Post by: Satori on 02/13/2008 10:03 am
After passing the costums procedures the train with the launch vehicle and associated equipment will be delivered to Area n.º 92 of the cosmodrome where the preparations for the launch will be carried.
The launch of the AMC-14 sat is now schedule for March 14th!
Post by: Satori on 02/14/2008 08:48 am
Post by: satlaunch on 02/14/2008 02:34 pm
Post by: Satori on 02/15/2008 09:32 am
Post by: Satori on 02/15/2008 09:12 pm
Post by: Satori on 02/15/2008 09:14 pm
Post by: Satori on 02/21/2008 10:44 am
"After a leisurely and uneventful 5-hour train ride, the spacecraft and its support equipment made it safe and sound to Building 92A-50. And yes, as the song says, it is now time for “takin’ care of business,” that business being preparation of the SC and the rocket for final assembly together. Many warm and rested personnel were on hand to meet the SC, unpack the train cars and begin a week’s worth of what is commonly known as stand-alone testing. It is a busy time for everyone involved in the campaign as the three stages of the Proton booster have been delivered to Khrunichev."
Post by: Satori on 02/23/2008 12:40 am
On a clean room at MIK 92A-50 the AMC-14 is being prepared for the launch as well as the different stages on the 8K82KM Proton-M launch vehicle.
Post by: Satori on 02/28/2008 11:21 pm
Post by: Satori on 02/29/2008 10:31 am
Post by: Satori on 03/04/2008 05:35 pm
After the successful completion of the autonomous preparation of automatic spacecraft (KA), starting block (RB), transitional system (PS) and nose fairing (GO), in the assembly and testing complex of MIK 92A-50 began the operations on assembling of the space head part (KGCH) of space rocket (RKN). The assembly of the orbital unit (AMC-14 + Briz-M + nose fairing) is one of the most important steps for launch.
More information (in russian) and photos in here (http://www.roscosmos.ru/NewsDoSele.asp?NEWSID=2969).
Post by: Jester on 03/05/2008 02:02 am
Post by: Satori on 03/05/2008 02:18 am
Quote
Jester - 4/3/2008 9:02 PM
I'm planning to go to the launch, i'll take some pictures/video and post, that is, if i'm not too busy with GIOVE-B
Thank you very much Jester!! I hope to see you in Baykonur in a month and a day from now!!!
Post by: jacqmans on 03/06/2008 07:18 pm
http://www.roscosmos.ru/NewsDoSele.asp?NEWSID=2986
Today in the hall of 111 assembly and testing complexes of 9?-shch0 the specialists of the state space scientific and industrial center of the name Of m.V.Khrunicheva approached overall assembling RKN "Proton-m"/ "breeze -M"/ KA AMS -14.
In the operation the space head part, which consists of the starting block "Breeze- M", the transitional system, the satellite AMS -14 and the nose fairing, they will mate to the carrier rocket.
Then will be carry ouied regular checkings by already assembled RKN, at end of which it will be transported to the technical servicing station for servicing of the tanks of low pressure RB "Breeze- M".
It is planned, that the preparation RKN for the removal to the launching system will be completed in the beginning of the following week.
Start RN "Proton-m" with starting block "Breeze- M" and KA AMS -14 is planned on 15 March of this year.
The starting of American telecommunication automatic spacecraft AMS -14 with the use RN "Proton-m" is achieved in accordance with the contract, concluded by company International Launch Services Inc. (joint Russian- American enterprise Space Transport Inc. and GKNPTS of the name Of m.V.Khrunicheva with RKK "energy").
SP ils it is registered in 1995 in the state of Delaware, USA. The headquarters is located in g. of maklin of state Virginia, BY THE USA.
Post by: Satori on 03/07/2008 09:53 am
Post by: Satori on 03/09/2008 12:54 am
Post by: Satori on 03/11/2008 10:05 am
The transport to the launch pad started at 0030UTC and at 0300UTC the vehixle arrived to the launch pad. It was placed on the launch pad at 0500UTC and after being placed in the vertical position the mobile service structure was moved in. In the next days a series of tests will be made leading to launch at 2318:55UTC on March 14th.
Images from the Roscosmos page (http://www.roscosmos.ru/NewsDoSele.asp?NEWSID=2997)...
Post by: jacqmans on 03/12/2008 12:46 pm
NEWTOWN, Pa., March 12, 2008 -- The AMC-14 communications satellite, designed and built by Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] for SES AMERICOM, an SES company (Euronext Paris and Luxembourg Stock Exchange: SESG),is ready for launch on March 15 from the Baikonur Cosmodrome aboard a Proton/Breeze M launch vehicle provided by International Launch Services. AMC-14, which is scheduled to launch at 5:18 a.m. in Baikonur (March 14 at 7:18 p.m. EDT), will be located at orbital location 61.5 degrees West Longitude.
AMC-14 will provide direct-to-home broadcast services across the continentalU.S., Mexico and Central America for EchoStar Communications Corp., which has leased the entire capacity of AMC-14.Based on Lockheed Martin's A2100AX platform, AMC-14 features 32 high-power Ku-band transponders in the BSS frequency band, each utilizing 24 MHz bandwidth. The spacecraft antenna is designed for operation over two separate orbital arcs: 61.5 degrees West Longitude to 77 degrees West Longitude or 110 degrees West Longitude to 148 degrees West Longitude, providing SES AMERICOM extensive flexibility in meeting their customer's business plans.
AMC-14 also carries a demonstration receive active phased array (APA) payload that allows coverage to be reshaped on orbit. The spacecraft incorporates the highest levels of redundancy on core components such as amplifiers, receivers, command and control components and on-board computers.
AMC-14 is expected to provide more than 15 years of service life and is the 17th Lockheed Martin-built A2100 series spacecraft designed, built and launched for SES companies.In 2007, Lockheed Martin successfully launched ASTRA 1L for SES ASTRA and SIRIUS 4 for SES SIRIUS. AMC-14 also marks the 36th A2100 spacecraft designed and built by Lockheed Martin for customers worldwide.
The Lockheed Martin A2100 geosynchronous spacecraft series is designed to meet a wide variety of telecommunications needs including Ka-band broadband and broadcast services, fixed satellite services in C-band and Ku-band, high-power direct broadcast services using the Ku-band frequency spectrum and mobile satellite services using UHF, L-band, and S-band payloads. The A2100's modular design features a reduction in parts, simplified construction, increased on-orbit reliability and reduced weight and cost.
The A2100 spacecraft's design accommodates a large range of communication payloads. This design modularity also enables the A2100 spacecraft to be configured for missions other than communication. The A2100 design is currently being adapted for geostationary earth orbit (GEO)-based earth observing missions and is currently the baselined platform for Lockheed Martin's Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite Series-R (GOES-R) proposal. The A2100 also serves as the platform for critical government communications programs including Advanced Extremely High Frequency and Mobile User Objective System and is the foundation for Lockheed Martin's Transformational Satellite Communications System (TSAT) offering for the U.S. Government.
About SES AMERICOM
As the leading supplier of satellite services in the U.S., SES AMERICOM (www.ses-americom.com) serves broadcasters, cable programmers, aeronautical and maritime communications integrators, internet service providers, mobile communications networks, government agencies, educational institutions, carriers and secure global data networks with efficient communications and content distribution solutions. The company, recognized as a major innovator of advanced satellite communications services, operates a fleet of 15 spacecraft in orbital positions predominantly providing service throughout the Americas. In addition, AMERICOM Government Services (AGS), a wholly-owned subsidiary, is dedicated to providing satellite-based communications solutions to both civilian and defense agencies of the U.S. Government.
SES AMERICOM is an SES company (Euronext Paris and Luxembourg Stock Exchange: SESG). SES wholly owns three market-leading satellite operators, SES ASTRA in Europe, SES AMERICOM in North America, and SES NEW SKIES, which provide global coverage and connectivity. The company also holds strategic participations in SES SIRIUS in Europe, Ciel in Canada and QuetzSat in Mexico. SES provides outstanding satellite communications solutions via a fleet of 38 satellites in 25 orbital positions around the globe. Additional information on SES is available at:www.ses.com.
Post by: anik on 03/12/2008 05:29 pm
http://coopi.khrunichev.ru/eng/pl_pusk.htm
Post by: jacqmans on 03/14/2008 03:57 pm
http://www.roscosmos.ru/NewsDoSele.asp?NEWSID=3027
Spetsialisty of spaceport carry out the final procedures of preparation for the starting of carrier rocket "Proton-m" with the American telecommunication satellite "AMS -14", the established on the launching system area of ?200.
The collection of the starting readiness of carrier rocket is yesterday worked out and the imitation of servicing rocket is carry ouied.
Today the specialists KB of general machine building, GKNPTS of the name Of m.V.Khrunicheva, FKTS "Baikonur" carry out operations according to the graph of the third starting day on the launching system it is prepared for the servicing carrier rocket they are carried out the operation of the imitation of servicing rocket. The calculations of spaceport carry out jointing servicing conduits from the ground-based capacities with the conduits of rocket and check their airtightness.
Starting KA "AMS -14" with the aid of RN "Proton-m" it is planned to carry out on 15 March 2 hours 18 minutes Moscow time.
Post by: Satori on 03/14/2008 08:00 pm
Post by: Satori on 03/14/2008 08:52 pm
In the afternoon there was the meeting of the State Commission that ensured everyone was ready for launch before giving the goahed for propolent load. At this time the PU-39 launch pad was also cleared of all non-essencial personnel. The propolent load started at T-6 h and at T-2,5 h the pad was open for the final closeouts and service tower removal.
Post by: Satori on 03/14/2008 09:18 pm
Post by: DarthVader on 03/14/2008 09:24 pm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 09:28 pm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 09:35 pm
http://boss.streamos.com/wmedia/ninesystems/demo_clips/dfm/300_allthethingsshesaid.asx
Post by: Satori on 03/14/2008 09:49 pm
Post by: Satori on 03/14/2008 09:52 pm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 09:54 pm
Post by: William Graham on 03/14/2008 09:56 pm
Quote
Satori - 14/3/2008 10:52 PM
8K82KM Proton-M/Briz-M with AMC-14 at PU-39
Where did you get that image?
And it's Proton-M, not KM. Proton-KM retired years ago.
Post by: Satori on 03/14/2008 09:56 pm
Is it possible anyone to record the launch?
Post by: roy on 03/14/2008 09:56 pm
Post by: Rusty_Barton on 03/14/2008 09:56 pm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 09:57 pm
Post by: William Graham on 03/14/2008 09:58 pm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 09:58 pm
Post by: Satori on 03/14/2008 09:58 pm
Quote
GW_Simulations - 14/3/2008 5:56 PMQuoteSatori - 14/3/2008 10:52 PM
8K82KM Proton-M/Briz-M with AMC-14 at PU-39
Where did you get that image?
