree with the other commenter, there will be lots of people living in space if they can only get there. Mars is a good start.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    43. Re: Well... by MenThal · · Score: 1

      Any self-respecting nerd on this site can count to 31 on one hand. Assuming a few fingers means 2 to 3, that increases to 128 and 256 respectively... Not a good ballpark nor trackrecord.

      "So, how about, I give you the finger... And you give me an actual damn number and a source citation? "

    44. Re:Well... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      We could send up a shuttle to retrieve it ... oh ... mothballs.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    45. Re:Well... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Never mind a marathon, have you ever watched a near-toddler learning learning to "walk"?

      After they manage to reliably lever themselves up on to two feet, they kinda tip forwards and hurtle towards whatever they want to reach at the best speed they can make which is something approaching a dead run (not like an adult sprint, but it's not like an adult walk either).

      This usually leads to them crashing into something and falling over, though they generally only cry if an adult can see them.

      So, in fact kids pretty much learn to run as the first thing and actually learning an efficient wallk comes a lot later.

      And I certainly agree about the marathon (I've only run 13 miles, but the point stands). I used ot take off and get rapidly out of breath. These days I can run 10k cold (having not done any running or indeed exercise in about 3-4 months), mostly because I have learned how to run and pace myself. It took quite a lot of practice and yes, walking didn't help at all.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    46. Re:Well... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      What for? Ukrainian plumbing is probably responsible for the Antares failure last year. Besides, I don't think Ukraine can build this kind of hi tech anymore since they've sold everything they have inherited from the USSR in the past 25 years. Yuzhmash - the one who built Zenit you've mentioned - might close soon, for years they have been earning more money with repairing and building trolley buses than with rockets. I was in Ukraine last week (know some people there and am interested in the aerospace as any self respecting nerd). The country is in a sorry state, those who can flee, do so. The largest part of their industry is totally dependent on Russian orders and with the that kind of ongoing pissing contest the orders won't come.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    47. Re:Well... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      But 7 astronauts didn't die due to the snafu

      Not yet. They don't seem to know where it is, so who knows what it could bump into.

      I'm a bitt worried, because I'm posting right now from from the IS$. '@Ã: m:;,:
      no carrier

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    48. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The numbers on the ISS paint an interesting picture. It masses about 450 thousand kilograms, which is about the weight of thirty city buses, and has the internal volume of about 15 city buses (only about twice that of Skylab). That's a surprising density really, but I suppose it's to be expected given the limited dimensions of the modules that it's made of (limited by the 4.6 meter diameter of the space shuttle cargo bay). The approximate real cost so far has been about $150 billion. The launch costs, mostly on the space shuttle, have been something like $50 billion. That's approximately $111 thousand per kilogram to launch. That's about 8 times the cost of launching with an Atlas V or 27 times the cost of launching with a Falcon 9. The problem is, there's another $100 billion in costs, or $222 thousand per kilogram. That makes the ISS, even without launch costs, worth nearly 6x its weight in gold.

      Now, that's rolling in a lot of costs that wouldn't necessarily scale with a larger station. Frankly I weep for any accountant trying to make sense of the costs. Still the way the ISS has been done so far it's tremendously expensive with or without the launch costs. Of course, a different philosophy towards making space station components, would probably lead to much cheaper parts. It seems that, for example, worrying excessively about the weight of components doesn't make much sense when all the engineering costs more than the launch costs. I think NASA designs a lot of one-off items as if they're going to some day put 10,000 of them in orbit but, when it comes time to put another similar item up, they start again from the ground up.

    49. Re:Well... by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      Yeah like NASA has such a great success rate (Apollo 1, Challenger, Columbia). Bearing in mind the Soyuz and Progress are pretty much based on 1960's designs actually they’ve got a fantastic success record one which NASA should be envious. Not that the Soviets have never lost anyone but let’s face it they haven’t stopped sending people into space since Gagarin whereas NASA has a lot of big Gaps.

