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.
This thread reminded me. How has Nauka been doing lately?
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.
Quote from: kevin-rf on 05/17/2015 11:23 amBefore 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.
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.
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
May also include Progress failing to boost ISS last Friday.
My google fu apparently isn't up to the task. Has a Proton second stage (8S811K) ever failed during ascent?
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 )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.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 05/18/2015 04:44 amThe 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
@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.
Quote from: FutureSpaceTourist 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.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?