Slashdot Mirror
Orbital ATK Returns To Flight With Successful Antares Launch To Space Station (techcrunch.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: The Orbital ATK Antares rocket -- the same rocket that exploded on its way to the International Space Station two years ago -- returned to flight today with a much-anticipated launch. Lifting off from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia, the Antares rocket is now on its way to deliver the Cygnus spacecraft filled with over 5,000 pounds of cargo to crew members aboard the ISS. Today's launch was particularly special for Orbital ATK, a company contracted by NASA to deliver 66,000 pounds of cargo to the ISS through 2018. After their Antares rocket exploded during a launch in 2014, destroying thousands of pounds of experiments and cargo bound for the space station, Orbital ATK worked for two years to upgrade that rocket and prepare for its return to flight. Today, the Orbital ATK was finally able to fly Cygnus on top of their own rocket again. The RD-181-equipped Antares rocket carried Cygnus, which housed science experiments and supplies for the ISS crew, for their fifth operational cargo resupply mission for NASA. Along with crew supplies, spacewalk equipment and computer resources, Cygnus will bring over 1,000 pounds of science investigations to the five crew members on the ISS. One of those experiments is Saffire-II, the second Saffire experiment to be conducted inside Cygnus in order to study realistic flame propagation in space. Cygnus will spend over a month attached to the ISS. In late November, the spacecraft will be filled with about 3,000 pounds of trash and then released to begin its descent back to Earth. During reentry through Earth's atmosphere, the spacecraft, along with trash and Saffire-II, will be destroyed.
This is a waste of time and money. We now know that spending extended time in space (or on Mars) is dangerous and causes severe permanent health effects. Let's spend our time solving our issues on this planet like stopping global warming. That's far more useful than yet another miserably pointless trip to yet another space station. Can anyone justify that there's any legitimate use to this mission? I think not, but I suspect the groupthink censors (erm, moderators) will quickly bury my post at -1. I strongly hope that Donald Trump gets elected so he can out an end to pointless and wasteful missions like this one. Instead of censoring my post, how about addressing why this research deserves money over efforts to solve real issues like climate change. I don't think anyone here has the ability to give me a straight answer, but you'll no doubt be quick to insult me. Can anyone justify this mission? I'm certain the answer is no!
It's raw material for in-orbit manufacturing. Each kg of that cost a lot to be put up there.
We humans always dumping the valuable trash. Disgusting.
If not, this type of article is no longer welcome on this site.
Guess how satellites that monitor global warming, weather, ocean current, polar ice and a whole lot more get up there so they can, as you ask, "solve real issues like climate change"?
Think before you post.
http://www.spaceweather.com/
4.45 Newtons. Just kidding. On earth, it is approximately 0.45kg, according to Google. That makes 1.36 tons of trash, 453kg of experiments, for over 2.27 tons of cargo, and a contract for around 30 tons. That is, if we are speaking of earth-bound pounds, because those are meaningless in space; unless you take the more recent kilogram-aligned definition. Man, units are complicated.
4.45 Newtons.
More precisely 4.4482216152605 Newtons.
On earth, it is approximately 0.45kg, according to Google.
Doesn't matter if it is on Earth or not since it is defined in relation to standard gravity.
A pound of mass is defined as exactly 0.45359237 kg by definition.
Pound-force is dependant on gravity, pound-mass is not.
Not quite. Pound-force is defined based on an arbitrary reference value for acceleration under standard gravity but is not actually dependent on gravity as the definition of a pound (force) does not change as gravity changes. The mass used in the equation is the international standard avoirdupois pound which is defined as exactly 0.45259237kg. If you go into space a pound-force is still the same value. A scale would lose its ability to measure it but that doesn't change the value of a pound. A standard pound-force can be converted directly into Newtons at all times with the same conversion factor ( 4.4482216152605 Newtons )
When people say you "weigh less on the Moon" what they are doing is saying that if we change the acceleration in the calculation to the value for the local gravitational force then we get a different number. But the definition of the standard pound (force) doesn't change regardless of the local gravitational field any more than the definition of a Newton would change.
