Author Topic: FAILURE: Soyuz-2.1b/Fregat-M – Meteor-M 2-1 et al. – Vostochny - Nov 28, 2017  (Read 138589 times)

Offline calapine

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 238
  • Linz, Austria
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 166
Wow. If Anatoly Zack is correct this wins the 'Dumbest Launch failure of the Year' award.  :o

Truly mind boggling.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13996
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Wow. If Anatoly Zack is correct this wins the 'Dumbest Launch failure of the Year' award.  :o

Truly mind boggling.

I’d imagine whoever was responsible for that will be sweating buckets now, and probably reviewing their career options rapidly.

Offline Lewis007

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1661
  • the Netherlands
  • Liked: 549
  • Likes Given: 122
There is some turmoil within the Russian Orthodox Church over whether a priest’s blessing caused the Meteor satellite to crash into the Atlantic.

Well, next time, the priest should not only bless the Soyuz rocket, which performed fine, but also the Fregat upper stage  ;)

https://themoscowtimes.com/news/Orthodox-church-officials-defend-colleague-over-ill-fated-satellite-blessing-59740


Offline Phillip Clark

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
  • Hastings, England
  • Liked: 557
  • Likes Given: 1078
This failure cause is just as dumb as NASA getting metric and imperial measurements confused for Mars missions.
I've always been crazy but it's kept me from going insane - WJ.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Wow. If Anatoly Zack is correct this wins the 'Dumbest Launch failure of the Year' award.  :o

Truly mind boggling.

As dumb as Ariane 4 flight 36 and that cloth hanging at the wrong place...

Also the Ariane 5 flight 1 fiasco (can't remember the exact story, it had some of Ariane 4 guidance system to save cost, and the system got lost by the different rocket flight profile)
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Kosmos2001

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 191
  • CAT
  • Liked: 66
  • Likes Given: 172
As dumb as Ariane 4 flight 36 and that cloth hanging at the wrong place...

Also the Ariane 5 flight 1 fiasco (can't remember the exact story, it had some of Ariane 4 guidance system to save cost, and the system got lost by the different rocket flight profile)

Kind of, indeed.

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
List of dumb rocket mistakes, now to get back to this launch please.


Offline JimO

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2000
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 482
  • Likes Given: 195
This failure cause is just as dumb as NASA getting metric and imperial measurements confused for Mars missions.

As has been documented, the units mixup excuse was put forward by NASA management to disguise the fatally flawed leadership decisions that actually made the disaster happen. Mainly it was deliberately ignoring clues to a serious navigation error by demanding operators 'prove you're off course' while denying them funding for the requested extra man-hours that would have been needed to do that.

See http://www.jamesoberg.com/mars_probe_spectrum_1999.html

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3010
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 2191
  • Likes Given: 4620
Wow. If Anatoly Zack is correct this wins the 'Dumbest Launch failure of the Year' award.  :o

Truly mind boggling.

I’d imagine whoever was responsible for that will be sweating buckets now, and probably reviewing their career options rapidly.

[Yakov] In Russia, "career options" review you. [/Yakov]

Seriously though, if the speculated cause is correct, it looks like a very Russian operational mistake- bureaucratic procedure trumping facts slapping you in the face.

Recall that the Cuban Missile Crisis was triggered because the Soviets were building their launch site out in the open according to fabrication procedures they would have followed within their own country- ignoring that they were building right on the U.S.'s doorstep.

At the risk of further derailing this thread -- no, in relation to Cuba.

First it was launch sites, not just one launch site.  Second, almost all of the "construction" -- which amounted to pouring a concrete hard pad and erecting tents -- was done at night, to make the actual construction phase less obvious.  And, when possible, the missiles themselves were kept in long tents.  Only when the missiles first arrived at their launch sites were the missile bodies actually visible from the air.  The first U-2 pictures that revealed the missiles caught a lucky break, in that the missiles it spotted, which had arrived overnight the night before, had not yet been covered by camouflage tents.

In point of fact, the best misdirection the Soviets enjoyed in Cuba was with the nuclear warheads they had sent there, and that was due to lack of sufficient resources.  You see, it was Soviet doctrine to build specific types of bunkers in which to store nuclear warheads.  Double fence lines, guard dogs, concrete bunkers, a specific shape to the enclosures... all things that Americans had associated with Soviet nuclear storage.

In Cuba, in each and every case, none of these things were available.  In one case, nuclear warheads were kept on the ship on which they were sent to Cuba.  In another, they were put into a non-ventilated cave, with no fencing and one manned checkpoint at the dirt road built to lead up to the cave entrance.  In another case, they were stored in a tent at one of the IRBM launch sites.

Because there was not one classic Soviet-style nuclear storage bunker in Cuba in 1962, American intelligence came to the dangerously incorrect conclusion that the Soviets had managed to transport and install missiles and the associated equipment to build and erect launch sites, but that the warheads had not yet reached Cuba, and that the blockade -- pardon me, the quarantine -- of Cuba had managed to at least keep the warheads off of "that imprisoned island".

Wrong.

Also, while one group of analysts had discovered the "Frogs" -- small cruise missiles normally armed with Hiroshima-sized fission weapons -- being offloaded at a Cuban seaport, they and their warheads were successfully transported to within ten miles of the Guantanamo Naval Station without anyone on the American side realizing it.  American intelligence was aware of movement in the jungle-covered bluffs that oversee Gitmo, but they assumed that this was conventional artillery being put in place for an extended conventional attack on the naval base.

The Soviets succeeded in deploying an awful lot of weaponry across Cuba that, because it was moved and assembled at night, American intelligence wasn't aware of.  It was only in occasional cases (like at what was labeled the San Cristobal site), where conditions would not allow underground bunkers, where American reconnaissance was able to spot the missiles themselves.  More often, they spotted the tents containing the missiles.

From what I've read, the non-optimal conditions were so challenging that the Soviet commander of Operation Anadyr in Cuba became totally bedridden with bleeding ulcers for most of the time the missiles, warheads and associated support equipment (like SAM installations and Ilyushin bombers) were arriving and being deployed.  He was only able to rouse himself from his sick bed after the Americans discovered what was happening 90 miles from their borders...

To connect this back to the launch failure and its reported really stupid cause, statements like that above in re the Cuban Adventure (as the Soviets labeled it at the time) just serve to further a stereotype of the Russian technological industries as backwards, and the average Russian engineer/worker as stupid and oafish.  While every stereotype has a small nugget of truth buried somewhere within, I don't think it's either fair or accurate to broad-brush this -- or the oft-discussed high total number of Russian launch failures -- with that stereotype.

That's why I opened a thread in the Russian Launchers forum, here, just to discuss what is happening in Russia's space industry, while trying to penetrate beyond the stereotype.  I mean, we're all human, and one of the definitions of being human is being fallible.  We make mistakes.  Not just Russians, but all of us.

It seems to me that the only way to keep inevitable human mistakes from costing missions, or even lives, is to have several layers of people (and systems) run through the results of the previous layer, looking for and correcting prior mistakes.  Yes, it costs more, but if it reduces even more expensive failures, it seems to me that it would be worth the investment.
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1033
  • United States
  • Liked: 872
  • Likes Given: 333
Quote
ROSKOSMOS. ANALYSIS OF THE CAUSES OF FAILED LAUNCH
11/29/2012 9:26 PM
....

The work of the commission is planned until December 15, 2017, the next meeting will be held on December 1, 2017.

https://www.roscosmos.ru/24389/

That seems like a very short lived commission, is that typical? or does it mean they already know the conclusion even before they started.

Offline input~2

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6810
  • Liked: 1540
  • Likes Given: 567
Another potential explanation given to RIA Novosti

Quote
A source described the possible reason for the unsuccessful launch from Vostochny
Fregat and 19 satellites could have fallen into the ocean due to an error in the calculation of azimuth, a source in the space industry told RIA Novosti.

The problem, perhaps, is that the azimuth was counted differently in Soyuz and Fregat, [resp.] clockwise and counterclockwise. Fregat needed to turn by 2 degrees, and instead it started to turn 358 degrees, lost its orientation and fell into the ocean, "- said the interlocutor to this agency.

https://ria.ru/science/20171130/1509955550.html

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1033
  • United States
  • Liked: 872
  • Likes Given: 333
Another potential explanation given to RIA Novosti

Quote
A source described the possible reason for the unsuccessful launch from Vostochny
Fregat and 19 satellites could have fallen into the ocean due to an error in the calculation of azimuth, a source in the space industry told RIA Novosti.

The problem, perhaps, is that the azimuth was counted differently in Soyuz and Fregat, [resp.] clockwise and counterclockwise. Fregat needed to turn by 2 degrees, and instead it started to turn 358 degrees, lost its orientation and fell into the ocean, "- said the interlocutor to this agency.

https://ria.ru/science/20171130/1509955550.html

And of course this is the first time a Fregat was launched on a Soyuz ?

Edit: This was sarcasm, just in case that was not obvious.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2017 04:32 pm by mn »

Online Liss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1882
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 1084
  • Likes Given: 88
And of course this is the first time a Fregat was launched on a Soyuz ?
Exactly. Even if they know (seems they do) Fregat tried the almost-360-degrees maneuver (in pitch or yaw, rumors differ) and couldn't finish it before engine start time, they need to understand why Fregat tried this fo the first time in this particular launch.
This message reflects my personal opinion based on open sources of information.

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1033
  • United States
  • Liked: 872
  • Likes Given: 333
And of course this is the first time a Fregat was launched on a Soyuz ?
Exactly. Even if they know (seems they do) Fregat tried the almost-360-degrees maneuver (in pitch or yaw, rumors differ) and couldn't finish it before engine start time, they need to understand why Fregat tried this fo the first time in this particular launch.

No not at all, I don't think they 'know' this.

This sounds like someone in the industry who happens to know that they use different azimuth calculations just said 'well this is possible', and while yes it is technically possibly, I doesn't seem from that published report that someone seriously thinks this is indeed what happened.

We see this all the time in any type of failure/accident. Someone who knows how the machine works says 'well this is possible' and the media runs with it as if this expert believes this is what happened. And at least this report is worded quite clearly to say this 'could have happened', so this report is even better than typical.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Another potential explanation given to RIA Novosti

Quote
A source described the possible reason for the unsuccessful launch from Vostochny
Fregat and 19 satellites could have fallen into the ocean due to an error in the calculation of azimuth, a source in the space industry told RIA Novosti.

The problem, perhaps, is that the azimuth was counted differently in Soyuz and Fregat, [resp.] clockwise and counterclockwise. Fregat needed to turn by 2 degrees, and instead it started to turn 358 degrees, lost its orientation and fell into the ocean, "- said the interlocutor to this agency.

https://ria.ru/science/20171130/1509955550.html

Gimbal lock? As in shades of Ekspress-AM4?

I would have thought an upper stage would be using 360 degree gyro... maybe not?
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Online Liss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1882
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 1084
  • Likes Given: 88

And of course this is the first time a Fregat was launched on a Soyuz ?
Exactly. Even if they know (seems they do) Fregat tried the almost-360-degrees maneuver (in pitch or yaw, rumors differ) and couldn't finish it before engine start time, they need to understand why Fregat tried this fo the first time in this particular launch.


No not at all, I don't think they 'know' this.


This sounds like someone in the industry who happens to know that they use different azimuth calculations just said 'well this is possible', and while yes it is technically possibly, I doesn't seem from that published report that someone seriously thinks this is indeed what happened.


We see this all the time in any type of failure/accident. Someone who knows how the machine works says 'well this is possible' and the media runs with it as if this expert believes this is what happened. And at least this report is worded quite clearly to say this 'could have happened', so this report is even better than typical.
I've never said a word on azimuth calculations or the RIA Novosti news item. We suspect (and the AIB lead by Oleg Skorobogatov knows) Fregat did make a suicidal burn being in wrong attitude. The current version is that Fregat started the pre-burn attitude maneuver in a wrong direction which took inacceptably long time and led to bad attitude at burn start. The problem is to find why the direction was wrong.


And well, to mn. Yes, this specific version of Soyuz-2 named 372РН17 was used for the first time, and for the first time with Fregat.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2017 08:47 pm by eeergo »
This message reflects my personal opinion based on open sources of information.

Offline eeergo


And of course this is the first time a Fregat was launched on a Soyuz ?
Exactly. Even if they know (seems they do) Fregat tried the almost-360-degrees maneuver (in pitch or yaw, rumors differ) and couldn't finish it before engine start time, they need to understand why Fregat tried this fo the first time in this particular launch.


No not at all, I don't think they 'know' this.


This sounds like someone in the industry who happens to know that they use different azimuth calculations just said 'well this is possible', and while yes it is technically possibly, I doesn't seem from that published report that someone seriously thinks this is indeed what happened.


We see this all the time in any type of failure/accident. Someone who knows how the machine works says 'well this is possible' and the media runs with it as if this expert believes this is what happened. And at least this report is worded quite clearly to say this 'could have happened', so this report is even better than typical.
I've never said a word on azimuth calculations or the RIA Novosti news item. We suspect (and the AIB lead by Oleg Skorobogatov knows) Fregat did make a suicidal burn being in wrong attitude. The current version is that Fregat started the pre-burn attitude maneuver in a wrong direction which took inacceptably long time and led to bad attitude at burn start. The problem is to find why the direction was wrong.


And well, to mn. Yes, this specific version of Soyuz-2 named 372РН17 was used for the first time, and for the first time with Fregat.

What's the difference between 372PH17 and other Soyuz-2.1B versions? Is it a special version for Vostochny?
-DaviD-

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1033
  • United States
  • Liked: 872
  • Likes Given: 333

And of course this is the first time a Fregat was launched on a Soyuz ?
Exactly. Even if they know (seems they do) Fregat tried the almost-360-degrees maneuver (in pitch or yaw, rumors differ) and couldn't finish it before engine start time, they need to understand why Fregat tried this fo the first time in this particular launch.


No not at all, I don't think they 'know' this.


This sounds like someone in the industry who happens to know that they use different azimuth calculations just said 'well this is possible', and while yes it is technically possibly, I doesn't seem from that published report that someone seriously thinks this is indeed what happened.


We see this all the time in any type of failure/accident. Someone who knows how the machine works says 'well this is possible' and the media runs with it as if this expert believes this is what happened. And at least this report is worded quite clearly to say this 'could have happened', so this report is even better than typical.
I've never said a word on azimuth calculations or the RIA Novosti news item. We suspect (and the AIB lead by Oleg Skorobogatov knows) Fregat did make a suicidal burn being in wrong attitude. The current version is that Fregat started the pre-burn attitude maneuver in a wrong direction which took inacceptably long time and led to bad attitude at burn start. The problem is to find why the direction was wrong.


And well, to mn. Yes, this specific version of Soyuz-2 named 372РН17 was used for the first time, and for the first time with Fregat.

Thanks for the correction, I mistakenly thought you were referring to the ria.ru article, didn't realize you had other sources.

Offline Remes

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
  • Germany
  • Liked: 246
  • Likes Given: 142

I would have thought an upper stage would be using 360 degree gyro... maybe not?

According to this site:

http://www.npcap.ru/en/main-directions-of-activity/inertial-control-systems/creation-of-inertial-control-systems/gimbaled-inertial-navigation-system-(gins).html

Pitch and roll are without limit (I guess slip rings make that possible, I don't know any other solution*). Yaw is limited to +-40°, but the site says it has gyro torquers. So it should be possible to have endless rotation, too.

Edit: * talking about mechanical gyros without torquers
« Last Edit: 11/30/2017 09:07 pm by Remes »

Offline SLC

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 2302
More detail on Fregat gyroscope problem from Anatoly Zak:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/meteor-m2-1.html#1130

Tags:
 

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