|
engplumber
|
|
« on: 04/02/2010 12:20 AM » |
|
Can anyone confirm? Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
« on: 04/02/2010 12:20 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #1 on: 04/02/2010 06:22 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
Satori
|
|
« Reply #2 on: 04/02/2010 01:33 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #4 on: 05/11/2010 10:55 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #5 on: 05/12/2010 06:52 AM » |
|
Anybody has any information about the payload this time? Will they launch the QM of Stsat-1? or something different?
|
|
|
|
Skyrocket
|
|
« Reply #6 on: 05/12/2010 07:45 AM » |
|
Anybody has any information about the payload this time? Will they launch the QM of Stsat-1? or something different?
It will be STSat-2B, a duplicate of the satellite launched on the first Naro.
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #7 on: 05/14/2010 01:01 PM » |
|
Anybody has any information about the payload this time? Will they launch the QM of Stsat-1? or something different?
It will be STSat-2B, a duplicate of the satellite launched on the first Naro.
Did they really produce a duplicate flight model (FM) or did they convert the QM (Qualification model) of the satellite in to FM? Otherwise 1 year is short too much to manufacture an FM of any satellite. Even if you can manage your production and development, you have to be rely on your sub-contractors' schedules. As a result, I believe, STSAT-2B should originally be the QM of STSAT-2A.
|
|
|
|
Skyrocket
|
|
« Reply #8 on: 05/14/2010 01:39 PM » |
|
Did they really produce a duplicate flight model (FM) or did they convert the QM (Qualification model) of the satellite in to FM? Otherwise 1 year is short too much to manufacture an FM of any satellite. Even if you can manage your production and development, you have to be rely on your sub-contractors' schedules. As a result, I believe, STSAT-2B should originally be th QM or STSAT-2A.
STSAT 2 was planned before the first launch to be a two satellite program consisting of the 2A and 2B satellites. AFAIK even if 2A had been a success, the second launch was planned to carry the 2B satellite
|
|
|
|
tonthomas
|
|
« Reply #9 on: 06/07/2010 04:58 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #10 on: 06/08/2010 06:19 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #11 on: 06/08/2010 11:12 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
tonthomas
|
|
« Reply #12 on: 06/08/2010 04:18 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
avitek
|
|
« Reply #13 on: 06/09/2010 04:21 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #15 on: 06/09/2010 06:19 AM » |
|
Launch postponed ( source) "due to problems in the rocket's fire extinguisher system" Edit: Due to a malfunction in the launch pad fire safety facilities, launch will probably not take place to-day (AP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #17 on: 06/09/2010 07:37 AM » |
|
Launch postponed (source) "due to problems in the rocket's fire extinguisher system"
Edit: Due to a malfunction in the launch pad fire safety facilities, launch will probably not take place to-day (AP)
The link doesnt work. Could you possibly update the link or copy-paste the text, if you can see it?
|
|
|
|
ugordan
|
|
« Reply #18 on: 06/09/2010 07:52 AM » |
|
Remove the trailing ')' from the URL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #20 on: 06/09/2010 10:43 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #22 on: 06/10/2010 04:44 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #24 on: 06/10/2010 06:42 AM » |
|
This is live picture now at http://hd.ytn.co.kr/hd2.html ; ![]() If there is any Korean speaking colleague here, can he translate if the launch is scrubbed once again or go?
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #25 on: 06/10/2010 07:01 AM » |
|
Seems like preparations are still underway; ![]()
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #26 on: 06/10/2010 07:12 AM » |
|
49 minutes to go;
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #27 on: 06/10/2010 07:30 AM » |
|
Launch still for go, weather is crystal clear, Korean tracking ship around Philippines is waiting.
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #28 on: 06/10/2010 07:47 AM » |
|
15 minutes to go. Mission room is ready
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #29 on: 06/10/2010 07:56 AM » |
|
Anybody has any idea why the launch vehicle is re-polished?
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #30 on: 06/10/2010 07:58 AM » |
|
Celebrations started already at -02:00 minute to launch
|
|
|
|
ugordan
|
|
« Reply #31 on: 06/10/2010 07:59 AM » |
|
Ice over the markings.
|
|
|
|
William Graham
|
|
« Reply #32 on: 06/10/2010 08:06 AM » |
|
Launch has occurred. Waiting for news regarding its status. Unfortunately I don't speak Korean.
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #33 on: 06/10/2010 08:07 AM » |
|
Successfull lift-off;
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #34 on: 06/10/2010 08:08 AM » |
|
Ice over the markings.
What is purpose of ice? Cooling?
|
|
|
|
William Graham
|
|
« Reply #35 on: 06/10/2010 08:09 AM » |
|
Ice over the markings.
What is purpose of ice? Cooling?
It has no purpose, it simply forms on the surface of the rocket because it is cold enough to freeze the water vapour in the air.
|
|
|
|
ugordan
|
|
« Reply #36 on: 06/10/2010 08:11 AM » |
|
What is purpose of ice? Cooling?
LOX loaded into the stage always does this with non-insulated tanks.
|
|
|
|
William Graham
|
|
« Reply #37 on: 06/10/2010 08:15 AM » |
|
Spacecraft separation should have occurred by now.
Can anyone translate the text across the screen?
