Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

Websites
related space history websites

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Soviet - Russian Space
  Failure: Russian Proton with Glonass M (7.2.2013) (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Failure: Russian Proton with Glonass M (7.2.2013)
Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30237
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-01-2013 10:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From Spaceflight Now:
A Russian Proton rocket went out of control and slammed into the steppes of Kazakhstan mere moments after launching from the Baikonur Cosmodrome on Monday night. The booster was carrying three navigation satellites on the ill-fated mission. Live video showed the Proton gyrating left and right as it ascending off the pad before going into a nose dive and plummeting into a massive fireball.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30237
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-01-2013 10:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Video showing the launch failure:

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30237
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-02-2013 07:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
RIA Novosti reports on the launch failure:
"There was an accident during the Proton-M launch. The rocket fell and exploded on the territory of the launch site," a spokesman for Russia's Federal Space Agency Roscosmos said.

There were no reported casualties, but officials said a cloud of poisonous smoke was generated by the rocket's burning fuel and could spread across the local area. An emergency evacuation of personnel at the site was underway, according to Russian media reports.

The reasons for the crash were not immediately clear, but Kazakhstan's Emergencies Ministry said a near instantaneous failure of the rocket's first-stage engine was to blame.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30237
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-02-2013 07:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Spectators' videos of the failure:

SpaceAholic
Member

Posts: 3258
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-02-2013 09:27 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The launch vehicle does not appear to have been terminated by an RSO command but rather left to its own demise...

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30237
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-02-2013 09:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Based on what Jim Oberg and other Russian space experts have written, the Proton and other Russian launchers do not have a range safety system. The standard response is to cut the engines, but that was not an option in this case, as explained by Anatoly Zak:
Since the emergency cutoff of the first stage engines is blocked during the first 42 seconds of the flight to ensure that the rocket clears the launch complex, the vehicle continued flying with its propulsion system firing practically until the impact on the ground.

dabolton
Member

Posts: 299
From: Minooka IL, US
Registered: Jan 2009

posted 07-02-2013 11:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for dabolton   Click Here to Email dabolton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Maybe its the angle, but I'm surprised that it didn't have more horizontal velocity with the engine pushing laterally.

Glint
Member

Posts: 821
From: New Windsor, Maryland USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 07-02-2013 11:41 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Glint   Click Here to Email Glint     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
...leaving the rocket in a proton degenerate state.

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 700
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 07-02-2013 11:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Based on what Jim Oberg and other Russian space experts have written, the Proton and other Russian launchers do not have a range safety system.
To expand on that, the safety system is self contained. there is no ground based RF signal to be received by the launch vehicle, even for engine cutoff. This is standard operating procedure for Russian launch vehicles. This even applies to the Sea Launch Zenit.

Basically, if the launch vehicle detects that it is not on the flight path, it shuts down its own engines, after clearing the launch site area.

SpaceAholic
Member

Posts: 3258
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-02-2013 12:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
So if the vehicle descends back toward the block house or any populous area the games up... once off nominal, engine shutdown doesn't look like it even occurred.

328KF
Member

Posts: 906
From:
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 07-02-2013 04:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 328KF   Click Here to Email 328KF     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Kazakhstan is starting to look like the Cape in the early days. I wonder how long it will be before this happens on a manned launch?

The string of failures continues, yet the issues remain unresolved.

Ronpur
Member

Posts: 525
From: Brandon, Fl
Registered: May 2012

posted 07-02-2013 07:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ronpur   Click Here to Email Ronpur     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Those videos are amazing. The top one of the spectators really is frightening as it is coming in their direction. And the bottom one with the sound of the explosion hitting a few seconds later is amazing.

SpaceAngel
Member

Posts: 141
From: Maryland
Registered: May 2010

posted 07-02-2013 07:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAngel   Click Here to Email SpaceAngel     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
How does this effect with the MLM (to be launch on the Proton Rocket) to the ISS at the end of this year?

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 700
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 07-02-2013 09:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by 328KF:
The string of failures continues, yet the issues remain unresolved.
What string of failures? This is the first Proton failure since 2007. There is a difference between the Proton and the upperstage that fly on it.

