Author Topic: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues  (Read 20697 times)

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« on: 05/18/2015 01:09 am »
Per:
We should look to start a thread covering the Russian failures debate, while stressing everyone's gone through a bad period (been seeing those historical threads about those Titan failures in a row, etc.)

A central thread will allow the specific threads to stay specific. So if someone wants to set that up, probably in the Russian section as our Russian friends will have good input.

Decided to create this thread here. Discuss/debate recent failures with Proton, soyuz boosters, and/or upper stages (Briz M) and other potential processing issues at Krunichev/within Roscosmos ect here.

For starters (obviously) wanted to pick up ongoing debates from the proton failure thread regarding Briz-M vernier shutdown.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline king1999

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
  • F-Niner Fan
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 306
  • Likes Given: 1280
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #1 on: 05/18/2015 03:06 am »
May also include Progress failing to boost ISS last Friday.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39214
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32734
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #2 on: 05/18/2015 04:44 am »
The Briz-M did not fail. It was the third stage of the Proton booster and I'm not sure it was the verniers (that was the failure last year). The Briz-M is the fourth stage.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline NovaSilisko

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1828
  • Liked: 1440
  • Likes Given: 1301
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #3 on: 05/18/2015 04:55 am »
This thread reminded me. How has Nauka been doing lately?  ::)

Offline owais.usmani

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 729
  • Liked: 368
  • Likes Given: 581
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #4 on: 05/18/2015 06:00 am »
This thread reminded me. How has Nauka been doing lately?  ::)

Pretty good actually. They are on track to launch it some time this century.

Offline Appable

  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Washington, USA
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #5 on: 05/18/2015 06:19 am »
The Briz-M did not fail. It was the third stage of the Proton booster and I'm not sure it was the verniers (that was the failure last year). The Briz-M is the fourth stage.

Interfax stated that one of the 11D458 vernier engines was a possible cause here based on early telemetry data: http://www.interfax.ru/world/442020

This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

Offline Prof68

  • Member
  • Posts: 51
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #6 on: 05/18/2015 06:45 am »
Skyrocket made some aruments about organizational problems in Proton failure topic.
Have some counter arguments, but think that this topic is better place to write.

Before everyone jumps on the Proton is unreliable, time for Angara 5 bandwagon. Doesn't the Angara 5 also use the Briz M? Briz M which has been implicated in more than it's fair share of recent failures.

And Angara has just performed 2 flights, so it is a little bit early to speak about Angara's reliability.

If Proton's problems come from problems inside the organisation (quality control, underpayment, over-working, loss of experienced workers, etc.), it is likely, that these problems might as well affect Angara in the same way.

The Proton-M production & assembly plant is the old Khrunichev stronghold in Reutow, suburb of Moskow. While Angara production & assemby plant is NPO "Polyot", the new Khrunichev filial in Omsk, Siberia. Well, first test rockets partially assembled in Reutow. Before NPO "Polyot" became Khrunichev filial, it was production center for many military rockets & Kosmos launchers. After acquisition of NPO "Polyot" Khrunchev start process of heavy modernzation here, while Reutow facilites weren't modernized. Some parts of Omsk plant are already modernized, new facilities are build now or will be in near future.
Moskow region is the vibrant center of a new Russian economy, while industrial Omsk region is stagnating. The differences in cost of living between regions are enormous. As a result, same payment for same work will be underpayment in Moskow, but generous payment in Omsk. Also experienced staff could find better place to work in Moskow times easier than in Omsk. So Omsk plant not only save much more experienced staff, but could easily acquire additional staff from stagnating nearby plants. While Reutow plant is a donor of staff to the other Moskow industries.
Both plants lose military-grade QC some time ago, but Reutow earlier than Omsk.
So restoration of military QC standards in space industry that was decreed in 2014 by government, could be easier & quicker for Omsk.

May be I am overly optimistic, but IMHO, the production of Angara will have much less problems than the current production of Proton. Well, after current round of modernization will be finished.
« Last Edit: 05/18/2015 06:48 am by Prof68 »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39214
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32734
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #7 on: 05/18/2015 06:55 am »
Interfax stated that one of the 11D458 vernier engines was a possible cause here based on early telemetry data: http://www.interfax.ru/world/442020

Thanks. Here's a Google translation. I'm still not sure though if they are referring to the failure last year as an example of what could have gone wrong with this flight.

"A possible cause of the accident "Proton" called failure of the third stage steering engine

Moscow. May 16. INTERFAX.RU - As a preliminary version of the emergency launch rocket "Proton-M" with the Mexican satellite communications experts call the refusal of steering engines of the third stage, "Interfax" on Saturday, a source in the space industry.

"Analysis of the telemetry data allows us to conclude that there was a failure of steering engines of the third stage of the rocket. This version is considered as one of the main" - a spokesman said.

He recalled that it was for this reason that the summer of 2014 was lost when running a communications satellite "Express-AM44". "Investigation into the causes of the accident showed that there was a contingency work just steering engines of the third stage," - said the source.

The interlocutor of the agency said that last year's results of the investigation of the accident, "Proton-M" satellite "Express-AM44" were carried out additional checks of missile technology."
« Last Edit: 05/18/2015 07:03 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39214
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32734
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #8 on: 05/18/2015 06:59 am »
May also include Progress failing to boost ISS last Friday.

