Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Progress Spacecraft Launch Successful

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the that-went-better dept.

ISS 83

Zothecula writes "The future of the International Space Station (ISS) became more secure on Sunday, October 30, 2011 when the Russian space agency Rosocosmos carried out a successful launch of an unmanned Progress spacecraft. The 15,718 lb (7,130 kg) cargo ship carried its three tons of supplies into orbit and successfully deployed its solar arrays without incident. This launch confirms that the Soyuz-U launch vehicle is once again safe to carry the manned spacecraft needed to ferry crews to the ISS."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What? (3, Insightful)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#37896762)

Sure, I should read the article, but the summary makes no sense. Why does the successful launch of one spacecraft prove that it's safe to launch manned spacecraft again? One successful launch doesn't prove anything.

Re:What? (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#37896844)

Ok, read the article, and yup that's basically what it says. We think we found the problem, and this launch didn't blow up. Now we're safe again!

Re:What? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37897270)

Niggers are niggers because they act like niggers. Not reading the article and asking shit you'd know if you read the article is acting like a nigger.

What a nigger!

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37897990)

wtf too much shit in your cereals this morning ?

Re:What? (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | more than 2 years ago | (#37896916)

The Soyuz booster "blowed up real good" on the last launch. The booster itself has been in use for years and years. This launch merely confirms that they know (and have fixed) what went wrong last time.

Re:What? (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897072)

The Soyuz booster "blowed up real good" on the last launch. The booster itself has been in use for years and years. This launch merely confirms that they know (and have fixed) what went wrong last time.

What is all this "blow up" stuff in the comments? Are you guys talking about Progress M-12M from the end of this summer aka the "constipation incident"? Intestinal blockage would have been a better analogy, but we're stuck with the nickname I heard about it, I guess. Or is there another recent Soyuz launch that failed, or confusing another nations launcher failure with the Soyuz or ? Soyuz has a ridiculous good safety record, like two incidents in the last four decades or something like that, so if there was a second recent failure I imagine I would have heard lots of babble about it.

Re:What? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897926)

This launch merely confirms that they know (and have fixed) what went wrong last time.

No, it doesn't. First, as vlm pointed out [slashdot.org] , the current launch is a different setup which might not be subject to the flaws of that previous launch. Second, the failure mode may be intermittent, that is, not happen all the time. In which case, it is possible not just for the failure mode to still exist, but be even worse than before!

Re:What? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37896918)

Sure, I should read the article, but the summary makes no sense. Why does the successful launch of one spacecraft prove that it's safe to launch manned spacecraft again? One successful launch doesn't prove anything.

Technically you may be accurate but there is a couple of other factors here that the article doesn't mention. First the original problem was due to contamination of the engine during manufacturing. They inspected the other engines and found them clean. Second the Soyuz-U design is the oldest rocket design still in operation. And the first stage is what launched Sputnik!. So they have a LOT of operational experience with this rocket. So the situation is more like an airplane engine failure where they found it was due to the faulty maintenance rather than a design issue.

Re:What? (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37896986)

Why does the successful launch of one spacecraft prove that it's safe to launch manned spacecraft again? One successful launch doesn't prove anything.

Sure it can... The failure mode of Progress M-12M was a fuel duct was blocked so the computer felt like shutting down early which dumped the thing back in the atmosphere.

Its no great stretch of the imagination that a change in the software makes it not shut down early if flow rate drops a bit... If its going to be a total loss anyway, may as well keep burning.

Also no great stretch of the imagination to graph the pressure and flow rate thru the duct during the launch and see that the slightly modified design no longer decreases over time. And/or enhanced manufacturing Q+A now makes manufacturing mistake less likely.

Finally no great stretch of the imagination to stick three sensors in the duct and change the code to "2 outta 3" instead of trusting just 1 sensor.

(I have no inside sources, non of this is based on non-public sources)

It might be hard to believe, but even the Russians can do telemetry. Aerospace engineering can sometimes operate beyond the binary "did it blow up, T/F?" stage, even in a foreign land.