328KF
Member

Posts: 906
From:
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 07-02-2013 10:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 328KF   Click Here to Email 328KF     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
From Los Angeles Times:
Tuesday's rocket failure was "another setback for Moscow's space program," RIA-Novosti stated, recalling a 2010 Proton-M rocket crash that destroyed three other satellites intended for the Russian GLONASS system, a global-positioning network like the GPS that guides U.S. drivers, hikers, golfers and fliers.

Another Proton-M failed in August 2011, an incident blamed on a control-system malfunction, and complications with the Briz engine on the rocket scrapped a Proton mission last summer. In December, a booster failed to lift the Proton to its planned satellite deployment position, requiring a second mission to put the satellite into the correct orbit, the Russian space agency Roskosmos reported at the time.

In July 2006, a Russian Dnepr rocket carrying 18 satellites, mostly for foreign clients including the United States and Italy, crashed a minute and a half after launch, destroying its entire payload and setting back Russia's commercial launch agenda for months.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30237
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-02-2013 10:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
As Jim points out, the failures involved different systems. It's paramount to calling Atlas rockets into question if there were a string of Centaur upper stage failures.

This launch was the 388th Proton rocket to launch since 1965 and the fifth this year. The five failures in the past 2.5 years have been mostly due to upper stage issues.

Jay Chladek
Member

Posts: 2270
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007

posted 07-03-2013 01:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jay Chladek   Click Here to Email Jay Chladek     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes, pretty much most every Russian rocket failure I've ever heard of tends to involve the rocket either shreading apart in the air or hitting the ground with no RSO to blow it up. There is a REASON why the Soviets built the launch complex in a desert region all those years ago.

But, that much hypergolic fuel popping loose is going to make for one heck of a messy cleanup given how toxic that stuff is (one of the reasons why we don't use Titan launchers anymore). I am curious to see how the Russians will address it given how close the booster impacted to the pad area.

gliderpilotuk
Member

Posts: 3208
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 07-03-2013 06:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for gliderpilotuk   Click Here to Email gliderpilotuk     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by 328KF:
The string of failures continues, yet the issues remain unresolved.
Oh come on! Get some perspective. At least they have a manned launch capability!

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30237
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-03-2013 07:32 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAngel:
How does this effect with the MLM (to be launch on the Proton Rocket) to the ISS at the end of this year?
All Proton-M launches have been suspended until the investigation into the failure has been completed, after which a new launch schedule will be drawn up, RIA Novosti reported a Khrunichev official as saying.

328KF
Member

Posts: 906
From:
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 07-03-2013 02:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 328KF   Click Here to Email 328KF     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
As Jim points out, the failures involved different systems.
The modern way of looking at aerospace accidents and incidents to look at the larger systemic, organizational, and cultural issues rather than to focus solely on the technical aspects. Sure, you can look at each of the recent series of failures in the Russian space program as unrelated events involving separate systems, but I have a more broad concern than that.

The rest of the paragraph you quoted from the Spaceflightnow article is:

Three other GLONASS satellites were lost in a botched launch in late 2010 due to a fuel miscalculation that prevented the vehicle from reaching orbit.
Now five failures in 2 1/2 years is indicative of a larger problem in the organization, and the above example just highlights the possibility of a lack of good oversight and quality control.

Add to this the Phobos-Grunt failure. A myriad of technical problems contributed to that loss, some of which were known before launch and not corrected, others which were not even understood as failure modes until after launch. This again points to a very concerning situation within the Russian space program.

Once this investigation is complete, there will no doubt be a technical reason for the accident, say, a failure of a main engine turbopump or a control system. But the checks and balances which must exist to certify each of these individual components for a rocket has to be examined too.

Anatoly Perminov was "blamed" and fired in April 2011 as the head of the space agency, and yet we are seeing continued mishaps. This Space Daily article states

"It's quite clear what the cause is," leading defence analyst Alexander Goltz told Moscow Echo radio station, commenting on Perminov's departure.

"The most recent failures of Roskosmos like the failed Glonass launch and much else shows the clear worsening of technological discipline in its units."

I don't see any reason at this point that these same organizational issues are being prevented from finding their way into the manned spaceflight side of Russia's program. These are not "apples and oranges" types of failures... it appears to be a systemic organizational problem, and one NASA should be deeply concerned about as well.

328KF
Member

Posts: 906
From:
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 07-03-2013 02:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 328KF   Click Here to Email 328KF     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Doug Messier over at Parabolicarc.com has posted an "open letter" to the U.S. Congress expressing his concern over these failures and their potential impact on ISS. In part, he warns:
The Russians also happen to provide the only access for our astronauts to the International Space Station. This is a situation you have extended by underfunding NASA’s commercial crew program. Your miserly attitude has delayed this program by years while saving little by sending hundreds of millions to the Russians for crew services.

So, please get your heads out of your asses and fully fund the commercial crew program before all this ineptitude ends up affecting a Soyuz mission. We could end up losing access to a station we’ve spent $100 billion on — or something much, much worse.

If much, much worse happens, the American people are going to be looking for someone to blame. And it’s going to be you.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30237
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-03-2013 02:40 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by 328KF:
The modern way of looking at aerospace accidents and incidents to look at the larger systemic, organizational, and cultural issues rather than to focus solely on the technical aspects.
That may be true, but there's a limit to how wide a scope that can be applied. The U.S. did not halt Delta and Atlas launches in the wake of Challenger or Columbia.

Granted, that's not a perfect comparison; fortunately, the U.S. hasn't a yet met with the same difficulties as the Russians are now experiencing.

So yes, Russia does has larger problem managing its space program, but it is too early to suggest that this specific failure falls into this category.

quote:
Originally posted by 328KF:
Doug Messier over at Parabolicarc.com has posted an "open letter" to the U.S. Congress expressing his concern over these failures and their potential impact on ISS.
Nothing against Doug, I respect the work he does at Parabolic Arc, but I think he's co-opting this failure to advance his own support for commercial crew.

328KF
Member

Posts: 906
From:
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 07-03-2013 03:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 328KF   Click Here to Email 328KF     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In the spring of 1986, NASA was having an eerily similar series of failures which essentially shut down U.S. access to space.
The accident effectively guts the nation`s space program. This is why:
  • The most dependable launch vehicles, the Delta rockets, are now grounded indefinitely.
  • The space shuttle system has been on hold since the Challenger loss.
  • The Titan rockets are unusable, after similar accidents with each of the systems in the past three months.
Remaining in the nation's launch fleet are three expendable Delta rockets, six Titan rockets and three reusable space shuttles, but none are available until investigations are completed, crippling America's space effort for civilian and military uses.
There was a lot of concern in those days over what was perceived to be "NASA's problem," not Delta's or Titan's or the shuttle's problem. I remember watching the Delta launch failure and thinking, wow, can we do anything right? And all that time we were grounded Hubble sat with an unknown flaw that put NASA under the microscope again in 1990.

NASA leadership changed, the culture of the organization changed, and went on to achieve great things. Unfortunately as often happens in complex organizations, NASA allowed what is known as a "drift toward failure" again leading up to the Columbia accident.

That is what I see happening here... Russia is having it's time "in the barrel" and can't seem to get out of it. The drift toward failure has not reversed toward success. The rate of failure seems to be trending in the wrong direction.

I agree that Doug's angle seems to be opportunistic cheerleading for commercial crew, but he is making a valid point that if we were to have American astronauts aboard a Soyuz when a failure occurs, there is going to be a lot of finger pointing and heads rolling.

I would think that those who would shoulder that blame, deservedly or not, would take note of this situation and take appropriate measures to end the reliance on Russia for ISS access.

jasonelam
Member

Posts: 490
From: Monticello, KY USA
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 07-03-2013 05:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jasonelam   Click Here to Email jasonelam     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Along the same lines, do the Chinese not put Range Safety devices in their rockets?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30237
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-04-2013 08:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Interfax is reporting that the Russian Investigative Committee has opened a criminal case over the crash of the Proton-M rocket, according to a statement posted by the Baikonur prosecutor's office.
"The investigative department of the Russian Investigative Committee at the Baikonur complex has opened a criminal case on this incident over evidence of a crime, put forward in the Russian Criminal Code Article 216 Part 1. The Baikonur prosecutor's office is overseeing the investigation," the statement said.

The Baikonur prosecutor's office is checking whether the law regulating preparations for launches and launches of rocket and space equipment was followed, at the order of the Russian Prosecutor General's Office, the statement said.

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 700
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 07-04-2013 08:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by 328KF:
In the spring of 1986, NASA was having an eerily similar series of failures which essentially shut down U.S. access to space.
  1. 1986 was not "NASA's" problem, they was separate incidents unrelated and there was no organizational issue that interlinked the accidents.