And it's Proton-M, not KM. Proton-KM retired years ago.
Are you sure about his designation?
The image is from a Khrunichev transmission...
Post by: William Graham on 03/14/2008 09:59 pm
Quote
Satori - 14/3/2008 10:58 PMQuoteGW_Simulations - 14/3/2008 5:56 PMQuoteSatori - 14/3/2008 10:52 PM
8K82KM Proton-M/Briz-M with AMC-14 at PU-39
Where did you get that image?
And it's Proton-M, not KM. Proton-KM retired years ago.
Are you sure about his designation?
The image is from a Khrunichev transmission...
KM was the designation for a Proton-K with a Briz-M upper stage. I think.
Spot the mistake with the countdown clock.
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 09:59 pm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:00 pm
Quote
GW_Simulations - 14/3/2008 6:59 PM
KM was the designation for a Proton-K with a Briz-M upper stage. I think.
Spot the mistake with the countdown clock.
Displaying "AM" after the T+ time?
Post by: William Graham on 03/14/2008 10:01 pm
Quote
Nick L. - 14/3/2008 11:00 PM
Displaying "AM" after the T+ time?
T- time for now, but hopefully T+ later, and yes.
They've got rid of it, I think.
Post by: Satori on 03/14/2008 10:02 pm
Quote
GW_Simulations - 14/3/2008 5:59 PMQuoteSatori - 14/3/2008 10:58 PMQuoteGW_Simulations - 14/3/2008 5:56 PMQuoteSatori - 14/3/2008 10:52 PM
8K82KM Proton-M/Briz-M with AMC-14 at PU-39
Where did you get that image?
And it's Proton-M, not KM. Proton-KM retired years ago.
Are you sure about his designation?
The image is from a Khrunichev transmission...
KM was the designation for a Proton-K with a Briz-M upper stage. I think.
Spot the mistake with the countdown clock.
No. The 8K8KM is the Proton-M.
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:05 pm
Post by: William Graham on 03/14/2008 10:06 pm
Quote
Satori - 14/3/2008 11:02 PMQuoteGW_Simulations - 14/3/2008 5:59 PMQuoteSatori - 14/3/2008 10:58 PMQuoteGW_Simulations - 14/3/2008 5:56 PMQuoteSatori - 14/3/2008 10:52 PM
8K82KM Proton-M/Briz-M with AMC-14 at PU-39
Where did you get that image?
And it's Proton-M, not KM. Proton-KM retired years ago.
Are you sure about his designation?
The image is from a Khrunichev transmission...
KM was the designation for a Proton-K with a Briz-M upper stage. I think.
Spot the mistake with the countdown clock.
No. The 8K8KM is the Proton-M.
KM: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/probrizm.htm
M: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/pro8k82m.htm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:07 pm
Post by: Satori on 03/14/2008 10:07 pm
Quote
GW_Simulations - 14/3/2008 6:06 PM
KM: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/probrizm.htm
M: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/pro8k82m.htm
Novosti Kosmonavtiki uses the 8K82KM for Proton-M ... and Roscosmos use 8K82M :bleh:
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:11 pm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:12 pm
Post by: William Graham on 03/14/2008 10:13 pm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:14 pm
Post by: Satori on 03/14/2008 10:15 pm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:17 pm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:18 pm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:18 pm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:19 pm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:19 pm
Post by: Satori on 03/14/2008 10:19 pm
Post by: Satori on 03/14/2008 10:20 pm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:20 pm
Post by: Satori on 03/14/2008 10:21 pm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:21 pm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:22 pm
Post by: William Graham on 03/14/2008 10:22 pm
That or there is a serious problem.
EDIT: Clearly it was.
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:23 pm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:25 pm
Post by: William Graham on 03/14/2008 10:26 pm
Quote
Nick L. - 14/3/2008 11:25 PM
2-3 sep!
Missed it due to the speeches. Everything continues to look good.
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:27 pm
Post by: roy on 03/14/2008 10:29 pm
Post by: William Graham on 03/14/2008 10:29 pm
Quote
Nick L. - 14/3/2008 11:27 PM
I *think* we had fairing jettison too...
Confirmed
Coming up on Staging 3/4.
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:29 pm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:32 pm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:38 pm
And between speeches, they've confirmed 3-4 sep.
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:39 pm
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:46 pm
EDIT: Nevermind...
Post by: William Graham on 03/14/2008 10:48 pm
Quote
Nick L. - 14/3/2008 11:46 PM
Vehicle and spacecraft are out of telemetry range.
Hmm, anyone else's webcast just cut out?
Mine did as well.
Post by: Nick L. on 03/14/2008 10:48 pm
Congratulations to ILS and Proton on a successful flight so far, and good luck with the rest of the mission! :)
Post by: eeergo on 03/14/2008 10:54 pm
Congrats to ILS, Khrunichev and LM as well :)
Post by: Jester on 03/14/2008 11:05 pm
Post by: Satori on 03/14/2008 11:08 pm
- 2800th successful orbital launch for Russia;
- 1204th successful orbital launch from Baykonur;
- 4554th successful orbital launch since Sputnik-1...
Post by: Satori on 03/14/2008 11:09 pm
Quote
Jester - 14/3/2008 7:05 PM
I Just got back from the launch site, nice launch, personal launch video on L2 soon ;)
Thank you very much Jester!!! Just waiting for that one!!!! :laugh:
Post by: William Graham on 03/15/2008 12:28 am
http://www.ilslaunch.com/we-have-liftoff-2/
Post by: YzeStudent on 03/15/2008 12:39 am
Post by: jaythehokie on 03/15/2008 12:43 am
I don't know if that has anything to do with this problem that seems to have cropped up with the second firing of the upper stage. :o
Post by: eeergo on 03/15/2008 12:47 am
Quote
YzeStudent - 15/3/2008 2:39 AMUps… Seems to be problem at 2nd burn.Any more details?
Post by: Jester on 03/15/2008 12:48 am
Post by: WHAP on 03/15/2008 01:20 am
Post by: jaythehokie on 03/15/2008 01:46 am
As far as the problem that's being alluded to... I don't have any info about it... I may have been giving the previous post to mine more credence than it may have been due...
:o
Post by: Nick L. on 03/15/2008 03:24 am
http://www.ilslaunch.com/news-031408/
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/15/2008 03:57 am
Post by: .gif on 03/15/2008 03:58 am
Post by: Ford Mustang on 03/15/2008 04:02 am
So close yet so far.
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/15/2008 04:50 am
Quote
Nick L. - 14/3/2008 11:24 PM
LAUNCH FAILURE! :( Occurred during second Breeze-M burn.
http://www.ilslaunch.com/news-031408/
That was the third Proton M/Briz M failure in 22 flights, and the 5th ILS Proton mission failure in 45 flights since the first in 1996.
For several years, Proton could boast the highest reliability among commercial GTO launch vehicles. This is no longer true. Proton has now fallen firmly behind Ariane 5, Zenit 3SL, H-2A, Atlas 5, and the CZ-3 series in terms of demonstrated reliability. At some point, the failures will start costing Krunichev and ILS customers.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Jirka Dlouhy on 03/15/2008 05:06 am
2006-006A 2006 02.28. Arabsat 4-1 Proton-M/Briz-M 3340 BAJ SAR telecommunication EA 51,53 274,07 506 14691 23,248 D 2006 03.24. Arabsat Astrium Khrunichev, Moscow failure of Briz-M, E2000+
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/15/2008 05:59 am
USA-193, the satellite that everyone made such a fuss over, had 0.453 tonnes (perhaps 1/35th as much propellant).
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Skyrocket on 03/15/2008 06:35 am
Quote
edkyle99 - 15/3/2008 8:59 AM
The Briz M stage, presumably bound for an unplanned reentry from a 51.5 deg inclined orbit, could have more than 16 tonnes of toxic hypergolic propellant still aboard.
USA-193, the satellite that everyone made such a fuss over, had 0.453 tonnes (perhaps 1/35th as much propellant).
- Ed Kyle
But it is not (yet) frozen. And the tanks are not protected inside the satellite structure, which might prevent it from freezing.
Probably the perigee is low enough to ensure a rapid decay. Does anyone have the parameters of the orbit reached?
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/15/2008 06:40 am
Quote
Skyrocket - 15/3/2008 2:35 AMQuoteedkyle99 - 15/3/2008 8:59 AM
The Briz M stage, presumably bound for an unplanned reentry from a 51.5 deg inclined orbit, could have more than 16 tonnes of toxic hypergolic propellant still aboard.
USA-193, the satellite that everyone made such a fuss over, had 0.453 tonnes (perhaps 1/35th as much propellant).
- Ed Kyle
But it is not (yet) frozen. And the tanks are not protected inside the satellite structure, which might prevent it from freezing.
Probably the perigee is low enough to ensure a rapid decay. Does anyone have the parameters of the orbit reached?
The parking orbit was supposed to be 173 km x 51.5 deg. It isn't clear to me if the Briz M stage managed to perform any of its second burn or not.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Satori on 03/15/2008 06:59 am
Quote
Satori - 14/3/2008 7:08 PM
According to my records this was the:
- 2800th successful orbital launch for Russia;
- 1204th successful orbital launch from Baykonur;
- 4554th successful orbital launch since Sputnik-1...
...damn! It reached orbit, but not successfuly... so much for statistics!
Post by: Damon Hill on 03/15/2008 07:04 am
The core Proton launch vehicle has been pretty solid (so to speak), but the upper stages aren't. It will be interesting to see what the failure analysis turns up.
Post by: jacqmans on 03/15/2008 08:04 am
Launch Photos
Post by: jacqmans on 03/15/2008 08:06 am
http://www.roscosmos.ru/NewsDoSele.asp?NEWSID=3032
On 15 March 2 hours 18 minutes 55 seconds Moscow time from the spaceport Baikonur was realized the commercial launch of space rocket "Proton-m" (production GKNPTS im. M.V.Khrunicheva) with the American telecommunication automatic spacecraft "AMS -14".
V of 2 hours 28 minutes 41 second (msk) space head part in the composition of the starting of the unit "Breeze- M" and of automatic spacecraft AMS -14 successfully was separated from the third step RN "Proton-m" and continued autonomous flight along the suborbital trajectory. All steps of carrier rocket fell in the assigned regions. Thus, carrier rocket worked out in the normal mode.
the Pervoye start of starting block occurred regularly. As a result head block was brought out in reference orbit with the parameters, close to the calculated. With the second start starting block "Breeze- M", after working out 32 minutes, was turned off earlier than the established period for 2 minutes of 13 seconds.
Kosmicheskiy apparatus "AMS -14" was separated from the starting block, we govern, but it find in orbit with the parameters of 28 thousand kilometers (instead of the required (calculated) 36 thousand km further solution by it will be accepted by customer - American corporation "SES AMERICOM, Inc" (USA). Is formed interdepartmental commission for the analysis of causes of the premature engine cutoff of starting block.
The Press- service Of roskosmosa
Post by: William Graham on 03/15/2008 10:19 am
Post by: input~2 on 03/15/2008 10:25 am
Post by: eeergo on 03/15/2008 10:31 am
Quote
edkyle99 - 15/3/2008 8:40 AMThe parking orbit was supposed to be 173 km x 51.5 deg. It isn't clear to me if the Briz M stage managed to perform any of its second burn or not. - Ed KyleThe report posted by Jacques says that, but I've read a more comprehensive report in Spaceflightnow.com which summarizes the situation as informed by Roscosmos: the second burn was more than 2 minutes short, and as a result the apogee is 5000 km lower than expected. The circularization burn is also missing, so it's in a highly elliptical orbit. However, the predicted perigee after the second burn was 553 km... even if it was not achieved, it probably is somewhere around 400 km at least. It won't decay too fast.The situation has not yet been adressed by the orbital engineers, maybe AMC-14 is in a somehow survivable situation, even if it involves lunar maneuvers... and of course if the insurance price isn't more tempting than reaching GEO with only a few years degraded operational cabability.
Post by: 8900 on 03/15/2008 10:49 am
I know Soyuz is good, but the heavy launch vehicle Proton repeatedly fail........
Will the potential customers switch to ArianeV?
Post by: Svetoslav on 03/15/2008 10:59 am
I'm really worried about the Breeze upper stage because it has to be used for the next generation Angara vehicles and up to this moment it proves to be unstable.
Post by: input~2 on 03/15/2008 11:41 am
The nominal sequence called for the following Breeze-M boosts (Moscow time)
First boost: 02:30:14 - 02:37:49 (7mn 35 sec)
Second boost: 03:17:36 - 03:52:02 (34 mn 26 sec)
Third boost: 08:55:25 - 09:01:35 (6mn 10 sec)
The nominal orbit after second boost was to be (roughly) 890 x 35760 km. inclined at 51.5°
Roskosmos reports an achieved apogee of about 28000 km, close to 8000 km below nominal.
Here are some nominal data, including drop areas for the spent stages
![]("http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9333/image2lj2.jpg")
Post by: Mighty-T on 03/15/2008 01:56 pm
Post by: ASTUTE on 03/15/2008 04:18 pm
Quote
Mighty-T - 15/3/2008 9:56 AM
Remember the Breeze from the Arabsat failure! It exploded over Australia after almost a year in space on February 19, 2007 causing one of the more massive debis showers. Hope they can avoid it this time.
More 856 objects have been cataloged from the Arabsat's launch. I think rus.engineers learnt a lesson from that occasion.
Yet, I think Russia space forces should be to shoot it down because of huge amount of toxic fuel. It's high time for Russia to get its own ASAT.
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/15/2008 04:46 pm
Quote
eeergo - 15/3/2008 6:31 AMQuoteedkyle99 - 15/3/2008 8:40 AMThe parking orbit was supposed to be 173 km x 51.5 deg. It isn't clear to me if the Briz M stage managed to perform any of its second burn or not. - Ed KyleThe report posted by Jacques says that, but I've read a more comprehensive report in Spaceflightnow.com which summarizes the situation as informed by Roscosmos: the second burn was more than 2 minutes short, and as a result the apogee is 5000 km lower than expected. The circularization burn is also missing, so it's in a highly elliptical orbit. However, the predicted perigee after the second burn was 553 km... even if it was not achieved, it probably is somewhere around 400 km at least. It won't decay too fast.The situation has not yet been adressed by the orbital engineers, maybe AMC-14 is in a somehow survivable situation, even if it involves lunar maneuvers... and of course if the insurance price isn't more tempting than reaching GEO with only a few years degraded operational cabability.
Right. Briz M burned for 32 minutes of its planned 34 min 13 sec second burn, leaving it with much less than 16 tonnes of propellant, but still a tonne or two. AMC-14 is left 700 m/s short of the proper perigee apogee, but many more meters per second (perhaps 1,000 m/s or more) delta v out of plane from the planned insertion orbit. That's a chunk of unplanned delta-v.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Blackstar on 03/15/2008 05:02 pm
Quote
ASTUTE - 15/3/2008 12:18 PM
Yet, I think Russia space forces should be to shoot it down because of huge amount of toxic fuel. It's high time for Russia to get its own ASAT.
Don't worry, the US Navy will solve your problem for you.
Post by: WHAP on 03/15/2008 05:22 pm
Assuming a linear usage of propellant, I calculate about 3500 kg remaining. One thing I haven't heard is if the Russians have a preprogrammed sequence to dump propellant or if they can command it to do so from the ground (the Encyclopedia Astronautica page on Breeze M suggest that some ground control is possible) to prevent a future explosion. How long before a body in a 400 x 28000 km orbit would re-enter?
Post by: Lee Jay on 03/15/2008 05:43 pm
Post by: WHAP on 03/15/2008 05:53 pm
Post by: Svetoslav on 03/15/2008 06:07 pm
Post by: krrr on 03/15/2008 06:17 pm
Intended orbit (6257x35786 km, 19.7 deg) to GSO (35786x35786 km, 0 deg): delta V 1313 m/s.
Assuming the actual orbit reached is 800x28000 km, 51.5 degrees:
Conventional method, i.e. raising apogee to 35786 km, then circularization and plane change:
800x28000, 51.5 --> 800x35786, 51.5: 157 m/s
800x35786, 51.5 --> 35786x35786, 0: 2420 m/s. Total 2577 m/s.