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #38 on: 06/10/2010 08:16 AM » |
|
It is launch +14 minutes now. STSAT-2B supposed to be separated 5 minutes ago but I assume no sign of confirmation yet.
|
|
|
|
avitek
|
|
« Reply #39 on: 06/10/2010 08:19 AM » |
|
Yonhap News Agency reports loss of contact with the launch vehicle after lift-off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
avitek
|
|
« Reply #41 on: 06/10/2010 08:26 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
avitek
|
|
« Reply #42 on: 06/10/2010 08:31 AM » |
|
Yonhap: Efforts are underway to determine what caused the communication failure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ugordan
|
|
« Reply #44 on: 06/10/2010 08:40 AM » |
|
Is LOS really synonymous to LOV? Might be too early to blame anyone, yet.
|
|
|
|
William Graham
|
|
« Reply #45 on: 06/10/2010 08:41 AM » |
|
Is LOS really synonymous to LOV?
The most common cause of unexpected LOS is LOV. I'm struggling to think of the last time an abnormal LOS occurred during a launch which later proved successful.
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #46 on: 06/10/2010 08:44 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
ugordan
|
|
« Reply #47 on: 06/10/2010 08:52 AM » |
|
One of the recent Delta II launches had almost all real time telemetry drop out for some reason, yet the launch was successful. It can always come down to problems with transmitters/receivers, though I agree the immediate implication would usually be LOS in such case.
|
|
|
|
Satori
|
|
« Reply #48 on: 06/10/2010 08:59 AM » |
|
Did anyone managed to record the video of the launch?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Satori
|
|
« Reply #50 on: 06/10/2010 09:44 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimO
|
|
« Reply #52 on: 06/10/2010 10:27 AM » |
|
I've reviewed the published ascent events schedules and still can't determine how '137 seconds' corresponds to second stage ignition -- the prime suspect in any explosion. Is there better info out there?
Also, has anybody worked out an ascent ground track to estimate where debris may have fallen?
|
|
|
|
ugordan
|
|
« Reply #53 on: 06/10/2010 10:33 AM » |
|
Perhaps it was range safety destruct.
|
|
|
|
William Graham
|
|
« Reply #54 on: 06/10/2010 10:38 AM » |
|
Perhaps it was range safety destruct.
Do they have that? Besides, if the RSO had intervened, they would have known immediately that the rocket had been destroyed, and that was the cause of the LOS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #56 on: 06/10/2010 10:57 AM » |
|
I've reviewed the published ascent events schedules and still can't determine how '137 seconds' corresponds to second stage ignition -- the prime suspect in any explosion. Is there better info out there?
Also, has anybody worked out an ascent ground track to estimate where debris may have fallen?
Expected debris landing area is shown on the below picture.
|
|
|
|
Satori
|
|
« Reply #57 on: 06/10/2010 10:59 AM » |
|
Being a first stage problem, this is not a good signal for the Angara development. Russian specialists will have to explain why this has happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
JimO
|
|
« Reply #59 on: 06/10/2010 11:04 AM » |
|
Thanks -- that puts impact just south of Okinawa. So when in the ascent sequence is "137 seconds"? Mark Wade http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/kslv.htmprovides stage 1 burn time as "300 seconds". That struck me as implausibly long -- so I sought confirmation. I recalled that the shroud sep problem on the first launch was at 216 seconds while still on first stage for 'tens of seconds' more -- see video at http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2752/video-of-naro-1s-august-2009-failure] 'Spaceflight Now' ( http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0908/25kslv/) describes first stage as lasting 'a few seconds' longer than four minutes. So if we're talking about an explosion at 137 seconds, it's about halfway through first stage burn. That has major implications for 'Angara' and the Russian new generation of launch vehicles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #61 on: 06/10/2010 11:16 AM » |
|
Being a first stage problem, this is not a good signal for the Angara development. Russian specialists will have to explain why this has happen.
Any official confirmation about the first stage problem? The news here; http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/techscience/2010/06/10/82/0601000000AEN20100610011400320F.HTML says; " An inboard camera detected a bright flash of light at 137 seconds into the flight, which coincides exactly with the loss of communication with the two-stage rocket," he said. The camera located in the second-stage rocket was looking down toward the Earth when it picked up the image."[/b] Although this does not confirm the full functionality of the first stage, it may confirm the successfull stage separation.
|
|
|
|
tonthomas
|
|
« Reply #62 on: 06/10/2010 11:21 AM » |
|
It is not said that the cam saw the earth.
Staging should be happened much later as on 137 s into the flight. The first KSLV-1-Mission saw staging after 3 minutes and 30 seconds.
|
|
|
|
yoichi
|
|
« Reply #63 on: 06/10/2010 11:48 AM » |
|
<![CDATA[<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/JC8UsaoJO64&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/JC8UsaoJO64&rel=1</a>]]>
|
|
|
|
Satori
|
|
« Reply #64 on: 06/10/2010 12:28 PM » |
|
That's an amazing video. Thank you! Looks like there was some sort of «explosion» and then the engines shutdown. Also, at the very end of the video ir looks we can see some sort of debris at the side of the rocket.
|
|
|
|
yoichi
|
|
« Reply #65 on: 06/10/2010 12:57 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
gospacex
|
|
« Reply #66 on: 06/10/2010 01:32 PM » |
|
People were not believing me when I was saying stay away from RD-170...
|
|
|
|
ugordan
|
|
« Reply #67 on: 06/10/2010 01:41 PM » |
|
People were not believing me when I was saying stay away from RD-170...
