Author Topic: LIVE: Soyuz-2-1A/Fregat-M – Kanopus-V-IK and others – July 14, 2017 (06:36 UTC)  (Read 46763 times)

Offline Jdeshetler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 624
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 1962
  • Likes Given: 1387
(Cool) Video as seen from a Planet Dove Satellite! - Now stabilized.


Online Alter Sachse

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 699
  • Germany
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 237

Offline B. Hendrickx

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 487
  • Liked: 214
  • Likes Given: 9
http://tass.ru/kosmos/4467522

Mayak project leader Aleksandr Shayenko has told TASS that the satellite has failed to deploy its reflectors, either due to a manufacturing fault or because of a problem during separation from the launch vehicle. There are no plans for a replacement satellite.

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6212
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 5677
  • Likes Given: 1627
Quote
Soyuz launch customers search for cause of cubesat failures
by Debra Werner — August 29, 2017

SAN FRANCISCO – Four of the 72 miniature satellites sent into orbit July 14 on a Russian Soyuz 2.1a rocket alongside the primary customer, the Kanopus-V-IK Russian Earth-imaging satellite, are not responding to commands from their operators and two additional cubesats are not in their intended orbits. [...]

http://spacenews.com/soyuz-launch-customers-search-for-cause-of-cubesat-failures/

Offline Liss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1003
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 8
The article is incorrect in the part of Iskra-MAI-85 that is alive and working.
Also, Mayak cannot respond to command because it lacks command receiver as well as telemetry system.
The two MKA-N cubesats seem to be dead.
And the story of one Flock and one Lemur being exchanged is extremely strange while obviously true.
This message reflects my personal opinion based on open sources of information.

Offline Lewis007

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1297
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 291
  • Likes Given: 83

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4460
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 1058
  • Likes Given: 573
Article about unresponsive cubesats from July 14 launch

http://spacenews.com/additional-cubesats-on-july-14-soyuz-flight-are-unresponsive/

unclean deployments despite report of nominal telemetry??

Offline Liss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1003
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 8
Article about unresponsive cubesats from July 14 launch

http://spacenews.com/additional-cubesats-on-july-14-soyuz-flight-are-unresponsive/

unclean deployments despite report of nominal telemetry??
The story just doesn't make sense.

Of 19 cubesats deployed at the 600 km orbit,
* Seven Lemurs are working properly as well as the eighth put in wrong orbit;
* NanoACE is maneuvering which is visible in TLEs;
* UTE was transmitting until July 30 reporting low battery which speaks for design or manufacture problems and not for deployment issues;
* Iskra MAI-85 is working properly -- Spacenews probably took this from Izvestia who'd made the error initially;
* Mayak, erroneously listed as a Moscow State University satellite, could not respond to anybody because it lacks by design both command receiver and telemetry transmitter;
* Two Corvus-BC are reportedly OK;
* Two MKA-N satellites are probably dead on arrival;
* The only proof for three CICERO failure in the publication is an anonymous source.

So we know for sure of Mayak solar reflector deployment failure (acknowledged by project leader) and MKA-N failure (acknowledged by Dauria some 40 days after the launch). I'd note that Dauria satellites used some custom-built launch system other than quadpacks from ISIS and ECM Space.

I cannot see anything pointing to launch or deployment problems in this mission other than unintended swap of one Flock and one Lemur either in program or signal lines or in physical placement.

« Last Edit: 09/06/2017 07:29 AM by Liss »
This message reflects my personal opinion based on open sources of information.

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1528
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Commonwealth of Virginia
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 1121
<snip>
Also, Mayak cannot respond to command because it lacks command receiver as well as telemetry system.
<snip>
:o ??? :o

I was meaning to ask about this.

What?

Why would the Mayak owners or sponsors launch an incomplete satellite that apparently is guaranteed not to work?

(I imagine the worldwide professional astronomy community is secretly happy.)
Support your local planetarium!

Offline Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 82
<snip>
Also, Mayak cannot respond to command because it lacks command receiver as well as telemetry system.
<snip>
:o ??? :o

I was meaning to ask about this.

What?

Why would the Mayak owners or sponsors launch an incomplete satellite that apparently is guaranteed not to work?

(I imagine the worldwide professional astronomy community is secretly happy.)

Cubesats often are very rudimentary spacecraft with just a single task - so no command uplink is needed, when the task is simply timer based - which saves money. Failure is an option for Cubesats.

Online Svetoslav

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1156
  • Bulgaria
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 65
It's just my opinion, but I do think an option for simple radio comm should always be implemented, regardless of how simple a cubesat is.

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1528
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Commonwealth of Virginia
  • Liked: 384
  • Likes Given: 1121
Thanks, Gunter.  I had forgotten that the "mission" was simple enough to attempt to execute with no external input, or a need to provide digital output.

