Cygnus Launches In First Mission Since Antares Rocket Explosion (arstechnica.com) 39
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)."
So from FOSS to space launches (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Potatos. Nothing but potatos.
Re: Sad to see so much money... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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%.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
...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."
Re: (Score:3)
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... [spaceflightnow.com]
"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 lau
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
And the Soyuz is market selected?
Cygnus is a real life kerbal space program (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Somebody else's rocket (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
What they don't show you is that they used duct tape to secure the pointy bits to the big ol' rocket that launched into space. Lots and lots of duct tape!
(I'm not a rocket surgeon.)
Outsourcing? (Score:2)
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 cr
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
ATK Orbital is the sole source provider of the SRM's used on Atlas V launchers. Also, ATK Orbital manufactured the SRB's that were used on the shuttle, and will likely be manufacturing the SLS SRB's as well. They make the rocket motor for the PAM payload assist module used by many satellites during the shuttle days, and is an upper stage option for Delta launchers. They aren't exactly new to the game...