Progress problems.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...sion_page.html

As usual, problems with the all-singing, all-dancing Russian hardware
go unremarked.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

(Derek Lyons) writes:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...sion_page.html

As usual, problems with the all-singing, all-dancing Russian hardware
go unremarked.

Second docking attempt was successful. Seems at the first attempt one
Kurs antenna didn't fold away as it should (at least they couldn't
confirm it did).


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Derek Lyons wrote:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...sion_page.html

As usual, problems with the all-singing, all-dancing Russian hardware
go unremarked.

This morning I made a bet with my co-worker that I can predict exact words that
will be used in some of the messages in this newsgroup during the day. I took a
piece of paper, wrote "Derek Lyons - 'all-singing, all-dancing Russian
hardware'" and sealed it in an envelope. Needless, to say, I won that bet.

Ther were no "problems" with Progress. The docking "issue" turned out to be a
non-issue.

Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
[...]
This morning I made a bet with my co-worker that I can predict exact words that
will be used in some of the messages in this newsgroup during the day. I took a
piece of paper, wrote "Derek Lyons - 'all-singing, all-dancing Russian
hardware'" and sealed it in an envelope. Needless, to say, I won that bet.

Yeah, well, the point of the phrase isn't needling the Russian
engineers. It's needling the Slavering Hordes in the newsgroup (and
the newsmedia) who turn a blind eye to any issues the Soyuz hardware
might have, because it Is By Definition Perfect (as opposed to the STS
equipment which is Unable To Do Anything Right).

I don't agree with Derek that we never notice the problems, but it is
true that there's a cadre here who sees Soyuz through rose-colored
glasses, and nitpicks the Shuttle.

Ther were no "problems" with Progress. The docking "issue" turned out to be a
non-issue.

If it caused an alteration in procedures, it wasn't a non-issue.

/dps

Derek Lyons wrote:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...sion_page.html

As usual, problems with the all-singing, all-dancing Russian hardware
go unremarked.


BBC World reported on the problems near the top of the news broadcast.
It also said that Progress eventually docked with success and that the
crew were not in danger.

Andrey Tarasevich wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...sion_page.html

As usual, problems with the all-singing, all-dancing Russian hardware
go unremarked.

This morning I made a bet with my co-worker that I can predict exact words that
will be used in some of the messages in this newsgroup during the day. I took a
piece of paper, wrote "Derek Lyons - 'all-singing, all-dancing Russian
hardware'" and sealed it in an envelope. Needless, to say, I won that bet.

I wouldn't be proud of winning that bet - because you winning means
that a significant number of people on these groups and in the media
(both Old and New) *still* have their heads firmly implanted in the
sand or their nether regions.

Ther were no "problems" with Progress. The docking "issue" turned out to be a
non-issue.

Right. No problems, no issues. That's why it docked on the first
try.

Oh, wait. It didn't.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

snidely wrote:
...
Ther were no "problems" with Progress. The docking "issue" turned out to be a
non-issue.

If it caused an alteration in procedures, it wasn't a non-issue.
...

It depends on what you consider to be an "alteration in procedures".

Many popular sources reported that non-retracted navigation system's
antenna got pinched between the cargo ship and the station, preventing
the former from docking completely. They said that Progress had to be
undocked and redocked again. That would be an issue indeed. But it
turned out that this description was a complete BS.

What really happened is that mission control simply got no clear
notification that navigation system's antenna was properly out of the
way. So they decided to opt on the safe side and wait before trying to
dock the ship completely. When it became clear that the antenna folded
properly, they resumed the docking, which completed successfully.
Nothing ever got "pinched". There was no "undockings" and "redockings".

--
Best regards,
Andrey Tarasevich

What really happened is that mission control simply got no clear
notification that navigation system's antenna was properly out of the
way. So they decided to opt on the safe side and wait before trying to
dock the ship completely.

What hasn't been clear in most of the new reports is how they figured
out that the antenna had retracted. As usual, nasaspaceflight.com has
more details than anyone else I tried:

Controllers were forced to evaluate photography to confirm whether or
not the 4AO-BKA orientation antenna has stowed, which the Progress
failed to confirm.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=4878

Andrey Tarasevich wrote:

snidely wrote:
...
Ther were no "problems" with Progress. The docking "issue" turned out to be a
non-issue.

If it caused an alteration in procedures, it wasn't a non-issue.
...

It depends on what you consider to be an "alteration in procedures".

Ah - when confronted with facts, you attempt to redefine the terms.

Many popular sources reported that non-retracted navigation system's
antenna got pinched between the cargo ship and the station, preventing
the former from docking completely. They said that Progress had to be
undocked and redocked again. That would be an issue indeed. But it
turned out that this description was a complete BS.

Had we been discussing what 'many popular sources' said - you'd have a
point. But we aren't.

What really happened is that mission control simply got no clear
notification that navigation system's antenna was properly out of the
way. So they decided to opt on the safe side and wait before trying to
dock the ship completely. When it became clear that the antenna folded
properly, they resumed the docking, which completed successfully.
Nothing ever got "pinched". There was no "undockings" and "redockings".

Thank you for the details - as they show exactly what happened. A
normal docking did not take place due to a problem with an indicator.
They used an altered procedure to dock.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Jochem Huhmann" wrote in message
...
(Derek Lyons) writes:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...sion_page.html

As usual, problems with the all-singing, all-dancing Russian hardware
go unremarked.

Second docking attempt was successful. Seems at the first attempt one
Kurs antenna didn't fold away as it should (at least they couldn't
confirm it did).

When I listened to the second docking attempt, I thought I heard the PAO
commentator say the docking was done in automatic mode. So had the second
docking attempt failed, presumably they could have attempted a manual
docking.

Personally, I'm more worried about the Elektron (Russian O2 generators)
since they're both broken. Spare parts for one of the Elektron units are on
this recently docked Progress, so hopefully they'll get one Elektron working
soon.

Where's the US O2 Generator??? ;-)

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)