This has now been successfully done.

http://tass.ru/en/russia/795203
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48136
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81615
  • Likes Given: 36928
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #9 on: 05/18/2015 07:29 am »
@parabolicarc has a piece on the series of Russian launch failures over the last 6 years: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/05/16/years-failure-haunt-russian-space-program/

There's a handy table listing the failures, attached for convenience.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #10 on: 05/18/2015 07:40 am »
My google fu apparently isn't up to the task. Has a Proton second stage (8S811K) ever failed during ascent?
« Last Edit: 05/18/2015 07:41 am by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline dkovacic

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #11 on: 05/18/2015 11:44 am »
I think this launch failure will have grave consequences for ILS / commerical launches on Proton and Soyuz.
The last commercial Proton launch contract I know is Eutelsat 9B 16 months ago (assuming that Gazprom Yamal-601 had not option 8) )

The failure rate for Soyuz/R-7 is 4.5% since 2010. For Proton it is 15% since 2010! This is bad even compared with other Russian launchers. Majority of failures mentioned above were on non-commercial flights. Major western launchers (Ariane V, Atlas V, F9, Delta 4) have almost flawless flight record in the same period. But SatMex-1 launch was insured for $390 million, if I remember correctly. That means that insurance rates for any Russian launches (and especially Proton) will have to be significantly higher. For example, 15% of $390 million equals $58.5 million. Assuming commercial price of Proton of $85 million, that almost covers the difference cost for Ariane V upper slot, or having a dedicated F9 rocket.

So probably commercial contracts on Proton are going to the history. Proton lost its low-cost advantage (to SpaceX), and is by far the most unreliable rocket around (which must hike up insurance rates a lot). Its only advantage is quicker availability. Last commercial contract I know of (Eutelsat 9B) was signed 16 months ago for launch in 2015. That leaves Turksat 4B, Yamal 601, Eutelsat 9B, Inmarsat 5 F3 in the pipeline and nothing else.

Offline gwiz

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 602
  • Cornwall
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #12 on: 05/18/2015 12:20 pm »
My google fu apparently isn't up to the task. Has a Proton second stage (8S811K) ever failed during ascent?
Yes, quite a few times, most recently in 1999.
« Last Edit: 05/18/2015 12:21 pm by gwiz »

Online Svetoslav

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1667
  • Bulgaria
  • Liked: 1184
  • Likes Given: 114
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #13 on: 05/18/2015 12:21 pm »
I have one biggest concern about Proton. ExoMars. Proton's failure rate is too high already, it has never been used for an interplanetary mission since 90s, the Mars 96 mission ended in failure and Briz-M has never been used for an interplanetary journey. I wonder if they're thinking about changing the rocket?!

Offline MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1062
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 772
  • Likes Given: 2016
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #14 on: 05/18/2015 01:11 pm »
I think this launch failure will have grave consequences for ILS / commerical launches on Proton and Soyuz.
The last commercial Proton launch contract I know is Eutelsat 9B 16 months ago (assuming that Gazprom Yamal-601 had not option 8) )

The failure rate for Soyuz/R-7 is 4.5% since 2010. For Proton it is 15% since 2010! This is bad even compared with other Russian launchers. Majority of failures mentioned above were on non-commercial flights. Major western launchers (Ariane V, Atlas V, F9, Delta 4) have almost flawless flight record in the same period. But SatMex-1 launch was insured for $390 million, if I remember correctly. That means that insurance rates for any Russian launches (and especially Proton) will have to be significantly higher. For example, 15% of $390 million equals $58.5 million. Assuming commercial price of Proton of $85 million, that almost covers the difference cost for Ariane V upper slot, or having a dedicated F9 rocket.

So probably commercial contracts on Proton are going to the history. Proton lost its low-cost advantage (to SpaceX), and is by far the most unreliable rocket around (which must hike up insurance rates a lot). Its only advantage is quicker availability. Last commercial contract I know of (Eutelsat 9B) was signed 16 months ago for launch in 2015. That leaves Turksat 4B, Yamal 601, Eutelsat 9B, Inmarsat 5 F3 in the pipeline and nothing else.

The bigger worry I have, as I'm sure others have, is the fact that both commercial and man-rated launch vehicles used by Roscosmos are currently grounded. While it took two vehicle failures to cause this situation, the effect is worse than the loss of shuttle Columbia in 2003. Back then, astronauts could board a Soyuz to get to ISS as STS modifications were in progress as the fleet was grounded. Right now, with US manned launch operations still in the testing stage, there isn't any manned launch option to reach the ISS until Roscosmos resolves at least the Soyuz third stage issue.

My hope is that this (1) doesn't impact the ISS supply or habitation plans in the long-term as schedules as adjusted and (2) that this sets a political fire under the U.S. politicians that have threatened to reduce the Commercial Crew budgets, raising it modestly instead to speed things along. The redundancies that the U.S. will have with separate LVs and cargo and manned spacecraft will reduce the future chances of the very issue that's occurred as of this weekend.

"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #15 on: 05/18/2015 01:45 pm »
I think this launch failure will have grave consequences for ILS / commerical launches on Proton and Soyuz.
The last commercial Proton launch contract I know is Eutelsat 9B 16 months ago (assuming that Gazprom Yamal-601 had not option 8) )

The failure rate for Soyuz/R-7 is 4.5% since 2010. For Proton it is 15% since 2010! This is bad even compared with other Russian launchers. Majority of failures mentioned above were on non-commercial flights. Major western launchers (Ariane V, Atlas V, F9, Delta 4) have almost flawless flight record in the same period. But SatMex-1 launch was insured for $390 million, if I remember correctly. That means that insurance rates for any Russian launches (and especially Proton) will have to be significantly higher. For example, 15% of $390 million equals $58.5 million. Assuming commercial price of Proton of $85 million, that almost covers the difference cost for Ariane V upper slot, or having a dedicated F9 rocket.