Where is your proof the problem was in the *engine*? It's fairly noticeable in the video that the engine continued thrusting a short while after the "disturbance" happened, only to then shut down. Furthermore, it seems that either the stages separated prematurely or (less likely) the 1st stage broke apart. If the engine really blew, I don't see why we'd see apparently separate stages flying. My WAG is an inadvertent stage separation occured.
|
|
|
|
gospacex
|
|
« Reply #68 on: 06/10/2010 01:58 PM » |
|
At this point no one really knows. Let's see what will be found out by investigators.
|
|
|
|
JimO
|
|
« Reply #69 on: 06/10/2010 02:21 PM » |
|
Also don't overlook the fixes to the problem on flight 1, shroud sep. They may have overdone it.
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #70 on: 06/10/2010 02:49 PM » |
|
My WAG is an inadvertent stage separation occured.
Interestingly, this is also one of the cause put forward by an unidentified Russian space industry source quoted by RIA Novosti (in Russian): http://www.rian.ru/world/20100610/244757877.html
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #71 on: 06/10/2010 03:16 PM » |
|
That's an amazing video. Thank you! Looks like there was some sort of «explosion» and then the engines shutdown. Also, at the very end of the video ir looks we can see some sort of debris at the side of the rocket.
There seems to have a very strange acceleration, or else the camera simply moved. I can't understand how an entire rocket could accelerate that much; perhaps the upper stage engine fired while still attached to the stack, and then the entire vehicle blew.
|
|
|
|
eeergo
|
|
« Reply #72 on: 06/10/2010 03:35 PM » |
|
Watching the video, I put together a rough timeline of the events I detected, and it indeed looks a lot like the stages separated somehow. The "explosion" or "flash" occurs first that somehow forces a first stage shutdown immediately afterwards. Then the two stages are shown to be separated and a second flash occurs, which looks a lot like second stage ignition. After that, only the first stage is clearly seen, but it's difficult to say if it's because it's tumbling or because of the clouds.
If it wasn't for the facts that we know they lost contact, and the first flash, it would almost look like a normal stage separation event...
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #73 on: 06/10/2010 03:47 PM » |
|
Another video including the last moments
<![CDATA[<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/gqHSp9hDyWE&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/gqHSp9hDyWE&rel=1</a>]]>
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #74 on: 06/10/2010 04:49 PM » |
|
Khrunichev said that it will review telemetry data and communicate possible causes for the "incident" hopefully by the end of the day. source
|
|
|
|
Lars_J
|
|
« Reply #75 on: 06/10/2010 05:23 PM » |
|
That last video is amazing - Is the rocket really supposed to move like that? First to the right, then left?
EDIT: - perhaps an optical illusion.
|
|
|
|
JimO
|
|
« Reply #76 on: 06/10/2010 06:07 PM » |
|
The Moscow newspaper Vzglyad is quoting a Korean agency as pinpointing the debris impact area as around 30 N 128 E, somewhat short of Okinawa but along that ground track.
"В ходе начального этапа полета после первой вспышки последовала целая серия аналогичных. Позднее появилась информация, что обломки ракеты упали в открытом море к югу от курортного острова Чеджудо. «По нынешним оценкам, точка падения находится в координатах примерно 30 градусов северной широты и 128 градусов восточной долготы», - сообщило министерство образования, науки и технологий РК."
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #77 on: 06/10/2010 06:08 PM » |
|
The implication of the proposed sequence above is that the first stage shut down prematurely, and then the second stage fired, perhaps automatically. If this is true, which is far from certain, the second stage may have disintegrated due to firing too low in the atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
bbell99
|
|
« Reply #78 on: 06/10/2010 06:11 PM » |
|
Sure looks like the rocket "wobbles" just after launch -- I don't see the clouds move as if camera motion is causing it.
Watch the BBC video here at ~0:44 to see a longer clip of the early portion of the flight. It sure does seem to veer from side to side before heading on its way.
|
|
|
|
riney
|
|
« Reply #79 on: 06/10/2010 06:16 PM » |
|
Sure looks like the rocket "wobbles" just after launch -- I don't see the clouds move as if camera motion is causing it.
Watch the BBC video here at ~0:44 to see a longer clip of the early portion of the flight. It sure does seem to veer from side to side before heading on its way.
There was some discussion of this in the threads concerning the first launch. From what I recall, KSLV does some fairly dramatic-looking low-level maneuvering, but it's by design and nominal. --riney
|
|
|
|
ugordan
|
|
« Reply #80 on: 06/10/2010 06:20 PM » |
|
Yes, that's apparently by design - initial clearance of the pad toward the sea and then maneuver to flight azimuth.
|
|
|
|
Namechange User
|
|
« Reply #81 on: 06/10/2010 06:21 PM » |
|
"В ходе начального этапа полета после первой вспышки последовала целая серия аналогичных. Позднее появилась информация, что обломки ракеты упали в открытом море к югу от курортного острова Чеджудо. «По нынешним оценкам, точка падения находится в координатах примерно 30 градусов северной широты и 128 градусов восточной долготы», - сообщило министерство образования, науки и технологий РК."
I agree. This is exactly what I was thinking too. 
|
|
|
|
Eric Hedman
|
|
« Reply #82 on: 06/10/2010 06:24 PM » |
|
"В ходе начального этапа полета после первой вспышки последовала целая серия аналогичных. Позднее появилась информация, что обломки ракеты упали в открытом море к югу от курортного острова Чеджудо. «По нынешним оценкам, точка падения находится в координатах примерно 30 градусов северной широты и 128 градусов восточной долготы», - сообщило министерство образования, науки и технологий РК."