However, I provisionally agree with Svetoslav.

(On the third hand :) , as an astronomer, I was concerned about the disruption that the satellite's light pollution could cause.)
Support your local planetarium!

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9324
  • UK
  • Liked: 1653
  • Likes Given: 183
New article on this.

Astro Digital announces first cubesats launched on Soyuz failed

Quote
SpaceNews previously reported that the Moscow Aviation Institute (MAI) Iskra-MAI-85 cubesat was one of the satellites that failed. That report is contradicted by an Aug. 23 MAI announcement, saying “The Iskra-MAI-85 satellite repeatedly conducted communication sessions with the MAI Flight Control Center in July and August 2017 and continues to solve the tasks assigned to it.”

MAI did not respond to requests for comment on the current status of the cubesat.

http://spacenews.com/astro-digital-announces-first-cubesats-launched-on-soyuz-failed/
« Last Edit: 09/13/2017 07:12 PM by Star One »

Offline Sam Ho

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 552
  • Liked: 219
  • Likes Given: 56
Astro Digital's statement on the failure of their two satellites.
Quote
Not-nominal: We lost 2 satellites

The 2 satellites we launched in July are officially unresponsive and today we decided to direct all our team’s energy towards our launch next month and declaring both Landmapper-BC1 and Landmapper-BC2 satellites lost. This ends 6 weeks of trying to resuscitate the satellites, who’s ability to transmit data back to earth was compromised since deployment. This means we’re facing the similar fate of Dauria Aerospace’s two MKA-N satellites, Moscow Aviation Institute’s Iskra-MAI-85, and Moscow State University’s Cosmo Mayak who were all on the Soyuz rocket bay with the suspected anomaly. While our satellites are tested to withstand insane stress on launch the suspected launch anomalies like what was reported by Space News could have generated conditions in excess of what most satellites plan for which, could have fried our key electronics — even systems hardened for the extremes of space.

Before losing contact, our ops team verified functioning subsystems — solar panels, antenna deployment, power system, attitude sensors — so we are moving fast on doing the final testing and assembly for our launch in November. While this loss costs us 4 months of time, we will launch again soon and by the spring be able to be back at planned capacity. Lots of love to the amazing team over the last few weeks trying everything to work around what ultimately is a hardware failure out of their control. We’ve been quoting Elon a lot lately — space is hard.
https://blog.astrodigital.com/not-nominal-we-lost-2-satellites-23e771a4bc8b

Offline apachhi

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Ukr
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
from late November to today, the satellite Kanopus-V-IK increases the period. With what it can be connected?

Offline gwiz

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Cornwall
  • Liked: 73
  • Likes Given: 2
Testing the plasma thrusters for orbit control, presumably.

Offline apachhi

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Ukr
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
strange tests

Offline Olaf

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Germany
  • Liked: 365
  • Likes Given: 208
http://spacenews.com/insurance-firm-paid-astro-digitals-claim-for-lost-cubesats-sources-said/
Quote
According to a space industry executives from a different company, Starr paid the claim after Astro Digital presented telemetry documents from Glavkosmos, the subsidiary of Russian state space corporation Roscosmos that arranged the small satellite launches. Those documents showed that one of two attitude control thrusters on the Fregat upper stage failed to fire but instead pumped out hydrazine, which exploded when the second thruster fired.
Since the July 14 Soyuz launch, when 72 small satellites traveled to orbit alongside Russian Earth imaging satellite Kanopus-V-IK, satellite engineers and insurance executives have been struggling to understand what happened because at least nine cubesats stored in one area of the Fregat upper stage never responded to commands from their operators while the vast majority of satellites launched on the rocket worked as designed.
For months after the launch, students at Moscow State University, whose Mayak cubesat also failed, investigated possible causes. After attempting to replicate launch conditions and analyzing information on the Fregat and the fate of cubesats stored alongside Mayak, the students determined “Mayak and other failed satellites put into orbit with an approximate apogee of 600 kilometer have failed because of the ingress of decomposition products of hydrazine from one or more low-thrust liquid engines, used in the reactive control system of the upper stage Fregat,” Claudia Kitova, a Mayak spacecraft engineer, said by email.

Offline Liss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1003
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 8
Roscosmos explained to TASS that the failure of Fregat thruster DT7 at 11440 seconds appeared some 30 minutes after the separation of all the satellites in question which occured between 9180 and 9590 seconds into flight.

http://tass.ru/kosmos/5032458
This message reflects my personal opinion based on open sources of information.

Offline Liss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1003
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 180
  • Likes Given: 8
Testing the plasma thrusters for orbit control, presumably.

All Kanopus satellites use SPT thrusters for maneuvers and orbit maintenance.
This message reflects my personal opinion based on open sources of information.

Tags: