Russian Supply Vehicle To ISS Burns 184
First time accepted submitter Oxford_Comma_Lover writes "The Russian cargo spacecraft 'Progress' developed problems and burned up in the atmosphere shortly after its launch at 1300 GMT. From the article: 'The Russian space agency said the Progress M-12M cargo ship was not placed in the correct orbit by its rocket and fell back to Earth. The vessel was carrying three tonnes of supplies for the ISS astronauts.'"
Mmmm... BBQ. (Score:2)
Mmmm... BBQ.
At least.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but they lost 3.31 tons of cargo, which is really unfortunate. It already costs a shitload just to send 1 kg into space, imagine 3.31 tons.
Well how much did it cost for us to let it burn up before orbit? We might technically be saving money here...
Re: (Score:3)
3.31 kilo shitloads (kSL). Metric system FTW.
Re: (Score:3)
Hopefully just common supplies...imagine if Robonaut was on that thing...
Maybe the Russians should play Kerbal (Score:2)
I got this game [kerbalspaceprogram.com]. Learned how to put a rocket into orbit. Pretty cool.
Could the Russians use a little sim training, perhaps? Orbital insertion is really not that hard, once you get the hang of it.
Re: (Score:3)
Being
Re: (Score:3)
Have you tried Orbiter? Great space sim, not really a game. Yes, you do have to break out your orbital mechanics textbook and do some math.
Re: (Score:2)
I love that game, but I feel like I'm missing something. I get a kilometer or so above the pad and then my stack flips over and augers into the ground. Or just falls apart and explodes on the pad. Did I mention this game is awesome?
Re: (Score:2)
They know how to do it (they've done it often enough), they just had a failure in the 3rd stage this time (1st in the history of Progress).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the lack of life loss in this, I'd guess that the folks at SpaceX see reason to celebrate this error. It certainly helps hold the door open for them.
Re:SpaceX (Score:4, Informative)
I like SpaceX as much as the next guy, but there's more to the puzzle. Orbital Sciences, Boeing's CST-100, Sierra Nevada's DreamChaser, ESA's and JAXA's resupply vehicles, and even Orion-reborn (to name a few) are all critical to maintaining a foothold on the frontier.
I think what this should teach us (potentially having our only way to get things and people to the ISS grounded) is that no single solution can be depended on. In addition to the sought cost benefits of competition, we need multiple vehicles because none of them will be perfectly reliable and all run a risk of being taken out of service temporarily and leaving a gap if nothing else is available.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to say, it's like, say, instead of creating a RAID 6 with the 8 discs you have (i.e. 6 and 2 hotspare), you create a RAID 0 with them?
Just so we have an analogy we can work with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, that port is currently tied up with PMA2, the now-unneeded shuttle docking adapter.
Just out of curiosity, couldn't they get rid of the shuttle docking adopter? Or is there an "old docking interface" behind it?
Tomorrow's headlines..... (Score:5, Funny)
In related news, food prices on the ISS are expected to spike in early trading tomorrow.....
In more news, 17 Murdock newspapers printed leaks about concerns that relatives of ISS crew have about their safety.
-Charlie
Freeze dried stawberry icecream rationing (Score:2)
Soyuz Escape System (Score:2)
Since Progress uses the Soyuz rocket, I was curious about the Soyuz escape system. Looks like [russianspaceweb.com] it's pretty well thought through.
Still, I'd like to see Space X's Falcon 9 [sciencesortof.com] ready to replace the Soyuz rocket.
Bad luck lately (Score:4, Interesting)
They had a lot of bad luck lately. Losing at least three launches this year. I hope they get back on track soon. Who else could transport new people up and down to the ISS. Freight can be done by ESA's ATV, but human space flight is right now Russia only.
Re: (Score:2)
They had a lot of bad luck lately. Losing at least three launches this year. I hope they get back on track soon. Who else could transport new people up and down to the ISS. Freight can be done by ESA's ATV, but human space flight is right now Russia only.
And China.
Re: (Score:2)
Is China really able to deliver to the ISS? I know they have some taikonauts in space in a sojus-like craft. But the big question is: Can they guarantee delivery? And can they dock?