Super-synchronous method with a 200000 km apogee:
800x28000, 51.5 --> 800x200000, 51.5: 775 m/s
800x200000, 51.5 --> 35786x200000, 0: 650 m/s
35786x200000, 0 --> 35786x35786, 0: 888 m/s. Total 2313 m/s.
Difficult to say what happens if the Moon gets involved. You basically get the plane change for free, but I doubt we can get under 2100 m/s.
So for a successful rescue, it all depends on how much propellant is on board. If half of the spacecraft's mass is usable propellant, we get (assuming an ISP of 320 s) only 2176 m/s total delta V. With 60%, we would have 2876 m/s, but I doubt the ratio is that high.
Post by: yinzer on 03/15/2008 06:20 pm
Post by: Jim on 03/15/2008 06:53 pm
Quote
Svetoslav - 15/3/2008 3:07 PM
I have a question. Why don't they reprogram the rocket not to execute spacecraft separation and after one orbit try to restart the stage in case of a problem?
Upperstages usually aren't ground commandable
Post by: ASTUTE on 03/15/2008 07:02 pm
Quote
WHAP - 15/3/2008 1:22 PM
One thing I haven't heard is if the Russians have a preprogrammed sequence to dump propellant or if they can command it to do so from the ground (the Encyclopedia Astronautica page on Breeze M suggest that some ground control is possible) to prevent a future explosion.
Speaking of some ground control. I guess all liquid-propellant upper stages dump propellant remains without ground commands. Usually, They are equipped with both mechanical and programmable safety valves.
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/15/2008 07:07 pm
In the story currently running on yahoo : http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080315/sc_afp/russiausspacetechnologysatellite_080315114610
Notable quotes
"The cost of telecommunications satellites can run into tens of millions of dollars (euros)." umm shouldn't that read 100's of millions of dolars?
"But the Briz-M booster failed 10 minutes later" umm, how do you get 10 minutes when your 2 minutes short on a 32 minute burn?
At least they ended with ""It is unlikely the satellite can be used" at the lower orbit, the official said."
Post by: marsavian on 03/15/2008 08:47 pm
Quote
Svetoslav - 15/3/2008 6:59 AM
Ariane 5's schedule is always full so I don't see how they can switch to it.
I'm really worried about the Breeze upper stage because it has to be used for the next generation Angara vehicles and up to this moment it proves to be unstable.
sure has
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/03/15/222253/ils-satellite-launch-failure-blamed-on-upper-stage.html
Post by: Jim on 03/15/2008 09:11 pm
Quote
ASTUTE - 15/3/2008 4:02 PMQuoteWHAP - 15/3/2008 1:22 PM
One thing I haven't heard is if the Russians have a preprogrammed sequence to dump propellant or if they can command it to do so from the ground (the Encyclopedia Astronautica page on Breeze M suggest that some ground control is possible) to prevent a future explosion.
Speaking of some ground control. I guess all liquid-propellant upper stages dump propellant remains without ground commands. Usually, They are equipped with both mechanical and programmable safety valves.
no, they just perform another engine burn to depletion or just open the engine valves with no burning after spacecraft separation. No need for additional valves.
Post by: meiza on 03/15/2008 10:12 pm
I must say, these failures just keep on coming even when the launchers and configurations are kept static. The recent Proton second stage start failure, the Sea Launch fireball, the Atlas V Centaur open valve...
Post by: Andrewwski on 03/15/2008 11:12 pm
:laugh:
Post by: WHAP on 03/15/2008 11:20 pm
Quote
meiza - 15/3/2008 5:12 PM
I must say, these failures just keep on coming even when the launchers and configurations are kept static. The recent Proton second stage start failure, the Sea Launch fireball, the Atlas V Centaur open valve...
Of the three, only the Sea Launch failure was not due to a change in configuration (contamination, although some who know more may be able to say if it was the result of a change in processing). We don't know what caused this Proton failure, and the Atlas V anomaly was due a relatively new component. Things may appear static, but that's not always the case.
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/16/2008 03:24 am
Quote
meiza - 15/3/2008 6:12 PM
Hi, just noticed this, haven't been at the computer for a while.
I must say, these failures just keep on coming even when the launchers and configurations are kept static. The recent Proton second stage start failure, the Sea Launch fireball, the Atlas V Centaur open valve...
The world-wide orbital launch failure rate has been fairly steady for decades now. During the past few years it has been about 5.8%, or about one out of every 17 launches. At current launch rates, that works out to an average of one failure every 15 weeks.
Prior to the AMC 14 launch, roughly 25 weeks had passed since the most recent prior failure (the 09/05/07 Proton M/Briz M failure with JCSAT 11). The worldwide consecutive success streak had reached 39. I was thinking about posting a message about this "failure free" six months just a day or two ago, but decided against it. I didn't want to jinx anyone. Next time I think about such a thing, I will post!
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Nick L. on 03/16/2008 03:35 am
Post by: MKremer on 03/16/2008 04:18 am
Quote
Nick L. - 15/3/2008 11:35 PM
I wonder if this is another case of the "foreign particle". If I recall correctly the last Breeze-M failure (Arabsat 4A) was also during the second burn.
An 'official'/corporate "foreign particle" excuse for an overall launch failure doesn't always tend to define/detail the REAL thing (engineering/production/inspections/otherwise) that actually caused the problem or failure.
These are, after all, private corporations that sign, build, and launch commercial products. They (meaning any corportion involved) aren't bound to any kind of public full-disclosure laws or agreements. They can have, or would want, to advise their customers of what their investigations turn up, but all the parties involved aren't mandated to disclose anything to the general public (other than what all parties' PAO groups agree to).
Post by: newGuy on 03/16/2008 06:12 pm
Quote
Andrewwski - 15/3/2008 7:12 PMI find that there are a lot of EYE-DEE-TEN-TEE types on the satellite sites, too. There are also a lot of incredibly smart people who know a lot about the technology of satellite transmission and reception. There may be some who know about orbital mechanics, but if so they are not coming forward to share that knowledge. Why don't you contribute your knowledge to the discussion? I (for one) would love to gain at least a layman's understanding of the details involved in placing a satellite in proper orbit.
Not trying to go off topic, but try reading some of the satellite TV forums. The lack of understanding of simple geosynchronous and geostationary orbits is funny. Especially since everyone that clearly doesn't understand it thinks that they know more about it than everyone else.
:laugh:
Please, share your knowledge!
Thanks,
Kent
PS: of the satellite sites I have seen, the best at advocating uncensored participation and idea exchange is http://SatelliteGuys.US.
Post by: Andrewwski on 03/16/2008 06:16 pm
Anyway, this is really off-topic, so I won't go any further.
Post by: Sid454 on 03/16/2008 06:25 pm
Maybe customers should request Roscosmos allow a choice of upper stages including the reliable PAM upper stages.
Though the satellite may not be a total lost as it might be able to climb to the proper orbit using the ion rockets normally used for station keeping .
Post by: @RD170@ on 03/16/2008 06:35 pm
Post by: Sid454 on 03/16/2008 06:39 pm
vs having to deal with the breeze-M and block-DM's failure rates?
Can these be integrated with Proton?
Post by: Sid454 on 03/16/2008 06:42 pm
Post by: @RD170@ on 03/16/2008 06:50 pm
Russians prefer develop indigenous technology. All improvements in Proton will be done in Russia.
Post by: @RD170@ on 03/16/2008 06:54 pm
Post by: newGuy on 03/16/2008 07:44 pm
Post by: DaveS on 03/16/2008 07:53 pm
Quote
Sid454 - 16/3/2008 8:25 PMNot Roscosmos, but ILS(International Launch Services). ILS is responsible for providing the LV, not Roscosmos.
Maybe customers should request Roscosmos allow a choice of upper stages including the reliable PAM upper stages.
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/16/2008 09:58 pm
Quote
Sid454 - 16/3/2008 2:25 PM
The breeze-M upper stage seems to have a high failure rate while proton it's self is a very reliable vehicle.
To date, Proton has proven no more or less reliable than Briz M.
The Briz M upper stage has flown atop 26 Proton launch vehicles (22 Proton M and 4 Proton K). Four of the launches failed. Two of the failures involved Proton (one stage 2, one stage 1/2). Two involved Briz M.
By comparison, the Ariane 5G series has flown 24 times to date and suffered three failures. One of those failures involved the upper storable propellant stage. Zenit 3SL has flown 25 times and failed three times, including one Block DMSL upper stage failure. Atlas V has flown 13 times and suffered one upper stage failure. Ariane 5 ECA has flown a dozen times with one failure of the core stage engine.
The old Proton K/DM-2M system flew 42 times and failed twice. Both failures involved the Block DM-2M upper stage.
Such is the state of the world's premiere commercial GTO launchers.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: EE Scott on 03/16/2008 11:57 pm
Quote
edkyle99 - 16/3/2008 6:58 PMQuoteSid454 - 16/3/2008 2:25 PM
The breeze-M upper stage seems to have a high failure rate while proton it's self is a very reliable vehicle.
To date, Proton has proven no more or less reliable than Briz M.
The Briz M upper stage has flown atop 26 Proton launch vehicles (22 Proton M and 4 Proton K). Four of the launches failed. Two of the failures involved Proton (one stage 2, one stage 1/2). Two involved Briz M.
By comparison, the Ariane 5G series has flown 24 times to date and suffered three failures. One of those failures involved the upper storable propellant stage. Zenit 3SL has flown 25 times and failed three times, including one Block DMSL upper stage failure. Atlas V has flown 13 times and suffered one upper stage failure. Ariane 5 ECA has flown a dozen times with one failure of the core stage engine.
The old Proton K/DM-2M system flew 42 times and failed twice. Both failures involved the Block DM-2M upper stage.
Such is the state of the world's premiere commercial GTO launchers.
- Ed Kyle
Looking at those figures, it is remarkable how similar Ariane 5/Atlas 5/Proton/Zenit 3SL success rate has been.
Post by: Jim on 03/17/2008 12:16 am
Quote
Sid454 - 16/3/2008 3:39 PM
I wonder if Sat customers could just buy an upper stage they know will work off Thoikol or Spacedev
vs having to deal with the breeze-M and block-DM's failure rates?
Can these be integrated with Proton?
no, because those aren't upperstages, just solid motors. and there aren't any large enough
This isn't Lego's with pieces that can be mixed and matched. It was a big deal to add the star-48 to the Atlas V for Pluto NH. Boeing has to supply the spin table and all the avionics/ordnances.
It costs too much to add the systems to the spacecraft
Post by: input~2 on 03/17/2008 07:15 am
AMC-14 and Breeze-M are both in an HEO orbit inclined at 49.2°
Approximate apsides: apogee= 26450 km; perigee = 770 km
Post by: Thomas ESA on 03/17/2008 08:16 am
Post by: zaitcev on 03/18/2008 05:51 pm
Quote
MKremer - 15/3/2008 10:18 PMQuoteNick L. - 15/3/2008 11:35 PMI wonder if this is another case of the "foreign particle". If I recall correctly the last Breeze-M failure (Arabsat 4A) was also during the second burn.
