Slashdot Mirror
Cygnus Launches In First Mission Since Antares Rocket Explosion (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader writes: An Atlas V rocket carrying a Cygnus cargo spacecraft to resupply the International Space Station has lifted off from Cape Canaveral. This is the first flight of the Cygnus since the previous spacecraft was destroyed during an Antares rocket explosion in 2014. Ars reports: "Sunday's successful launch was the fourth attempt this week to get CRS Orb-4 into space. Three previous launch attempts—one per day since Thursday—were scrubbed due to foul weather at Cape Canaveral. The CRS-4 Cygnus capsule is currently en route to the ISS, carrying about 7300 pounds (about 3300kg) of food, hardware, and scientific equipment for the Expedition 44 crew on board the ISS (which includes US astronaut Scott Kelly, who is more than halfway through a year-long stay aboard the station)."
I remember when Cygnus was a major name in writing FOSS for Linux and Unix platforms until Red Hat acquired them. They've really taken off since then - literally - by the look of it, given where they are today
Potatos. Nothing but potatos.
Have gnu, will travel.
Maybe because ULA has been gouging the Air Force and NASA doesn't want to get stuck in the same boat? The Air Force is still trying to phase out the Billion dollars a year they pay to ULA for "assured space access". At the same time their launch costs have at least 166%.
It's hard to decipher what snark the AC parent is trying to say, but the Atlas which ULA provided for this launch uses Russian engines in the first stage so he needs to revise his second witty remark to make even a semblance of sense.
A Soyuz launched mission failed just last April, carrying a Progress 27M spacecraft meant for a resupply mission to the ISS.
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015...
"Roscosmos said in a statement Wednesday that mission control lost communications with the Progress spacecraft 1.5 seconds before the cargo carrier’s planned separation from the third stage of its Soyuz launcher."
"A report by Russia’s Tass news agency Wednesday claimed the RD-0110 engine burned longer than designed during Tuesday’s launch, citing a source from the engine’s manufacturer."
...but it was the Antares which exploded, wasn't it? I know that payload-rocket coupling is a serious concern, but was it thought to be involved in this case?
Payload-rocket coupling has nothing to do with the failure of the Antares rocket in 2014. From TFA, it failed because of "a turbopump fault in one of the Soviet-built NK-33 engines powering the rocket’s first stage."
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I know its popular to hate on cyngus for basically recycling unused parts, but you gotta give it to them, at least they slap together this stuff into something workable. Sure it might blow up from time to time, but its better than letting the stuff rot in a warehouse.
I'm not sure you can take credit for overcoming your rocket disaster when you "solve" the problem by using some other company's rocket.
Why didn't NASA just buy station resupply flights from ULA instead of making a bad deal with the incompetent SpaceX or ATK the having to buy backup them as well?
Though worded as a troll, this is a very good question if it would be reworded as such:
Why is NASA letting the Orbital CRS-4 mission ride on a ULA rocket through a third-party contractor?
The whole idea of the CRS missions was to encourage the development of new technologies to free us from the use of the Altas and Titan rockets. Sure, the rocket is pushing a Cygnus capsule to the station, but the rocket used is no less important (in my personal opinion the rocket is more important for the CRS objectives) and this is a completely wasted chance to refine the Antares design, even if it would have taken considerably more time to get the cargo to the station. From the launch on an Atlas, it looks like Antares development is over and thus Orbital should lose their CRS contract.
If Orbital cannot produce a suitable rocket, then the mission should have been scrubbed and the cargo launch contracted to either ULA or SpaceX. Letting a CRS launch "default" to an Atlas rocket when the independently-designed (ha! not even that, Antares uses Russian engines) rockets is unavailable or unreliable is completely contrary to the goals of the CRS program, and rather entrenches NASA into the Atlas.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
And the Soyuz is market selected?
A Soyuz launched mission failed just last April, carrying a Progress 27M spacecraft meant for a resupply mission to the ISS."
True, however, Soyuz still have a much higher reliability rate and have been in use since before Gagarin went up.
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.
The Atlas V has had 60! successful launches in a row.
That's a mighty big number, 60 factorial. Approximately 8.3209871 x 10^81, in fact. That's not far off from the total number of elementary particles in the universe (10^86).
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Not quite. It is the same family of launchers, but the actual Soyuz had its first flight in the late 1960ies, Gagarin went up in 1961. Not only the actual spacecraft was different, the rocket was different as well - a much more powerful third stage, different telemetry and control systems and so on.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
I came here to write a snarky comment about deciding to out source lifting services when your cobbled launch system goes boom. However, the more think about it, this seems like the smarter thing for Cygnus to do.
Get out of the lifting business. ULA and SpaceX (last launch not withstanding) have a reliable proven launch systems.
Bezos is coming to the party possible soon.
What they should instead do is get everybody at the table and agree to an interface that everybody would use for connecting their space craft to the lifting system. That way if your X launch system. You receive a standard launch container. You'd latch it onto a testbed that would do gyro/tip weight balancing calculations.
Have your software take the balancing calculations to figure out angular moment, etc, then mount the container in the fairing, put it on top of the rocket, and away you go.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
"The whole idea of the CRS missions was to encourage the development of new technologies"
Not really, the idea was to bring down launch costs using contractors on a fixed contract cost. NASA doesn't really care how they achieve this, they can use a rocket design from the 60's as long as it is reliable and cheap. It is pushing contractors towards newer methodologies (UAL Vulcan, SpaceX Falcon reusable) but doesn't necessarily require new technology.
Though techinically you are correct that the contracts do not state the technologies required, it is pretty much implied that new technologies would be developed in order to meet costs. Nobody was expecting that a simple restructuring of the paperwork involved, including the addition of a middleman between NASA / DOD and ULA, would lower launch costs.
Each launch using the legacy technologies is another launch opportunity for testing new technologies lost.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Because its a service provider contract. SpaceX and Orbital have been contracted to provide a service, not a product. You don't cancel your flight when an A319 shows up at the gate rather than a 737. While there are a lot of milestones involved in the CRS contract, essentially it boils down to, we give you $X for Y lbs of payload delivered to ISS. As long as you can get it there safely without damaging ISS, then go for it
And you would spend money on what?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Because its a service provider contract. SpaceX and Orbital have been contracted to provide a service, not a product. You don't cancel your flight when an A319 shows up at the gate rather than a 737.
I'm aware of the issues behind the CRS program. I'm pointing out though, in terms of your analogy, that in fact it was fully expected and desired that the A320 would be designed and produced more affordably than the 737, and that defaulting to having the Airbus development team charter a 737 as a backup is not only a waste of a launch that could have gone towards developing the A320, but rather further entrenches us in the dependence on Boeing's product.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Orbital is developing a new launch vehicle (Antares 200) to replace the Antares 100 which should fly next year. The two Atlas launches are a temporary measure to allow it to meet the requirements of the contract after the loss of CRS-3. It's like United Airlines having a contract with NASA to fly employees between field sites. If after a crash, United decides to stand down its A320 fleet for a few weeks while it fixes the problem and continues to deliver service with the 737. The whole point of CRS is to enable a more Commercial delivery model, which means far less oversight and direction from NASA, in exchange for lower costs by giving the commercial providers the flexibility to choose their approach
Orbital is developing a new launch vehicle (Antares 200) to replace the Antares 100 which should fly next year. The two Atlas launches are a temporary measure to allow it to meet the requirements of the contract after the loss of CRS-3. It's like United Airlines having a contract with NASA to fly employees between field sites. If after a crash, United decides to stand down its A320 fleet for a few weeks while it fixes the problem and continues to deliver service with the 737. The whole point of CRS is to enable a more Commercial delivery model, which means far less oversight and direction from NASA, in exchange for lower costs by giving the commercial providers the flexibility to choose their approach
I must admit that I have not been keeping up with Antares development and I did not see that the -200 launches have been moved forward. So long as the development of alternative launch vehicles (we will ignore the elephant in the room, i.e. the engines) progresses that I would agree that the implied goals of CRS are being fulfilled.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.