But, yes they can do manned spaceflight.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't referring to ISS interceptablility, but I'm pretty sure that the answer is no is regards to docking almost certainly. They would need a mockup of existing docking rings to engineer and test their own.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what happens when there's no competition.
And for the humorously inclinde, yes, I am being tongue-in-cheek.
Second loss in a week (Score:3)
Re:Second loss in a week (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I dunno... using over-proof-vodka-and-nitrous-oxide rockets seemed like a good design idea at the time, but it might somehow have had some indirect effects on quality control....
Re: (Score:2)
Willing or not, if you want to go into orbit, the Russians are currently your only bet.
Monopolies are great, eh?
stupid gravity (Score:5, Funny)
If it had only made it higher and exploded, they would have lost 0 tonnes of supplies.
Damn you gravity. Damn you!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If it had only made it higher and exploded, they would have lost 0 tonnes of supplies.
Damn you gravity. Damn you!
It could've been worse. If the supply ship had been close to Jupiter, the losses would've been much higher.
Re: (Score:2)
Physically it's not really correct, but regardless a good joke.
Unmanned disasters are important! (Score:2)
We're all saying "well thank goodness it's not a manned spacecraft, no big deal."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a Progress basically a Soyuz with the seats ripped out? Which is to say, don't unmanned Progress mission failures tell you something important about the likelihood of manned Soyuz disasters?
Re:Unmanned disasters are important! (Score:5, Informative)
Which is to say, don't unmanned Progress mission failures tell you something important about the likelihood of manned Soyuz disasters?
Had it been manned, the escape system would have fired and brought the crew back down. As far as I remember that's already happened once on a Soyuz flight and the biggest problem was that the crew had to hide from hungry wolves after the landing.
One of the benefits of capsules is that you don't die just because the wings fell off and you need them to come back down.
Does that mean... (Score:2)
USAF OTV Option? (Score:3)
Currently Russian, ESA, & Japan supply ships (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only supplies (Score:2)
At least it wasn't people.
Mission Control to ISS (Score:2)
Um. It looks like you folks will have to re-read all that old porn for a while longer.
ISS Burns! (Score:2)
Re:I'm afraid this means vodka rationing, boys (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid Russians, acting like they *invented* modern space flight or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Or as if one of them actually theorized the entire rocketry field into existence. You go ahead, tell them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What? This was the FIRST failure of a progress module. Also as far as I know, they haven't had a single fatality related to their current manned space vehicle (the Soyuz) and unless they are hiding some early issues, they have never lost any crew on manned flights. Remember, the shuttle lost 2 crews, and we lost an Apollo crew on the ground. I would say the Russian human spaceflight program is safer than the US program, although IMHO losing 2 shuttle crews is a reasonable amount of loss for a pioneering
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents
Just saying...
Re: (Score:3)
Also, there seem to be quite a few Russian space program deaths: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_space_program#Incidents_and_setbacks [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This is correct, and lying governments are not restricted to just the US.
I think you will find most governments around the world lie to their citizens at
various times.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you will find most governments around the world lie to their citizens at various times.
Only when their lips are moving... or fingers, I guess..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Russians (Soviets at the time) had two loss-of-crew accidents with the Soyuz. Just like the Shuttle, except that the Shuttle flew more times than the Soyuz (yes, the Soyuz is considerably older than Shuttle, and has flown fewer missions).
In addition, the Soyuz has failed its mission considerably
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Soviets lost Soyuz 1, Soyuz 11 for four dead in space flights.
The two Shuttles add up to more deaths because the Shuttles carried more people than any Soviet or Russian Federation craft.
Michael J. Adams died while piloting a North American X-15 rocket plane on reentry from 50.4 miles up.
Shuttle did 135 launches with two lost craft
Soyuz has done 111 launches with two lost craft
Apollo did 16 launches with no lost craft
Gemini did 10 launches with no lost craft
Vostok did 6 launches with no lost craft
Mercury
Re: (Score:2)
Note that Soyuz is on about its 7th or 8th generation of craft. The soyuz deaths occurred in some pretty ancient models.
Standard /. car analogy is its like being scared to hitch a ride in your kid's ford focus because in your dad's generation ford made the incredible exploding pinto. There's a lot of water under the bridge in the last 5 generations of vehicle and 40 years. I'd feel much safer in a current model soyuz than a current model space shuttle, for obvious reasons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soy [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Note that Soyuz is on about its 7th or 8th generation of craft. The soyuz deaths occurred in some pretty ancient models.
And the Soyuz 11 problem wouldn't have affected the current crews since they wear suits.
BTW, weren't there a couple of close calls when the re-entry module didn't separate properly? AFAIR the crews survived but had an exciting ride.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, weren't there a couple of close calls when the re-entry module didn't separate properly? AFAIR the crews survived but had an exciting ride.
That's because Soyuz, unlike the shuttle, has a "survive but have an exciting ride" mode - when the controls on the descent module fail, it can re-enter on a ballistic trajectory and survive. Shuttle only had "textbook-perfect re-entry" and "loss of vehicle and crew" modes.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd feel much safer in a current model soyuz than a current model space shuttle
There is no current model space shuttle, only a retired model space shuttle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Soyuz-2.1b - 0 losses in 3 launches
763 launches of active Soyuz rocket models and 20 lost rockets give us a 2.62% loss rate, or worse than Shuttle.
So no, getting on a Soyuz-U, FG, or 2.1x is not safer than a Shuttle was.
Except that the shuttle killed two crews and Soyuz over the same time period killed none. That's the wonder of building an actual escape system into your design so the crew don't die as soon as something goes wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Apollo did 16 launches with no lost craft
Only if you don't count a fire during a launch rehearsal. Sure it's not actually a launch... but they had to scrap that whole flight. But still, I consider it close enough. For instance, if a couple dies during their wedding rehearsal, history should record that but for the deaths, they would have married. (In France, it would probably be good enough to get presidential approval to actually construct the marriage despite them being dead, especially if one were to survive.)
The point is, it's kind of dick to
Re: (Score:2)
The point is, it's kind of dick to not include the lost Apollo mission on account of it "never having actually launched"... when in truth, but for the fire, it would have launched.
But I believe it was being tested in a configuration that would never have flown; if I remember correctly, the cabin atmosphere changed from normal air to low-pressure (6psi?) pure O2 during launch, whereas the test was about 16psi pure O2.
That said, there were enough flaws with the Block I Apollo capsules that the odds of killing a crew at some point without the Block II redesign were pretty high.
Re: (Score:2)
At least according to wikipedia they were planning to launch in that configuration
The high-pressure oxygen atmosphere was consistent with that used in the Mercury and Gemini programs. The pressure before launch was deliberately greater than ambient in order to drive out the nitrogen-containing air and replace it with pure oxygen. After liftoff, the pressure would have been reduced to the in-flight level of 5 pounds per square inch (34 kPa), providing sufficient oxygen for the astronauts to breathe while reducing the fire risk.
After the fire the plans were changed to launch with an oxygen nitrogen mix (though still a VERY oxygen rich one) in the cabin and then replace the atmosphere in space.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is, it's kind of dick to not include the lost Apollo mission on account of it "never having actually launched"... when in truth, but for the fire, it would have launched.
But I believe it was being tested in a configuration that would never have flown; if I remember correctly, the cabin atmosphere changed from normal air to low-pressure (6psi?) pure O2 during launch, whereas the test was about 16psi pure O2.
That said, there were enough flaws with the Block I Apollo capsules that the odds of killing a crew at some point without the Block II redesign were pretty high.
Someone else already addressed this, but you are not correct, the configuration was indeed intended to launch. It was going to be a manned launch as a test, with some further unmanned launches as more tests and then a manned launch of what-would-have-been Apollo 2, which ended up being Apollo 4. When the launch failed, they were originally expected to not use Apollo 1 for the flight, because it never launched, and then Apollo 4 would have been Apollo 1. It was later petitioned that because NASA was fully in
Re: (Score:2)
- US lost one in 80s and 2000's, with 14 crew members lost.
