Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Unmanned Cargo Ship Reaches ISS On Resupply Mission (telegraph.co.uk)

Posted by BeauHD on from the soon-to-be-common-occurrences dept.

An anonymous reader writes: NASA partner Orbital ATK reports an unmanned cargo shipped has successfully docked at the ISS, delivering 7,900 lbs (3.6 metric tons) worth of supplies for the crew of six astronauts. The supplies consisted of food, water, clothes, and materials needed for scientific research such as a new 3D printer and Gecko Gripper. The operation was over by 1452 GMT as the space station's robotic arm, operated by crew members, captured Cygnus and guided it into its berthing port. Orbital has launched five supply missions to the ISS as part of a $1.9 billion contract with NASA. "Our flexible Cygnus spacecraft has a lot of work left to do. Following its stay at the ISS, and for the first time, we will undertake three experiments onboard the unmanned spacecraft," said Frank Culbertson, president of Orbital ATK's Space Systems Group.

51 comments

  1. shameful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    We should not be supplying anything to ISIS. I hope none of 'their kind' are allowed to go there.

    The Donald

  2. Didn't even know they were launching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Usually these events generate a lot of buzz and it's hard to miss when a launch takes place. This one caught me totally by surprise. Did Orbital intentionally stay low-key this time in case of another "anomaly?" Anyway, congrats to them on a good launch and successful delivery!

    1. Re:Didn't even know they were launching by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 2

      They have been in the game for over 30 years, so they don't need to blow their own trumpets like the new guys do.

    2. Re:Didn't even know they were launching by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      ULA apparently spends all of their marketing money on shills.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    3. Re:Didn't even know they were launching by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because Musk is obsessed with creating a tech-based personality cult doesn't denigrate the accomplishments of other companies, many of which are more successful (reliable) than SpaceX.

    4. Re:Didn't even know they were launching by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      They have been in the game for over 30 years, so they don't need to blow their own trumpets like the new guys do.

      And yet - we are reading this article.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  3. First post? by KGIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That this is first post is awesome. It has been here for a while and nobody has commented.

    Why is that awesome? It is so routine that we don't even get excited any more. I was a kid when we walked on the moon. Now, it's trivial to dock with a space station that's been in orbit for years and continuously occupied for the duration.

    That's kind of neat. (I have no idea if this is still first post.)

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    1. Re:First post? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Nope, someone beat me to it. Ah well... It's still really kind of neat that there's so little excitement about this sort of thing. This would have been televised, across the globe, not that many years ago. Now, it's a thirty second blurb on the television news - if you're lucky and there's nothing major going on.

      I find that incredible and inspiring.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    2. Re:First post? by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

      They could make things more exiting by sending a loose tiger or an open basket of cobras. It would be a cool April fools prank.

    3. Re:First post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This summer! Snakes on a Space Station!

    4. Re:First post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nope, someone beat me to it. Ah well... It's still really kind of neat that there's so little excitement about this sort of thing. This would have been televised, across the globe, not that many years ago. Now, it's a thirty second blurb on the television news - if you're lucky and there's nothing major going on.

      BREAKING NEWS: Attempted Docking of First Post a Complete Failure
      Details at 11.

    5. Re:First post? by PPH · · Score: 1

      7,900 lbs of potatoes.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:First post? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      I feel the opposite way. I'm disappointed with how things have turned out. A launch of a cargo ship should be so routine that a news article isn't even written about it. In the 1970s people were walking on the moon and now it's still news to have a satellite launched or it we sent supplies to the space station that's been inhabited for 15 years. Christ we can't even launch a rocket if the weather isn't good enough! How are we supposed to go to the stars when our capabilities are regressing?

    7. Re:First post? by martinfb · · Score: 1

      KGill: I find it disconcerting about the little attention. The advances still happening are nothing less than awesome and inspiring. My guess is that too many folks are listening to Trump and voting poorly. Perhaps a future experiment could see how a Trump supporter burns-up on reentry in a Cygnus capsule. (RE: One experiment is to see how new materials survive a capsule fire.)

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
    8. Re:First post? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I think anyone who really cares knows the advances being made and is excited. We humans, we'll be fine. So far, so good. So, I can see why you'd think it disconcerting but I don't see it that way. I see it as awesome. Wait until it won't even remotely be a novelty to have gone to space.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  4. MRA by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    The feminists have really gone too far now. They've even unmanned the space ship that resupplies the ISS.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  5. Can't Wait To Watch The Control Burn by zenlessyank · · Score: 1

    Hopefully they will have several 4k+ cameras pointed at the module.

