Progress rocket crashes delivering supplies to space station

BlueFox

This is the first crash in 30 years, and comes right after we retire the shuttle. The shuttle team is probably going, "We told you so.".

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/08/24/russia.rocket/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

tonyb

I'm sure our space dudes are thinking twice before hitching a ride on the Russian made Acme rocket.

ViperZ

tonyb wrote: »

I'm sure our space dudes are thinking twice before hitching a ride on the Russian made Acme rocket.

Maybe you should get your facts straight before posting "acme" bullsh*t like that? I worked for NASA for several years and know this stuff a bit. Soyuz launch vehicle is one of the (if not THE) safest vehicles. In fact, Progress 44P was the first Progress launch failure. The same launch vehicle is used to launch people to the ISS (Soyuz capsules).

Personally, I really hope Russians will resolve this problem as this is the only currently viable solution to get astronauts and cosmonauts to the space station. Russians lost 2 other launch vehicles recently, so there is definitely a problem there. As of now, all Soyuz launches are suspended pending investigation. And I also hope that Americans will get off their behinds and build at least some kind of spacecraft to go into space. Canning Orion without proposing anything to replace it really sucked.

inspiredsports

ViperZ wrote: »

Maybe you should get your facts straight before posting "acme" bullsh*t like that? I worked for NASA for several years and know this stuff a bit. Soyuz launch vehicle is one of the (if not THE) safest vehicles. In fact, Progress 44P was the first Progress launch failure. The same launch vehicle is used to launch people to the ISS (Soyuz capsules).

Personally, I really hope Russians will resolve this problem as this is the only currently viable solution to get astronauts and cosmonauts to the space station. Russians lost 2 other launch vehicles recently, so there is definitely a problem there. As of now, all Soyuz launches are suspended pending investigation. And I also hope that Americans will get off their behinds and build at least some kind of spacecraft to go into space. Canning Orion without proposing anything to replace it really sucked.

Easy VZ, it's not easy for most of us to trust those dudes after a very long period of adverse relations.

I personally would feel much, much better if we were still funding the Shuttle program.

TitaniumMan

The Russians know rockets better than most NASA employees, but stuff happens.

I have never liked the effin' shuttle program. The Ford Pinto of space craft. The goal was set too low, as in low earth orbit.

On the other hand, the shuttle kept a bunch of bureaucrats and some scientists working. Or suckling the gubmint teat. Whichever.

inspiredsports

TitaniumMan wrote: »

. . . the Russians know rockets better than most NASA employees . . .

I'm curious what criteria you use to support that statement.

John in MA

TitaniumMan wrote: »

The Russians know rockets better than most NASA employees

Like how all three of their attempts to launch a moon rocket blew up?

inspiredsports

John in MA wrote: »

Like how all three of their attempts to launch a moon rocket blew up?

+1 that.

I'm curious why TitMan is so negative.

tonyb

ViperZ wrote: »

Russians lost 2 other launch vehicles recently, so there is definitely a problem there. As of now, all Soyuz launches are suspended pending investigation.

You claim they are one of the safest, then claim 2 other failures and acknowlege a problem exists......which one is it ? It's safe....kinda sorta, or the acme scientist are working on the problem ? Either way, if I'm expected to hitch a ride in the Ford Pinto of rockets, I'll wait untill the Mercedes Rocket is ready.

zingo

My personal favorite quote from the article is: "The cosmonauts won't have to save on food-stuffs."

BTW, Russian uses awesome words like cosmodrome and roscosmos.

TitaniumMan

Just ask NASA where the Saturn 5 plans are. One of the reasons Russia is needed is because NASA can't build a heavy-lift rocket. They'd have to start from scratch. The budget will never be high enough for that. Russia was an essential part of the construction of the ISP. Trust me, I'm not pro-Russia. It's just the way it is.

Please, don't even get me started with the failed US rockets, or the amazing, exploding Space Shuttle.

The shuttle did nothing to advance the space program. A shuttle would be a good thing, just not the one we got.

I have to admit, it was a fine bus on the mission to fix that defective telescope.

ViperZ

tonyb wrote: »

You claim they are one of the safest, then claim 2 other failures and acknowlege a problem exists......which one is it ? It's safe....kinda sorta, or the acme scientist are working on the problem ? Either way, if I'm expected to hitch a ride in the Ford Pinto of rockets, I'll wait untill the Mercedes Rocket is ready.

Completely clueless, eh? I am talking about different launch vehicles. I am also talking about whole history of the Soyuz launch vehicle (50+ years with varoius mods) vs. very recent problems.

There is no such thing as 'mercedes' rocket. #1 priority in human space flight is safety, not luxury. Unfortunately, American space shuttle program did not meet its expectations by a mile (still was a wonderful program). How cool would it be to go to space, come back, and launch again in a few weeks? The spacecraft was way too complex, which with age made it way too expensive to maintain. As an example, 1 day of waiting on the pad would cost taxpayers around $1M.
That's where Soyuz vehicles come to play. No-frills rocket and capsule with bulletproof design.
I have read countless articles on what's going on and talked to people on the inside. Looks like Russians have transferred control of the Baikonur assembly and launches to commercial (still government-controlled) entity (RosKosmos). Before all of that quality control was done by military. Makes me wonder how reliable Falcons and other commercial vehicles will be. Oh hey, that may be your "Mercedes". lol

ViperZ

John in MA wrote: »

Like how all three of their attempts to launch a moon rocket blew up?