Re:What? (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897962)

Its no great stretch of the imagination that a change in the software makes it not shut down early if flow rate drops a bit... If its going to be a total loss anyway, may as well keep burning.

It's a great stretch of imagination for anyone who has ever heard of basics of combustion. If you starve an engine for fuel, it'll run lean. Lean running engines, whether ICUs or rocket nozzles, run much hotter than they were designed for. You can easily burn through a combustion chamber and nozzle (as in melting through it) by burning lean mixture. I've seen a diesel locomotive's exhaust getting nearby stuff on fire because a fuel pump was malfunctioning and the engine was running lean. The exhaust glowed orange, whereas normally you can't see it glowing much at all.

Thus you are going from a "total loss" where the payload can safely return to earth if it was meant to do so (Progress as a whole isn't), to a real total loss where the vehicle has a good chance of actually blowing up due to what would be a designed-in disintegration of the rocket engine.

Re:What? (1)

strack (1051390) | more than 2 years ago | (#37903990)

its definitely a argument for a design being able to sustain a engine failure at any point in the mission and still get to orbit with the remaining engines. much like the falcon 9, or the saturn V. both of which have perfect records of mission success. in fact, is there any rocket with engine out capability that dosent have a perfect record?

NASA requires 2 good launches before US astronauts (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897036)

return to space station. There were two failed launches and the proposed fix, which seems to work. The International Space Station shuts down in three weeks if a fresh crop of astronauts doesnt make it there by then.

Re:NASA requires 2 good launches before US astrona (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897188)

There were two failed launches

Hmm lets check the chronology

M-10M and earlier were this spring or earlier. I can't remember the last Progress failure. They do collide with the station on a regular basis.
M-11M worked fine in June
M-12M shut down early and burned up in the atmosphere in august, more or less
M-13M is this one, successful.

So, what mission was the other failure?

Re:NASA requires 2 good launches before US astrona (1)

BZWingZero (1119881) | more than 2 years ago | (#37898876)

The Russians had a Proton M/Briz M fail less than a week before the Soyuz/Progress (M-12M) failure. Both failures, IIRC, were for similar reasons.

In Capitalist USA, Soviet Russia launches you! (1)

fantomas (94850) | more than 2 years ago | (#37899758)

In the hands of the Russians then, see how they get on. Because the USA doesn't have any other options and they might have to go along with what the Russians decide. Though I am sure the ISS management has contingency plans for putting the station into dormant mode in case of emergency.

Re:What? (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 2 years ago | (#37898002)

Carrier has arrived.

Rosocosmos ? (1)

pburghdoom (1892490) | more than 2 years ago | (#37896776)

Rosocosmos seems like a name someone would come up with if there were making a parody of the Russian space program. Even so, at least some countries still take there space programs seriously.

Re:Rosocosmos ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37896940)

Roscocosmos, Space Rhinoceros

Re:Rosocosmos ? (1)

eriqk (1902450) | more than 2 years ago | (#37919700)

"Ro! Sco! Co! Smo!"?

Re:Rosocosmos ? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897182)

Rosocosmos seems like a name someone would come up with if there were making a parody of the Russian space program.

I would have suggested "Ruskienauts."

Re:Rosocosmos ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37897552)

It seems to have gained an extra O in the edit as well. Usually the agency is known as Roscosmos or Roskosmos in English. See https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Roscosmos

Re:Rosocosmos ? (1)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | more than 2 years ago | (#37898154)

Rosocosmos seems like a name someone would come up with if there were making a parody of the Russian space program. Even so, at least some countries still take there space programs seriously.

Ha fucking ha. Let's laugh at all these funny foreign names.

Get used to it, buddy. Your country has been hijacked by people who think that the only things worth spending money on are unprovoked foreign wars, locking up everyone caught with a joint, fences in the desert to keep people out of the nation of immigrants, and the biggest military toy collection in the world. Meanwhile America's dominance in the space industry is over. You're going to see a lot more foreign names up there, so you can laugh all you want from below while India, China, and Russia push on above your laughing head.

