anik - 27/5/2006 5:39 PMDnepr rocket will launch BelKA, Baumanets, UniSat 4 and many other satellites from Baikonur cosmodrome on June 28...
anik - 5/7/2006 1:01 PMAccording to http://littonlab.atl.calpoly.edu/pages/missions/dnepr-launch-1/satellite-status.php Dnepr rocket will be launched at 13:49:11 UTC on July 26...
meiza - 15/7/2006 10:30 PMis the name some homage to them?
STS Tony - 26/7/2006 5:38 AMIs there a webcast for this?
anik - 26/7/2006 10:43 AMQuoteSTS Tony - 26/7/2006 5:38 AMIs there a webcast for this?No, I am sure...
anik - 26/7/2006 7:42 PMJester, the link http://coopi.khrunichev.ru/video.htm has worked live for KazSat launch (June 17, 2006) and will be worked live again for KOMPSat-2 launch (July 28, 2006)... This link will not work live for today's launch, because this launch does not relate to Khrunichev enterprise...
jcm - 26/7/2006 10:26 PMCalpoly site reporting failure...Which satellites were actually on board? Belka, Baumanets, Unisat-4, and some cubesats (3 PPODs?)Tsenki site reported also PICPOT (Turin), while earlier messages talked about Almasat, Palamede, JAESAT, Saudisat not listed on Tsenki.
astropl - 26/7/2006 3:52 PMOn T+86 seconds occurred emergency turning off of the engines of the carrier rocket - info from http://rian.ru/technology/cosmos/20060727/51890236.html
MKremer - 26/7/2006 11:11 PMThe converted Russian ICBMs are cheaper, but you have to risk not all that much better than a 50/50 chance of mission success.(You pays your money, you takes your chances.)
MKremer - 26/7/2006 4:11 PMThe converted Russian ICBMs are cheaper, but you have to risk not all that much better than a 50/50 chance of mission success.(You pays your money, you takes your chances.)
edkyle99 - 26/7/2006 11:18 PMQuoteastropl - 26/7/2006 3:52 PMOn T+86 seconds occurred emergency turning off of the engines of the carrier rocket - info from http://rian.ru/technology/cosmos/20060727/51890236.html This report, which says that the failure occurred during the second stage burn, doesn't quite make sense. The first stage is supposed to burn for 130 seconds, followed by a 190 second-long second stage burn.Cal Poly also said that the first stage completed its burn, so perhaps the failure occurred 86 seconds into the second stage burn.First R-36M2 failure since 1988. - Ed Kyle
Jester - 26/7/2006 4:30 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 26/7/2006 11:18 PMQuoteastropl - 26/7/2006 3:52 PMOn T+86 seconds occurred emergency turning off of the engines of the carrier rocket - info from http://rian.ru/technology/cosmos/20060727/51890236.html This report, which says that the failure occurred during the second stage burn, doesn't quite make sense. The first stage is supposed to burn for 130 seconds, followed by a 190 second-long second stage burn.Cal Poly also said that the first stage completed its burn, so perhaps the failure occurred 86 seconds into the second stage burn.First R-36M2 failure since 1988. - Ed KyleAccording to federalspace.ru first stage sep. for dnepr is at 109 sec.Payload fairing jettison at 276 sec.
edkyle99 - 26/7/2006 5:29 PMNot quite that bad. This was the first Dnepr failure in seven orbital attempts. It was the first R-36M2 failure since 1988.Six out of seven is the same result provided to date by the U.S. Taurus launcher, which is based on the MX ICBM first stage. - Ed Kyle
Jim - 26/7/2006 5:31 PMQuoteedkyle99 - 26/7/2006 5:29 PMNot quite that bad. This was the first Dnepr failure in seven orbital attempts. It was the first R-36M2 failure since 1988.Six out of seven is the same result provided to date by the U.S. Taurus launcher, which is based on the MX ICBM first stage. - Ed KyleTaurus is not equivilent to the MX. The upperstages are from the Pegasus and the later launches used a Castor 120 instead of the MX first stage.
Chris Bergin - 26/7/2006 5:49 PMNow we hear it was the first stage, not the second stage that failed.25Km downrange. 10 seconds before the end of the first stage burn.
edkyle99 - 27/7/2006 8:38 AMQuoteChris Bergin - 26/7/2006 5:49 PMNow we hear it was the first stage, not the second stage that failed.25Km downrange. 10 seconds before the end of the first stage burn.Here is a different report from GAZETA.KZ (Kazakhstan today)http://eng.gazeta.kz/art.asp?aid=78390It says that the rocket crashed "in the 73 second of the flight ... at a distance 189.6 km from the launching site, 6 km North-East of Tagai winter pasture". The distance part of this report sounds more accurate than 25 km for a high thrust/weight rocket like Dnepr that flew under power for more than a minute. I don't know what to make of the "crashed in the 73 second of the flight" part. - Ed Kyle
guidanceisgo - 26/7/2006 11:25 PMOrbital's Minotaur I uses the first 2 stages of the Minuteman II. It has a pretty good record.
aero313 - 27/7/2006 9:37 AMQuoteedkyle99 - 26/7/2006 5:29 PMNot quite that bad. This was the first Dnepr failure in seven orbital attempts. It was the first R-36M2 failure since 1988.Six out of seven is the same result provided to date by the U.S. Taurus launcher, which is based on the MX ICBM first stage. - Ed KyleNot entirely true. Taurus comes in two versions, a DoD version that uses the first stage motor from the Peacekeeper and a commercial version that uses the Thiokol Castor 120. The one mission that failed used the Castor 120, however the failure was in the TVC of the Orion 50 motor, which is completely unrelated to any ICBM-derived parts. It's confusion like this that causes misinformation and improper conclusions.
edkyle99 - 27/7/2006 11:04 AMAs for Castor-120, it is a commercial derivative of the MX/Peacekeeper first stage that also powered Lockheed Martin's Athena. Castor-120 has a less aggressive thrust profile than MX, with less maximum thrust and a longer burn time, but it weighs the same as an MX first stage, has the same dimensions, is built by the same contractor, etc.. - Ed Kyle
edkyle99 - 27/7/2006 11:04 AMMy intent was to compare launchers of a similar class (Dnepr and Taurus) that had similar flight results (both are now 6 for 7).
Taurus is not MX, and I did not mean to imply that it was, but it is based on MX in that it uses the MX first stage or a derivative thereof. - Ed Kyle
aero313 - 27/7/2006 10:53 AMQuoteedkyle99 - 27/7/2006 11:04 AMMy intent was to compare launchers of a similar class (Dnepr and Taurus) that had similar flight results (both are now 6 for 7). Actually Dnepr is roughly equivalent to a Titan II in size, configuration, and performance.
QuoteTaurus is not MX, and I did not mean to imply that it was, but it is based on MX in that it uses the MX first stage or a derivative thereof. - Ed KyleThat's like saying the Atlas V is based on the Zenit.
edkyle99 - 27/7/2006 1:34 PMI doubt that Castor 120 would exist at all if the MX stage had not existed first.
Castor 120 is not an MX first stage, but I believe it is fair to class it as a "derivative" of the MX first stage. There are clearly differences, but there are also similarities.
Delta 7420 is closer to Dnepr in performance than Taurus, perhaps, but it is not based on an ICBM.
QuoteThat's like saying the Atlas V is based on the Zenit. I don't see it that way. One version of Taurus actually used an MX/Peacekeeper first stage. Another version uses a first stage derived from the MX/Peacekeeper first stage. Atlas V uses an engine derived and heavily modified from the Zenit engine, but it doesn't use any structure, etc.
That's like saying the Atlas V is based on the Zenit.
Jim - 26/7/2006 3:06 PMThat is the risk of using converted ICBM's for space launch. The US was burned by the Atlas E a few times and so the Atlas H was developed for better reliability. Smallsats have to realize that some of the lower cost LV's have higher risks. Working that issue as we speak. Trying to find out if there would be more XXXX spacecraft to fly if there was cheaper LV's with higher risk.
Cretan126 - 27/7/2006 4:35 PMIn certain launch vehicle circles, there seems to be a deeply ingrained impression that using converted ICBMs is risky and problematic.
Looking at the history, I just don't understand where that comes from. I'd apprecite any comments you may have that can shed light on this concern.C
Cretan126 - 27/7/2006 4:35 PMQuoteJim - 26/7/2006 3:06 PMThat is the risk of using converted ICBM's for space launch. The US was burned by the Atlas E a few times and so the Atlas H was developed for better reliability. Smallsats have to realize that some of the lower cost LV's have higher risks. Working that issue as we speak. Trying to find out if there would be more XXXX spacecraft to fly if there was cheaper LV's with higher risk.Jim,I think your assessment of converted ICBM's as being unsuited for launch vehicles is rather hasty. Russian versus U.S. launchers may be on issue, but other than a couple of Atlas failures in 1980-81, what is your basis for dismissing converted U.S. ICBM's? And what actually constitues a 'converted ICBM" in your mind? Is it the use of ICBM boosters, but with new avionics and upper stages, such as on Taurus and the Minotaur vehicles? When I look at the statistics of launch vehicle success rates, I just don't see the great distinction in reliability between ICBM-derived and others. Titan II 23Gs were converted ICBMs and went 13 for 13. One was even used to launch a NASA mission (Coriolis), as well as for NOAA payload. The last Minuteman II failure was 40 years ago - yesterday. So, there have been a string of 160 successful Minuteman II launches - plus five more in the Minotaur application. Peacekeeper is 50 for 51, a 98% success rate, as well as another three successful launches on Taurus. In certain launch vehicle circles, there seems to be a deeply ingrained impression that using converted ICBMs is risky and problematic. Looking at the history, I just don't understand where that comes from. I'd apprecite any comments you may have that can shed light on this concern.
Jim - 27/7/2006 4:01 PMI am talking spacelaunches, so not MM or PK and not derived. Converted ICBM is one pulled from the hole. Atlas E&F were the only ones that fit this. The Titan 23G had T-II tanks taken apart, refurbed, swapped and reassembled. So potentially, a T-23G could have tanks from 4 different vehicles. That's why they cost so much. Lessons learned from the Altas E&F.BTW Coriolis was USAF, Quikscat was NASA and so was NOAA.
Cretan126 - 28/7/2006 11:58 AMJim,Given your response, I think we agree. Adapting all of the guidance, software, payload interfaces, etc. that was specifically designed for the ICBM application to make it a space launch vehicle is not an easy thing. My interpretation was more aligned with Aero's response and was focused on the solid rocket motors. They have been proven reliable over many launches and have already been paid for by the U.S. taxpayers, so we might as well use them for providing lower cost launches.C
anik - 27/7/2006 5:15 PMRumour from Novosti kosmonavtiki forum... The current most probable reason of yesterday's failure of Dnepr rocket is abnormal work of one of four 15L423 hydrodrives of propulsion system of first stage... The complex of command devices has given out the command for switching off the propulsion system of first stage on 73.89 seconds after liftoff after Dnepr rocket has exceeded a maximum yaw deviation...
edkyle99 - 30/7/2006 9:23 PMWeren't the engines made in Russia?
edkyle99 - 31/7/2006 5:33 PMI've run into some conflicting information about whether Dnepr uses R-36M2 (newest type) or R-36MU series (slightly older type) missiles. Are there any solid sources of info about this? - Ed Kyle
Jester - 1/8/2006 9:50 AMEdit: sorry that statement above is WRONG ! I didn't post the complete story, hit submit too soon, here it is:The R-36MU = R-36MUTTKh with Improved Tactical and Technical Characteristics was replaced by the R-36M2A tactical-technical specification was issued on July 1979 for a fourth generation heavy ICBM to replace the R-36MUTTKhThe draft project was completed in June 1982 and featured uprated engines better resistant to nearby nuclear blastsA formal decree authorising development of the entire missile was issued on 9 August 1983Dnepr uses the approximately 150 R-36M2 ICBM's which were to be destroyed by 2007 under the START-2 treaty (Code: 15A18M2)
edkyle99 - 12/8/2006 2:08 PM"Overheated combustion chamber caused Dnepr crash11.08.2006, 15.15ASTANA, August 11 (Itar-Tass) - An overheated combustion chamber caused emergency shutdown of a Dnepr engine and the subsequent crash of the booster rocket, according to a preliminary version of the accident, Director of Russia's Roskosmos Federal Space Agency Anatoly Perminov said here on Friday.It is this malfunction that might have caused the failure of the engine of the nozzle rotator mechanism. However, "there can be numerous reasons," Perminov added." http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=10699502&PageNum=0 - Ed Kyle
anik - 28/7/2006 10:22 PMExtraction from the press-release of RSC Energiya - http://www.energia.ru/english/energia/news/news-2006/press_release-07-27.html"BelKA spacecraft had been insured. The Belorussian side expressed a wish to order again the identical satellite at RSC Energia. There is a possibility of its repeated launch within next 1.5 years."
SpacemanSpiff - 27/9/2006 1:06 PMFailure Investigation Report has been issued:http://www.kosmotras.ru/See the 'News' section.Looks like Dnepr launches are on hold while they check for the problem they cite in the article. Does anyone know what they are talking about? Sounds like either a wiring problem (short circuit) or an avionics control problem...Cheers,SS