back to article Cargo capsule goes AWOL, explodes on its way to Space Station

A Progress capsule filled supplies for the International Space Station today blasted off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome spaceport in Kazakhstan. Now its controllers have admitted the MS‑04/65P mission has been annihilated. The podule was carrying 5,300 pounds (2,404 kilograms) of food, water, propellant, and a spare space suit …

  1. getHandle


    It's not rocket science. Oh wait...

    1. Mark 85 Silver badge

      Re: Sheesh

      Nah.. it's rocket engineering that is the hard part. Or perhaps even the rocket building. So many parts, so many chances of an "oh crap".

  2. Gene Cash Silver badge

    "What kind of anomaly?"

    "Well I hesitate to call it supernatural but it certainly wasn't scientific"

    Actually SpaceX might launch as early as 16 December according to Iridium Communications, but I'm not holding my breath.

  3. DNTP

    Meanwhile in Tuva

    Some farmer is trying to decide whether these odd foil wrapped bricks that say FOOD are edible or not, and someone else is freaking out about a huge silver-white space alien invader that appeared out of the sky in a fireball.

  4. Drew 11

    gif or it didn't happen.

  5. Diodelogic

    50 years on, the Soviet-era Soyuz rocket is still our favorite space truck

    Or is it?

    1. Extra spicey vindaloo

      Re: 50 years on, the Soviet-era Soyuz rocket is still our favorite space truck

      It's a Progress, the Soyuz is much more reliable fortunately. The difference between Progress and Soyuz is the third stage, one explodes cargo over the countryside. The other takes crew to the space station.

      1. Alan Brown Silver badge

        Re: 50 years on, the Soviet-era Soyuz rocket is still our favorite space truck

        Progress or Soyuz, the russians have lost 15 of them in recent times and fingers are pointing at construction quality.

        Whilst they do take more care with man-carriers sooner or later this isn't going to end well if the russian space program continues to be poorly funded.

    2. phuzz Silver badge

      Re: 50 years on, the Soviet-era Soyuz rocket is still our favorite space truck

      It's slightly confusing having both the manned spacecraft, and the launch vehicle both called Soyuz.

      So, Soyuz is launched on Soyuz, but Progress is also launched on Soyuz.

      (Technically recent Progress launches have been on the Soyuz FG [11A511FG] version of the launcher, where as manned launches are still using the Soyuz U [11A511U]. There seems to be some changes in the third stage, but they're the same engine and the same size)

  6. Tom 7 Silver badge

    Not sure I want to go on the ISS

    the ignominy of being killed by an intergalactic tin of baked beans!

    1. TX_SS

      Re: Not sure I want to go on the ISS

      Wouldn't that be a suborbital of now twice baked beans?

      1. Martin Budden

        Re: Not sure I want to go on the ISS

        A biscuit tin?

  7. imanidiot Silver badge

    Not the first, not the last

    The russian systems seem to provide much less data downlinked to earth, making diagnosing the problem that much harder. I highly doubt we've seen the last Progress go Boom!

  8. Stevie Silver badge


    Do the astros have enough potatoes to get them through, or will that git from The Newsroom have to be worked around all over again?

    1. cray74

      Re: Bah!

      Do the astros have enough potatoes to get them through

      Yep. The station has several months of reserves, depending on the system and hardware failure. The last time a Progress had an in-flight disassembly (April 2015), projections were that supplies wouldn't hit warning levels until late July 2015, and wouldn't run out until early September. It varied a bit depending on the system and ISS hardware failures.

  9. kryptonaut


    "The Russian space agency Roscosmos has just confirmed the container and its cargo are toast."

    Just add marmite.

  10. Marc 25

    What an interesting turn of events it would be if the SpaceX lifters became more reliable than the Soyuz-U rockets.

    1. imanidiot Silver badge

      Thing is that as far as design/development is concerned the Soyuz-u is enough of a redesign that it is pretty much a new design. I've said it before and I think this is still valid. Until now the Russian space program had been using Soviet tech, often using stocks of spares and parts left over from all those years ago. Now that stocks are dwindling and are becoming old they've had to pretty much look at the entire design part for part and redesign and replace anything out of date. This means that for the first time in a dozen or so years engineers have to make new rocket part designs. Something they are no longer as intimately familiar with as in the fast paced cold war era development era. This is bound to lead to unexpected problems and glitches as the bugs are ironed out of the new design. I have no doubt they'll get there eventually, but it'll take some more rapid unscheduled disassemblies before that happens.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019