
Progress 59 ISS Resupply ship malfunctions, docking postponed indefinitely - ChuckMcM
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/04/28/russias-progress-59-iss-resupply-ship-malfunctions-tumbles-through-space/
======
rdtsc
If it is spinning how does the video feed work? Wouldn't the antenna be
spinning wildly as well?

~~~
ramidarigaz
You can actually see the video feed blip out once per revolution. I assume
it's because the transmitter is briefly pointing away from the receiver.

~~~
rdtsc
Yeah noticed, but I was suprised it wasn't actually completely black but with
just quick flash of an image once in a while.

~~~
ramidarigaz
Yeah. The coverage area of the transmitter must be massive.

~~~
ars
Or the antenna is always mostly in the direction of earth, and the spin (from
the point of view of the earth) just has the antenna describe a circle.

------
dz0ny
[http://imgur.com/pp1xoJI](http://imgur.com/pp1xoJI) Notice the massive drop
in propellant on board during orbit 1 and 3.

~~~
ckozlowski
From "The Guardian" live feed:

"JSpOC, located at Vandenberg air force base in California, also says there
are 44 pieces of debris in the vicinity of the cargo vehicle and part of the
rocket body."

I'm speculating then that it got nailed by something. With the large drop in
propellant as you noted, maybe something nailed a pressurized tank? That could
punch a hole in it, and maybe the resulting thrust from the tank is what drove
it's spin.

------
ChuckMcM
Interesting video clip of it going around and around. As NASA points out these
have been pretty reliable so the occasional failure isn't a big deal, but the
the unstated issue is that these things are in an orbital plane to intercept
the ISS, which one doesn't want to do if you don't have control given the MIR
experience. Presumably they will be able to either permanently abort it
through a de-orbit burn or find another way to keep it out of the way.

~~~
iamcreasy
What's MIR experience?

~~~
jonah
"Progress M-34 was a Russian unmanned cargo spacecraft which was launched in
1997 to resupply the Mir space station, and which subsequently collided with
Mir during a docking attempt, resulting in significant damage to the space
station."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_M-34](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_M-34)

Edit. Some more detail here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir#Shuttle.E2.80.93Mir](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir#Shuttle.E2.80.93Mir)
and here:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir#Accidents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir#Accidents)

------
kijin
> _Progress 59 was carrying "more than three tons of food, fuel, and supplies
> for the space station crew, including 1,940 pounds of propellant, 110 pounds
> of oxygen, 926 pounds of water, and 3,128 pounds of spare parts, supplies
> and scientific experiment hardware,” NASA said._

(1940 + 110 + 926 + 3128) = 6104 lb = 2771 kg = 3.054 short tons.

If any U.S. agency is in desperate need of converting to the metric system,
it's NASA. Remember the Mars Climate Orbiter? [1] As long as there is at least
one person in the general vicinity of NASA who does not habitually use the
metric system, that can happen again.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter)

~~~
Dylan16807
I'm having trouble figuring out the intent of your post. Are you confused
about the conversion factor with pounds and tons (it's 2), or are you taking
the opportunity to snark about something unrelated?

Edit: Wait did you seriously convert pounds to kilograms to _short_ tons?
That's like going from meters to feet to kilometers.

~~~
ghshephard
Isn't a ton = 1000 kg, if so, why is this 3.054 and not 2.771 tons?

~~~
kitd
A "short" ton == 2000lb

A metric ton (aka "tonne") == 1000kg

And in fact 6104 / 2000 = 3.052, so OP lost a few lbs in the conversion
process as well.

~~~
ghshephard
Interesting - Wikipedia tells me that, "In the United Kingdom the ton is
defined as 2,240 pounds (1,016 kg)" \- so an imperial "ton" is _almost_ 1000
kg there.

