Progress fails to dock with ISS

Seen elsewhe

On Jul 2, 11:37*am, Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.history Pat Flannery wrote:

The Progress 38 cargo spacecraft suffered a communications failure and
flew past the ISS earlier today rather than docking with it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38060650...science-space/

Space.com's article claims it "veered out of control" *

They are also mentioning how Progress 37 had to be docked manually.

What is the antonym for progress?-)

rick jones
--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

snidely wrote:
Seen elsewhe

On Jul 2, 11:37 am, Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.history Pat Flannery wrote:

The Progress 38 cargo spacecraft suffered a communications failure
and flew past the ISS earlier today rather than docking with it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38060650...science-space/

Space.com's article claims it "veered out of control"

They are also mentioning how Progress 37 had to be docked manually.

What is the antonym for progress?-)


Yeah, can anyone say Mir collision? (yes, I know the factors were
different).

Where's Jim Oberg when we need him?

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Presumably then contact from ground is still possible, since they would need
to rephase the orbit to get another bash at a docking. Since that
unfortunate incident with Mir, though I think that they have refined the on
board systems somewhat to make sure that the craft will always be clear of
the collision zone, so to speak, but I've often wondered what might happen
if a serious fault occured much closer in. In teeory, the sytem is
supposed to abort by flying clear.... hmm.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"snidely" wrote in message
...
Seen elsewhe

On Jul 2, 11:37 am, Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.history Pat Flannery wrote:

The Progress 38 cargo spacecraft suffered a communications failure and
flew past the ISS earlier today rather than docking with it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38060650...science-space/

Space.com's article claims it "veered out of control"

They are also mentioning how Progress 37 had to be docked manually.

What is the antonym for progress?-)

rick jones
--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

What is the antonym for progress?-)


Regress...

Dave

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/index.html

Its story about Progress is more realistic and less sensationalistc than
the MSNBC one.

Basically, Progrss was 2km away, detected a problem and automatically
backed away (aborted). They will attempt again today (Sunday).

Seems to me that the safety system worked and safely aborted the docking
when the software realised it wasn't working perfectly.

Mr Zak didn't mention whether they will attempt a Kurs docking or a
remote control manual docking (controlled from station, not from ground
as MsNBC alluded).

John Doe wrote:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/index.html

Another lin with more info;
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress_m_0m.html#6

they will attempt kurs docking again.

out of curiosity, how would nasa know that the Progress lost telemetry ?
Is it just because they would have an observer in Korolev, or because
they get a copy of this telemetry through TDRS ?

The thing is though, one has to wonder how an entirely separate system being
switched on, could confuse both strings of the automatic system, unless
what they are in fact saying its that the craft effectively went into some
kind of safe mode, or the equipment at the station end did. This info in the
second article explains why it was stated that the problem was cused by the
station, but not exactly why the system responded as it did. What of the
tumbling? Obviously a craft with no active control will tumble, but one
assumes now that control has been regained or they would not be looking
toward a docking.



Very odd, you cannot exactly call a service engineer out in this instance!
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"John Doe" wrote in message
...
John Doe wrote:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/index.html

Another lin with more info;
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress_m_0m.html#6

they will attempt kurs docking again.

out of curiosity, how would nasa know that the Progress lost telemetry ?
Is it just because they would have an observer in Korolev, or because
they get a copy of this telemetry through TDRS ?

In article , Briang1
@blueyonder.co.uk says...

The thing is though, one has to wonder how an entirely separate system being
switched on, could confuse both strings of the automatic system, unless
what they are in fact saying its that the craft effectively went into some
kind of safe mode, or the equipment at the station end did. This info in the
second article explains why it was stated that the problem was cused by the
station, but not exactly why the system responded as it did. What of the
tumbling? Obviously a craft with no active control will tumble, but one
assumes now that control has been regained or they would not be looking
toward a docking.



Very odd, you cannot exactly call a service engineer out in this instance!
Brian

Such a thing is not completely unheard of. Google the cause of the
Apollo 11 alarms (1201 and 1202).

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?