Re:Rosocosmos ? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#37898428)

Ha fucking ha. Let's laugh at all these funny foreign names.

The problem isn't with the name itself, so much so as the fact that it's spelled wrong. It's "Roscosmos" (ros + cosmos), not "Rosocosmos".

Re:Rosocosmos ? (1)

pburghdoom (1892490) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908114)

Wow, a bit over caffeinated and apparently you didn't read the second part the comment. I completely agree, the direction of America's program is fucked and I look forward to the day when space exploration is a multinational endeavor (more so than it is now).

Re:Rosocosmos ? (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 2 years ago | (#37901446)

I really like these sorts of names, no ambiguity.

Maybe if NASA was called Aerospacadmin they'd still have a working launch vehicle.

uh, no. (1)

chaboud (231590) | more than 2 years ago | (#37896792)

One safe launch doesn't mean that a launch vehicle is safe.

The failure to have one safe launch *does* mean that a launch vehicle is unsafe, so there's that.

Re:uh, no. (4, Informative)

Strider- (39683) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897474)

The failure to have one safe launch *does* mean that a launch vehicle is unsafe, so there's that.

Pretty much any launch vehicle is unsafe, by definition. You're sitting on top of (literally) tons of highly flammable fuel, along with similarly large amounts of liquid oxygen. There is nothing about this that is "safe" by conventional standards. Even after you've safely survived the combustion of all that fuel, you are then in one of the most hostile environments known to man. Elevated radiation levels, lack of gravity causing your bones and muscles to waste away, and a hard vacuum on the other side of a rather thin piece of aluminum and/or glass. In short, human spaceflight is inherently dangerous, yet we still do it, and quite rightly so.

Of the existing launch vehicles, the Soyuz design is the single most successful and reliable launcher ever designed and operated. Since 1973, there have been 745 launches of the Soyuz-U design with 724 successful launches (with most of the failures in the early days). The soviets, and subsequently the russians, have made continuous improvements and refinements to the design of this rocket, leading to the closest thing we have to a routine launch system. As one astronaut I've worked with said, "You can take a Soyuz, pick it up in the middle with a crane, shake it, then stick it on the pad and launch it in the middle of a blizzard, and it will still make it to orbit."

Given the choice of Shuttle, Soyuz, Falcon 9, or some other launch system, I would always take the Soyuz.

Re:uh, no. (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#37900476)

Of the existing launch vehicles, the Soyuz design is the single most successful and reliable launcher ever designed and operated. Since 1973, there have been 745 launches of the Soyuz-U design with 724 successful launches (with most of the failures in the early days).

Hmm...

724 out of 745 is 97.2% success rate.

Shuttle did 133 successful out of 135 launches, a 98.5% success rate.

Looks to me like Soyuz isn't quite as reliable or safe as Shuttle, frankly.

Re:uh, no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37901534)

The manned Soyuz is manufactured to stricter standards and much more thorough testing/checking of components (the 724 out of 745 record refers to both manned and unmanned launches). The manned Soyuz has a much better safety record, only two of the missions resulting in fatalities (the first mission ever with Kamarov, and another very early mission with the capsule decompressing on re-entry). Since 1971 the Soyuz has had a 100% safety record for it's crew.

Re:uh, no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37904844)

yeah, and before the challenger accident, the shuttle had a 100% success rate!!!

In Soviet Russia.... (0)

Godskitchen (1017786) | more than 2 years ago | (#37896802)

...I fail at these jokes.

Re:In Soviet Russia.... (0)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 2 years ago | (#37896902)

In Soviet Russia jokes fail YOU!

Re:In Soviet Russia.... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897084)

...I fail at these jokes.

In Soviet Russia rocket launches YOU!

Re:In Soviet Russia.... (2)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897366)

In pseudo-democratic Russia it is a complex situation. On the surface it appears that you fail at these jokes- however, under the thin veneer of democracy it appears the jokes may still fail you.

Re:In Soviet Russia.... (1)

savuporo (658486) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897700)

In pseudo-democratic Russia, Putin tells jokes when to fail or when not to fail. All surviving jokes invariably obey !

Safe again .. (2)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37896840)

Until further notice.

Face it, we're still in the early doors of manned spaceflight, like the early decades of avaition - filled with uncertainty, peril and loss. Perhaps a few decades time will bring safe, reliable travel into space and back, but it's still got a pretty high failure rate.

Re:Safe again .. (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37896908)

It's more likely these are last decades. A few more years, and people will decide the ISS is a useless money drain, which they can no longer afford.

Re:Safe again .. (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897098)

It's more likely these are last decades. A few more years, and people will decide the ISS is a useless money drain, which they can no longer afford.

Yeah, but with China jumping into space, the US may again feel the need to put the first beach house on the Moon.

Even if we have to borrow the money from China to fund it!

Re:Safe again .. (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 2 years ago | (#37906062)

I've been thinking about this lately and the US has got itself into a bad situation regarding military and space funding. The cold war is history but the US still wants to be militarily active so has to spend vast amounts on what is jokingly referred to as defence. China doesn't do that so can focus spending on high tech long range weapons and smaller numbers of ships and aircraft that don't get used in any real wars.

If you guys could just let go of the idea that you have to have a massively expensive and active military you could do so much more, and the benefits to yourselves would be enormous. If it is any consolation the UK is just as bad.

Re:Safe again .. (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897106)

It's more likely these are last decades. A few more years, and people will decide the ISS is a useless money drain, which they can no longer afford.

By then Bigelow will probably have his space hotel operating with SpaceX flying tourists there on a regular basis. Maybe NASA will buy one.

Re:Safe again .. (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897184)

Possibly, yes. A few filthy rich tourists could make it into low earth orbit, and a few years later, we'll run out of filthy rich tourists.

Re:Safe again .. (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897282)

Possibly, yes. A few filthy rich tourists could make it into low earth orbit, and a few years later, we'll run out of filthy rich tourists.

I believe China alone has enough millionaires to keep a hotel fully booked for quite a few years.

Re:Safe again .. (1)

Arlet (29997) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897356)

You assume they would be interested in such an adventure, especially after one or two rockets blow up.

Re:Safe again .. (2)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#37898054)

Depends how many rockets didn't blow up.

Re:Safe again .. (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#37900028)

Possibly, yes. A few filthy rich tourists could make it into low earth orbit, and a few years later, we'll run out of filthy rich tourists.

Where there are filthy rich tourists, there's a need for telephone sanitizers. ;)

Re:Safe again .. (1)

Strider- (39683) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897538)

By then Bigelow will probably have his space hotel operating with SpaceX flying tourists there on a regular basis. Maybe NASA will buy one.

Given the choice, I'd ride a Soyuz before a Falcon9. Soyuz has 724 (725 with the one out o Korou) successful launches out of a total of 745 attempts. It's a solid, proven design. At this point, falcon 9 has 2 launches.

Re:Safe again .. (1)

tibit (1762298) | more than 2 years ago | (#37898048)

But they were both successful, and that means that they probably understand their design pretty darn well. Most programs have plenty of early failures, and those usually mean that the engineering view of things doesn't mesh with reality just yet :)

Re:Safe again .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37898008)

You mean the same Bigelow that just laid off half its workers? Or the same kind of space hotel the Japanese promised in 1997? Hmmm. Time to wake up, Space Nutter. Reality is knocking at the door.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/awx/2011/10/20/awx_10_20_2011_p0-384404.xml

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9705/25/japan.space/

Laughable and utterly absurd. No one will have the money to sustain this idiocy beyond burning the initial capital from equally deluded billionaires. Being rich is no guarantee of sanity or intelligence.

Remember how Concorde was supposed to speed up air travel? We can't even sustain Mach 2 passenger flight on this planet where everything is! You think a novelty like a 10 minute hop in a tin can that goes up to nowhere, then down, that costs more than most people can save up in a lifetime, is a viable business!?

You think the government that supposedly has a bottomless wallet and just loves to waste money can't get more than a few astronauts to low Earth orbit, but suddenly, after decades, *private enterprise* (tm) will magically wave away the very real physical and engineering limits against manned space travel? Not to mention the very real medical limits that most people are barely in good enough shape to walk to their cars! Suddenly they're going to line up to work out to be in shape for that roller coaster ride?

Guess what? We *already* have private Mig flights to the edge of space. Ever considered going? Know anyone who did? Why is it going to be different with space? It's insane.

But this demands more thinking, more introspection and more reasoning than the average Space Nutter is prepared to or even capable of doing.

Re:Safe again .. (1)

whatme (997566) | more than 2 years ago | (#37899120)

It's more likely these are last decades. A few more years, and people will decide the ISS is a useless money drain, which they can no longer afford.

By then Bigelow will probably have his space hotel operating with SpaceX flying tourists there on a regular basis. Maybe NASA will buy one.

Nope. We all know where the money lies. SpaceX and Virgin Galactic will "merge" to form Virgin SpaceXXX. They will open up low-G sex tourism hotels in lunar orbit and on the moon safely out of jurisdictional oversight of all. Then they will fire up the sex tourism industry (along with revenue generating internet pron feed). It'll be like printing money.

Re:Safe again .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37897196)

If we would boost it to L1 [wikipedia.org] , just maybe it could stay up there forever.

A Lissajous orbit [wikipedia.org] looks particularly useful for lunar missions. Good luck plotting courses. It looks like what happens when you cross a NASA engineer with a drinking game.

Re:Safe again .. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37897168)

Strange. Aviation took a few decades with early 20th century technology to go from kites to WWII-level airplanes. Now with all our supposed technology, we're at the exact same level as four decades ago. This doesn't raise any eyebrows, or trigger some investigations as to the *why*? We've hit the peak of what's possible with materials and energy sources. There won't be any Star Trek-level fantasies, ever.

Re:Safe again .. (2)

crakbone (860662) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897266)

There was a huge need for aviation. Moving people from part of a country or continent to another. There is no huge need to move tons of people to one part of space to another. When there is there will be money to make that happen. With no need no technology.

Re:Safe again .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37899328)

Technology only works within the framework of physics, and what elements actually exist on the Periodic Table of Elements. We have a pretty good grasp on both, think we missed anything? Please describe this technology, and what this great need to ship tons of material into space will be?

Re:Safe again .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37901928)

Technology only works within the framework of physics, and what elements actually exist on the Periodic Table of Elements. We have a pretty good grasp on both, think we missed anything?

Do you think we didn't miss anything?

Re:Safe again .. (1)

crakbone (860662) | more than 2 years ago | (#37902674)

My statement was that there is not a need for transport so no boon like we had in aviation. As soon as there is a need the boon will follow. It seems you are saying we have hit the limit on the capabilities of physics for cheap transport out of our gravity well. I would say we have everything we need right now to do it. We just have no need to do it. There is no spice and silk on the moon that we need to sail our ships around the world too. And there is no mob of people wanting to go from Europe to North America. So technology innovation in the area is stifled because there is no need. There is a demand for fast graphics, there is a demand for better drugs and there is a demand for smaller, faster processors. We have those technologies progressing faster than we ever comprehended in the 60's. What we can store on a thumb drive would blow away anything they thought possible when Asimov and Heinlein were writing Scifi. When we have a real need for flights to Mars, the asteroid belt, or Jupiter we will make the tech we need to get there and we will do it quickly.

Re:Safe again .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37903694)

"We have those technologies progressing faster than we ever comprehended in the 60's"

That's not true. They understood it perfectly, if by "they" you permit me to mean the smartest people around!

Here, read this

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/medg/people/psz/Licklider.html [mit.edu] [mit.edu]

And search for "billions" of bits. They knew, they just didn't know how. That's manufacturing. Not the lack of understanding of the basic need.

"What we can store on a thumb drive would blow away anything they thought possible "

Don't overdramatize.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_1360 [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]

A terabit of storage in 1967. They understood, they knew.

We also undertand and know how to get into space, if by "space" you mean low Earth orbit and immediate environs. We also know that there is NO room to improve, we're already AT the limits of physics just to achieve THAT.

My little example of the 1360 should show that with enough money and enough motivation, you can build completely fantastic things. Given that, how come we haven't moved any further out in space? It's because it's simply a vacuum, completely deadly and hostile to humans, and pretty much empty.

We had Apollo, then what? Who cares? So a few A-type test pilots get to poop in Ziplocs and bounce around a bit. The end. Nobody cared then, and no one will care now.

It's hard to believe but the complete lack of anything concrete to come out of manned space exploration makes it so difficult to argue against. It's nothing but hopes and dreams and faith. And it's impossible to use logic against faith.

"When we have a real need for flights to Mars, the asteroid belt, or Jupiter we will make the tech we need to get there and we will do it quickly."

See? That's faith. It's not backed up by a shred of technological evidence. "Tech" is not some magic thing that can pop out ever bigger and more powerful rockets. It's bound by physics.

On another level, it's bound by economics. What, precisely, do you think is "out there" that's so important? It's the same elements as on Earth. Except on Earth, we have the combined capacity to bring to bear 7 billion people in their native environment to work on it.

Space, I repeat, is an utterly hostile deadly vacuum. The logistics of it are self-defeating.

If we DID have the resources on Earth to build this vast armada of automated mining machinery and the raw oomph to bring it all back, well, why go into space? Seems like we have plenty of stuff down here already!

Any technology you can use in space, you can use 10 times cheaper on Earth, 10x faster.

Re:Safe again .. (1)

crakbone (860662) | more than 2 years ago | (#37908452)

I really don't understand your argument. You say we have reached the limit of physics and that there is no need to go. I say we have the tech now and there is no need to go. So what exactly is your argument? We both agree that the reason there is no development of space travel is the limit of financial need to go. Soon as that limit is passed travel will increase. Soon as the cost of x is worth more here than the cost of getting x in space we will go. As far as blind faith. Spacex has a Falcon Heavy that lifts for 125 million a launch 1/4 the price of any NASA equivalent. That is without mass production. In 1909 cars cost 3000 dollars to make (about 73,000 today). After Ford was done they cost $290 (3200 today). Its not faith its looking at what has happened and seeing a future outcome.

Re:Safe again .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37913162)

"You say we have reached the limit of physics and that there is no need to go. I say we have the tech now and there is no need to go. "

What "tech"? All we have are rockets, metals and hydrocarbons. The same ones for the last 4-5 decades. That's it. We can send astronauts in low Earth orbit to go float in a thin-walled, fragile tin can that's utterly dependent on the Earth for every molecule of air, water and food. The environment is hostile to humans. It's small, cramped, you are exposed to radiation and free-fall is bad for the body, even though we send the most fit people on Earth and they work out every day.

That's the limit of what we've reached, and we've reached the limit.

"We both agree that the reason there is no development of space travel is the limit of financial need to go."

We don't agree. There is simply NO reason to go, financial, physical, whatever. There's nothing out there that's special or unique. It's the same elements we have on Earth. If you think otherwise, you're delusional. Sending *people* is even more idiotic. We have *NO* automated space mining machinery NOW, or EVER. If we did, we'd use it on Earth.

"In 1909 cars cost 3000 dollars to make (about 73,000 today). After Ford was done they cost $290 (3200 today). Its not faith its looking at what has happened and seeing a future outcome."

Yes, cars that don't need to generate oxygen, contain it against a vacuum, shield the occupants against the blazing radiation of the Sun, and provide that at a 100% success rate. Cars that could have been built by anyone competent enough at the time in a garage, with materials that can fail and the worst outcome would be the engine doesn't start.

You're comparing that to rocketry which requires accuracy, 100% reliable engineering and pushes materials to their limits, and takes the resources of entire countries and staffs of thousands?

Really?