You mean american pounds?
Specifically I'm referring to the international pound sometimes called the Avoirdupois pound which is by far the most commonly used measurement by the name of pound.
The Antares that just flew is the same chassis but different motors, and the old explodey one is retired. These new ones are Antares 200.
The definition of pound force depends on the factor 9.8... m/s2 which never changes
It never changes because it's defined based on an arbitrarily agreed upon value for what to use for Earth's gravity on the surface. While they could I suppose redefine the pound if Earth's gravitational field changed that would have to be an affirmative action - it would not automatically change because the reference value is a chosen one, not a natural one. Bear in mind that acceleration due to gravity is not uniform on the Earth's surface because the Earth is not a perfect sphere and it does not have uniform density and is changing constantly as the Earth's mass changes. As a result scientists have agreed to use a nominal value instead of the real one since there is no single real value. Any value chosen for the definition of the standard pound (force) will be an arbitrary number not subject to changes in the gravitational pull of the Earth.
Apparently, you misinterpreted "gravity" as "actual acceleration being considered to calculate lbf from lb";
No misinterpretation at all. We are talking about a force here when defining the pound (force). Force = mass * acceleration. For purposes of defining the pound (force) we are talking about the rate of acceleration due to gravity under a standard (nominal earth's surface) gravitational field. So any reference to gravity in this context is in reference to the acceleration under a specific set of conditions that happen to correspond to the nominal gravitational force experienced on Earth surface.
Luckily enough, there were no snipers on the roof of the ULA building this time
Mentioned only in passing, the RD-181 is Russia-designed and created rocket engine...
While lower-level Democrats are gleefully spreading rumours about Trump being a Putin's man, the Democratic Administration continues to buy this high technology from the adversary. In a typical manifestation of hair-splitting, even though Congress banned the use of RD-180 in 2015, NASA claims, use of RD-181 is acceptable...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
START A HOLsY WAR
You can certainly say this about most fact-checking, including that by Pulitzer-winners, which is now just as much partisan hacking as the rest of the "journalism".
The simple truth is, of course, the OP meant "Cold War" not "civil war" (in any country). Woosh-woosh-woosh...
Personally, I, actually, toured both Baku and Yerevan with my father in 1988 — Aeroflot was still flying to both capitals from my native Kyiv, and the trip was very educational...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
All the global warming people insist that ice cores, tree rings and mud are perfectly adequate and accurate for all years before about 1750, though I have never seen the traceable calibration certs for any of these "instruments"
These same people claim that a few windjammers at sea equipped with mercury thermometers, sextants and candle light are good for most global climate data between about 1750 and the 1900s with a relative few barometers and thermometers at airfields around the world being adequate until WWII.
We've only had satellite images for the past 55 years and satellite temperature data for perhaps 35 years.
No space program is needed for climate monitoring.
Oh, and if everybody just trashed their cellphones and tablets, and we shut off the internet and all its server farms we'd save enough energy to shut down enough power plants to save the planet, assuming it needs saving.
So, my liberal friend, which is more important to you:
[a] social media
- or -
[b] saving the planet?
I'll bet you go right on using your cell phone and the web, and like a good liberal you will insist something is a world-ending problem but that somebody else must pay to solve the problem - which proves you do not truly believe in your world-ending fear-fest
As before:
The Launch vehicle's engines are Russian.
The Launch vehicle's first stage is Ukrainian.
The Cygnus spacecraft is Italian (Thales Alenia)
The service module, solid motor upper stage, and payload fairing are made in America.
According to our Defense contractors like LockMart, boeing, and ATK, designing and building many parts of launch vehicles and spacecraft are "jobs Americans won't do". Strangely, Elon Musk and SpaceX seem to disagree.
You cannot burn up a flame propagation experiment. Logic dictates this will only continue the experiment! They will set fire to the atmosphere and burn us all alive! The Aztecs predicted it all!! /tinfoilhat