  6. Aren't almost all the deliveries unmanned ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Progress-M has been doing this since the 90s. Is there something extra special about this delivery ?

    1. Re: Aren't almost all the deliveries unmanned ? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not really. Orbital still needs to buy Russian engines. There's no tech like old tech. Should have stuck with the Saturn series and their proposed Saturn Heavy variants. Stupid space plane.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:Aren't almost all the deliveries unmanned ? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2

      This delivery is noteworthy for being a commercial resupply, which is still a very new thing. There have only been a very small number of commercial missions.

    3. Re:Aren't almost all the deliveries unmanned ? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As I understand it, this is also the heaviest load ever delivered to ISS. Not sure that's a big deal, but...

    4. Re: Aren't almost all the deliveries unmanned ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Sad but true, they are updating the saturn F1 engines for the SLS. Which is likely to be the most expensive launch system ever conceived
      http://arstechnica.com/science...

    5. Re: Aren't almost all the deliveries unmanned ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The SLS is using the space shuttle engines (RS-25d from the space shuttles...the new ones will be RS-25e and are planned when NASA uses up all the remaining space shuttle engines currently). The uprated F1 is still in "maybe" mode to replace the solid boosters the SLS is going to start out with. But ATK is throwing a fit at the F1 idea currently. The tests of the F1 are for liquid strap on boosters for the SLS.

    6. Re: Aren't almost all the deliveries unmanned ? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      It was launched by an Atlas 5, that one uses new Russian engines.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    7. Re:Aren't almost all the deliveries unmanned ? by hackertourist · · Score: 2

      It's the heaviest Cygnus launch so far.
      As far as I've been able to find, the heaviest cargo load delivered to the ISS is the ESA ATV 5 mission (Georges Lemaitre), which carried 6600 kg.

    8. Re:Aren't almost all the deliveries unmanned ? by martinfb · · Score: 1

      Progress was a Russian vehicle. Cygnus is part of the US Commercial Orbital Transport System; a US based business.

      --


      Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  7. The Tang and fresh diapers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    are delivered. Whoopdeedoo.

  8. In comparison by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Ah well... It's still really kind of neat that there's so little excitement about this sort of thing.

    I would agree with you if it were for the fact that people are more interested in the latest Kardashian family hijinks or whatever drivel Donald Trump is spewing recently. I find it depressing that genuinely valuable engineering and science research is considered uninteresting in comparison to most of the nonsense that does actually make it into the news cycle. Of course engineering companies have never been very good at public relations so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

    I find that incredible and inspiring.

    I find it depressing and pathetic.

    1. Re:In comparison by ArylAkamov · · Score: 2

      People just don't give a shit. I've talked with people who don't think we should be doing anything like this, since "It's a waste of money! We're blowing all our money into space! Anything they discover or build doesn't affect me, so I don't care!".

    2. Re:In comparison by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to work on this and kinda think it's a waste of money. The scientific ROI is too low. I'd much rather see more planetary or soar observation missions if there has to be a choice.

    3. Re:In comparison by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      The ISS is our best way of gaining experience with daily life in microgravity: cooking, cleaning bathrooms, responding to leaks and breakdowns, maintaining health over periods of a year or more. There is no other way of being sure about how such things will work when we take longer voyages. The latest finding, which was totally unanticipated, is that microgravity affects the rate at which certain bacteria grow. This will be a problem in some cases and a solution in others.

    4. Re:In comparison by ArylAkamov · · Score: 1

      I should clarify: I can understand the reasons why some people would think so. The last person I talked to was saying that they didn't want their tax money going to NASA because they would rather have more money to buy alcohol. Not even joking, that was their sole reason.

      I thought they were going to go into more detailed reasons, such as NASA not having their shit together or getting much done, or that since private companies are stepping up there isn't a need to spend taxpayer money on NASA, etc. You know, something debatable, where I could at least see their point of view and sympathize, even if we disagreed.

      What happened to the human thirst for exploration and adventure?

      (Apparently replaced by the thirst for alcohol)

      The thrill of discovery, the thought that you are a member of the most advanced species on Earth, constantly innovating to shed the physical limitations of the human body to do things we used to look up at the sky and only dream about!

        To overcome seemingly impossible challenges in the search of knowledge, the very definition of being human! (To me, anyways)

        But no man. Booze money.

      It feels like some people would rather we stagnate, perfectly happy in their own lives, never caring about things that don't directly affect them, never striving to improve either themselves or the overall achievements of our race, only giving a shit about their own personal existence and interactions!

      Not even willing to put in the slightest, most insignificant amount of effort to further technological advancement or our fundamental understanding of what lies beyond.

      Anyhow, that's the end of my silly rant/bitch fest. I feel somewhat hypocritical as I've had a few shots before typing this wall of text, but still, I feel that the meaning behind my words still stands.

      tl;dr I'd rather fund NASA than the NSA. Frosty piss, insensitive clod, etc.

  9. There are not six astronauts on the ISS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there are three cosmonauts, and three astronauts.

  10. How to make it more exciting/timely by Provocateur · · Score: 3, Funny

    The editors simply need experience:

    Drone buzzes Space Station; drops off package

    Amateurs.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    1. Re:How to make it more exciting/timely by Gavagai80 · · Score: 2

      Getting better, but I'd go with Space Station Captures Drone: You'll Never Guess What's Inside!

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    2. Re:How to make it more exciting/timely by Provocateur · · Score: 2

      Much improved, i agree, but let's embellish it just a tad:

      Space station captures small drone with BIG package, ALL ON VIDEO, video goes viral

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  11. Is ISS useful? by walterbyrd · · Score: 0

    Are we getting useful scientific information? Stuff we could not get by other means?

    1. Re: Is ISS useful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Can't grow plants in 0G here.
      Can't study.chemical reactions in 0G to see if useful compounds and such can be made in space for medicine
      Cant cast metals in 0G (which we are not yet but should on ISS) to say, better metals like, let's say someone has an idea that a certain mix of metals or dirt or piss forms a unique lattice structure that allows room temperature superconductors, but the theory goes that that structure only forms in micro gravity, again, can't test it in 0G without a space station.

      I am sure I could think of more but you should try it.

    2. Re:Is ISS useful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see anyone learn how to operate a space station without a space station, that alone justifies the expense imho.
      They could always do more, for example I think that scrapping the centrifuge module was the dumbest move ever. These days the module is rusting outdoors in Japan.

    3. Re:Is ISS useful? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      It keeps a lot of skilled people in gov jobs or no bid contracts.
      Without that gov work they may enter the real private sector. Govs and mil regulators dont like that idea of "their" nations very smart people just wondering around finding work with anyone who has cash and some related big project.
      It also keeps very advanced generational skill alive that would have to be re created if lost to budget cuts within a few decades.
      Nations get to work together and get to be seen to share funding and the science results.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  12. Clothes by riverat1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The mention of clothes got me wondering about laundry on the ISS. So I looked it up and there is no laundry on the ISS. Everything they wear is delivered to the station and once it becomes to pitted out to wear they put it in the trash which is loaded in a Progress capsule. Once the Progress capsule is full it is deorbited to burn up in the Earth's atmosphere. So I guess we're all breathing the ISS's burnt up dirty laundry.

    Anyway they apparently have enough underwear to change it every 3 or 4 days but I have to think it smells like a gym in the ISS. Here's a story about the astronauts dirty laundry.

    1. Re:Clothes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't exposing laundry to vacuum evaporate grease and oils, should have some limited cleaning effect, no?

    2. Re:Clothes by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      A vacuum would certainly remove any water but I think grease and oil have nonvolatile components that would remain behind.

    3. Re:Clothes by maroberts · · Score: 1

      Does the dirty laundry burn up though?

      At some point the capsule defragments and its contents are spilled out. I can only guess what happens to underwear doing several thousand miles per hour in the upper atmosphere.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

  13. Gecko gripper? by garryknight · · Score: 1

    materials needed for scientific research such as a new 3D printer and Gecko Gripper

    Why do they need to grip geckos? In space, no one can hear you grip geckos...

    --
    Garry Knight
  14. Re:The religion of peace by chadenright · · Score: 1

    God loves you in spite of your hate speech. Peace, brother.

  15. Filling in the cracks by sjbe · · Score: 1

    The scientific ROI is too low. I'd much rather see more planetary or soar observation missions if there has to be a choice.

    Those missions are valuable but they will tell you close to nothing about how to have living organisms (including us) living and thriving in space. You're comparing apples to oranges. Sure there is lots of value to a project like New Horizons but the second probe we send will have marginally less ROI and the third still less. This is because we've already learned some stuff and now our questions become more specific and nuanced. That's where we are in LEO manned space flight. We've figured out a lot of stuff so we're trying to fill in the cracks in our knowledge where the budget permits.

    And the fact is that there doesn't have to be a choice. We have plenty of money to support manned spaceflight and robotic probes. It's not an either/or proposition the only limitation is our willingness to do it.

  16. "Metric tons"? by andrewwarrenau · · Score: 1

    ... so that would be "tonnes" then.