A Russian robotic vehicle seems to be out of control, and unable to dock with the ISS. Probably a stuck or miscommanded thruster. Between this and the two Soyuz landing anomalies, I wonder if the Russian space program is falling apart? If so, it’s potentially bad news for ISS. We need to get a fire lit under the commercial crew and COTS programs.
30 thoughts on “Lack Of Progress”
Comments are closed.
Apparently so. The old timers are retiring or dying off, and young people aren’t coming in to replace them. On top of that, the old timers didn’t document anything they did, unless it was in coded crib sheets they kept in their pockets. This was a matter of job security, but now it is portending the doom of Russian space capability.
I think we’re better off in this country, though you’d never know it to observe the state of the industry…
Unfortunately,more likely than lighting a fire under COTS and commercial crew is that the “shuttle forever” crowd will insist that it proves that shuttle must be forever, perhaps in the process defunding COTS and commercial crew to scrape up the funds. Certainly defunding any of the reforms in the proposed budget.
But how could the shuttle be forever anymore? I thought they were out of external tanks and the facility that built them was closed and people were already laid off. At this point wouldn’t it be impossible to restart the program?
There are two or three tanks left (one of them a LWT I think), so two more flights might still be possible.
Never let a crisis go to waste!
Where’s the “Delta Flyer” when you need it! Paris could chase it down quickly.
Otto the Auto Pilot got into the Vodka ration!
Does this put any I.S.S. supply at critical?
None of the supplies were deemed necessary for the station’s immediate survival and the outpost is well supplied, said NASA flight commentator Rob Navias.
I guess that answers my question.
A good thing the Russians have just expanded their Soyuz production facility.
Yep.. as much as I’m a big fan of the Russian continuous improvement process they also adopt the “perfect is the enemy of good enough” mantra a little too much.
Rand,
[[[We need to get a fire lit under the commercial crew and COTS programs.]]]
Problem is there may be no place for them to go to by the time they are ready. That is why the Shuttle is needed to fill the gap. Retiring it before a replacement was operational may prove a very costly mistake.
Retiring it before a replacement was operational may prove a very costly mistake.
Ensuring no replacement was ready by the time it was slated to be retired would be a more accurate way to describe it. The mistake was not that the Shuttle was retired early, but that development of a replacement spacecraft was insufficiently funded and made dependent on development of new launch vehicles.
Martijn, are you suggesting they design for existing equipment? What a heretical idea! Next you’ll suggest they put out RFPs instead of doing it in house.
The mistake was not that the Shuttle was retired early, but that development of a replacement spacecraft was insufficiently funded and made dependent on development of new launch vehicles.
Yes the shuttle should have been retired long ago – after a replacement was developed. But NASA tried and failed to develop a replacement over and over again – they were just not competent enough to do so. That they lacked funding is a complete myth – as SpaceX recently demonstrated to an embarrassing extreme.
Please can you stop saying that NASA HSF was insufficiently funded – it is so blatantly untrue.
Please can you stop saying that NASA HSF was insufficiently funded – it is so blatantly untrue.
I didn’t say NASA manned spaceflight was inadequately funded. The replacement spacecraft I had in mind would be a commercially developed one. COTS-D should have been funded long ago and CCDev should not have lost two thirds of its budget. And Griffin should have chosen at least one COTS provider using an EELV and a spacecraft provided by an aerospace major.
The Shuttle mafia should not be rewarded for making sure that we do not yet have a replacement spacecraft.
COTS-D should be funded *right now*.
Rand, you wrote:
I wonder if the Russian space program is falling apart? If so, it’s potentially bad news for ISS.
Trent, you wrote:
Yep.. as much as I’m a big fan of the Russian continuous improvement process they also adopt the “perfect is the enemy of good enough” mantra a little too much.
One accident isn’t proof that either the program is falling apart or that their approach to space activities aren’t “good enough”. In their defense, I have to note that the Russians do have an improving economy and hence, more to spend on their space program. They aren’t as bad off as they were in the 90s. Accidents such as the above would be expected from any program no matter how “perfect” it tries to be. I’d need to see more evidence of weakness first before I’d get more concerned about the program.
COTS-D should be funded *right now*.
Discussion on NSF.com suggests that could still happen under a CR without needing further Congressional approval.
Worse problems if this report is correct. In it, the station commander says the vehicle is spinning uncontrollably:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100702/sc_nm/us_russia_space_station_1
According to this link it was spinning slowly, which does not necessarily mean uncontrollably.
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/station/exp24/100702progress38p/
The Russians say the spacecraft is still under control and there’s going to be a second attempt tomorrow.
Way back when, I did some work on commercial space station resupply. The rules for just getting within the safe approach zone (2.8 miles) were draconian. How can they even think of letting a Progress that has control problems do a *docking* attempt is completely beyond me. (In case I need remind you, a Progress collided with and depressurized the Mir Specktr module while an American was on board. It was during a test of manual control docking).
Of course, some of those draconian rules were simply barriers to entry for non-NASA or RSA wannabes. Particularly the one which read: “First, you must find the tallest tree in the forest, and then chop it down with…a herring!”
MfK,
Yes, that is what I am wondering about. As far as I know none of the supplies in the Progress are so critical they couldn’t be replaced on the next Shuttle flight or wait for another Progress mission.
On the other hand if they slam it into the ISS as they did Mir it could be a real mess.
I read the problem was that someone switched on the manual backup system (TORU) and that this interfered with automated KURS signals, after which the Progress skipped the docking as a precaution. It did this without maneuvering by skipping a burn so it would safely sail past the ISS on its preplanned trajectory.
I seem to remember this automated system failed on the previous supply mission and they did it manually back then. It makes me wonder why they would attempt the automatic system again rather than just using the manual system to begin with.
Unfortunately, TORU is fully qualified to coexist with KURS, so that KURS failed when TORU activated means, most likely, an assembly mistake that made them dependent. It’s unfortunate in many ways: firstly that it happened and made crew waste time on it, secondly that it pours the water on the mill of Oberg’s bullcrap, and finally that the equipment being mounted on an expendable makes it that much harder to examine and investigate.
equipment being mounted on an expendable makes it that much harder to examine and investigate.
I read that these systems are actually recovered, they are stored on the ISS and then returned by the Shuttle.
“It’s unfortunate in many ways: firstly that it happened and made crew waste time on it, secondly that it pours the water on the mill of Oberg’s b. . . . . .p”
OK, you are saying it is unfortunate that a crew has experienced a failure with Russian equipment, which you say vindicates the writings of a Russia-space critic (Oberg), who claims that Russian equipment is prone to failure.
You dislike Mr. Oberg so much that you casually and anonymously toss off a barnyard epitath — is that “cool” to post that way here, where we are all guests of Rand? Is the reason to dislike Mr. Oberg so well-known and persuasive that we are all in on the “cool”?
And there is a crew “up there”, at some degree of not-known-to-us-down-here risk from this robotic spacecraft. And the worst thing you can think happening from this situation is that a critic of Russian quality control would be vindicated?
And there is a crew “up there”, at some degree of not-known-to-us-down-here risk from this robotic spacecraft. And the worst thing you can think happening from this situation is that a critic of Russian quality control would be vindicated?
I don’t find either the propaganda fallout or the possibility of immeasurably greater risk to the ISS crew to be significant.
They’ve just successfully docked. Apparently a video streaming application running on Windows crashed and asked if the astronauts wanted to send it to Microsoft. Someone should ask Jim Oberg about that. 🙂