Author Topic: Recent Failures/Krunichev Processing issues  (Read 20701 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: 39218
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32738
  • Likes Given: 8196
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: 582
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: 39218
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32738
  • Likes Given: 8196
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: 39218
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32738
  • Likes Given: 8196
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: 48178
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81685
  • Likes Given: 36941
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: 7202
  • “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 »

Offline 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

Tags:
 

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