So probably commercial contracts on Proton are going to the history. Proton lost its low-cost advantage (to SpaceX), and is by far the most unreliable rocket around (which must hike up insurance rates a lot). Its only advantage is quicker availability. Last commercial contract I know of (Eutelsat 9B) was signed 16 months ago for launch in 2015. That leaves Turksat 4B, Yamal 601, Eutelsat 9B, Inmarsat 5 F3 in the pipeline and nothing else.
Morelos 3 and Centenario go to inclined orbits (around 15 deg I believe). Ironically, Ariane 5 5deg of inclination would have needed a plane change on the other direction. This is why they went with Proton-M/Briz-M and Atlas V. Bicenternario (the GEO one), did in fact, flew on Araine 5.
The Mexican government appears not to quite understand the schedule fluidity of the space business, you'd be quite surprised to see the level of lawsuit threat that went to Ariane 5 because they were a couple of months late to launch. I will take a guess and say that if they order a replacement (which they should), then they will go with either Atlas V or Falcon 9/FH.
But that's why Proton-M got the Centenario contract, the Mexicans were spreading their risk and needed an inclined orbit. SpaceX and Arianespace are booked solid to 2017/8, so, this failure on Proton might actually allow Atlas V or even H-2A to win a few other launches.
I do see a vicious cycle on Proton, little to no ILS launches means less economies of scale, less practice for the team, less commercial pressure to perform, and until they prove themselves back, I don't expect anything but Russian and allies payloads. And that means a lot less revenue for Krunischev. Which means more human resourses drainage, etc.
I do see an opportunity for Angara, but they lack a launch pad at Voistochny. And given the speed of advance of the Soyuz pad, they'll be lucky to get them by 2020. Unless they can make some arrangement with Brazil for Angara, I see the bulk of commercial coming back to the West for the next five to seven years.

Offline Stan Black

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3135
  • Liked: 377
  • Likes Given: 228
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #16 on: 05/18/2015 03:32 pm »
The Briz-M did not fail. It was the third stage of the Proton booster and I'm not sure it was the verniers (that was the failure last year). The Briz-M is the fourth stage.

Interfax stated that one of the 11D458 vernier engines was a possible cause here based on early telemetry data: http://www.interfax.ru/world/442020

11D458 is not used on the current Proton-M. It is used on the original Briz-M, 885 series.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #17 on: 05/18/2015 03:59 pm »
@parabolicarc has a piece on the series of Russian launch failures over the last 6 years: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/05/16/years-failure-haunt-russian-space-program/

There's a handy table listing the failures, attached for convenience.

That is a scary list... 16 failures in six years (and accelerating if anything) across four lines of launchers, including those that had incredibly long launch histories.
 
Isolated technical flaw it is not; broad, systemic weakness is only explanation.  It will be difficult to prove that it doesn't touch all programs.

Time to stop flying crew?
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #18 on: 05/18/2015 04:37 pm »
@parabolicarc has a piece on the series of Russian launch failures over the last 6 years: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/05/16/years-failure-haunt-russian-space-program/

There's a handy table listing the failures, attached for convenience.

That is a scary list... 16 failures in six years (and accelerating if anything) across four lines of launchers, including those that had incredibly long launch histories.
 
Isolated technical flaw it is not; broad, systemic weakness is only explanation.  It will be difficult to prove that it doesn't touch all programs.

Time to stop flying crew?
They did 177 orbital flights in the 2010->2015 period (up to now). With the current 14 failures that's a 91.61% success rate. It is not the workhorse reliability of Atlas V or Ariane 5, but it is sort of par on course.
And Soyuz is 80/83 = 96.38%, which is still better than Falcon 9. So, the atrocious performance is mostly Krunichev's.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #19 on: 05/18/2015 04:53 pm »
I don't believe that an 8.39% failure rate overall or a 3.62% failure rate on Soyuz are acceptable for crew.

Falcon 9, v1.0 which is the only Falcon 'failure' was on a launch vehicle that:
1. was not qualified for crew,
2. the failure would have not lost its crew (the Dragon arrived safely at ISS),
3. was replaced by a vehicle that has not had a failure, and
4. the replacement vehicle is also not qualified for crew (yet).

Applying the NASA crew qualification process to Soyuz would not allow further crewed flights I believe. 
At the moment, we are taking it on faith that the 'investigation' will find and fix the problem... which is also subject to gross systematic failure.
« Last Edit: 05/18/2015 04:57 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #20 on: 05/18/2015 04:59 pm »
@parabolicarc has a piece on the series of Russian launch failures over the last 6 years: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/05/16/years-failure-haunt-russian-space-program/

There's a handy table listing the failures, attached for convenience.
Excellent and thank you for this. Puts it into better perspective. If anyone knows of other failures/issues that may belong on here please feel free to Photoshop them on.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #21 on: 05/18/2015 05:05 pm »
I think this launch failure will have grave consequences for ILS / commerical launches on Proton and Soyuz.
The last commercial Proton launch contract I know is Eutelsat 9B 16 months ago (assuming that Gazprom Yamal-601 had not option 8) )

The failure rate for Soyuz/R-7 is 4.5% since 2010. For Proton it is 15% since 2010! This is bad even compared with other Russian launchers. Majority of failures mentioned above were on non-commercial flights. Major western launchers (Ariane V, Atlas V, F9, Delta 4) have almost flawless flight record in the same period. But SatMex-1 launch was insured for $390 million, if I remember correctly. That means that insurance rates for any Russian launches (and especially Proton) will have to be significantly higher. For example, 15% of $390 million equals $58.5 million. Assuming commercial price of Proton of $85 million, that almost covers the difference cost for Ariane V upper slot, or having a dedicated F9 rocket.