I agree. This is exactly what I was thinking too.
"During the initial phase of flight after the first flash followed by a series of similar. Later, there is information that the wreckage of the rocket fell into the open sea south of the resort island of Jeju." According to current estimates, the point of incidence is in the coordinates of approximately 30 degrees north latitude and 128 degrees east longitude ", - said the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of Kazakhstan." This is according to google.com/translate
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #83 on: 06/10/2010 07:25 PM » |
|
In this video
<![CDATA[<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/rhdxBt71JYI&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/rhdxBt71JYI&rel=1</a>]]>the first explosion seems to take place at lift-off + 1mn52s (T 0+112s)
|
|
|
|
agman25
|
|
« Reply #84 on: 06/10/2010 07:36 PM » |
|
"В ходе начального этапа полета после первой вспышки последовала целая серия аналогичных. Позднее появилась информация, что обломки ракеты упали в открытом море к югу от курортного острова Чеджудо. «По нынешним оценкам, точка падения находится в координатах примерно 30 градусов северной широты и 128 градусов восточной долготы», - сообщило министерство образования, науки и технологий РК."
I agree. This is exactly what I was thinking too.
"During the initial phase of flight after the first flash followed by a series of similar. Later, there is information that the wreckage of the rocket fell into the open sea south of the resort island of Jeju." According to current estimates, the point of incidence is in the coordinates of approximately 30 degrees north latitude and 128 degrees east longitude ", - said the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of Kazakhstan."
This is according to google.com/translate
Why the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of Kazakhstan. What do they have to do with this?
|
|
|
|
gospacex
|
|
« Reply #85 on: 06/10/2010 07:38 PM » |
|
"В ходе начального этапа полета после первой вспышки последовала целая серия аналогичных. Позднее появилась информация, что обломки ракеты упали в открытом море к югу от курортного острова Чеджудо. «По нынешним оценкам, точка падения находится в координатах примерно 30 градусов северной широты и 128 градусов восточной долготы», - сообщило министерство образования, науки и технологий РК."
I agree. This is exactly what I was thinking too.
"During the initial phase of flight after the first flash followed by a series of similar. Later, there is information that the wreckage of the rocket fell into the open sea south of the resort island of Jeju." According to current estimates, the point of incidence is in the coordinates of approximately 30 degrees north latitude and 128 degrees east longitude ", - said the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of Kazakhstan."
This is according to google.com/translate
Why the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of Kazakhstan.
What do they have to do with this?
Google mistranslated "PK".
|
|
|
|
tonthomas
|
|
« Reply #86 on: 06/10/2010 07:47 PM » |
|
In this video
...
the first explosion seems to take place at lift-off + 1mn52s (T0+112s)
Because of a bang-noise, or why?
|
|
|
|
Lars_J
|
|
« Reply #87 on: 06/10/2010 07:51 PM » |
|
In this video
<![CDATA[<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/rhdxBt71JYI&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/rhdxBt71JYI&rel=1</a>]]>
the first explosion seems to take place at lift-off + 1mn52s (T0+112s)
Look at that video, starting at 10:03... (the distant view of the launch) - That just seems like a crazy amount of maneuvering of the rocket, for no apparent reason. It has already cleared the support structure and lightning towers (?), so why is it swaying back and forth like a pendulum?
|
|
|
|
tonthomas
|
|
« Reply #88 on: 06/10/2010 07:53 PM » |
|
Planned clearing of coastal line.
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #89 on: 06/10/2010 08:20 PM » |
|
In this video
...
the first explosion seems to take place at lift-off + 1mn52s (T0+112s)
Also, from T 0+55s to T 0+57s, dark "smoke" is ejected (easier to see when watching in HD mode)
|
|
|
|
ugordan
|
|
« Reply #90 on: 06/10/2010 08:23 PM » |
|
In this video
...
the first explosion seems to take place at lift-off + 1mn52s (T0+112s)
Also, from T0+55s to T0+57s, dark "smoke" is ejected (easier to see when watching in HD mode)
Uh, I don't see anything special at T+112 and the dark "smoke" at T+55 is the vehicle punching though a cloud deck.
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #91 on: 06/10/2010 08:42 PM » |
|
This seems to be the unwanted sprinkler action from yesterday
<![CDATA[<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/EjBZ5MzN_-E&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/EjBZ5MzN_-E&rel=1</a>]]>
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #92 on: 06/10/2010 08:54 PM » |
|
Uh, I don't see anything special at T+112 and the dark "smoke" at T+55 is the vehicle punching though a cloud deck.
Look again below at T 0+112s:
<![CDATA[<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Bqdrg4_5hWE&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/Bqdrg4_5hWE&rel=1</a>]]>
|
|
|
|
|
|
Halidon
|
|
« Reply #94 on: 06/10/2010 09:09 PM » |
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is not the KSLV first stage essentially the Angara URM? Are we seeing early evidence that the Angara URM design is not up to par?
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #95 on: 06/10/2010 09:14 PM » |
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is not the KSLV first stage essentially the Angara URM? Are we seeing early evidence that the Angara URM design is not up to par?