    "There was a lot of concern in those days over what was perceived to be "NASA's problem," not Delta's or Titan's or the shuttle's problem" That was only by clueless people who thought NASA launched everything.

  2. Same go for now. These are unrelated issues. Totally different organizations involved with each incident. Different contractors and different oversight groups. The Roskosmos is not even equivalent to NASA, they just funnel money and don't have an engineering organization.
quote:
Now five failures in 2 1/2 years is indicative of a larger problem in the organization...
There is no overarching organization.

328KF
Member

Posts: 906
From:
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 07-04-2013 10:10 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for 328KF   Click Here to Email 328KF     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Behling:
That was only by clueless people who thought NASA launched everything.

Yes Jim, in my clueless, then 18-year old mind that was the impression that I had and much of the media at the time seemed to have as well.

I get that different organizations within the Russian space program are responsible for the individual failures, but to me that is more troubling than if the problems were isolated to a specific segment of the program.

This is exactly why I am less concerned with the "nuts and bolts" of the losses than I am of the human failures which led to them. Not at all looking to blame anyone (that seems to be the Russian way... blame, fire, then move on). That does not work and has not worked for them. They tried that and we still have this happen.

I have to look at this criminal investigation now... I can understand that approach if there were environmental/safety laws that were not followed, but if this is just another scapegoat search, it won't fix the bigger problem.

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 700
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 07-04-2013 10:48 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by jasonelam:
Along the same lines, do the Chinese not put Range Safety devices in their rockets?
No.

cspg
Member

Posts: 4769
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006

posted 07-04-2013 04:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cspg   Click Here to Email cspg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Which indirectly shows how much both regimes (Russian and Chinese) care about the well-being of their people (or foreigners regarding this "accident").

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30237
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-04-2013 04:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The reason the U.S. instituted range safety was not to protect its personnel at the launch site, but to protect nearby populated cities from a wayward rocket.

Neither Russia or China have that concern as they launch in sparsely populated, desert areas.

SpaceAholic
Member

Posts: 3258
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-04-2013 04:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Disagree... implementation of Range Safety hardware/ordinance is provisioned to protect loss of life and infrastructure period whether in a populous area or in the vicinity of the launch facility. A criteria for initiation includes a threat to populous areas but it is not the only reason.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30237
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-04-2013 06:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That may be the case today, now that the system is in place, but it was not how or why it began, according to range safety officers who I spoke to over the years. The historical impetus for range safety was to protect the uninvolved public.

And today, the FAA — which has oversight over all U.S. commercial launch providers — has no requirement for the operators to provide range safety for the launch site or those involved in the launch (including any passengers aboard). The only requirement is that they protect the life of uninvolved third parties.

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 700
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 07-04-2013 10:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
A criteria for initiation includes a threat to populous areas but it is not the only reason.
And the Russian system uses a lock out that prevents range safety engine shutdown in the vicinity of the pad, until it is far away.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30237
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-09-2013 08:22 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
International Launch Services release
Update on Russian Federal Proton GLONASS Mission Failure

The Proton Launch System carrying the Russian Federal GLONASS mission on July 2, 2013 from Launch Pad 24 failed, resulting in the integrated launch vehicle falling back to earth a short distance from the launch pad.

The following is a status update on several items:

Personnel:
Our number one priority at ILS is safety, and we are pleased to report that all personnel associated with the Astra 2E campaign were a safe distance away at the ILS safety area, and are all safe. Additionally, we have been told that there were no injuries or casualties to Russian or Kazakh personnel.

Astra 2E Campaign Status:
The Astra 2E spacecraft is safe and has been configured for short term storage. The spacecraft has not been fueled. The majority of the team is leaving Baikonur on 5 July 13 and will return after the Russian State Commission and ILS FROB complete their work on root cause and corrective actions.

Launch Pad facilities:
The impact area was a far enough distance from LP24 and LP39 and we understand that neither launch pads were damaged.

Russian Launch Investigation:
The Russian State Commission has been established and will be investigating the potential causes of the failure. Flight and Ground Telemetry was transferred to Moscow and is being reviewed by subject matter experts. As this mission failed very early in flight, the investigation is concentrating on the pre-launch sequence and early flight telemetry data. There are many rumors and much speculation on the internet and through other sources, and you may have your own thoughts and questions as well. The Russian State Commission will complete their work and release their findings in due time.

