Slashdot Mirror
Russian Cargo Spacehip Declared Lost
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.
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
I've lost so many Kerbals and I only played one afternoon. Rocket science is hard.
But 7 astronauts didn't die due to the snafu; only their dinner.
Table-ized A.I.
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
If the rocket is heading towards an extinct volcano, I suspect Blofeld.
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.
Nobody's going to say it? Oh, ok then, I'll do it.
That's progress for you!
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
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.
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.
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
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.'"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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?
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.