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    50. Re:Well... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      A probe with 1970s technology would be about as intelligent as a snail.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    51. Re:Well... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      How do you propose to get an interstellar probe up to 15% of C? Particularly with 1970s technology? The Project Orion designs at the time called for over a century to get to Alpha Centauri. The upper limit would be something like 10% C, which means that by pushing the technology and not having any failures we'd still not have that probe launched in 1975 do its flyby of Alpha C, passing through in a few days with 1975-era remote sensors. (Providing the ability to slow down at the end would be incredibly expensive.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    52. Re:Well... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The Earth is going to remain by far the most hospitable place in the Solar system for hundreds of millions of years, no matter what we do to the planet. Until the Sun gets a lot hotter, it's going to be much easier to live on Earth than on Mars.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    53. Re:Well... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      With some optimism that might only be thousands of years rather than hundreds of Millions.

      But it's only necessary for Earth to be uninhabitable for a short time to end the Human race. And that can happen due to man or nature, today. If people aren't somewhere else during that process, that's the end.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    54. Re:Well... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It could pretty much point its instruments at all bright things not in its star map.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    55. Re:Well... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      So, what could we do to make the Earth less habitable than, say, Mars? Driving the temperature to something like -50C won't do it. Blasting 90% of the atmosphere wouldn't. Unleashing large amounts of radiation wouldn't do it. I'm really having a hard time thinking of what would.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    56. Re:Well... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      I am having an equally hard time thinking of how Earth is more habitable than Mars while atomic bombs are going off or impactors are impacting. If you wait a while, sure it's more habitable than Mars. But for that moment, no.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    57. Re:Well... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It could only search the star map a dozen times before the cards started tearing.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  2. Dear Russian spaceship... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...get well soon!

  3. Re:Space hips by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 3, Informative

    Retro actually :/

    Ukraine was going to build the Zenit next-gen rockets back when there was a Soviet Union
    Politics became an issue and now Russia builds what Russia uses

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
  4. Good timing with the KSP release by hort_wort · · Score: 2

    I've lost so many Kerbals and I only played one afternoon. Rocket science is hard.

    1. Re:Good timing with the KSP release by MacTO · · Score: 1

      As the investigation reveals that someone in mission control loaded KSP onto the Progress computers to make piloting the craft for a bit of fun ...

    2. Re:Good timing with the KSP release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They decided to play it safe and installed mechjeb now.

  5. Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is laughing all the way to the bank!

    1. Re:Elon Musk by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 1

      When is Dragon gonna be human rated?

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    2. Re:Elon Musk by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

      The first big test is next week. They will do a crew escape test from a scaffold, rather than a rocket, with the Crew Dragon getting away from an assumed "exploding rocket" on its Super Draco thrusters, and landing safely for the presumed crew. I doubt the capsule is reusable for much other than drop tests after an escape, and soft ground landings for the capsule are not scheduled to be a feature until well after the start of its manned use.

      There will be a full escape test after this, perhaps later this year, in which the rocket is launched and the capsule escapes at Max-Q. Something like the "Little Joe II" test for the Saturn 5 when I was a kid.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    3. Re:Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Progress isn't human rated either. Well, they're both human rated if you're only considering the fact that they have been approved to attach to the ISS and human crew are allowed to open the airlock and enter the vehicle. SpaceX is saying Dragon 2 should be ready for the first manned test flight late 2016, if everything goes well.

    4. Re:Elon Musk by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Make that "Little Joe II test for the Apollo capsule". The Saturn V sat that one out :-)

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    5. Re:Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.spacex.com/dragon says: Dragon's first manned test flight is expected to take place in 2-3 years.

    6. Re: Elon Musk by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      The maxq test is supposed to be June 7th.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re: Elon Musk by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Is anyone still taking June 7 seriously? And where is it supposed to happen now? Cape Caneveral instead of Vandenberg? I would certiainly drive down if they held it at Vandenberg. I was there for the first try on DISCOVR.