It took a few decades for cars to go from the Model-T to family cars with early 20th century technology.

We won't go. There's no "we", and there's no "there" in space. Get over it.

Re:Safe again .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37902812)

Show me the missing elements in the Periodic Table of Elements. Show me the missing elementary force. Show me the missing exotic energy source. Show me the missing physics of propulsion. The great Prophets of the Space Age *completely* missed the computer revolution. They really thought the future was about bigger and bigger rockets, bigger and bigger space stations, with computers so big they filled basements. If anyone missed anything, it's the Space Nutters.

Why? Because information requires so little energy we had to wait a few decades for our manufacturing processes to get *that small*.

YOU think it'll get bigger and bigger, with more and more rockets going further and further. I don't want to alarm you, but there's no place to go "up". There are no more stronger materials, more energy sources, more ways to get mass moving.

Move on. It's over. Space will forever be an eternal vacuum, hostile and deadly. It's a great place to send small instrument packages. It's no place for humans.

Now go read that bolded part again. It contains much wisdom. Go read Feynman's lectures on physics, go read "there's plenty of room at the bottom". *Physicists* always knew manned space was an utter waste of time, the Nutters didn't listen.

Go see what Vannevar Bush thought about it.

Re:Safe again .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37904154)

I'm not claiming those things exist. I'm saying that it's possible that they do and have not been discovered. Your position relies on the notion that we know literally everything there is to know, and that no new information can possibly exist.

You haven't read any of the things you asked me to read. You never will.

Re:Safe again .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37900736)

Ah, Slashdot, where pointing out that Star Trek is *fiction* is an automatic -1. How hard were you crying when you modded me down, you stupid Space Nutter?

Re:Safe again .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37901694)

Not nearly as hard as you were crying when you realized that you can't even get yourself to believe your own persecution fantasy.

Re:Safe again .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37901900)

It's laughter. You twits really think Star Trek is just around the corner, and that private space will get you there! THAT is hilarious!

Re:Safe again .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37902062)

No, it's crying. You know you can't refute what anyone is actually saying, which is why you invent these strawmen about "Star Trek fantasies" and pretend that anyone who questions or disagrees with you is advancing them. You just did it to me, and when you do it again in your reply you will be proving me right again.

Re:Safe again .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37903328)

Thinking we'll have space hotels isn't a Star Trek-level fantasy? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Show me this business plan and market study. I'm still waiting for your asteroid mining plan! ;)

So, how do *you* refute that in 1997 there were plans for a space hotel but there isn't a single bolt in orbit? How do you explain that? In your fantasy world, people are just clamoring, waiting in line for months for a chance to sell their house for a tumble in free fall?

Re:Safe again .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37904268)

Thinking we'll have space hotels isn't a Star Trek-level fantasy?

Given the tech level displayed in Star Trek: No, it absolutely is not. And you know it. To hyperbolize is to lie.

That is irrelevant in any case, as literally not one single person that you have been replying to has been promoting space hotels.

My "fantasy world" exists entirely in yours. As I said you would do, you have unconditionally confessed to attacking strawman arguments due to being incompetent to refute what your opponent actually said. You will now do it again.

Re:Safe again .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37905796)

"That is irrelevant in any case, as literally not one single person that you have been replying to has been promoting space hotels."

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2502248&cid=37897106 [slashdot.org]

You've just proven how utterly unequipped you are in a battle of wits and your basic dishonesty. Be ashamed.

Re:Safe again .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37908344)

Yes. I made a mistake. Indeed one person has suggested space hotels are a possibility. Of course, as I already mentioned and you already admitted through omission, space hotels are not anywhere near "Star Trek fantasy".

I am not ashamed, and do not need to be.

You ARE ashamed, and rightfully so, because you have lumped him in with fictional people you invented to avoid refuting arguments made by actual people. By doing so, you have screamed your unconditional confession to projecting your own incompetence onto those who make you uncomfortably aware of it.

You will now shriek that same confession again.

Re:Safe again .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37902138)

The question is, after 50 years of manned space flight, why are we "still in the early [days?] of manned spaceflight."

50 years after the Wright Brothers, aviation wasn't "filled with uncertainty, peril and loss." Flight was routine.

Safe? (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | more than 2 years ago | (#37896964)

Is not safe. Is space ship.

Re:Safe? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897224)

That's why I told you "touch nothing," but you're...bunch of cowboys...

In soviet Russia... (1)

mschiltz (2464976) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897122)

rocket only blows up half of the time!

why not hold off celebrations... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37897126)

...until the spacecraft docks, delivers its cargo, picks up the passengers and then returns SAFELY to the earth.

Re:why not hold off celebrations... (2)

camperdave (969942) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897260)

Progress modules don't return safely to Earth. They are expendable craft that are left to burn up at re-entry.

Re:why not hold off celebrations... (2)

Oswald McWeany (2428506) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897318)

Based on that knowledge- it is my scientific opinion then that the progress rockets are not safe for man.

Re:why not hold off celebrations... (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#37899440)

Progress rockets are the same rockets that launch soyuz capsule. The 2'nd stage is what failed before. Now, they are testing a progress module which provides cargo. And just for reference, I would think that with more than several hundred launches under their belt using this equipment, I would have to guess that it is safe, and your scientific opinion may be wrong.

Re:why not hold off celebrations... (1)

Pence128 (1389345) | more than 2 years ago | (#37914368)

The Soyuz rocket lifts both the Soyuz and Progress spacecraft. Progress is basically a Soyuz with the reentry capsule replaced with fuel tanks to refuel the space station it's resupplying.

SpaceX (2)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897166)

Now, hopefully, we can see SpaceX get their approval to combine COTS 2/3 and then launch in Jan. We need to get multiple cargo going.

Of course, the next big issue is to get CONgress to do the right thing and increase funding to private space. We need multiple launchers and multiple destinations. Hence private space need to use some money on getting Bigelow going (and ideally IDC Dover).

Russians are still ahead. (2)

TXP (592446) | more than 2 years ago | (#37897392)

Supposedly the success rate for Russian launchs between 1980-1999 is around 94% while the success rate for american launches is around 86%. Russians are more experience having launched 2589 times with 181 losses while Americans launched 1152 times with 164 losses. Now that the shuttles have been retired I'm going to assume the Russians will be really far ahead but maybe it's better that way with globalization right? As much as I like spaceX I find their newer untested technology not really viable for manned flight. They can't be trusted to carry anything other then low cost cargo until they've worked out their problems.

Re:Russians are still ahead. (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#37899402)

Hmmm. So, NASA says that they can be trusted. They will have 7 or more flights of F9 before a human flight. Likewise, Dragon will also have flown 7 or more times. So, what do you know that NASA does not?

Re:Russians are still ahead. (1)

jwilso91 (1920940) | more than 2 years ago | (#37906012)

Hmmm. So, NASA says that they can be trusted. They will have 7 or more flights of F9 before a human flight. Likewise, Dragon will also have flown 7 or more times. So, what do you know that NASA does not?

That Congress will inevitably shank NASA's budget well before their choice of booster (Son of Shuttle) ever leaves the ground.

Re:Russians are still ahead. (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#37906820)

I agree with your assesment, but TXP made a bold claim that SpaceX is not safe. The only way that the Senate Launch System will be stopped is if FH is working, and F9 is flying cargo successfully. The F9 has had MINOR issues, but all rockets have issues when first starting. But what TXP said had nothing backing it up. He is just another backer of monster waste while wanting to stop us from having multiple launch vehicles.

Winning at roulette (1)

ghjm (8918) | more than 2 years ago | (#37898410)

I sure hope the linked article is just bad journalism, rather than a reflection of what anyone connected to the program actually said. A successful launch does not demonstrate that the vehicle is safe, any more than winning at roulette shows it to be a wise investment.

The program may be, and probably is, safe - but the proof is in the details of the quality program, not the mere fact that the rocket didn't blow up this time.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?