Progress fails to dock with ISS

Pat Flannery wrote:
On 7/2/2010 6:38 PM, Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:


The real question is where is Jim Oberg.

I imagine he's presently checking up on the specifics of the situation
so he can write a article about it.
Let's face it...figuring out what _really_ is going on versus the
Russian statements about what is going on is like trying to decipher
the Dead Sea Scrolls.
It takes a few days.

Yeah, no kidding.

That's the part I'm real curious in. It lost its lock about 25 minutes from
docking. Did it simply drift or was the miss due to an avoidance manevour?
If the former, yet another near miss. If the latter, not quite as bad, but
still troubling.

And during those 25 minutes, what was the crew doing? Where they prepping
the Soyuz or were they confident enough it would be a miss?

Inquiring minds want to know!


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

Pat Flannery wrote:
On 7/2/2010 7:19 PM, Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
And during those 25 minutes, what was the crew doing?

Keeping a very careful eye on the thing, and getting ready to flee
into the Soyuz lifeboats if it looked like it was about to hit them.
:-D I like the Russian statement about nothing critical being aboard the
Progress that is needed for the ISS.
If that's the case, then why launch it at all?

Yeah. I think that's one of those statements that is obvious and wrong and
right at the same time.

Yeah, it's not like, "oops, we missed this shipment, time to come home
immediately." On the other hand it could end up being a case of "Oops,
missed this shipment, better replan our next scheduled launch, conserve
toilet paper and other things" in the meantime.

Progress is great, but really need to keep shuttle a bit longer and get the
ATV to be flying on a more regular basis.

(I see the next one is scheduled for November and is named Johannes Kepler).

Damn, expected to cost $300 Million a flight, not including launch costs?
And folks call the Shuttle expensive.


In case it can't dock, keep an eye on ISS altitude he
http://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeig...alt=0&t z=CET
Because at some point it gets so low that a boost mission can't get it
up to a high orbit again by defeating atmospheric drag.

Pat

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

On 7/2/2010 2:46 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.history Pat wrote:
On 7/2/2010 10:37 AM, Rick Jones wrote:
Space.com's article claims it "veered out of control"

It's now apparently drifting away from the station while slowly
spinning.

Not unlike Frank Poole?-)

Oh joy - so it is on the verge of being a big honking peice of space
junk. With an orbit not far from that of the ISS.

If that's the case it will have to be liquidated, or sent into a "Gulag
Orbit" until it reenters.
For a real laugh, get ready to meet the Argon-16 Soyuz-Progress
computer, which uses magnetic core memory...you know, all the little
iron donuts on the wire grid:
http://www.computer-museum.ru/english/argon16.htm
NASA had started getting past this technology by the time Apollo 7 flew.
Imagine for a second if your PC had the computing power of a good
electronic calculator...and weighed over 150 pounds.
HAL would have been around the size of the Mall Of America. :-D

Pat

On Jul 2, 12:37*pm, Rick Jones wrote:

What is the antonym for progress?-)

Regress, regression, or reaction, depending on the contextual meaning.

John Savard

On Jul 2, 11:07*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

For a real laugh, get ready to meet the Argon-16 Soyuz-Progress
computer, which uses magnetic core memory...you know, all the little
iron donuts on the wire grid:

I followed the link, and could not find a mention that it used core
memory in its RAM modules.

This would not surprise me, though, since the unit was designed in
1974.

And, given the effect of alpha particles on man-in-the-moon
marigolds... oh, sorry, dynamic RAM chips, I'm not even sure if that
particular technology is inappropriate for use in the space
environment.

Even if the limited computing power of a computer built from small-
scale integrated circuits would hobble spaceship design.

I believe that Russia does have the technology to produce radiation-
hardened large-scale integrated circuits, both DRAM and
microprocessors, since it would be difficult for me to believe that
the GLONASS satellites relied on the early level of computing
technology exhibited by this device. Perhaps this older technology is
only used for safety-critical systems, or Russia still does not wish
the Americans to see their latest technology.

John Savard

On 7/2/2010 9:07 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:

Imagine for a second if your PC had the computing power of a good
electronic calculator...and weighed over 150 pounds.

What makes that really hilarious is that using present technology that
thing would be around the size and weight of a cellphone, 3+ orders of
magnitude faster, have around 10,000 times more memory, run off of a
couple of AAA batteries,and cost around $10 to mass produce.
Any problems with cosmic rays or solar storms screwing up its memory
could be defeated by sealing the whole works inside of a inch-thick
block of lead, reducing its overall mass by around 95%.

Pat

On Jul 2, 11:38*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

Any problems with cosmic rays or solar storms screwing up its memory
could be defeated by sealing the whole works inside of a inch-thick
block of lead, reducing its overall mass by around 95%.

Actually, no. Because cosmic rays give rise to secondary radiation,
you are probably looking at a *foot-thick* block of lead.

John Savard

On 7/2/2010 6:38 PM, Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:


The real question is where is Jim Oberg.

I imagine he's presently checking up on the specifics of the situation
so he can write a article about it.
Let's face it...figuring out what _really_ is going on versus the
Russian statements about what is going on is like trying to decipher the
Dead Sea Scrolls.
It takes a few days.

Pat

On 7/2/2010 6:48 PM, Scott Stevenson wrote:

What is the antonym for progress?-)

That would be Congress...

Be careful what you wish for, Glenn Beck warns us about anything
"Progressive" in Congress.
Meanwhile, back at National Review, Deroy Murdock hits the ceiling about
"Creeping Florescent" bulbs and our God-given right to spend as much
money on lighting as we damn-well want:
http://article.nationalreview.com/43.../deroy-murdock
Those bulbs have allowed me to light my entire apartment on around 1/4
of the total former electrical use for around five years now, and made
up their purchase cost inside of around two month's time.
Still, we must realize that when incandescent bulbs are outlawed, only
outlaws will have incandescent bulbs. ;-)

Pat

On 7/2/2010 7:19 PM, Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
And during those 25 minutes, what was the crew doing?

Keeping a very careful eye on the thing, and getting ready to flee into
the Soyuz lifeboats if it looked like it was about to hit them. :-D
I like the Russian statement about nothing critical being aboard the
Progress that is needed for the ISS.
If that's the case, then why launch it at all?
In case it can't dock, keep an eye on ISS altitude he
http://www.heavens-above.com/IssHeig...alt=0&t z=CET
Because at some point it gets so low that a boost mission can't get it
up to a high orbit again by defeating atmospheric drag.

Pat