Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russian Cargo Ship Successfully Makes Orbit, Will Supply ISS

Posted by Soulskill on from the space-is-hard dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Early this morning, a Russian Soyuz rocket successfully launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. The rocket carried a Progress capsule containing 2,700kg of supplies for the International Space Station. It's a much-needed victory after a series of launch failures that saw ISS resupply missions from Orbital ATK, Russia, and SpaceX end in failure. "The station, a joint project involving 15 nations which is staffed by a crew of six astronauts and cosmonauts, currently has a four-month supply of food and water, NASA said. The arrival of the Russian cargo ship, and the planned launch of a Japanese HTV freighter in August, should replenish the station's pantries through the end of the year, NASA said. Friday's successful launch clears the way for three new crew members to fly to the station later this month."

50 comments

  1. And we have video by ControlFreal · · Score: 5, Informative

    Right here.

    --
    Support a Europe-related section on Slashdot!
    1. Re:And we have video by Flavianoep · · Score: 2

      That footage is more amazing than the ones that ended in explosions. :)
      Thanks!

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    2. Re:And we have video by atomlib · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here is the same thing in FullHD (1080p 25 fps) shot from different angles https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    3. Re:And we have video by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Simply beautiful. I do not know what rocket that is but is is beautiful and the video was spectacular. Thank you both for sharing.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  2. Ahhh, back to the old days by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

    When a successful launch was newsworthy.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  3. Oh...my...gawd! by Jawnn · · Score: 4, Funny

    We're losing the space race to the Russians.

    1. Re:Oh...my...gawd! by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      This lap, yes. The Space Shuttle had roughly 3 times the cargo capacity of a Soyuz vehicle, but never fulfilled its design goal of being a "space truck" that could be refettied quickly and cheaply. SpaceX is having problems with the "land on a barge" task, which _no one_ has ever done before.

    2. Re:Oh...my...gawd! by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      not really. They lost their last progress.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:Oh...my...gawd! by caseih · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure but SpaceX's goal to land the first stage has little to do with its cargo launch capabilities and its recent launch failure, or its march to man-rated rockets and the heavy lift booster. So I argue SpaceX is still doing very well in this lap. They can lift about one metric tonne more than the Progress freighter, and they are the only ones with return cargo capabilities. Return capabilities we haven't had since the Space Shuttle. I'm glad to see the Japanese cargo vehicle getting good use, and I'm happy to see all the different companies enter this space (literally). SpaceX happens to be the American company the closest to providing independence for western astronauts.

    4. Re:Oh...my...gawd! by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > Sure but SpaceX's goal to land the first stage has little to do with its cargo launch capabilities

      It has a great deal to do with the cost of missions. They've not yet created a working human-rated craft. I applaud their work, but I'd call that the _next_ lap of the space race.

    5. Re:Oh...my...gawd! by KGIII · · Score: 1

      We lose all of our wars. Even when we win we still lose. Hell, we are losing the war on drugs - to junkies! Yay! Go Team Junkie!

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  4. The Apollo Engine by sparlare · · Score: 1, Insightful

    What happened to the Apollo engine? Couldn't that be re-built and used by the U.S.A.?

    1. Re:The Apollo Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I suppose. I could buy a Ferrari to pick up the groceries, too.

    2. Re:The Apollo Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      A rocket engine is to a launch vehicle what a northbridge is to a computer. It's absolutely critical, does a whole hell of a lot of work, but you pretty much have to design it to the rest of the system or family of systems.

    3. Re:The Apollo Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      WHICH one? The ones used on the Saturn V? The Saturn V has the F-1, and J-2. Which do you want to use? The ones use on the landing module? It had two, one to land, one to go back up. The ones use on the orbiting capsule? That's the AJ10-137.

      Which do you want to use? How do you want to use it?

    4. Re:The Apollo Engine by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not to mention that each piece of hardware is built with the assumption of there being extant suppliers for its component parts. For Apollo hardware, this is rarely true, so you'd have to retool and test for each part. The sad thing is it'd actually be cheaper to build a brand new Saturn-V equivalent than to make an exact duplicate.

      This is actually one of the sorts of cases where 3d printing (no, generally not things like plastic filament extruders... meaningful printing, like laser sintering, laser spraying, etc, as well as CNC milling, hybrid manufacture techniques and lost wax casting on a 3d-printed moulds) has the potential to really come into its own: all of these sort of parts that you only ever need half a dozen of them made but might some day suddenly want some more a couple decades down the road. Another interesting advantage on this front is also that of incremental testing - I know of one small rocketry startup that has set themselves up to sinter out aerospikes in an evolutionary fashion - they print one out, connect it straight to test, measure its performance, scrap it and feed that performance data back into the generation of the next printout, in a constant model-refining process. Combustion simulations can be tricky to get right, but real-world testing data doesn't lie ;)

      --
      Dear Lord: One of your creatures may be hurt tonight. Please let it be the other creature.
    5. Re:The Apollo Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Asked on the Stack Exchange network:
      Why not build Saturn V's again?

    6. Re:The Apollo Engine by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      What happened to the Apollo engine? Couldn't that be re-built and used by the U.S.A.?

      They are:

      http://arstechnica.com/science...

      An F1 powered rocket with modern improvements would be tremendous, iit was a monster then, an updated one would be doubleplusgood.

      Amazing they let it languish for solid boosters.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re:The Apollo Engine by Dereck1701 · · Score: 2

      You could, but why would you? It wasn't the most efficient engine (around 263 Isp using RP1). The SSME is far more efficient (~452 Isp using LH2), though it is wickedly expensive at about $40M each. There are several other engines would be far more efficient, cost far less overall and be more reliable.

    8. Re:The Apollo Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck if I know what the guy wants. There are potential usages for all of those engines in a vehicle meant to dock with the ISS.

    9. Re:The Apollo Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Amazing they let it languish for solid boosters.

      Nothing amazing about it. Had to do with the ICBMs. They needed to pour money into that research without being too obvious.

      ICBMs and solid boosters is because of readiness. Liquid fuel you have a limited window and time to get read. Solid can sit for much much longer.

    10. Re:The Apollo Engine by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      Occam's razor. We're talking about launch vehicles, and the big kid on the block is the simplest answer, and since he didn't say - "No I mean the second stage', or "Apollo hypergolic engines, It's a real safe bet he meant the big kahuna F1 motor.

      IIRC, the maneuvering engines are still in production in some form, so rebuilding them would be redundant.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    11. Re:The Apollo Engine by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

      Amazing they let it languish for solid boosters.

      Nothing amazing about it. Had to do with the ICBMs. They needed to pour money into that research without being too obvious.

      ICBMs and solid boosters is because of readiness. Liquid fuel you have a limited window and time to get read. Solid can sit for much much longer.

      So the concept of abandoning your Lexus for a Dodge Caravan then.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    12. Re:The Apollo Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Occam's Razor tells me that the guy didn't know enough of what he was talking about to be making a useful inquiry.

    13. Re:The Apollo Engine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, a Lexus is a generally reliable vehicle. Toyota products are pretty good.

      I would go for a comparison between a temperamental sports car that you fuel after taking it to the track, because otherwise it'd make a mess on you, and something you can dump in the ocean and still have it run.

      Ok, not that drastic, but similar.

    14. Re:The Apollo Engine by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      WHICH one?

      Yeah, you figure in an earth to LEO vehicle that we'd be talking about a J2, or one of the LEM engines? Of course he's referring to the F1 engines.

      Perhaps I need to explain here my dowmoddingest friends.

      The J2 engine was not designed to be run at ground level. It's thrust nozzle was designed to run at altitude, with it's 27.5:1 expansion area ratio That's wide, and not efficient at sea level. In contrast, the F1 has a 16 to 1 ratio. Much more suited to lower altitude work. It's all related to the external pressure the rocket faces. Here's a pretty good explanation.

      http://www.aerospaceweb.org/qu...

      Anyone look at the ill fated Spacex launch? before it self disassembled, it was operating in an area beyond it's most efficient operation. You could see the much wider expansion of th exhaust.

      Ideally, a rocket motor would adjust the throat to exhaust ratio for best efficiency, but that would be too expensive. Probably very heavy, and possibly complicated.

      The J2 is designed to be restarted also.

      There were some other engines on the Saturn V rockets also. The Aux Propulsion System or APS, provided roll control while using the J-2 engines. The APS used a single SE 7-1 engine, and three TR-204. engines. They were hypergolic engines. Here's a nice descriptive page: http://www.collectspace.com/ub...

      So while the fellow who asaked the original question gets downmodded to 1, the caffeine fueled maniac who thinks he knows all about Rocket engines, is modded up to three. I'm catching a couple downmods to 0.

      Anyone want to accept the challenge of explaning why anyone who obviously didn't know a lot about the Saturn would be referring to the J2 or APS engines - obvious specialty engines, and the rager who missed four of the engines on the Saturn V is modded as insightful?

      Or does missing over half the engines on a rocket while acting like an expert qualify one as insighful on slashdot these days?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  5. The bravest astronaut by plover · · Score: 1

    will be the first to board the next launch vehicle to the ISS after all these failures.

    It's not like any of them are proving themselves particularly reliable. And it's not like any of these failures would have been survivable for the crew.

    --
    John
    1. Re:The bravest astronaut by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      These are not human-certified craft.
      Still, they're all pretty brave.
      Think the earliest one were pretty gutsy; VERY unproven technology.

    2. Re:The bravest astronaut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can't see them just letting the astronauts starve to death.

      The ISS has a reentry lander, independent of these supply launches, they'd bug out at some point if it became necessary.

    3. Re:The bravest astronaut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, come on, we let millions starve to death all the time, what's some more to you?

    4. Re:The bravest astronaut by gerddie · · Score: 1

      will be the first to board the next launch vehicle to the ISS after all these failures.

      It's not like any of them are proving themselves particularly reliable. And it's not like any of these failures would have been survivable for the crew.

      Actually, the situation is not as dire. The Progess launch failure was a result of combining the new Soyus 2-1A design with the supply ship, and

      Officials were considering launching space station crews on the Soyuz-2.1a version once its performance was demonstrated on Progress missions.

      Today's mission used the older Soyus-U design, and I would guess that the next crew going up would also use this older launcher.

    5. Re:The bravest astronaut by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      LOL.
      SpaceX is a new company and had 19 launches before failure on this. Even now, we still do not know what caused this.
      They have already shown that had this been a manned flight, that the crew would have survived just fine. Hell, the dragon stayed whole after the explosion and that was without an escape system.

      I suspect that PLENTY of astronauts and regular citizens such as myself, would feel very happy and trusting of SpaceX. The same for CST-100 on Atlas or Delta. And even Soyuz.

      I will give you credit. Most of the trolls here are done as ACs.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:The bravest astronaut by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Dumb question time...

      Have they ever actually tested those reentry vehicles? I believe they have two of them but I do not recall either of them being tested. I am sure they must have...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    7. Re:The bravest astronaut by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I would hop on it today if it were an option. Get the price down to $50,000 USD and let me spend at least a week at the ISS and I will go. I will even get a bit more fit, if needed, so that I qualify. I accept the risks that the current gen will blow up and kill me. Where do I sign?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:The bravest astronaut by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      SpaceX is a new company and had 19 launches before failure on this. Even now, we still do not know what caused this.

      SpaceX has had more then one failure, this is just their first failure on the Falcon 9 series that resulted in loss of all payloads. The Falcon 1 rocket had 3 failures out of five launches, but was considered a "test" project. Falcon 9 launch #4 was a partial failure where the secondary payload failed to reach orbit. Launch #7 was an almost failure due to a fire during flight down in the Octaweb engine area.

      I believe there has been at least one launch where a first stage engine acted up, but I can't find the reference.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    9. Re:The bravest astronaut by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      F9 #4 is the one where "a first stage engine acted up", but (contrary to your claim) it is inaccurate to say that "the secondary payload failed to reach orbit". With the loss of one engine from the first stage, the remaining engines burned longer to reach the desired orbit. This was successful (F9 being one of very few rocket boosters capable of mission completion despite an engine loss at any stage of the flight).

      HOWEVER, while both payloads successfully made orbit, the secondary payload would have required an additional burn to place it in its intended orbit. The F9 second stage almost certainly could have done this; it had the fuel, and it had the relight capability. However, the primary payload was bound for the ISS, and that means that the secondary payload would need to be placed in a safely different orbit. The confidence that F9's second stage could do so dropped below the extremely high threshold set by NASA (IIRC, it dropped to a mere 95% confidence), so NASA told them not to conduct the second burn. Consequently, the second payload was released in lower-then-designed orbit (though still in orbit) and re-entered after a relatively brief period.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  6. This came so soon after the SpaceX launch. by Nutria · · Score: 1

    Are there two cargo docks on the ISS, or would the Soyuz have had to sit in a parking orbit for a month while they unloaded the Dragon, and then reloaded it?

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:This came so soon after the SpaceX launch. by Minwee · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are several docking ports on the space station. This diagram may help clarify just what goes where, although this block diagram may be easier to follow.

      Dragon normally docks with Harmony, where the Space Shuttle used to park, while Soyuz and Progress would dock with the Zvezda, Rassvet, Pirs and Poisk modules on the Russian end.

    2. Re:This came so soon after the SpaceX launch. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Dragon, Cygnus, and HTV all use the western side.
      The progress uses the russian side as did the ESA's ATV.
      And since ESA no longer flies the ATV, it is only Russian craft, on the Russian side.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  7. Russian Machine Never Breaks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With respect to NASA and Mr. Musk, whose efforts I greatly admire.

    (And apologies to Mr. Ovechkin. Go Caps!)

  8. Video of the successful launch by SlashDotterOne · · Score: 1

    Video of the successful launch : https://www.youtube.com/watch?... On July 3rd 2015, a Russian Soyuz rocket has successfully lifted the 60th Progress transport cargo spacecraft into space from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, launching it on a mission to resupply the International Space Station. This was the 60th Russian Progress resupply vehicle.

  9. In Russia... by jpellino · · Score: 1

    ISS resupply YOU!

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  10. Thank you, Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for stepping up and providing for the safety of the ISS and its crew.

  11. why? Seriously, it would not help by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    There are far better designs. For one, everybody is moving to methane, as opposed to H2 or RP-1.
    Secondly, these are just growing pains. As such, not a big deal.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  12. SpaceX fails by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ruskies save the day.

    Sounds a little to real for a conspiracy...

  13. Title easy to (amusingly) mis-read by BevanFindlay · · Score: 1

    "Russian Cargo Ship Successfully Makes Orbit" is awesome if you (like I did) read the start of it and picture a large sea-going cargo boat. Had to do a double-take once I finished reading the phrase, and still didn't understand it until I grokked the meaning of "ISS" in the "will supply ISS" part... Mental image of a giant metal boat loaded with shipping containers flying up into the sky just made my day.