You really need to read up on how many blown spacecraft both sides had on various programs, and that would be just the published facts...

nooshinjohn

TitaniumMan wrote: »

Please, don't even get me started with the failed US rockets, or the amazing, exploding Space Shuttle.

The shuttle did nothing to advance the space program. A shuttle would be a good thing, just not the one we got.

I have to admit, it was a fine bus on the mission to fix that defective telescope.

You know absolutely nothing about which you speak, and these statements above prove that.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

The Shuttle program was a significant first step to making a permanent presence in space a reality, and dozens of tech improvements in our daily lives, from cell phones to GPS to medicine owe much to the discoveries made in advancing the program. NASA also expected that there would be funding to continuosly advance the program and build newer and better vehicles as they went forward. That never happened, and sadly the Shuttle fleet soldiered on longer than it's original specifications called for.

She is an old bird to be sure, but she flew the colors of our nation proudly and served as an ambasador to the world, taking crew members from several other nations into space for the very first time. I know many that worked on them, designed them and met a few that flew them, and each deserves the respect of a grateful nation.

What angers me about your posts is that you first show no understanding of the program and the incredible craftsmanship and care it took to maintain and fly them, then you piss on the memories of the 14 crewmembers lost and the lives of more than a few that cared for these craft for more that 45 years of it's development and flight. I won't even mention the thousands of jobs lost across the country and the incredible brain-drain taking place within the NASA community as our best and brightest leave and seek employment in China, Russia, and even Venezuela to find work, helping other nations develop space programs.

Understand that the most challenging things to do are those not yet done, and in the eyes of 95% of the world, these people did miracles. Show some respect.

BlueFox

John. Good post.

TitaniumMan

Well, the subject not worth disagreeing about isn't worth talking about. You can stop the outrage at me. It's misdirected.

For I am angry at the brain-drain you mentioned, too. NASA managed to keep most of its suits and bean-counters employed, didn't they?

Cell phones and whatnot are grand, but that does not qualify as a presence in space. The ISS is little better than Skylab. I don't really count that either. It is more than I expected, though. I still think, and I am not alone in this, that the Shuttle program could have been so much more than it was.

As far as the dead crews, I didn't want to bring up the ones who died OVER MY HEAD! I watched the balls of flame as the remnants of another failure began to fall in my neck of the woods. They were foremost in my thoughts as I began this criticism of NASA.

I believe NASA deserves closer scrutiny, don't you? They have all but squandered our space heritage. As I mentioned, the **** are not sure where the plans for the Saturn 5 might be. You and I are much closer on this than you think.

dkg999

So what kind of power conditioner should the Russian's be using and is that a significant cause of their current issues with launching rockets into space?

Discuss?

TitaniumMan

And I thought nothing new would be said. Nice one, dkg999.

tonyb

Viper- You do know I was being sarcastic, or maybe not. Eh...it is the internet but get to know people before hand chief.

ViperZ

tonyb wrote: »

Viper- You do know I was being sarcastic, or maybe not. Eh...it is the internet but get to know people before hand chief.

Sarcasm and being clueless going hand in hand. I guess, congratulations are in order.

tonyb

I see trying to be a bozo is something that comes natural for you, congrats are in order also.

unc2701

Well, this has progressed to the usual stupidity. Not surprising considering the parties involved. Let's read something else and discuss:

http://www.slate.com/id/2283469/pagenum/all/

tonyb

Usual stupidy ??? Then you post an article on Rockets, engineers,H-bombs, congress, and of coarse tie it all into at the end.... saving the environment??

A whole lot of nonsense going on in that article.

inspiredsports

The SLATE article "What the strange persistence of rockets can teach us about innovation" misses the following . . . the reason rockets are timeless is that they are phallic. 'Nuf said.

BeefJerky

inspiredsports wrote: »

The SLATE article "What the strange persistence of rockets can teach us about innovation" misses the following . . . the reason rockets are timeless is that they are phallic. 'Nuf said.

Well, obviously. This is also the reason that men designed skyscrapers.

unc2701

inspiredsports wrote: »

The SLATE article "What the strange persistence of rockets can teach us about innovation" misses the following . . . the reason rockets are timeless is that they are phallic. 'Nuf said.

A creationist might say god made our penises to look like rockets, knowing that one day we would invent them.

bikezappa

It's very sad that the US is not in the manned space program any more. I hope that changes in the future. Going into space is dangerous and risky, maybe we don't have the balls and/or money to try anymore. The excitement and adventure of going to the moon and elsewhere has always been worth the cost to me. I understand that if there is no immediate reward from the space program many people would rather cancel it. The long term technical rewards for the spcae program are clear to me. I just hate not having the US as the leader anymore in space exploration.

mrbigbluelight

unc2701 wrote: »

A creationist might say god made our penises to look like rockets, knowing that one day we would invent them.

I like your thinking.

...... although that would seem to support the "Big Bang" school of thought, wouldn't it ?

I'll think more about that a little later after I finish reviewing the link at the bottom of the Slate page ( "Who is the Hottest Woman Without Pants" ).

AsSiMiLaTeD

ViperZ, your hostility at the onset of your initial post in this thread is really uncalled for, unnecessary, and unproductive. I don't really have anything to add to the conversation other than that, I just don't get the unprovoked hostility, you could have easily made your point without bringing that to the table.

tonyb

Let it go bro, I have. No need to rehash.

Now, for the hootest women without pants question.....I already know that answer.......

Can only be.....Russ.