So probably commercial contracts on Proton are going to the history. Proton lost its low-cost advantage (to SpaceX), and is by far the most unreliable rocket around (which must hike up insurance rates a lot). Its only advantage is quicker availability. Last commercial contract I know of (Eutelsat 9B) was signed 16 months ago for launch in 2015. That leaves Turksat 4B, Yamal 601, Eutelsat 9B, Inmarsat 5 F3 in the pipeline and nothing else.
Morelos 3 and Centenario go to inclined orbits (around 15 deg I believe). Ironically, Ariane 5 5deg of inclination would have needed a plane change on the other direction. This is why they went with Proton-M/Briz-M and Atlas V. Bicenternario (the GEO one), did in fact, flew on Araine 5.
The Mexican government appears not to quite understand the schedule fluidity of the space business, you'd be quite surprised to see the level of lawsuit threat that went to Ariane 5 because they were a couple of months late to launch. I will take a guess and say that if they order a replacement (which they should), then they will go with either Atlas V or Falcon 9/FH.
But that's why Proton-M got the Centenario contract, the Mexicans were spreading their risk and needed an inclined orbit. SpaceX and Arianespace are booked solid to 2017/8, so, this failure on Proton might actually allow Atlas V or even H-2A to win a few other launches.
I do see a vicious cycle on Proton, little to no ILS launches means less economies of scale, less practice for the team, less commercial pressure to perform, and until they prove themselves back, I don't expect anything but Russian and allies payloads. And that means a lot less revenue for Krunischev. Which means more human resourses drainage, etc.
I do see an opportunity for Angara, but they lack a launch pad at Voistochny. And given the speed of advance of the Soyuz pad, they'll be lucky to get them by 2020. Unless they can make some arrangement with Brazil for Angara, I see the bulk of commercial coming back to the West for the next five to seven years.
Any idea if there are any spare Atlas V cores that are not slated for a mission already? Otherwise that might be delta winning those. The alternative is SpaceX somehow ramps up core production to try and win extra contracts...but I don't think they would do that. Regarding Atlas V cores maybe Jim could answer that. Barring spare cores these contracts would have to wait for NGLS

Otherwise I agree, it seems to me Roscosmos needs to conduct an overhaul of the supply chain/quality control.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline aga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
  • Per aspera ad astra
  • Germany
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 1453
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #22 on: 05/18/2015 05:06 pm »
just to add a few more info/details:

I don't believe that an 8.39% failure rate overall or a 3.62% failure rate on Soyuz are acceptable for crew.

the version launching crew (soyuz-fg) is 100% so far (in something like 50 launches, basically the same as atlas 5)

Excellent and thank you for this. Puts it into better perspective. If anyone knows of other failures/issues that may belong on here please feel free to Photoshop them on.

no, it does not... at least not completely... if you want to have it in better perspective, you need to account for the number of launches performed... especially for soyuz that is quite a lot (i counted 89 since 2010)
« Last Edit: 05/18/2015 05:07 pm by aga »
42

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #23 on: 05/18/2015 05:12 pm »
Any idea if there are any spare Atlas V cores that are not slated for a mission already? Otherwise that might be delta winning those. The alternative is SpaceX somehow ramps up core production to try and win extra contracts...but I don't think they would do that. Regarding Atlas V cores maybe Jim could answer that. Barring spare cores these contracts would have to wait for NGLS

Otherwise I agree, it seems to me Roscosmos needs to conduct an overhaul of the supply chain/quality control.
I don't believe that LV will be the long pole. Mexican government has to get the insurance payment, order a new satellite, and it has to be built. If they had contingency plans (which I assume they did, since this was a military payload), they might order the S/C in six months, plus another 36 (really minimum) for delivery, you are talking about a 2019 launch, which should be a lot easier on the manifest since it coincides with a dip on DoD launches.
« Last Edit: 05/18/2015 05:20 pm by baldusi »

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #24 on: 05/18/2015 05:54 pm »
@parabolicarc has a piece on the series of Russian launch failures over the last 6 years: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/05/16/years-failure-haunt-russian-space-program/

There's a handy table listing the failures, attached for convenience.
Excellent and thank you for this. Puts it into better perspective. If anyone knows of other failures/issues that may belong on here please feel free to Photoshop them on.
I'm not sure Phobos-Grunt should be on the list of launcher failures. The Zenit worked flawlessly to get the craft in orbit. The autonomous main propulsion unit derived from the Fregat failed to fire which was a problem with the spacecraft and not the rocket.

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2191
  • Likes Given: 4620
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #25 on: 05/18/2015 06:41 pm »
There are obviously multiple things being discussed, here.  But to focus on this most recent failure of MexSat, it occurs to me that this is, what, the third BRIZ-M stage that has failed in the past two years?

I don't think these ought to be considered Proton failures as much as they should be considered BRIZ-M failures.  And while the upper stage has worked properly several times, it seems to have considerable issues.  The failure rate of BRIZ-M seems to be indicative of a specific problem with that stage, be it in design, manufacture or flight preparation.

What kind of info do we have on this stage in specific, in terms of design and manufacture, especially, that could help us understand what might be happening with it?  For example (and I admit, I'm not up on the manufacturing histories of Russian rocket stages), if the stages were built (all or in part) in the Ukraine, that makes for a far different conversation than if it's been designed and manufactured elsewhere.

And, for reassurance of those concerned about ISS crews, is there any commonality at all between the Soyuz launch vehicle design/manufacturer and that of the BRIZ-M?

I figure that, if problems can be tracked to a given facility or design bureau, it could be beneficial in figuring out the total impact and where we all go from here.
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #26 on: 05/18/2015 06:42 pm »
@the_other_Doug,

The BRIZ-M didn't fail here - it was apparently the Proton's third stage. The BRIZ quite possibly didn't even get as far as free flight.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #27 on: 05/18/2015 07:54 pm »
Yes, for the Nth time.... Proton-M is a FOUR stage rocket. 3 stages plus Briz-M.

And while there is no direct hardware link between A) proton failures, B) Soyuz failures, and C) spacecraft failures - there does seem to be a trend of declining quality control in Russian aerospace.
« Last Edit: 05/18/2015 07:56 pm by Lars-J »

Offline dkovacic

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #28 on: 05/18/2015 08:23 pm »
Yes, but Proton failure rate is three times Soyuz failure rate in recent years. Without Proton, Russian failure rate is around 95%.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #29 on: 05/18/2015 10:02 pm »
Yes, for the Nth time.... Proton-M is a FOUR stage rocket. 3 stages plus Briz-M.

