Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday October 25 2016, @01:59PM   Printer-friendly
from the long-gestation-period dept.

The International Space Station received its first shipment from a private, Virginia-based company in more than two years Sunday following a sensational nighttime launch observed 250 miles up and down the East Coast.

Orbital ATK's cargo ship pulled up at the space station bearing 5,000 pounds of food, equipment and research.

"What a beautiful vehicle," said Japanese astronaut Takuya Onishi, who used the station's big robot arm to grab the vessel. The capture occurred as the spacecraft soared 250 miles above Kyrgyzstan; Onishi likened it to the last 195 meters of a marathon.

Last Monday's liftoff from Wallops Island was the first by an Antares rocket since a 2014 launch explosion. Orbital ATK redesigned its Antares rocket and rebuilt the pad. While the Antares was grounded, Virginia-based Orbital ATK kept the NASA supply chain open with deliveries from Cape Canaveral, Florida, using another company's rocket.

NASA is paying Orbital ATK and SpaceX to stock the station, but now SpaceX is grounded. The California company is investigating why one of its Falcon rockets exploded in a massive fireball during launch pad testing on Sept. 1.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Celestial on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:04PM

    by Celestial (4891) on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:04PM (#418548) Journal

    Can we deliver New Jersey to outer space next?

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday October 25 2016, @08:11PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday October 25 2016, @08:11PM (#418701) Journal

      Only if you can master the concept that to turn left, you must turn right [wikipedia.org].

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by number6x on Tuesday October 25 2016, @10:01PM

        by number6x (903) on Tuesday October 25 2016, @10:01PM (#418746)

        Completely off topic, but I first encountered this technique in the Detroit area [michiganhighways.org]. I used to travel there on business once a month. I was stunned at how dangerous it was.

        To make a left turn, you had to make a right turn. Then, going in the direction you don't want to go, work your way from the right most lane to the left most lane. You would proceed in the wrong direction until you came to a designated u-turn sign. You could make a u-turn and would finally be pointed in the correct direction, but often having travelled a block or two out of your way!

        I'm sure that someone sold this idea as a way to avoid deadly 't-bone' collisions [wikipedia.org]. Sure, side collisions are dangerous, but so is cutting across lanes rapidly and making U-turns (about as dangerous as t-bone turns). I'm guessing that they expected drivers to leisurely make their way from the right to the left lane. And then to patiently wait for the oncoming traffic to clear before making a u-turn. Whoever thought that would happen has never driven in the US.

        I figured that since it was Detroit, it was the auto industry influencing local lawmaking to design a system that would ensure the maximum sales of after market parts to the car repair industry, increasing profits for the auto makers.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @07:18AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @07:18AM (#418888)

        Shouldn't be hard for someone who is used to orbital mechanics, where if you want to go from taking 2 hours to complete an orbit to taking 24 hours, you need to accelerate.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by tibman on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:29PM

    by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:29PM (#418560)

    I wanted to see this beautiful vehicle myself but the article only has one 512x311 pixel image. Found the original 1095x616 image but it isn't much better. http://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/wp-content/uploads/sites/240/2016/10/cygnus_captured.jpg [nasa.gov]

    --
    SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday October 25 2016, @03:22PM

      by VLM (445) on Tuesday October 25 2016, @03:22PM (#418573)

      TLDR is watch next episode of "TWAN". In more detail:

      The launch got second billing (still lots of coverage) on last weeks "This week at NASA" aka TWAN. The most recent episode was released before the vehicle arrived at the ISS.

      https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/podcasting/twan_index.html [nasa.gov]

      I would not be surprised if the next episode of TWAN covers the arrival, maybe even first billing, lots of TWAN coverage originating from the station is high def, might be your lucky day.

      TWAN has a RSS feed, its not hard to find the program that injects RSS feed video blogs into mythtv as a recording source, so my superDVR magically presents me with the most recent TWAN (and plenty of other video). Future being unevenly distributed and all that. TWAN is a pretty good TV program, its just not a broadcast TV program... I wouldn't say the journalists on TWAN are full engineers but they're close or closer than any "normal journalist" so the journalist coverage is surprisingly good. I mean, journalists who can pronounce the words correctly shouldn't be a treat, yet it makes TWAN unusually good for science reporting?

      The timing is much like legacy TV news, so each story is a minute to a couple minutes long and the entire show is always less than 10 minutes which is probably about as much "real news" is on legacy TV news. So it feels normal.

      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday October 30 2016, @11:32PM

        by VLM (445) on Sunday October 30 2016, @11:32PM (#420706)

        Ah ha! It was on todays episode! And being TWAN its full high def, although only a minute long.

    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @05:22AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @05:22AM (#418872)

      You never will, and this is because there IS no vehicle. The "space program", which comes into the "private sector" variety these days is a hoax: no machines "orbit" the Earth, as common sense and physics can tell you. Satellites allegedly measure in the tens of thousands, yet nobody ever seen one.

      Are there moving lights on the dome? You bet. Have they been put there by NASA and "the private space sector" (which audaciously advertises itself as a thing)? No, they have not.

      One word: thermosphere.

  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:38PM

    by VLM (445) on Tuesday October 25 2016, @02:38PM (#418566)

    SpaceX is grounded. The California company is investigating why one of its Falcon rockets exploded in a massive fireball during launch pad testing on Sept. 1.

    Anyone up to discuss? Last I heard the helium system burped and they were blaming pad procedures. I can imagine it... some He reg has a spot of water in it from condensation, maybe it was chilled and not properly flushed with N2 previously, pour in a bunch of supercooled O2 and it ices up just enough to stick at the wrong time, suddenly pops open or jams, shockwave pops a pipe or fitting or "water hammer" or heck just a bb sized bullet of ice propelled at 4000 psi can do some damage, and next thing you know they're trying to pressurize a liq O2 tank to 4000 psi and that makes a mess when it pops.

    The thing I find odd is its all rumor and innuendo and they're gonna launch again soon but no official report on this incident. Which I bet will read very similar to the above paragraph.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 25 2016, @04:36PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 25 2016, @04:36PM (#418608) Journal

      The thing I find odd is its all rumor and innuendo and they're gonna launch again soon but no official report on this incident. Which I bet will read very similar to the above paragraph.

      We're spoiled by real time information. I wouldn't expect an official report until roughly six months after the accident, which would be March, 2017.

    • (Score: 2) by gman003 on Tuesday October 25 2016, @06:17PM

      by gman003 (4155) on Tuesday October 25 2016, @06:17PM (#418658)

      The leading hypothesis right now (at least as far as I know) is that a change to speed up the loading procedures allowed the formation of solid oxygen between the carbon-fiber overwrap and the metal liner of the helium tank (which, for efficiency, is positioned inside the LOX tank (a design trick not exclusive to SpaceX)). As the helium pressure increases during loading, it can squeeze out any liquid oxygen between the two layers, but solid oxygen crystals would remain, and solid oxygen in contact with carbon at over a ton per square inch of pressure is pretty much a guaranteed explosion.

      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 26 2016, @02:42PM

        by VLM (445) on Wednesday October 26 2016, @02:42PM (#419000)

        Yeah that's a believable series of events. That fits in with some of the rumors that its not a design or mfgr problem but a ground policy/procedure problem because all you gotta do is not fill the helium tank when its surrounded by solid O2 and you're all good. Heck they could flush the tank with gas He, fill the tank, the flood the compartment with slush and it would be OK as a ground procedure.

        Could even be an intersection of our two theories. Usually filling the He tank is super boring even surrounded by solid O2 but this time someone on the ground didn't follow procedure and flush a line leading to water condensation leading to regulator hiccup leading to transient overpressure leading to carbon fibre + sol O2 = kaboom. That would explain some delay if there's two fundamental ground problems and gotta allocate blame / fix proportionately.

        Something very similar between redundant IT / CS systems and redundant aerospace designs is the failure modes always involve long chains of ridiculously unlikely stuff that lead to worst possible outcome. Makes accident reports for aerospace and IT interesting to read, anyway.

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @05:16AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 26 2016, @05:16AM (#418870)

      The thing I find odd is its all rumor and innuendo and they're gonna launch again soon but no official report on this incident.

      If you afford a long, honest look at SpaceX it will become apparent to you that it is a hoax. Robbers these days not only wear suits and a tie, but they also smile for the camera.

      Lots of CGI. Launchpads and testing sites "somewhere at the Atlantic". No independent verification of claims, which is something NASA can stop (a bit) worrying about once it "transfers" space responsibilities into "the private sector": this will be very convenient, as independent verification will become impossible because of "private sector secret stuff". This is hilarious, as there is zero independent verification now, where "space projects" are on taxpayer dollar.

      Exactly how many people has SpaceX "sent to space"? Much talk, zero results. I smell a very, very big scam here.

      • (Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Wednesday October 26 2016, @05:55AM

        by Bogsnoticus (3982) on Wednesday October 26 2016, @05:55AM (#418876)

        With the way your is head buried so far up your arse, it's not a scam you're smelling.

        --
        Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
  • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday October 25 2016, @03:24PM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 25 2016, @03:24PM (#418576) Homepage Journal

    there's going to come a time when they're delivering personnel via privately-operated rockets.

    Recall the scene in The Right Stuff where the astronauts are watching early launch attempt, but they all keep failing.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 25 2016, @04:28PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 25 2016, @04:28PM (#418603) Journal
      Nervous compared to what? Almost everything up that comes from the US side is made by private companies.
      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday October 25 2016, @05:00PM

        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday October 25 2016, @05:00PM (#418619)

        But they used to race the Ruskies in the name of the survival of all mankind, so their private explosions and sacrifices had Purpose.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @05:32PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @05:32PM (#418631)

          Also the Russians charged for it too. Those rides were not gratis.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @07:24PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 25 2016, @07:24PM (#418684)

            Charged A LOT as well.

  • (Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Tuesday October 25 2016, @08:09PM

    by MichaelDavidCrawford (2339) Subscriber Badge <mdcrawford@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 25 2016, @08:09PM (#418699) Homepage Journal

    The Range Safety Officer has the job of remotely blowing the rocket to smithereens if it should go out of control.

    I expect they even do that when carrying astronauts, but future US crew capsules will be equipped with escape rockets, then parachute safely down. Or so it is hoped.

    --
    Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]