Based on the more recent nature of US accidents (and massive loss of lives), any insurance carrier will confirm that US missions are riskier (would command higher insurance premiums). Good thing they got discontinued, I guess.
Source: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Apollo did 16 launches with no lost craft
You have conveniently overlooked Apollo 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in this case, technically Soyuz 11 wasn't lost either, just the contents perished due to unsatisfactory ventilation conditions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
According to wikipedia (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents), 277 Americans have flown in space, compared to 96 for USSR/Russia. 14 Americans have been killed in spaceflight (technically 13, because one was Israeli), and 4 Soviets were killed. That's a death rate of 5% for USA and 4.2% for Russia.
Re: (Score:3)
Misleading statistics.
There have been 277 DIFFERENT Americans in space. Quite a few have flown more than once.
Ditto the Russians.
Note that Shuttle had 135 flights, with seven crew each. Call it 950 total Shuttle crew. Fourteen fatalities, so about 1.5% death rates on Shuttle
The Russians have flown Soyuz 110 times, two crew per shot. 220 Russians, four dead. Or about 1.8% death rate.
Re: (Score:2)
not every shuttle flight had the max crew of seven, STS-135 for instance, had only four crewmembers, since there was no back-up shuttle available if some malfunction prevented normal de-orbit. The plan in case of failure was to stay over on the ISS and use soyuz's to come back down. All test flights with enterprise (which arent counted in the 135 number) had two crew, the four initial flights for columbia were 2-man missions. Counting up all STS flights on wikipedia comes to 816 crew members. 14 dead on 816
Re: (Score:2)
Check again. TM-2 launched with two guys, picked up a third in orbit from MIR. TM-8 and TM-9 had only two apiece. Unfortunately, the swapping of crews via
Re:I'm afraid this means vodka rationing, boys (Score:5, Informative)
Here are more accurate statistics:
http://space.kursknet.ru/cosmos/english/other/stat_kk.sht [kursknet.ru]
Russia / USSR launched 282 man-flights into space. USA launched 881 man-flights. Thus the fatality rate for Russia is 1.4%, and for USA 1.6%.
China has launched 6 man-flights on 3 launches with a 0% fatality rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Measuring it per country is not particularly relevant for anything but a dick-measuring context. What matters is how well a particular design handles, whatever the nationality of engineers who designed it.
Re: (Score:2)
Soyuz 11 was a classic case of "someone had to find out the hard way" - a pressure valve opened due to bad luck, three cosmonauts on board suffocated. For a lon
Re: (Score:2)
If you mean the current generation of Soyuz hasn't lost any crew then you are correct but there were fatalities with the first generation. However, the last fatality was over 40 years and 100 launches ago so you are absolutely correct that the Russian program has a much better safety record than NASA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So far, there's not proof that an "American company" could even replicate the 1961 mission that sent Alan Shepard into space.
Maybe you should wait until a private corporation sends one single human into space and brings him back alive before making claims about what they can do. And it's not just a "matter of certifications" because if they wanted proof of concep
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing "motivating" those three companies is the hope that they can get government money.
These companies will never be involved with the private sector's use of space. Their entire purpose is to become government contractors and join the corporate welfare state.
It's not the "X-Prize" they're hoping for, it's the "Hali
Re: (Score:2)
Safety in the hands of a private company? Only if you mandate insurance, else I fear for the life of every astronaut.
I've been in safety and security long enough to know one thing: The ONLY reason why a dime gets spent on it is that not spending it would cost more.
Re: (Score:2)
These methods sound like they are Michelle Bachmann approved
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad it's in a museum now.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do I suddenly envision someone saying that, then handing over a few cubic meters of QIC-11 tapes?
Re: (Score:2)
RTFA.
None - it was unmanned
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The cargo consisted of two Texans and a bottle of vodka.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny I don't picture the average Texan to be overweight.
Then again I do live in Texas so reality might be effecting my perceptions.
Re: (Score:3)
To be honest, I was going for the cheap laugh. I was thinking about Googling about for US states or cities with highest obesity rates, but, oh look, shiny things.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't look now [menshealth.com], but Texas is well-represented. Corpus Christi tops the list, in fact... more like Corpus Corpulus. (I'm sure I got that wrong, latin grammar nerds may step in and school me now so long as they do it in the style of Sir John Cleese.) That's last year, ISTR reading about Houston being #1 this year. I got so fucking fat in Texas it was ridiculous. There's just bomb food everywhere and they give you more than you should eat every time, but it's so good... sigh. Anyway now I cook my own food and
Re: (Score:3)
It might help that I live in Austin. Austin shows up in the lists for most healthy cities.
Then again the rest of Texas would be happy for Austin to not be part of Texas.
It's Texas's little liberal heart.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Please no that program should have never happened. Making a reusable do all vehicle for going to space was never a great idea. Weight is so critically important, sure reuse the same modular design over and over. You want a do all thing in orbit and a cheap way to get stuff there. The shuttle was designed to push money all over the country not get to space efficiently.
Re: (Score:3)
It does surprise me that we still can't repeatably get into space over 50 years after first doing so. Not that I blame anybody; apparently it's just very, very hard to do.
Re: (Score:2)
It does surprise me that we still can't repeatably get into space over 50 years after first doing so. Not that I blame anybody; apparently it's just very, very hard to do.
or maybe we're trying harder to play political games for profit than we are to develop our space program...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
American pork barrel is no match for Russian vodka barrel!
Our corrupt politicians make yours look like amateurs!
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Because this couldn't have happened to NASA? The Air Force? The Navy? Space-X? The ESA?
Who of that group has a lossless record? None of them. This *is* rocket science!
Maybe the Russians really screwed up here. Maybe there's a reason not to trust them. But at this point? We don't know anything, except that the Russians failed to do one of the most complicated things that human beings do. That's hardly a terrible indictment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And you think the Soviets would not have put bombs into orbit if it wasn't for the fear of the US doing the same?
I sure as hell would count that as "protecting the interests and borders of the US". And it's not like there aren't any "not too friendly" nations anymore that either can or will be able soon to do just that.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't need bombs in orbit when you have ICBMs. Bombs in space are easy to track, ICBMs on the ground are not. ICBMs go into space before dropping on their target anyway so the difference is only that you're using the rocket part long before you drop the bomb part.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is warning time. An ICBM that already hangs over your head and only needs to survive reentry and explode gives you VERY little warning time compared to an ICBM that needs to launch, fly and reenter/explode. Your spy sats would pick that up the instant that missile silo opens, let alone the rocket takes off.
A bomb in orbit is literally the Damocletian sword hanging over you, it COULD drop any time it passes overhead... or it could just fly by. Sure, you can track them, but if you do not have a
Re: (Score:2)
l just don't trust Russia now, don't trust their space program to serve the U.S., never trusted them in the past and Putin's statement show me I can't trust them in the future.
Our legislators need to revisit how they direct and fund NASA. It doesn't mean NASA doesn't need to change, but NASA overseeing plans to keep us in space are a matter of the Federal Government's proper duty under the constitution to protect the U.S.'s interests and protect our borders.
If you hate Russians so much out of a Cold War mentality, why do you even bother to write if you are just going to be waving flags. Seriously, let it go, the war was won already.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny enough, the Russians got better while the US got worse with their space program over time. NASA sure held a better flight record until 1986. Zero losses in orbit.
Thinking about it, the only US astronauts that ever died in space were in shuttles. Might be time to crack out that Apollo design. Back then, NASA still had some funding and could actually build spaceworthy shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Without any data to show that the Russians did anything worng, I'm not sure why you say that.
NASA, the Air Force, the ESA... everyone that's launched any number of rockets into orbit has lost some. Even if you don't make stupid mistakes, you can never be sure you've anticipated everything.
This *is* rocket science.
We don't know what happened. But to say that the Russians are somehow incompetent is laughable at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
No problem at all. If they got any funding worth the name, they could certainly come up with a system. Since it's cheaper to toss a few bucks on the Russians and have them take over ...
Good ol' market economy at work.