      The first test was supposed to come off much earlier than May. There are both commercial launches and government ones in the way, and there was the Helium pressurization issue which put some things off schedule.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    8. Re:Elon Musk by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Progress isn't human rated either.

      Progress is a variant of soyuz and soyuz is human rated. So this failure on progress raises concerns for soyuz.

      The same would be true if spacex had a significant failure on one of the cargo dragon flights or indeed on any falcon 9 launch.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    9. Re: Elon Musk by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      Bruce, it is at vandenberg. The launch vehicle is already there, and has been tanked 1 already.
      In addition, it is only using 3 engines, not all 9. As such, it is thought that it was a converted grasshopper.

      The launch pad abort was supposed to have happened long ago, and then I had heard Feb, and then april and now a NET of May 5th.

      As to the delays, yeah, most, if not all, was caused by spaceX focusing on getting their launch rate way up, along with the 2 failed landings. But, in light of NASA's dicking around with SpaceX and giving preference to Boeing to the point that SpaceX can not go to the ISS until Boeing has done so, you really can not blame them.
      I will say that if Soyuz fails (sad thought since that implies loss of life), then SpaceX's dragon 2 will no doubt be moved up in priority since it is by far the closest.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    10. Re: Elon Musk by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Obviously I am missing something, then. Please fill me in on your better information sources. Email to bruce at perens dot com if you don't want to put them on Slashdot.

      It's time to start planning another trip to Lompoc. The Motel 6 was sort of yukky last time. Maybe I'll try something else. There was an official visitor observation site that I found and got into last time, but that was for the Delta, and it was on Pad 4 if I remember correctly. This one is all the way on the other side of the base on Pad 7 or 8, isn't it? There are some farm roads that might be good observation sites if they are open.

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    11. Re: Elon Musk by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Here you go.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  6. Hips? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Russians are putting hips into space now?

    1. Re:Hips? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hiiiiiiiips.... ps....

      IN.... In.... in....

      Spaaaaaaaaace.

    2. Re:Hips? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russians are putting hips into space now?

      Obviously, It's not like they're so hard up for spare weight that they remove their hips before sending people into orbit.

    3. Re:Hips? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can they spacewalk without a spacehip?

      also, google autocompletes "spacehip" to "space hippo" which is an excellent image search

  7. Spacehip? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Spacehip" sounds like something 'Buzz' Aldrin had replaced....

  8. Heading towards an extinct volcano? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    If the rocket is heading towards an extinct volcano, I suspect Blofeld.

  9. i shot an arrow into the air by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    hey, y'all, watch this!

  10. Nobody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Nobody's going to say it? Oh, ok then, I'll do it.

    That's progress for you!

    1. Re:Nobody? by Lodlaiden · · Score: 1

      Too bad I spent my mod points on the Senator commercial. Otherwise this would have been +1 Funny.

      --
      Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
  11. Go Space-X by turp182 · · Score: 2

    Since all that was lost was supplies (while critical, there are future shipments and I'm sure they have emergency procedures to send up supplies if needed), it's not crass to say "Go Space-X".

    There are multiple players in the game of space, and Space-X is the one I root for, they get me excited and are very ambitious.

    I watched a few space shuttle launches live while telecommuting, and watching Space-X attempt a rocket recovery is just as exciting. Maybe even more so since it is something that has never been tried. They didn't fail by much last time, and there were explosions!!!

    Anyway, I wish the crew of the ISS health and no need for good luck (planning, prep, and execution, but please no need for luck).

    --
    BlameBillCosby.com
  12. Bad for Russia / Great for SpaceX by ZipprHead · · Score: 1

    Sucks for Russia, Nasa, and the ISS. For the loss, that's a lot of cash and cargo.

    But this is great news for SpaceX and all other private space industry companies! They seemingly have a better record so far!

    1. Re:Bad for Russia / Great for SpaceX by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      For the loss, that's a lot of cash and cargo.

