DocM Posted July 4, 2013 Author Share Posted July 4, 2013 Space elevator. Won't work for any of about a dozen reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Well, there goes Russia's attempt to launch Snowden into space to avoid the reach of the US government. :shiftyninja: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praetor Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Well, there goes Russia's attempt to launch Snowden into space to avoid the reach of the US government. :shiftyninja: :laugh: What, you didn't know? Space belongs to the US government... btw: in your latest sig, who's the folks under the X marks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cute James Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 btw: in your latest sig, who's the folks under the X marks? Bradley Manning and Michael Hastings, I believe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsItPluggedIn Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Hey Doc, will the HTV be able to supply enough resources to the ISS, to maintain the Crew until the next visit? Or is there going to end up with an issue up there. It would be bad if the HTV had a failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Warwagon MVC Posted July 4, 2013 MVC Share Posted July 4, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 4, 2013 Author Share Posted July 4, 2013 Hey Doc, will the HTV be able to supply enough resources to the ISS, to maintain the Crew until the next visit? Or is there going to end up with an issue up there. It would be bad if the HTV had a failure. There shouldn't be a big problem. If there's any urgent needs some low priority cargo can be pulled and the urgent stuff packed. Happens more often than you'd think. SpaceX paced an ice cream order into Dragon's freezer right before a flight last year ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 btw: in your latest sig, who's the folks under the X marks? Bradley Manning and Michael Hastings, I believe... Correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Praetor Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 Correct. well i knew it was Bradley Manning, but Michael Hastings i didn't know he was dead. Bradley Manning is still alive, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theyarecomingforyou Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 well i knew it was Bradley Manning, but Michael Hastings i didn't know he was dead. Bradley Manning is still alive, isn't it? PM sent. I don't want to take this thread off-topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 5, 2013 Author Share Posted July 5, 2013 http://english.pravda.ru/news/russia/04-07-2013/125026-baikonur_food_crisis-0/ Food crisis hits Baikonur after Proton-M rocket crash A food crisis has emerged in the city of Baikonur, where the Russian spaceport is located, news agencies report. Local residents do not have bread and other products, public transport does not work either. A report about the food crisis in Baikonur was aired on the local Channel Seven. Residents complained that food stores were not working in the city, and that they had to live in constant fear over the recent failed launch of the Proton-M booster rocket. The authorities of Baikonur were quick to refute this information. A criminal case was opened today into the crash of the Proton-M booster rocket that took place yesterday. The rocket had three o satellites on board. The rocket exploded and crashed a few seconds after the start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 6, 2013 Author Share Posted July 6, 2013 http://www.space-travel.com/m/reports/Premature_launch_said_likely_cause_of_Russian_rocket_failure_999.html Premature launch said likely cause of Russian rocket failure A premature launch may have caused the recent failure of a Proton-M rocket and the loss of three satellites, a Russian space industry source told RIA Novosti. The source, requesting anonymity, said a special commission was investigating why the rocket carrying three Glonass navigation satellites veered off course and exploded shortly after launch Tuesday from the Baikonur space center in Kazakhstan. Several possible scenarios are being investigated, the source said. "One of them is that, for yet unknown reasons, an early start took place and resulted in the failure. The control system treated it [the early start] as an emergency situation ... and started to divert the rocket away from the launch pad, to a safer distance, just the way it was programmed. "This version [of events] now prevails," the source said, adding other possibilities are also being carefully studied. The incident was the second unsuccessful launch of a Proton-M rocket carrying satellites for Russia's flagship Glonass GPS system in the last 3 years, RIA Novosti said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abecedarian paradoxious Posted July 6, 2013 Share Posted July 6, 2013 Over the past five years, Russia has led the world in commercial rocket launches, controlling about 51 percent of the market, according to Space Policy Online. But the Russian program has experienced an unusual number of failures in recent years dating back to December 2010 when another Proton failure destroyed another three Glonass navigation satellites. Including that failure and this week's mishap, Space Policy Online reports that nine satellites have been lost outright with another six placed in useless or incorrect orbits. ITAR-TASS news agency reported that Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev ordered an immediate investigation of the latest failure and "demanded a list of the guilty persons, including high-ranking Roscosmos officials." The RIA Novosti news agency's version was slightly different, quoting a Medvedev spokesman as saying the prime minister asked for a list of officials responsible for the mishap. Source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 6, 2013 Author Share Posted July 6, 2013 Putting the numbers to it - Proton stats (1965-2013) Proton launches: 388 Proton failures: 45 (most early on) Lifetime failure rate: 11.6% 2012 Proton & industry stats (Space Launch Report) Proton launches: 10 Proton failures: 2 Proton failure rate: 20% Industry average failures: 7.69% Not a good trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Mirumir Subscriber¹ Posted July 9, 2013 Subscriber¹ Share Posted July 9, 2013 Putting the numbers to it - Proton stats (1965-2013) Proton launches: 388 Proton failures: 45 (most early on) Lifetime failure rate: 11.6% 2012 Proton & industry stats (Space Launch Report) Proton launches: 10 Proton failures: 2 Proton failure rate: 20% Industry average failures: 7.69% Not a good trend. I don't want to belittle the failures, but I just feel it needs to be taken into accountant, for the sake of accuracy, that some of these launch failures were caused not by Proton rockets per se, but by Briz-M upper-stage modules after a Proton rocket did its job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 9, 2013 Author Share Posted July 9, 2013 A launch failure is a launch failure to the satellite builders & insurance companies, and insurance bases out at $15-20M and goes up with perceived risk and satellite cost. The real problems are the same regardless of what part of the stack failed; Russia is losing its good young engineers to the rest of the world, and quality control, hardware and software, is in the dumpster. That politicians etc. going all Soviet Union in the aftermath, opening criminal investigations & blaming the US for sabotaging this launch, isn't helping things either. More engineers will leave and the old ones will throw up their hands & retire rather than put up with it. A serious attitude change needs to be made at all levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Mirumir Subscriber¹ Posted July 9, 2013 Subscriber¹ Share Posted July 9, 2013 Yes, brain-drain is a problem, or rather, used to be. The situation of the 90's is long gone. The Russian Space agency is literally swimming in cash these days. Pointing to the suppliers doesn't actually solve anything. The problem lies in quality control rooted in work ethics deficiency. It's a cultural phenomenon, a relic of the Soviet days. We'll get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 10, 2013 Author Share Posted July 10, 2013 Brain drain is still occurring, sometimes work conditions matter as much as cash flow to projects, and that compounds things due to the increasing average age of those who remain. I'm hoping Angara, its common core design, and the new spacecraft work out for them as these 50-60 year old designs need serious updating. It'll help both production and QC. That and they need to ditch Proton because of the toxic hypergolic fuels. The cosmonauts really deserve and expect it. Word is when they got inside the Dragon they were like kids in a candy store; "new car look & smell," LED lighting, clean interior design etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 10, 2013 Author Share Posted July 10, 2013 WTF - upside down attitude sensors?!? http://www.russianspaceweb.com/proton_glonass49.html#culprit Culprit found By July 9, it is transpired that 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. The paper trail led to a young technician responsible for the wrong assembly of the hardware, but also raised serious issues of quality control at the Proton's manufacturing plant, at the rocket's testing facility and at the assembly building in Baikonur. 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. Implications It was the first time in the post-Soviet history that the Proton rocket, a largest vehicle in the current Russian rocket fleet, crashed in the vicinity of its launch facility. On April 2, 1969, a Proton rocket carrying a Mars probe crashed shortly after lifting off from the same Pad 24. Serious implications for the Russian space program and its rocket industry are practically inevitable, however there are no alternative to Proton until Angara becomes operational later in the decade at the earliest. Political fallout Shortly after the accident, Russian media reported that authorities started a criminal investigation in Baikonur under Chapter 1 of Article 216 of the Criminal Code entitled "Violations of safety rules during mining, construction and other works leading to a significant damage." Unofficial source at the site did confirm that criminal investigators had appeared at various facilities. Also, Russian Vice Prime-Minister Dmitry Rogozin promised to make "hard conclusions" from the investigation, which among other things "would identify those who despite numerous government requests failed to deal with many issues of quality control," Rogozin said. According to Rogozin, the failed vehicle had been manufactured and delivered to Baikonur before his administration restored the military certification of rocket technology. On July 8, Rogozin announced a formation of an expert engineering group, which would not include representatives of the Proton's contractors, but would be responsible for the review of the entire manufacturing process and quality control procedures during the production of the vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloatingFatMan Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 The paper trail led to a young technician responsible for the wrong assembly of the hardware, I really wouldn't like to be in that persons shoes right now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 10, 2013 Author Share Posted July 10, 2013 I wouldn't want to be anyone in that whole part of the production --> inspection --> integration chain of the flight control system. They have a LOT of work to do on QC/QA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 10, 2013 Author Share Posted July 10, 2013 Another thought: Blame can extend to the design process - sensor components should be designed with unique shapes, and their mounts with unique screw patterns, so they cannot be installed in the wrong place or orientation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsItPluggedIn Posted July 10, 2013 Share Posted July 10, 2013 Sounds like a scapegoat to me. Find a young technician that nobody likes blame it on him. All good, move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted July 11, 2013 Author Share Posted July 11, 2013 In Soviet Russia the sensors are fine, the rocket was installed upside down :rofl: Praetor and Phouchg 2 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisj1968 Posted July 11, 2013 Share Posted July 11, 2013 Well the cost was probably astronomical! I noticed the top stage "ejected" with a parachute, hopefully there isn't too much damage to the payload then. not to mention the extra force added with gravity and the rockets boosters still pushing the thing back down to earth. Me thinks a total loss of ship and payload Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts