Author Topic: FAILURE: Soyuz 2-1B - Meridian launch - December 23, 2011 (Read 122474 times)

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #20 on:** 12/23/2011 01:20 pm »

Do we have any launch images or Meridian images? (Hard link for accreditation).

Space Pete · « **Reply #21 on:** 12/23/2011 01:21 pm »

Apparently the failure was not in the 3rd stage, but in the Fregat upper stage.

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http://ria.ru/science/20111223/524294170.html

kevin-rf · « **Reply #22 on:** 12/23/2011 01:21 pm »

If you include the Proton failure in December of 2010, is this the fifth Russian launch failure in a years time? Ouch, that has to hurt.

jcm · « **Reply #23 on:** 12/23/2011 01:24 pm »

Claim that failure was in third stage engine at T+421 seconds
http://ria.ru/science/20111223/524326816-print.html

That would be towards the end of the burn of the third stage but
before stage 3/Fregat separation

Satori · « **Reply #24 on:** 12/23/2011 01:31 pm »

This was 14A14 Soyuz-2-1B n.º 164 and Fregat n.º 1042.

vanoord · « **Reply #25 on:** 12/23/2011 01:32 pm »

The Fregat stage also appears to have been the basis of the (failed) propulsion unit for Fobos-Grunt.

B. Hendrickx · « **Reply #26 on:** 12/23/2011 01:35 pm »

Latest reports on the NK forum are now indeed suggesting that the third stage engine shut down early (in other words, not a core stage/3rd stage sep problem as reported initially). The Soyuz-2 1B used today has an RD-0124 engine in the third stage, whereas the Soyuz-2 1A (used for the upcoming Globalstar launch) and the Soyuz-FG (used for Soyuz and Progress) use the older RD-0110 engine, so the impact on upcoming launches may not be that big.

Peter NASA · « **Reply #27 on:** 12/23/2011 01:39 pm »

So did we work out the commonality between this Soyuz and that of Progress and Soyuz TMA?

Prober · « **Reply #28 on:** 12/23/2011 01:42 pm »

The progress needs to go up in Jan.

What a eyeopener this morn.

Namechange User · « **Reply #29 on:** 12/23/2011 01:45 pm »

Quote from: Peter NASA on 12/23/2011 01:39 pm

So did we work out the commonality between this Soyuz and that of Progress and Soyuz TMA?

Personally from what I heard, they tried to blame it "quality managment" or something like that last time. In the last threads where the last failure was discussed, I felt that issue was much more systemic and critical than something "just broke". Because, as you know well, sometimes things can fail no matter how good the engineering and processes.

I figured based on the rapid closure, the "everything will be fine" attitude we would be back here again. However I admit it was quicker than I thought.

How many times does this need to happen before the Powers-That-Be start eating crow and acknowledge those that said "told you so" were correct I wonder?

Silmfeanor · « **Reply #30 on:** 12/23/2011 01:53 pm »

Quote

How many times does this need to happen before the Powers-That-Be start eating crow and acknowledge those that said "told you so" were correct I wonder?

Is this a shuttle thing? Do we need to pull that back into this?
I'm hoping we get more information on this launch and what went wrong - that's a lot of failures this year for russia, I hope they can fix it...

Namechange User · « **Reply #31 on:** 12/23/2011 01:59 pm »

Quote from: Silmfeanor on 12/23/2011 01:53 pm

Quote
How many times does this need to happen before the Powers-That-Be start eating crow and acknowledge those that said "told you so" were correct I wonder?

Is this a shuttle thing? Do we need to pull that back into this?
I'm hoping we get more information on this launch and what went wrong - that's a lot of failures this year for russia, I hope they can fix it...

Its a "strategy thing", regardless of the tactical execution of the strategy. It was that strategy that so many called for in so many different places, regardless if it would have included shuttle or not.

I would think you would realize this when making such a statement as you did and then concluding it the method you did.

baldusi · « **Reply #32 on:** 12/23/2011 02:02 pm »

If I'm not mistaken, the basic difference between Soyuz-2.1a/b is the third stage engine. If the interpretation that the engine had an emergency shutdown towards the end of the burn is true, I can see two alternatives:
1) They blame the engine, thus sort of allowing the rest of the Soyuz save the 2-1b to launch.
2) There's some problem with the plumbing or the rest of the stage, which will probably mean to stand down the whole Soyuz fleet

BTW, this seems sort of similar to the issue of the failed Progress (third stage emergency engine shutdown due to an anomaly).
Statistically, both launches could be an outlier result. But if you take into account the past performance of the rocket, it does look like a process problem. Again, raw speculation.

Silmfeanor · « **Reply #33 on:** 12/23/2011 02:05 pm »

Quote

Its a "strategy thing", regardless of the tactical execution of the strategy. It was that strategy that so many called for in so many different places, regardless if it would have included shuttle or not.

I would think you would realize this when making such a statement as you did and then concluding it the method you did.

ah, that's a good answer. I totally agree. I just read the article on powering down of the fleet being final, and I misinterpreted your comment as a wish to get them flying again / they should have flown. Strategically, I totally agree; there's too much riding on single launch platforms / spacecraft.
Even with that, it'll be interesting to see what sort of error this turns out to be, and if they can be sure to fix it...

tehwkd · « **Reply #34 on:** 12/23/2011 02:09 pm »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16317099

Namechange User · « **Reply #35 on:** 12/23/2011 02:13 pm »

Quote from: Silmfeanor on 12/23/2011 02:05 pm

Quote
Its a "strategy thing", regardless of the tactical execution of the strategy. It was that strategy that so many called for in so many different places, regardless if it would have included shuttle or not.

I would think you would realize this when making such a statement as you did and then concluding it the method you did.

ah, that's a good answer. I totally agree. I just read the article on powering down of the fleet being final, and I misinterpreted your comment as a wish to get them flying again / they should have flown. Strategically, I totally agree; there's too much riding on single launch platforms / spacecraft.
Even with that, it'll be interesting to see what sort of error this turns out to be, and if they can be sure to fix it...

Well they should have been kept flying as that was the most obvious short-term tactical answer to the longer-term strategy.

Now we seem to have to deal with this every couple of months and scramble for some reason, some root cause and some corrective action. All the while that system is critical to our use.

It made no sense. It makes no sense. And, personally, it should be seen as validation to those who did try to speak up for so long in so many ways. People should pay attention.

jcm · « **Reply #36 on:** 12/23/2011 02:14 pm »

The claim of a Tobolsk impact zone seems surprising given how late in the burn things failed... I would have expected it to be semi-near-orbital by +421s and make it to the Pacific, but I haven't run the numbers yet... does anyone have a feel for this?

jcm · « **Reply #37 on:** 12/23/2011 02:31 pm »

Quote from: jcm on 12/23/2011 02:14 pm

The claim of a Tobolsk impact zone seems surprising given how late in the burn things failed... I would have expected it to be semi-near-orbital by +421s and make it to the Pacific, but I haven't run the numbers yet... does anyone have a feel for this?

Bob Christy, as usual, is on the case: crash probably in Altai region or even further downrange, not in Tobolsk.
http://www.zarya.info/Gallimaufry/Meridian5drop.php

SiberianTiger · « **Reply #38 on:** 12/23/2011 02:34 pm »

http://www.interfax.ru/politics/news.asp?id=223459

According to Interfax, "debris of Meridian satellite were found in Ordynsky district of Novosibirsk territory" (Ordynskoye is located at 54.37N, 81.9E).

The crash site is closed off.

That's a densely populated area.

jcm · « **Reply #39 on:** 12/23/2011 02:40 pm »

Quote from: SiberianTiger on 12/23/2011 02:34 pm

http://www.interfax.ru/politics/news.asp?id=223459

According to Interfax, "debris of Meridian satellite were found in Ordynsky district of Novosibirsk territory" (Ordynskoye is located at 54.37N, 81.9E).

The crash site is closed off.

That's a densely populated area.

That's a much more plausible impact site, a long way downrange from Tobolsk (where the Blok-A would have fallen).