Not exactly the same engine: KSLV first stage RD-151 Angara first stage RD-191
|
|
|
|
Lars_J
|
|
« Reply #96 on: 06/10/2010 09:16 PM » |
|
As for it not being up to par, it depends what the cause is... On a russian forum there is speculation/rumor that the 1st stage engine shut down for some reason. Others speculate the fairing did not separate cleanly, or the the 2nd stage ignited prematurely. But something definitely caused the 2nd stage to separate from the 1st, based on pictures. Here are some images:  
|
|
|
|
Lars_J
|
|
« Reply #97 on: 06/10/2010 09:21 PM » |
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is not the KSLV first stage essentially the Angara URM? Are we seeing early evidence that the Angara URM design is not up to par?
Not exactly the same engine:
KSLV first stage RD-171
Angara first stage RD-191
Really? Doesn't the RD-171 have four combustion chambers? According to Astronautix, the KSLV uses the RD-191.
|
|
|
|
William Graham
|
|
« Reply #98 on: 06/10/2010 09:22 PM » |
|
KSLV first stage RD-171
That's Zenit, I think Naro-1 uses the RD-151.
|
|
|
|
William Graham
|
|
« Reply #99 on: 06/10/2010 09:26 PM » |
|
Others speculate the fairing did not separate cleanly
The rocket was only at 70km when it failed. Jettisoning the fairing below about 100km can be very bad for the payload.
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #100 on: 06/10/2010 09:28 PM » |
|
KSLV first stage RD-171
That's Zenit, I think Naro-1 uses the RD-151.
Yes, thanks, I noticed that, I corrected it before your post 
|
|
|
|
Lars_J
|
|
« Reply #101 on: 06/10/2010 09:32 PM » |
|
The RD-151 is supposedly just a reduced thrust version of the RD-191. There's still a lot of Angara hardware being tested in the KSLV.
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #102 on: 06/10/2010 09:50 PM » |
|
Interesting pictures when passing the speed of sound; there is some sort of flare not far from the first/second stage interface:
|
|
|
|
Satori
|
|
« Reply #103 on: 06/10/2010 09:52 PM » |
|
Interesting pictures when passing the speed of sound; there is some sort of flare not far from the first/second stage interface:
Isn't that condensation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #105 on: 06/10/2010 10:22 PM » |
|
Looks like it, indeed..
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #106 on: 06/11/2010 08:30 AM » |
|
나로호 2차 발사 = Naro 2nd launch
고도 = altitude
속도 =speed
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #107 on: 06/11/2010 10:25 AM » |
|
According to Energomash, after reviewing the telemetry data, their engine worked normally, it is the Korean "system management" which is at fault... source (in Russian)edit: a better translation for "система управления" is "control system" rather than "system management"
|
|
|
|
ugordan
|
|
« Reply #108 on: 06/11/2010 10:36 AM » |
|
their engine worked normally
So much about those "gut feelings" about RD-170 and its derivatives that pop up every so often...
|
|
|
|
JimO
|
|
« Reply #109 on: 06/11/2010 11:00 AM » |
|
According to Energomash, after reviewing the telemetry data, their engine worked normally, it is the Korean "system management" which is at fault... Interfax, Jun 11 1015 gmt: "What happened was not our fault. We did everything right. The Russian-made engine functioned as planned. No problems linked with its operations were reported," the spokesman said. [I bet they had that statement already drafted pre-launch] Also: "Pay no attention to the Russian rocket engineer in South Korea who attempted suicide shortly before the launch."
|
|
|
|
gospacex
|
|
« Reply #110 on: 06/11/2010 11:12 AM » |
|
their engine worked normally
So much about those "gut feelings" about RD-170 and its derivatives that pop up every so often...
Oh sure. Russian engines never fail. It's official. In fact, nothing in Russia ever fail - it's ALWAYS somebody else's fault or evil plot. Kursk was sank by an American sub, did you know that? Because in Russia, about 80% believe it was. In video trouble starts with one-sided "burp", then engine shuts down. Can "inadvertent 2nd stage sep done by stupid south Koreans' avionics" possibly look like that? I reserve my judgement until somebody NOT from the .ru domain gives some information.
|
|
|
|
ugordan
|
|
« Reply #111 on: 06/11/2010 11:53 AM » |
|
Oh sure. Russian engines never fail. It's official. In fact, nothing in Russia ever fail - it's ALWAYS somebody else's fault or evil plot. Kursk was sank by an American sub, did you know that? Because in Russia, about 80% believe it was.
Oh please, spare me the strawman and the implication that I think everything made in Russia is foolproof. I guess armchair engineers know more about RD-170 performance and reliability and everyone else is insane for using any derived/ancestor engine in their vehicles, including Lockheed and Orbital. In video trouble starts with one-sided "burp", then engine shuts down. Can "inadvertent 2nd stage sep done by stupid south Koreans' avionics" possibly look like that?
What exactly does your expert mind think it's supposed to look like? I guess you have an intuitive feel for near-vacuum, high mach number hydrodynamics to claim it wasn't caused by an event upstream from the engine plume? I reserve my judgement until somebody NOT from the .ru domain gives some information.
Funny, your previous comment sure didn't look like reserving judgement.
|
|
|
|
just-nick
|
|
« Reply #112 on: 06/11/2010 12:40 PM » |
|
"What happened was not our fault. We did everything right."