And while there is no direct hardware link between A) proton failures, B) Soyuz failures, and C) spacecraft failures - there does seem to be a trend of declining quality control in Russian aerospace.

That is the failure mechanism that touches all vehicles.  We cannot isolate it to this piece of hardware or that because the system of failure analysis is broken -- industry leadership, and National leadership, are not finding and fixing the real problems, they are just scape-goating and white-washing the failures so that the launch tempo (and cash flow) can continue. 

This is a deep, systemic flaw -- calling it anything else is lipstick on a pig.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8565
  • Likes Given: 1356
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #30 on: 05/18/2015 11:03 pm »
@parabolicarc has a piece on the series of Russian launch failures over the last 6 years: http://www.parabolicarc.com/2015/05/16/years-failure-haunt-russian-space-program/

There's a handy table listing the failures, attached for convenience.
Excellent and thank you for this. Puts it into better perspective. If anyone knows of other failures/issues that may belong on here please feel free to Photoshop them on.
Proton M/Briz M launched with Ekspress AM6 on October 21, 2014.  The fourth Briz M burn cut off 24 seconds early, leaving the satellite about 50 meters/second short of the planned velocity.  Ekspress AM6 spent a bit of its delta-v budget to make up the difference, but is now in its planned orbit.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline MechE31

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 156
  • MELBOURNE, FL
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #31 on: 05/19/2015 01:04 am »
Any idea if there are any spare Atlas V cores that are not slated for a mission already? Otherwise that might be delta winning those. The alternative is SpaceX somehow ramps up core production to try and win extra contracts...but I don't think they would do that. Regarding Atlas V cores maybe Jim could answer that. Barring spare cores these contracts would have to wait for NGLS

Otherwise I agree, it seems to me Roscosmos needs to conduct an overhaul of the supply chain/quality control.
I don't believe that LV will be the long pole. Mexican government has to get the insurance payment, order a new satellite, and it has to be built. If they had contingency plans (which I assume they did, since this was a military payload), they might order the S/C in six months, plus another 36 (really minimum) for delivery, you are talking about a 2019 launch, which should be a lot easier on the manifest since it coincides with a dip on DoD launches.

They may have a very similar SkyTerra-2 satellite in storage from the bankrupt LightSquared. While there is conflicting info on it, I know that 4 total satellites were built, and that there was talk when the Mexsat contract was signed of re-purposing SkyTerra-2, it didn't happen.

If it did exist, it would still require work, but could most likely be turned in about 6 months.

Offline Galactic Penguin SST

Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #32 on: 05/19/2015 02:27 am »
Well from what I read on the Russian forums it seems that not only the companies still don't have adequate QA procedures (at least for the likes of Khrunichev), the mechanics are still very underpaid (even with a little improvement for the past few years) such that I wouldn't be surprised that the wage is lower than those of aircraft/train mechanics, while the management take all the rubles.

I would be interested to see how many QA procedures do the Russians do today. It's interesting to see that the other major spaceflight player that used to be lacking QA - the Chinese - learned the lesson after a string of big failures in the 1990s, which forced them to adopt. While not the top performer they now have a more or less robust spaceflight reliability (rockets, satellites) record.
Astronomy & spaceflight geek penguin. In a relationship w/ Space Shuttle Discovery. Current Priority: Chasing the Chinese Spaceflight Wonder Egg & A Certain Chinese Mars Rover

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #33 on: 05/19/2015 04:29 am »
Any idea if there are any spare Atlas V cores that are not slated for a mission already? Otherwise that might be delta winning those. The alternative is SpaceX somehow ramps up core production to try and win extra contracts...but I don't think they would do that. Regarding Atlas V cores maybe Jim could answer that. Barring spare cores these contracts would have to wait for NGLS

Otherwise I agree, it seems to me Roscosmos needs to conduct an overhaul of the supply chain/quality control.
I don't believe that LV will be the long pole. Mexican government has to get the insurance payment, order a new satellite, and it has to be built. If they had contingency plans (which I assume they did, since this was a military payload), they might order the S/C in six months, plus another 36 (really minimum) for delivery, you are talking about a 2019 launch, which should be a lot easier on the manifest since it coincides with a dip on DoD launches.

They may have a very similar SkyTerra-2 satellite in storage from the bankrupt LightSquared. While there is conflicting info on it, I know that 4 total satellites were built, and that there was talk when the Mexsat contract was signed of re-purposing SkyTerra-2, it didn't happen.

If it did exist, it would still require work, but could most likely be turned in about 6 months.

If they were willing to wait for a new satellite the first time around when re-purposing SkyTerra-2 was an option, I doubt they would go with a re-purposed SkyTerra-2 this time around.  They'd have to have some kind of time-critical need that was more pressing now than it was back when they started to make them make a different decision, and I doubt that's the case.

Offline aga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
  • Per aspera ad astra
  • Germany
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 1453
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #34 on: 05/19/2015 08:17 am »
Yes, for the Nth time.... Proton-M is a FOUR stage rocket. 3 stages plus Briz-M.

that is not true...
there are proton-m launches with different upper stages - eg. block-dm (2 and/or 3)...
there are even planned proton-m launches without any upper stage (in the 3 stage config)
42

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #35 on: 05/19/2015 08:27 am »
Yes, for the Nth time.... Proton-M is a FOUR stage rocket. 3 stages plus Briz-M.

that is not true...
there are proton-m launches with different upper stages - eg. block-dm (2 and/or 3)...
there are even planned proton-m launches without any upper stage (in the 3 stage config)

It doesn't really affect Lars' point that there are alternate configurations that don't use a Briz-M stage -- he was responding to someone who thought the Briz-M was the third stage, which, I believe, is never the case with Proton-M.

Offline aga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 364
  • Per aspera ad astra
  • Germany
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 1453
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #36 on: 05/19/2015 08:35 am »
It doesn't really affect Lars' point that there are alternate configurations that don't use a Briz-M stage -- he was responding to someone who thought the Briz-M was the third stage, which, I believe, is never the case with Proton-M.

yes, that is correct... briz-m is not the third stage...

but that does not change the fact that what he wrote is not true:
proton-m is not a four stage rocket - it is a three stage rocket that can use an upper stage (can be briz-m or can be other)... or can fly without any upper stage
« Last Edit: 05/19/2015 08:38 am by aga »
42

Offline The Amazing Catstronaut

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1065
  • Arsia Mons, Mars, Sol IV, Inner Solar Solar System, Sol system.
  • Liked: 759
  • Likes Given: 626
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #37 on: 05/19/2015 08:52 am »
Pardon me, but shouldn't "Krunichev" be spelt "Khrunichev"? Not being a pedant, I'm genuinely curious.

Who runs Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Centre nowadays? Google isn't making it immediately obvious. Who's the grey man in the black suit?

Edit: Nevermind, found it: Andrey Kalinovsky, acting CEO.

I wonder how much of an incentive he has to reshuffle things at Khrunichev. If Khrunichev keeps pushing out failed launches, there won't be any more launch money for people to siphon off.
« Last Edit: 05/19/2015 08:55 am by The Amazing Catstronaut »
Resident feline spaceflight expert. Knows nothing of value about human spaceflight.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #38 on: 05/19/2015 09:20 am »
I wonder how much of an incentive he has to reshuffle things at Khrunichev. If Khrunichev keeps pushing out failed launches, there won't be any more launch money for people to siphon off.

The problem is that the first instinct seems always to be to scapegoat and I don't think that their system allows for them to identify and remedy true root causes that are not immediately obvious. They can identify and patch obvious production issues and individual personnel lapses very well. However, the deeper cultural malaise and lack of check-points to identify faults during the production process may literally be something that it is impossible for what is essentially a politically-controlled and -managed operation to recognise and remedy.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #39 on: 05/19/2015 11:54 am »
I wonder how much of an incentive he has to reshuffle things at Khrunichev. If Khrunichev keeps pushing out failed launches, there won't be any more launch money for people to siphon off.

The problem is that the first instinct seems always to be to scapegoat and I don't think that their system allows for them to identify and remedy true root causes that are not immediately obvious. They can identify and patch obvious production issues and individual personnel lapses very well. However, the deeper cultural malaise and lack of check-points to identify faults during the production process may literally be something that it is impossible for what is essentially a politically-controlled and -managed operation to recognise and remedy.
I agree Ben and that's what I meant on the original failure thread when they really need a “Chief Designer” such as Korolev who by expertise and force of will could reorganize and regroup Russian spaceflight. What we have is an oligarch running the program who is more interested in taking profits out of it rather than putting investment in to it... If they don’t it will become the space equivalent of what the “Lada” was in the auto industry...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline MechE31

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 156
  • MELBOURNE, FL
  • Liked: 284
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #40 on: 05/19/2015 11:57 am »
Any idea if there are any spare Atlas V cores that are not slated for a mission already? Otherwise that might be delta winning those. The alternative is SpaceX somehow ramps up core production to try and win extra contracts...but I don't think they would do that. Regarding Atlas V cores maybe Jim could answer that. Barring spare cores these contracts would have to wait for NGLS

Otherwise I agree, it seems to me Roscosmos needs to conduct an overhaul of the supply chain/quality control.
I don't believe that LV will be the long pole. Mexican government has to get the insurance payment, order a new satellite, and it has to be built. If they had contingency plans (which I assume they did, since this was a military payload), they might order the S/C in six months, plus another 36 (really minimum) for delivery, you are talking about a 2019 launch, which should be a lot easier on the manifest since it coincides with a dip on DoD launches.

They may have a very similar SkyTerra-2 satellite in storage from the bankrupt LightSquared. While there is conflicting info on it, I know that 4 total satellites were built, and that there was talk when the Mexsat contract was signed of re-purposing SkyTerra-2, it didn't happen.

If it did exist, it would still require work, but could most likely be turned in about 6 months.

If they were willing to wait for a new satellite the first time around when re-purposing SkyTerra-2 was an option, I doubt they would go with a re-purposed SkyTerra-2 this time around.  They'd have to have some kind of time-critical need that was more pressing now than it was back when they started to make them make a different decision, and I doubt that's the case.

I believe it was LightSquared's call back then as the contract was signed around the time they started the bankruptcy hearings and a lot has changed on their end since then.

I don't remember the specifics, it's been many years since that has been discussed.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #41 on: 05/19/2015 12:26 pm »
Any idea if there are any spare Atlas V cores that are not slated for a mission already? Otherwise that might be delta winning those. The alternative is SpaceX somehow ramps up core production to try and win extra contracts...but I don't think they would do that. Regarding Atlas V cores maybe Jim could answer that. Barring spare cores these contracts would have to wait for NGLS

Otherwise I agree, it seems to me Roscosmos needs to conduct an overhaul of the supply chain/quality control.
I don't believe that LV will be the long pole. Mexican government has to get the insurance payment, order a new satellite, and it has to be built. If they had contingency plans (which I assume they did, since this was a military payload), they might order the S/C in six months, plus another 36 (really minimum) for delivery, you are talking about a 2019 launch, which should be a lot easier on the manifest since it coincides with a dip on DoD launches.

They may have a very similar SkyTerra-2 satellite in storage from the bankrupt LightSquared. While there is conflicting info on it, I know that 4 total satellites were built, and that there was talk when the Mexsat contract was signed of re-purposing SkyTerra-2, it didn't happen.

If it did exist, it would still require work, but could most likely be turned in about 6 months.

If they were willing to wait for a new satellite the first time around when re-purposing SkyTerra-2 was an option, I doubt they would go with a re-purposed SkyTerra-2 this time around.  They'd have to have some kind of time-critical need that was more pressing now than it was back when they started to make them make a different decision, and I doubt that's the case.
On the failure press conference the Secretary of Communications and Boeing Space Systems president stated that the replacement would take 36 to 38 months. But I'm pretty sure it won't fly on a Proton-M. So I don't believe that it matters much further discussion in this particular thread.

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12094
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18196
  • Likes Given: 12153
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #42 on: 05/19/2015 12:31 pm »
On the failure press conference the Secretary of Communications and Boeing Space Systems president stated that the replacement would take 36 to 38 months. But I'm pretty sure it won't fly on a Proton-M. So I don't believe that it matters much further discussion in this particular thread.
Emphasis mine.
Commercial business for ILS was already on a steady decline, thanks to the previous Proton failures. This latest one is yet another nail in the coffin. If the Russians keep it up with this failure rate then ILS will cease to exist before this decade is out; basically they are becoming a SeaLaunch v2.0.
« Last Edit: 05/19/2015 12:31 pm by woods170 »

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #43 on: 05/19/2015 02:01 pm »
I wonder how much of an incentive he has to reshuffle things at Khrunichev. If Khrunichev keeps pushing out failed launches, there won't be any more launch money for people to siphon off.

The problem is that the first instinct seems always to be to scapegoat and I don't think that their system allows for them to identify and remedy true root causes that are not immediately obvious. They can identify and patch obvious production issues and individual personnel lapses very well. However, the deeper cultural malaise and lack of check-points to identify faults during the production process may literally be something that it is impossible for what is essentially a politically-controlled and -managed operation to recognize and remedy.
Failure investigations in the US tend to not only look for what caused the problem but what else could have cause the issue and what can cause a problem in the future. That is a result of some very hard lessons learned. The investigations tend to be a chance to reevaluate the system. There were numerous fixes and improvements post Challenger. When General Dynamics moved away from this approach to failure investigation with the Atlas I they got stung by the back to back failures of the AC-70 and AC-71. They thought they found the problem and went back to flight only to be hit by the same problem that doomed the first flight. AC-71 was fell victim to a problem a more thorough investigation would have caught. A little while later AC-74 failed as well. Then there was the commercial Titan that failed too. Those two were issues of not enough inspection and quality control.

Investigations take time and money to do. While they are going on no money can not be made by the rocket. There is a strong incentive to find the problem, fix it, and get back to flying. Another thing is that an investigation is greatly hindered when people fear losing their jobs or going to jail. That sort of environment encourages people to keep quite about everything even if they did nothing to cause the problem. Witch hunts and scapegoat finding are incomparable with finding and fixing the problems.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #44 on: 05/19/2015 02:44 pm »
Root cause analysis is needed as several have stated.

Is this even possible in the Russian political climate where untruth at the highest levels is the National policy? 
How can an honest investigation even be conducted?
« Last Edit: 05/19/2015 03:24 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #45 on: 05/19/2015 03:48 pm »
Root cause analysis is needed as several have stated.

Is this even possible in the Russian political climate where untruth at the highest levels is the National policy? 
How can an honest investigation even be conducted?
Let's be honest. If root cause is that budgets are 1/2 of what they should, what good it is if they can do nothing about it? I suspects that everybody knows it but there's no political will to solve it.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #46 on: 05/19/2015 04:31 pm »
Root cause analysis is needed as several have stated.

Is this even possible in the Russian political climate where untruth at the highest levels is the National policy? 
How can an honest investigation even be conducted?
Let's be honest. If root cause is that budgets are 1/2 of what they should, what good it is if they can do nothing about it? I suspects that everybody knows it but there's no political will to solve it.

Scary.  I find myself agreeing with Rogozin.

Quote
Speaking several days after the latest failures in the sector -- including the botched launch of a Proton rocket that led to the loss of a Mexican satellite -- Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said the industry was plagued by "morally decayed" officials and underpayed personnel.

He reserved the most biting criticism for the Khrunichev space centre, which produces the Proton rockets.

After the latest failure, investigators launched probes targeting the lab's ex-employees for allegedly falsifying documents and causing a loss of nine billion rubles ($180 million, 161 million euros), Rogozin said.

"With such high moral decay of its leadership, one should not be surprised at the product's poor quality," he said.

He said the latest accident with the Proton rocket is identical to two other accidents in 1988 and 2014, which shows that the high-profile probes into them "did not find the real reason" for the malfunction.

http://news.yahoo.com/russian-deputy-pm-attacks-space-industry-reform-bill-154134132.html

While you're at it, Mr. Rogozin, check that image in the mirror.
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #47 on: 05/19/2015 04:44 pm »
The fact that a cause similar to earlier failures last year and all the way back in 1988 interest me. If I'm remembering correctly, that's referring to problems with tank debris getting into turbopumps and causing engines to shut down early. If I'm right, then maybe the problem (seemingly solved for 25 years, let's recall) might be something to do with metallurgical quality. Are budget squeezes causing Khrunichev to revert to a tank alloy/lamination method that was originally abandoned because it had a high risk of de-lamination when immersed in hypergolic fuels but is much cheaper?
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11159
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7392
  • Likes Given: 72392
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #48 on: 05/19/2015 05:37 pm »
Re: Mr. Rogozin
open  :)
If I had the disposable income, I'd commission a musician to write and produce a parody song titled
"Mr. Trampoline Man"
sung in the style of William Shatner's version of "Mr. Tambourine Man."
close  :)

Silly break over--back to the serious.
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #49 on: 05/19/2015 06:09 pm »
I think the failure rate for Proton is fine.

Perhaps starting to edge towards the stage where you would worry about your payload but is not this the point of cheap rockets that can launch huge payloads?

Ask any of the customers if they would pay 100s of millions more for a guarantee. The answer is obviously no otherwise they'd be flying on Atlas/Delta.

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #50 on: 05/19/2015 07:02 pm »
I think the failure rate for Proton is fine.

Perhaps starting to edge towards the stage where you would worry about your payload but is not this the point of cheap rockets that can launch huge payloads?

Ask any of the customers if they would pay 100s of millions more for a guarantee. The answer is obviously no otherwise they'd be flying on Atlas/Delta.
They would pay that and more. That is why Ariane is doing so well and why both Atlas V and the Japanese H-IIA have picked up contracts. These comsats are typically a billion dollars or more. The price difference between the Proton and its competitors is little in comparison with the total cost.

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #51 on: 05/19/2015 08:45 pm »
I think this launch failure will have grave consequences for ILS / commerical launches on Proton and Soyuz.
The last commercial Proton launch contract I know is Eutelsat 9B 16 months ago...

<snip>

So probably commercial contracts on Proton are going to the (be) history. Proton lost its low-cost advantage (to SpaceX), and is by far the most unreliable rocket around (which must hike up insurance rates a lot). Its only advantage is quicker availability. Last commercial contract I know of (Eutelsat 9B) was signed 16 months ago for launch in 2015. That leaves Turksat 4B, Yamal 601, Eutelsat 9B, Inmarsat 5 F3 in the pipeline and nothing else.

We will see if these four walk, too, and who picks them up.

« Last Edit: 05/19/2015 08:46 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline WindnWar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
  • South Carolina
  • Liked: 333
  • Likes Given: 1811
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #52 on: 05/19/2015 10:21 pm »
Anyone know what the launch schedule looks like for the H-IIA? Could they pick up some of these orders quickly or is there a long lead time for vehicle delivery? The biggest issue is near term there doesn't seem to be many launch options available.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #53 on: 05/20/2015 08:39 am »
The biggest issue is near term there doesn't seem to be many launch options available.

There's a launch system available in the US with a near-perfect record. It uses domestic engines on both first and second stages. (In it's simplest no-solid configuration it can even claim to create zero carbon emissions during ascent!)

Will any ILS customers choose to instead pay for a launch on that system? I kinda doubt it....
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline WindnWar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
  • South Carolina
  • Liked: 333
  • Likes Given: 1811
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #54 on: 05/20/2015 12:12 pm »
By that you mean Delta IV, problem is doesn't that have either a 24 or 36 month lead time? As expensive as it is I doubt they keep spare cores around.

Offline MaxBioHazard

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • Krasnoyarsk, Russia
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #55 on: 05/20/2015 05:09 pm »
Pardon me, but shouldn't "Krunichev" be spelt "Khrunichev"?
Yes, it's pronounced more like Hrunichev, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kha_(Cyrillic).

On Russian forums the main cause of the problems is considered unprofessional management, the dominance of old farts, outdated management techniques using, low wages and high staff turnover among young professionals. See http://keyboard09.livejournal.com/960101.html (2012, but still relevant).

First attachment is an age stats and staff turnover stats depending of the age and length of service on Hrunichev and ORKK. Second attachment is an ad for a half-time job for a 4-6-year students, task is a software modelling of orbiting Soyuz-2 rocket, fee is a 10 000 rubles/month (200$), possible without job experience.
« Last Edit: 05/20/2015 05:30 pm by MaxBioHazard »

Offline Nicolas PILLET

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2454
  • Gien, France
    • Kosmonavtika
  • Liked: 670
  • Likes Given: 134
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #56 on: 05/20/2015 07:14 pm »
On Russian forums the main cause of the problems is considered unprofessional management

Rejecting every problems' fault on management is a common practice in France. It seems we have a common point with Russia !
Nicolas PILLET
Kosmonavtika : The French site on Russian Space

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8356
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2539
  • Likes Given: 8273
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #57 on: 05/20/2015 09:56 pm »
On Russian forums the main cause of the problems is considered unprofessional management

Rejecting every problems' fault on management is a common practice in France. It seems we have a common point with Russia !
Let's remember that well educated Russians only spoke in French until the Napoleonic wars. The Russian culture was heavily influenced by the French. Even War and Peace was written (originally) in both languages.

Offline fregate

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 939
  • Space Association of Australia
  • Melbourne Australia
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #58 on: 05/20/2015 11:23 pm »
On Russian forums the main cause of the problems is considered unprofessional management

Rejecting every problems' fault on management is a common practice in France. It seems we have a common point with Russia !
Let's remember that well educated Russians only spoke in French until the Napoleonic wars. The Russian culture was heavily influenced by the French. Even War and Peace was written (originally) in both languages.
Not quite - "War and Peace" was written in Russian, apparently you did manage to get through first 18 pages that were written in French :)
"Selene, the Moon. Selenginsk, an old town in Siberia: moon-rocket  town" Vladimir Nabokov

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #59 on: 05/21/2015 05:37 pm »
Getting back on topic, another possible explanation for issues at Khrunichev is that it is not a design bureau, but rather a manufacturing facility. If there were a full design bureau in control of production, then some of these issues may have been designed out.

As it stands, Khrunichev's designers may not be able to uncover the root cause of these issues.

There used to be a full design bureau for Khrunichev, but it was separated many years ago.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues
« Reply #60 on: 05/25/2015 05:09 pm »
Posted by Danderman on the Live Event Section:
http://tass.ru/en/russia/796547

The results of the work of the commission investigating the causes of the Proton-M carrier rocket crash that occurred on May 16 will be reported to the government on Friday, May 29, a Russian space and industry source told TASS on Monday.

"The commission will complete its work and report the results to the Russian government on May 29," the source said.

According to him, the emergencies commission working at the Khrunichev Centre (Proton manufacturer) has exposed a number of violations in the carrier rocket production. "This is, undoubtedly, a human error. The fault occurred in the rocket manufacturing process," he said.

If  this early preliminary indication is borne out then things are likely going to get very uncomfortable at Khrunichev. This is the second high-profile LOM that has been traced to a catastrophic manufacturing quality control failure. I would argue that the case for a root-and-branch reorganisation is now unanswerable if only to avoid future humiliation.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0