Rocket With US-Russian Crew Misses ISS Rendezvous

[Purveyor]

Wednesday, 26 March 2014 13:19
Posted by Parvez Jabri
E-mailPrintPDFViews:51

imageMOSCOW: A Soyuz rocket carrying two Russian cosmonauts and a US astronaut failed to dock as planned early Wednesday to the International Space Station, the Russian and US space agencies said Wednesday, citing a problem on approach.

The rocket, which took off without a hitch on Tuesday from Russia's Baikonur launching pad in Kazakhstan, was meant to have hooked up with the ISS at 0304 GMT Wednesday after a six-hour flight.

It will now seek to dock at 2358 GMT on Thursday, Russia's federal space agency Roscosmos said, according to Russian news outlets.

The delay "is due to complications that appeared in the functioning of the vessel's orientation system," Roscosmos said.

The US space agency NASA said in a statement on its website that the Soyuz spacecraft "was unable to complete its third thruster burn to fine-tune its approach" to the orbiting space station.

As a result, the rocket is reverting to a backup docking window.

more...

http://www.brecorder.com/world/europe/164446.html

[Control-Z]

1. Anything that goes wrong in space

is a big deal, and frightening as hell. I wish them well and safety.

[joshcryer]

2. Dang, this is disconcerting.

Soyuz is some archaic technology these days. Can't wait until SpaceX is ferrying crews.

[CFLDem]

4. We had a working prototype-

then our dear leader cancelled the Aries program and decided it was wiser to pay the Russians 70 million per astronaut instead.

Kind of a dick move if you ask me.

Maybe he'll 'evolve' and decide space science is good for America now the Cold War is back on.

[joshcryer]

5. Bush's Constellation Program was a boondoggle.

And it still wouldn't be flying crews had Obama not canceled it. In fact, it was preconditioned on the scuttling of the ISS!

Obama did the right thing and we'll be flying crews by late 2015 early 2016 and for a fraction of the cost.

And don't get me started about Obama's NASA science funding, he proposed making it larger than any previous administration, it was the Senate and Congress that shut him down in his budget and forced the American people to build the "Senate Launch System."

[MindMover]

6. Nice when people know the facts ...

[joshcryer]

8. The worst part of Cx is it would've ended ISS by 2015.

So, "manned spaceflight" would've been completely obliterated. It was ridiculous. Had Obama continued Bush's program, we'd really be complaining about the loss of manned space flight, particularly because the Shuttle would've still only flown a half dozen more missions at most.

[CFLDem]

7. The real boondoggle

is relying primarily on privatization of the space program for long term goals.

Privatization is great for routine missions like supplying the ISS or launching satellites, but it is a poor substitute for missions with the substantial risks that come with going beyond LEO.

The President sets the agenda and cannot defer the entire culpability for NASA's current state of disarray. It is one thing to make lofty proposals, and another to actually fight for it.

It is unfortunate that this administration's sentiments on human space exploration are worth as much as their 'rocket to nowhere'.

[joshcryer]

9. No, relying on cost-plus and MIC was a disaster.

Did you know the Space Shuttle was actually subsidizing solid rocket boosters for the military industrial complex? They actually lamented the loss of Space Shuttle solid rocket boosters when it was canceled.

As far as privitization, I'd agree, I think in theory a properly run state program would be more efficient. But the space program because of MIC's influence was not in fact "properly run." The gantry for Ares was more costly than the entire funding of COTS (commercial orbital transportation services). Think about that. The gantry that held up the Ares rocket for launch, was more costly than the entire COTS program which has so far proved to be very successful. And it's not just SpaceX but Orbital who are doing it now.

Orion failed every single drop test it had. Why? Because it was cost-plus. If it failed the taxpayer paid for subsequent testing. There was no incentive to succeed under that program.

Falcon 9H will prove the naysayers wrong and while the "Senate Launch System" will probably see a launch or two it will be unable to compete because the private contractors are getting paid under cost-plus, and they will do anything they can do to profit as opposed to providing services delivered for services paid. If the SLS fails at any point the government will bail out the private contractors who failed to deliver.

[applegrove]

3. Vibes to them.