      Every ounce of it insured. Sucks for the insurance company but hey, they'll adjust the premiums accordingly.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Bad for Russia / Great for SpaceX by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Reality is space is a harsh place and with out an atmosphere to burn up large number of veyr high velocity bits of rock, anything you put into space unless it is heavily armoured, stands a pretty good chance of being struck. Now I have heard absolute volumes of crap about how good private enterprises is (even in the face of history and the millions of private enterprises that have gone bankrupt, the core principle of private enterprise the losers must be destroyed otherwise you can not have winners) but some how being private makes the equipment immune to meteoroid impacts is a new one, is this some capitalism God worship thing?

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  13. Exposed cables in ISS by myid · · Score: 1

    In this article about the lost supply craft, there's a picture of the inside of the ISS. In the article's picture, look at all of the exposed cables! I guess that's why the astronauts are sort of locking their arms in front of themselves - so they don't accidentally pull out a cable.

    In the movie The Reluctant Astronaut, Don Knotts accidentally kicked a computer tape, as he was floating around in the capsule. Then he got peanut butter all over the tape, as he was putting it back onto its reel. Heh.

  14. Now lets wait and see.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this new Russian space junk suddenly starts correcting its orbit.

  15. The Dragon launch may be rescheduled... by tlambert · · Score: 1

    The Dragon launch may be rescheduled... to avoid space debris. the orbit the craft was in ended up too high; that junks going to be up there a loooooong time.

    1. Re:The Dragon launch may be rescheduled... by WuphonsReach · · Score: 2

      Not that long. Depending on what the solar cycle does, Earth's atmosphere expands out far enough to drag this stuff down within weeks/months. Not years/decades.

      Even at 250 miles above sea level (which is around the orbital altitude of the ISS), you have to regularly boost your orbit or get dragged down for reentry.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  16. Space is hip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like it.

  17. Hips! by pikine · · Score: 1

    It's for spaceshaking their spacebooty.

    --
    I once had a signature.
  18. TOO MUCH VODKA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or too little! Gotta be just right for ruskie shit to work.

    EJECT! EJECT!

  19. The faulty mindset --- 'we need to wait ...' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... We are far from ready to colonize space. It's my opinion we need to wait for technology to catch up to make it practical ...

    Your way of thinking explains why human civilization took over 300,000 years to progress from the neolithic era until now ...
     
    That 'we need to wait' mindset does nothing to move technology forward

    How do you expect technology to go forward if everybody just sits there waiting??

    1. Re:The faulty mindset --- 'we need to wait ...' by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I don't necessarily mean "space" technology, but more along the lines of reliable robots that can assist in creating dwellings and working the land. It's hard to get a lot done in a spacesuit.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:The faulty mindset --- 'we need to wait ...' by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      FYI: The Neolithic era began around 10000 BC not 300,000 years ago.

  20. There is no corruption / deceit in the West? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corruption and deceit run deep in Chinese industries

    LOL!

    I guess corruption and deceit __never__ happen in the West

  21. But what did it hit? by Cito · · Score: 1

    Debris field detected..

    "the U.S. Air Force has detected debris nearby, suggesting a significant failure of some kind..."

    Equip Tinfoil Hats!

    A conspiracy is afoot!

  22. Re:Space hips by dunng808 · · Score: 1

    I heard somewhere that Ukraine was Russia.

    --

    Gary Dunn
    Open Slate Project

  23. Re:Space hips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what Putin said!

  24. That explains that guy in the back of the van by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 1

    He wanted to sell me a bunch of dehydrated powdered food (slightly scorched).

    --
    Sig. Sig. Sputnik
  25. June 7! by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    Thanks!

    Brian Webb isn't listing this on his Vandenberg AFB Launch Schedule yet. I think he's going to wait until someone official tells him a date.

    --
    Bruce Perens.
    1. Re:June 7! by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      yeah, I saw that.
      I did screw up and it is apparently NET than July, not June.
      Still, I will take that happily.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.