ILS FROB
Since the Russian State Commission is still in progress, we cannot reliably estimate the timing of the FROB, but based on experience, we estimate that it would not start until late July at the earliest.

Return to Flight and Proton Manifest:
The schedule for the return to flight and subsequent missions will be determined once the Russian State Commission and ILS FROB completes their efforts and the required corrective actions have been implemented.

ILS will provide regular updates as new information develops.

mikej
Member

Posts: 412
From: Germantown, WI USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 07-10-2013 01:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for mikej   Click Here to Email mikej     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
According to Russia's Proton crashes with a trio of navigation satellites
...investigators sifting through the wreckage of the doomed rocket had found critical angular velocity sensors, DUS, installed upside down. Each of those sensors had an arrow that was suppose to point toward the top of the vehicle, however multiple sensors on the failed rocket were pointing downward instead. As a result, the flight control system was receiving wrong information about the position of the rocket and tried to "correct" it, causing the vehicle to swing wildly and, ultimately, crash... It appeared that no visual control of the faulty installation had been conducted, while electrical checks had not detected the problem since all circuits had been working correctly.
As I recall, Murphy's Law was originally pronounced after finding that sensors had been wired backwards ...

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30237
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 07-19-2013 04:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
RIA Novosti elaborates on the mistake that caused the Proton to fail.
The mistake affected three of six yaw angular velocity sensors on the unmanned rocket, said deputy head of Roscosmos, Alexander Lopatin, citing a state commission’s investigation of the crash.

The mistake could have been the fault of either the worker who installed the sensors or the engineer who drew up the construction blueprints, Lopatin said at a press conference.

“Installing these devices is complicated and awkward work,” Lopatin said.

The wrongly installed sensors bore the trace of being forced into place, he added.

There is no provision for spotting such a mistake in current pre-launch procedures, Lopatin said. The commission is drafting a set of measures to rectify the situation, including possible filming of sensor installation procedures for pre-launch review.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30237
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-07-2013 09:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
ITAR-TASS reports that the cause of the Proton failure in July has been confirmed and that launches are set to resume in September.
The inter-departmental commission confirmed that the failure of three angular rate sensors had provoked the crash of a Proton-M rocket, deputy head of the Russian Federal Space Agency Alexander Lopatin said on Monday.

The commission found out that the sensors had been installed wrong (with 180 degrees turn). "The testing proved this," he noted.

"No failure of process discipline has been reported," Lopatin stressed.

The commission instructed the maker to change the design of angular rate sensors for rockets in order to rule out a possibility of wrong installation. The commission also stressed to equip sites of the rocket assembly, photo- and video recording, Lopatin said.

Sensors' makers do not recognize their guilty, he said, adding, "No violations have been revealed when sensors are installed. The work is practically over. Totally, six rockets have been checked."

Till the yearend the Russian Federal Space Agency hopes to make four or five launches of a Proton rocket. The first launch with a foreign satellite is planning to be held in September.

Ronpur
Member

Posts: 525
From: Brandon, Fl
Registered: May 2012

posted 08-07-2013 07:36 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ronpur   Click Here to Email Ronpur     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Wow, that is good news. Fast recovery!

SpaceAholic
Member

Posts: 3258
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 08-08-2013 02:09 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The commission found out that the sensors had been installed wrong (with 180 degrees turn). "The testing proved this," he noted.

"No failure of process discipline has been reported," Lopatin stressed.

The two statements are mutually conflicting...

328KF
Member

Posts: 906
From:
Registered: Apr 2008

posted 08-08-2013 12:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for 328KF   Click Here to Email 328KF     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That was my same exact thought. I'm glad I wasn't drinking a beverage when I read that or it would have come spraying out.

I'll give them the benefit of the translation maybe being a little off, but to suggest that this was an isolated incident and a simple case of faulty installation is oversimplistic.

What about their inspection and testing? If testing post-crash can prove this was the cause, then proper pre-flight testing should have prevented it. I'm also curious about the proposed camera installations and the assembly points. Is this going to be used for quality control prior to launch or for the blame game following an accident?

I'm sure a "quick fix" is exactly what the higher-ups wanted. Unfortunately, to really address all of the problems they have had requires much more extensive mitigation. It's been suggested within Russia that the entire program be centralized under one roof. That might work, but only if the new organization sets standards and adheres to them in a way that has not been done in recent years.


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 1999-2014 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement