FAILURE: Soyuz 2-1B - Meridian launch - December 23, 2011

[Chris Bergin]

Wow! NK magazine just asked a final question, in English -- Popovkin scowled, stood up, and walked out without any further comments.

Was he offended that they asked in English, or by the question they asked ?

The question itself, 100 percent. They had translators there for Gerst and the ESA guy, so it's not like he didn't understand the question, etc.

[Satori]

The reporter identified herself from NK magazine and I think she was asking about the effect that the failure could have on the next Soyuz-FG launch.

[Chris Bergin]

To be fair, they did open by saying questions only on the TMA, but once that first question came in, and they responded to it, it was open season.

Can't blame them, I know I would have.

[Jester]

we launched on 2.1b, and we will be launching again in 2012 on 2.1b, management emails flying already.... (asking about delays etc.)

[Galactic Penguin SST]

Looks like a large fragment from the rocket hit through the roof of a house! (no injuries reported)

Edit: Looks like the site of the fallout is at 54.372559 N, 81.865196 E.

[Lee Jay]

What does a rash of failures like this do to the launch insurance market?  I don't know a thing about how that market works (could be tied to the vehicles, or not...I don't know).

[JazzFan]

Unfortunately for Russia they are having a terrible year, while China is having its best.

[HIPAR]

There are always comments like the stage that failed during this mission isn't the same stage to be used for the next mission.  So, all should be well to fly.

Question .. even though that may be the case, are there common piece parts.  Maybe even something like a bad batch of bolts!

When mature designs begin to fail, it's usually a quality assurance problem.

---  CHAS

[baldusi]

From Analoly Zak's site:

Latest update: According to industry sources, the analysis of available telemetry on the fuel line pressure before the entrance to the engine's injection system indicated a possible bulging of the combustion chamber No. 1, leading to its burn through and a catastrophic fuel leak.

[jcm]

About commonality - as usual, one shouldn't speculate in advance of the failure investigation and details of telemetry etc.

Yeah, right :-) What the hell...
The failure occurred about 134s into a circa 270s burn?

- Stage 2/3 separation problem unlikely (not impossible, could imagine a
2/3 post-sep collision causing a slow leak for instance)

- Guidance/software problem unlikely (not impossible, could be a slowly accumulating
nav error leading to eventual loss of attitude control)

- Stage 3 tank plumbing failure, possible (e.g. fire, structural failure..)
- Engine explosion or other major failure
- Engine shutdown due to contamination in fuel (we've seen this a few times on Russian vehicles)

While the RD-0124 is a different design from the RD-0110, there are plenty of failure modes that could impact the Soyuz-FG too. For example a procedures failure in launch vehicle manufacture (in Samara), engine manufacture (in Voronezh) or launch processing (at Baykonur)
such as fuel contamination or incorrect fuelling.

It may well turn out to be a flight test/design issue with the new RD-0124 engine and its differences from the RD-0110, completely unrelated to the Progress-failure issue, in which case Soyuz-FG (for crewed launches) and Soyuz-U (for Progress) would be good to go. But that's far from obvious at this stage.

All we can do right now is hope for a thorough engineering analysis that leads to a rapid but *accurate* resolution of the issue, and a decision by the Russian leadership to really overhaul the system in a constructive way without the usual blame-fest.

[jcm]

From Analoly Zak's site:

Latest update: According to industry sources, the analysis of available telemetry on the fuel line pressure before the entrance to the engine's injection system indicated a possible bulging of the combustion chamber No. 1, leading to its burn through and a catastrophic fuel leak.

OK, this came after I wrote my rant above.. so, if correct, issue isolated to the engine - or the fuel lines... root cause still could be design, manufacture, or fuel contamination

[baldusi]

From Analoly Zak's site:

Latest update: According to industry sources, the analysis of available telemetry on the fuel line pressure before the entrance to the engine's injection system indicated a possible bulging of the combustion chamber No. 1, leading to its burn through and a catastrophic fuel leak.

OK, this came after I wrote my rant above.. so, if correct, issue isolated to the engine - or the fuel lines... root cause still could be design, manufacture, or fuel contamination

I'm not saying one or the other. But if it was not the engine itself, wouldn't it at least mean to stop Soyuz launches until it can be demonstrated that the failure is not due to a possibly common problem?

[Chris Bergin]

Right, I think we have enough to create an article now. Will probably be hat-tipping to a few members in here (such as Jonathan - excellent post above). Heavy on the fact we're waiting for official info.

[Rocket Science]

Even if there is not a single root cause for all the failures does not make the situation in Russian spaceflight any better. It falls out of the statistical norm for failures in a specific period of time. It would be much better if it was just “a batch of bad bolts” that caused the failures as was mentioned. If in each circumstance each was a “unique” problem actually makes it worse because the implication is a lack of confidence in the successful launch ability system wide.

I won’t go any further than to nod in the direction of OV as to the last time I mentioned the same, the usual characters on here started to mouth off…

[jcm]

Still getting conflicting reports -
http://www.ria.ru/science/20111223/524496932.html
claiming an insider source says the fairing did not separate
(should have happened during 2nd stage burn)
Wouldn't put too much weight on this

[veblen]

"From today, the era of the Soyuz has started in manned spaceflight, the era of reliability".
                        - Roskosmos, July 21 2011 (@ end of STS)

maybe this organization should have been focusing on getting the rockets to actually work, as opposed to making glossy PR statements their dear leaders could bask in the reflected light of.

too late now

Prices for Soyuz flights have gone up. Where is the money being spent? It's hard to tell. Any tourists scheduled for trips to station? Even more of an adrenaline rush now on ascent I would think, more bang for your (many) bucks, so to speak.

[mtakala24]

I'd say that the Russian space engineers are slowly being paid wages that are more in line with other industries, to attract those badly needed new engineers to replace the old generation. It must be a factor in cost increases.

[JimO]

What does a rash of failures like this do to the launch insurance market?  I don't know a thing about how that market works (could be tied to the vehicles, or not...I don't know).

Even last summer, rates were a third higher for insured value than for non-Russian launches. Speculation now is that Russian launches simply won't be able to get ANY insurance.

[Robotbeat]

What does a rash of failures like this do to the launch insurance market?  I don't know a thing about how that market works (could be tied to the vehicles, or not...I don't know).

Even last summer, rates were a third higher for insured value than for non-Russian launches. Speculation now is that Russian launches simply won't be able to get ANY insurance.

Wow... Is that for future flights that have already been booked, or only for future flights which haven't been booked yet?

It's a good time for all their competitors. Customers paranoid about launch failures may choose to flee to other rockets (maybe even Atlas V, with its great reliability record?). The increase in prices may make Falcon 9 and Antares (fka Taurus II) more attractive (plus the fact that they aren't Russia).

I have a question: Could this possibly affect the February 7th COTS 2/3 Demo launch?

I do hope the Russians figure this out and get at the root of this apparently widespread quality control problem.

[Danderman]

I'd say that the Russian space engineers are slowly being paid wages that are more in line with other industries, to attract those badly needed new engineers to replace the old generation. It must be a factor in cost increases.

You would say this without any evidence. When Roskosmos complains that aerospace workers in Russia are either very old, or very young, that's an indication that anyone who can get out into the real world to get a real job for real money already has, and what is left are the old codgers who are unemployable elsewhere, young people who can't get a real job yet, and a handful of middle-aged types angling for a job in top management.

In my experience in Russian aerospace, I have seen young secretaries leave their jobs for a real job in the real world at triple the salary.