Does Energomesh have Danica Patrick writing their press releases now? --Nick
|
|
|
|
mrryndrsn
|
|
« Reply #113 on: 06/11/2010 01:05 PM » |
|
Oh sure. Russian engines never fail. It's official. In fact, nothing in Russia ever fail - it's ALWAYS somebody else's fault or evil plot. Kursk was sank by an American sub, did you know that? Because in Russia, about 80% believe it was.
Oh please, spare me the strawman and the implication that I think everything made in Russia is foolproof. I guess armchair engineers know more about RD-170 performance and reliability and everyone else is insane for using any derived/ancestor engine in their vehicles, including Lockheed and Orbital.
In video trouble starts with one-sided "burp", then engine shuts down. Can "inadvertent 2nd stage sep done by stupid south Koreans' avionics" possibly look like that?
What exactly does your expert mind think it's supposed to look like? I guess you have an intuitive feel for near-vacuum, high mach number hydrodynamics to claim it wasn't caused by an event upstream from the engine plume?
I reserve my judgement until somebody NOT from the .ru domain gives some information.
Funny, your previous comment sure didn't look like reserving judgement.
The Koreans apparently had a video feed from the launcher. This should give a pretty good idea of what happened. The short video posted on this thread earlier ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21079.msg604112#msg604112) shows explosions of some sort at about 132, 134 and 137 seconds. The odds favour a failure of the first stage engine, given that the failure happened in the middle of the first stage burn, but the longer the Koreans delay releasing their on board video, the more likely it's something else. Murray Anderson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
edkyle99
|
|
« Reply #116 on: 06/11/2010 03:13 PM » |
|
According to Energomash, after reviewing the telemetry data, their engine worked normally, it is the Korean "system management" which is at fault...
source (in Russian)
A flight control failure is entirely consistent with the "flashes" observed. If the rocket steered too sharply, or stopped steering at all, it would start disintegrating and tumbling. - Ed Kyle
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #117 on: 06/11/2010 04:06 PM » |
|
A flight control failure is entirely consistent with the "flashes" observed. If the rocket steered too sharply, or stopped steering at all, it would start disintegrating and tumbling.
- Ed Kyle
What is not clear is who was responsible for first stage avionics. The wobbly flight of the first and second flights indicates a new Korean control system, but its also possible the Russians provided a new control system, ie the one designated for Angara.
|
|
|
|
Art LeBrun
|
|
« Reply #118 on: 06/11/2010 04:25 PM » |
|
I wonder why the word explosion ever got into the headlines? No burning or released propellant clouds.......
|
|
|
|
zaitcev
|
|
« Reply #119 on: 06/11/2010 04:36 PM » |
|
What is not clear is who was responsible for first stage avionics. The wobbly flight of the first and second flights indicates a new Korean control system, but its also possible the Russians provided a new control system, ie the one designated for Angara. All sources that I read indicated that the dramatic post-launch maneuvering is an intended feature of KSLV-1. Both flights performed the same zig-zag before reaching 900m in altitude. But nobody explains clearly just what it is for. The best I came across is "to maneuver the IIP to avoid certain areas on the ground", which begs the question if they could not find a better launch site in the whole of South Korea. So I dunno, perhaps it's not as intentional as they claim. Obviously a flight of Angara 1.2 would do a good way to clear this up.
|
|
|
|
Stan Black
|
|
« Reply #120 on: 06/11/2010 06:07 PM » |
|
A flight control failure is entirely consistent with the "flashes" observed. If the rocket steered too sharply, or stopped steering at all, it would start disintegrating and tumbling.
- Ed Kyle
What is not clear is who was responsible for first stage avionics. The wobbly flight of the first and second flights indicates a new Korean control system, but its also possible the Russians provided a new control system, ie the one designated for Angara.
URM-1 does not feature avionics; on Angara 1.1 a modified Briz is used to control the 1st stage URM-1. Also on GSLV the Khrunichev supplied KVRB does not feature avionics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #122 on: 06/12/2010 07:06 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #123 on: 06/12/2010 08:14 AM » |
|
Spacecraft separation should have occurred by now.
Can anyone translate the text across the screen?
It reads: "Naro communication interruption"
|
|
|
|
Antares
|
|
« Reply #124 on: 06/12/2010 03:56 PM » |
|
"What happened was not our fault. We did everything right." Does Energomesh have Danica Patrick writing their press releases now?
--Nick
Hilarious. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #126 on: 06/13/2010 03:25 PM » |
|
Those "clouds" could be linked to condensation, already appearing in the first KSLV-1 launch on August 25, 2009, as shown in the video below:
<![CDATA[<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/J7CIAoAuD8g&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/J7CIAoAuD8g&rel=1</a>]]>
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #127 on: 06/14/2010 12:00 PM » |
|
What is not clear is who was responsible for first stage avionics The first stage has its own Russian control system. The second stage has its own Korean control system. It is clear for a long time already.
|
|
|
|
butters
|
|
« Reply #128 on: 06/14/2010 12:33 PM » |
|
What is not clear is who was responsible for first stage avionics The first stage has its own Russian control system. The second stage has its own Korean control system. It is clear for a long time already.
That seems to contradict this: URM-1 does not feature avionics; on Angara 1.1 a modified Briz is used to control the 1st stage URM-1. Also on GSLV the Khrunichev supplied KVRB does not feature avionics.
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #129 on: 06/16/2010 06:13 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
just-nick
|
|
« Reply #130 on: 06/16/2010 02:36 PM » |
|
What is not clear is who was responsible for first stage avionics The first stage has its own Russian control system. The second stage has its own Korean control system. It is clear for a long time already.
That seems to contradict this:
URM-1 does not feature avionics; on Angara 1.1 a modified Briz is used to control the 1st stage URM-1. Also on GSLV the Khrunichev supplied KVRB does not feature avionics.
I'd be very surprised if the 1st stage has NO avionics. Perhaps not the ultimate guidance system, but at least some sort of engine controller and/or a couple of rate gyros that operate under the direction of the main guidance system. It'd be interesting if there are some Russian avionics modules on the 1st stage having to interface with a Korean INU. Getting one piece of hardware to talk to another is always tough... --N
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #131 on: 06/16/2010 08:23 PM » |
|
I'd be very surprised if the 1st stage has NO avionics. Perhaps not the ultimate guidance system, but at least some sort of engine controller and/or a couple of rate gyros that operate under the direction of the main guidance system Russian control system on the first stage of KSLV-1 rocket consists of onboard computer, gyro-stabilized platform, converter units, etc. It'd be interesting if there are some Russian avionics modules on the 1st stage having to interface with a Korean INU It is the case.
|
|
|
|
cd-slam
|
|
« Reply #132 on: 06/16/2010 08:56 PM » |
|
KARI: No Need to Play Blame Game, Third Launch Will Take Place
http://www.arirang.co.kr/News/News_View.asp?nseq=103960&code=Ne2&category=2
The Korean statement in that link that they are entitled to a third launch irrespective of the cause of failure seems to contradict an earlier statement by Khrunichev saying they would supply a third rocket if there was a fault in their stage. I smell lawyers...  Edit: that last statement was a post on this forum. I don't have a source from Khrunichev. Still smell lawyers coming... 
|
|
|
|
osiossim
|
|
« Reply #133 on: 06/17/2010 11:15 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
Art LeBrun
|
|
« Reply #134 on: 06/18/2010 12:03 PM » |
|
Nice view of first KSLV launch...............
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #135 on: 06/24/2010 10:30 AM » |
|
Yonhap has published today a declaration (in Korean) from the head of KARI launch vehicle research center which seemingly give some details from telemetry data. The title seems to refer to a drop in pressure sensor. Thanks to anyone who could translate this article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Art LeBrun
|
|
« Reply #139 on: 07/06/2010 06:11 AM » |
|
A real shame the author is revising history: 20-30 years for Japan and China to become successful? He has a good point about Korea not being hamstrung by Russian hardware restrictions on the first stage.
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #140 on: 07/10/2010 11:13 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
input~2
|
|
« Reply #141 on: 07/19/2010 07:23 AM » |
|
No final conclusions from the 2nd FRB ( Source#1). 3rd FRB to be held August 9 to 13 in Daejeon (South Korea) ( Source#2).
|
|
|
|
Salo
|
|
« Reply #142 on: 08/16/2010 08:12 AM » |
|
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/techscience/2010/08/14/0601000000AEN20100814003100320.HTMLS. Korea, Russia plan to launch 3rd Naro-1 rocket next year
SEOUL, Aug. 15 (Yonhap) -- South Korea and Russia plan to launch a third Naro-1 rocket next year after officially confirming that the June 10 blastoff failed to accomplish its mission, the government said Sunday.
The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology said experts from the two countries who were present at the third Failure Review Board (FRB) meeting last week agreed that the rocket launch had been a failure.
The experts added they will work together to find the cause of the mishap and make necessary modifications to the rocket.
|
|
|
|
ugordan
|
|
« Reply #143 on: 08/16/2010 08:19 AM » |
|
The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology said experts from the two countries who were present at the third Failure Review Board (FRB) meeting last week agreed that the rocket launch had been a failure.
That's what experts are for.
|
|
|
|
Skyrocket
|
|
« Reply #144 on: 08/16/2010 08:51 AM » |
|
The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology said experts from the two countries who were present at the third Failure Review Board (FRB) meeting last week agreed that the rocket launch had been a failure.
That's what experts are for.
Wow, it took so long to figure this out?
|
|
|
|
ugordan
|
|
« Reply #145 on: 08/16/2010 10:37 AM » |
|
Well, these things can be subtle and ambiguous. You have to look beyond the obvious signs like rocket disintegrating in mid-air to see whether it was really a failure or not.
</sarcasm>
|
|
|
|
yoichi
|
|
« Reply #146 on: 08/16/2010 01:12 PM » |
|
http://www.khrunichev.com/main.php?id=1&nid=594Third Meeting of Commission on 10 June, 2010 KSLV-1 Launch 16.08.2010 The joint Russian-South Korean commission studying the KSLV-1 failure held their third meeting last week in South Korea. The commission approved additional tests for exposing reasons of the unsuccessful rocket launch. The commission did not discuss the possibility of an additional launch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Art LeBrun
|
|
« Reply #148 on: 08/16/2010 05:02 PM » |
|
Perhaps a KTLV would be in order................
|
|
|
|
kch
|
|
« Reply #149 on: 08/16/2010 05:22 PM » |
|
Perhaps a KTLV would be in order................
Hmmm ... okay ... I know "KSLV" expands to "Korea Space Launch Vehicle" ... what would the "T" stand for?
|
|
|
|
Art LeBrun
|
|
« Reply #150 on: 08/16/2010 05:34 PM » |
|
Test...................see early Vanguard designations. TV early on and SLV later (with less telemetry and heavier payload).
|
|
|
|
marsavian
|
|
« Reply #151 on: 09/02/2010 05:02 PM » |
|
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2010/09/133_72459.htmlSouth Korea looks to rely on Russian technology to jumpstart its efforts to involve in the Asian space race, but engineers and officials here seem increasingly frustrated over being at the mercy of a capricious business partner.
The country has bungled on its first two attempts to launch as satellite from the Naro spaceport in South Jeolla Province and claims that Russia’s Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center bound by contract to provide a third attempt.
However, the Russians, who have clearly approached the Korean rocket project as an experiment on course of developing their next-generation Angara rockets, are reluctant to build any more Korea Space Launch Vehicles 1s (KSLV-1s).
Fighting words are flying left and right between Korea’s Ministry of Education, Science and Technology and the Khrunichev Center as the discontent over the Russian rocket holdout becomes uglier and uglier.
|
|
|
|
Salo
|
|
« Reply #152 on: 11/03/2010 05:45 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
yoichi
|
|
« Reply #153 on: 02/08/2011 12:39 AM » |
|
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/02/08/2011020800473.htmlRussia Clears Way for 3rd Test Launch of Korean Rocket Russia has agreed to pay for a new first-stage booster engine to be used in the third launch of the homegrown Korean space rocket or Naro, ending a drawn-out squabble over which side would foot the bill. That makes a third test-launch possible regardless of an ongoing dispute over which side was responsible for the failed second launch of the rocket in June 2010. Vladimir Nesterov, the general director of the Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center which developed the first-stage booster, made the announcement in an interview with Russian news website MAPKEP. He added the first-stage booster is a core component of the next-generation Russian rocket Angara, whose test flight is scheduled for 2013, though tests "have already begun with the launches of the Naro in 2009 and 2010." Nesterov's comments are in themselves inflammatory since they virtually confirm criticism from Korean experts that Seoul spent US$200 million merely to serve as a test bed for an experimental Russian rocket. englishnews@chosun.com / Feb. 08, 2011 09:21 KST
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #154 on: 07/18/2011 08:56 PM » |
|
The third launch of KSLV-1 rocket is planned in August-September 2012, according to Vladimir Nesterov, director of Khrunichev enterprise.
|
|
|
|
Mighty-T
|
|
« Reply #155 on: 09/01/2011 08:20 AM » |
|
Russian equipment not at fault for South Korean rocket accident - research institute
MOSCOW. Aug 31 (Interfax-AVN) - A Russian independent commission has established the reasons behind the loss of South Korea's KSLV-1 launch vehicle in 2010, Nikolai Panichkin, first deputy general director of the Central Scientific Research Institute of Machine Building (TsNIIMASH), told Interfax-AVN on Wednesday. "Our commission has finished its work. An appropriate act has been forwarded to Roscosmos [the Russian Federal Space Agency]," he said. "The cause [of the failed launch] has been established indisputably," he said. "The first stage [of the launch vehicle] built by the [Russian] Khrunichev Center was not at fault," Panichkin said, adding that an error had occurred in the rocket's second stage produced by South Korea. http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=269648
|
|
|
|
anik
|
|
« Reply #156 on: 10/20/2011 03:48 PM » |
|
S. Korea, Russia dispute on cause of rocket launch failurehttp://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2011-10/20/c_131203124.htm"The Failure Investigation Group (FIG) for the two-stage satellite-carrier Naro-1, or the Korea Space Launch Vehicle-1 ( KSLV-1), held a three-day meeting in Seoul from Tuesday, however, they failed to agree on the conslusion of the opposite side, according to the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology"
|
|
|
|
yoichi
|
|
« Reply #157 on: 10/21/2011 04:34 AM » |
|
Korea, Russia Agree on Fresh Rocket Launch Attempt http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/10/21/2011102100587.html Seoul and Moscow agreed to attempt another launch of the Korean-made space rocket, probably no later than September next year. Two previous launches of the rocket, dubbed Naro, in August 2009 and June last year failed. A joint review board met in Seoul on Tuesday and Wednesday to find out what caused the failure of the second launch, the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology said on Thursday. "The two countries did not agree on the cause of failure but agreed to fix all the problems each side pinpointed," said ministry official Choi Jong-bae. The Korea Aerospace Research Institute and Russia's Khrunichev State Research and Production Space Center, the two contracting parties in the development of the rocket, will now come up with detailed improvement plans for the third launch. The Naro is composed of a Russian-made first-stage booster and a second-stage rocket made in Korea. Korea argued that the second launch failed because the connector between the first and second-stage rockets was damaged due to malfunction of the first-stage booster and this caused partial damage to the fuel/oxidizer delivery system. But Russia attributes the failure to the malfunctioning of the flight termination system, a kind of emergency blast system developed by Korea. englishnews@chosun.com / Oct. 21, 2011 09:40 KST
|
|
|
|
Danderman
|
|
« Reply #158 on: 05/24/2012 10:58 PM » |
|
Korea has a monitoring station on a island downrange from the launch site, plus they must have positioned ships downrange, as well. Why do we have video only from the launch site, and no video from downrange?
|
|
|
|
Satori
|
|
« Reply #159 on: 12/06/2012 09:21 PM » |
|
For those (like me) who like to keep this kind of records, this launch took place at 0801:00.320UTC.
|
|
|
|