An 'official'/corporate "foreign particle" excuse for an overall launch failure doesn't always tend to define/detail the REAL thing (engineering/production/inspections/otherwise) that actually caused the problem or failure.
These are, after all, private corporations that sign, build, and launch commercial products. {...}
The above explanation fails the Occam razor test: never ascribe to cunning plotting what can be explained by incompetence. I suspect the FROB just failed to find the real cause the last time around, blamed the mythical "particle", the State Commission rubber-stamped it. It's not necesserily incompetence even. Perhaps they were out of telemetry range when the failure occured. Telemetry can be defective even if it's received. The key question now is if they added better data collection for this time, or just crossed their fingers, washed the tanks real clean and hoped for the best. There's even a word in Russian for this kind of behaviour, it would not surprise me if they hoped for "avos'".
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/18/2008 09:38 pm
Quote
zaitcev - 18/3/2008 1:51 PMQuoteMKremer - 15/3/2008 10:18 PMQuoteNick L. - 15/3/2008 11:35 PMI wonder if this is another case of the "foreign particle". If I recall correctly the last Breeze-M failure (Arabsat 4A) was also during the second burn.
An 'official'/corporate "foreign particle" excuse for an overall launch failure doesn't always tend to define/detail the REAL thing (engineering/production/inspections/otherwise) that actually caused the problem or failure.
These are, after all, private corporations that sign, build, and launch commercial products. {...}
The above explanation fails the Occam razor test: never ascribe to cunning plotting what can be explained by incompetence. I suspect the FROB just failed to find the real cause the last time around, blamed the mythical "particle", the State Commission rubber-stamped it. It's not necesserily incompetence even. Perhaps they were out of telemetry range when the failure occured. Telemetry can be defective even if it's received. The key question now is if they added better data collection for this time, or just crossed their fingers, washed the tanks real clean and hoped for the best. There's even a word in Russian for this kind of behaviour, it would not surprise me if they hoped for "avos'".
One thing interesting about this mission is that it used only three Briz M burns, with one burn (the failed burn) scheduled to last a full 34 minutes, 26 seconds. Most (but I don't think all) of the other Briz M missions used more burns, each of shorter duration, with hours long coast periods between.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: input~2 on 03/19/2008 12:30 pm
Quote
One thing interesting about this mission is that it used only three Briz M burns, with one burn (the failed burn) scheduled to last a full 34 minutes, 26 seconds. Most (but I don't think all) of the other Briz M missions used more burns, each of shorter duration, with hours long coast periods between.- Ed Kyle
The failed mission for Arabsat-4A on Feb 28, 2006, was to use 4 Breeze-M firings. The "anomaly in the oxidizer supply subsystem" occurred 27mn30s after the second firing, 3mn 30s short from the nominal 31mn
Definitely something in common with the 32mn13s/34mn26s of Breeze-M for AMC-14
The successful mission in November 2007 with Sirius-4 had 4 Breeze-M firings, longest was 16mn30s
In July 2007, the DirecTV-10 successful mission had 5 Breeze-M burns presumably shorter than 16mn each
Effectively the duration of the burn seems to correlate to failure! Better keep it short!
Post by: input~2 on 03/19/2008 11:00 pm
Quote
In July 2007, the DirecTV-10 successful mission had 5 Breeze-M burns presumably shorter than 16mn each
I just checked the longest of the five firings (#2) for Breeze-M / DirecTV-10 lasted 17.5 minutes
Post by: PDJennings on 03/20/2008 01:01 pm
Not that the failure can't be related to the long burn; two similar occurrences out of 6 or 7 chances are very suspicious.
Post by: input~2 on 03/20/2008 05:33 pm
Quote
PDJennings - 20/3/2008 9:01 AM
Many of the Proton Breeze M launches of A2100s used a fairly long (30 min) burn. AMC-15 in particular, if I recall correctly, used a three-burn profile similar to AMC-14's. Arabsat 4B had a long burn as well. There were several successful missions with very long burns of the Breeze M.
Not that the failure can't be related to the long burn; two similar occurrences out of 6 or 7 chances are very suspicious.
Here is my understanding of Breeze-M single longest burns out of the 20 launches I have data for:
- AMC-15, 34.0mn - an A2100 :cool:
- AMC-14, stopped at 32.2mn - an A2100 :frown:
- Arabsat-4B, 30.8mn - a Eurostar 2000+ :cool:
- Nimiq-2, 27.7mn - an A2100 :cool:
- Arabsat-4A, stopped at 27.5mn - a Eurostar 2000+ :frown:
- Kosmos 2402-2403, 23.5mn :cool:
all other burns were shorter than 19.1mn (and successful!)
The two failures are in the top five! I leave it to the FROB to work on it!
Post by: pm1823 on 03/21/2008 06:59 am
Post by: input~2 on 03/21/2008 09:24 am
It 's revealing to look back on what was written in the Russian press in April 2006 after the Arabsat-4A failure; Kommersant had this predictive article: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=669148
A new article published last Tuesday (3/18/2008) also by Kommersant about AMC-14 hints at some consequential delays on forthcoming Russian launcheshttp://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=868115
Post by: Jirka Dlouhy on 03/21/2008 01:18 pm
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/news.shtml
Post by: satlaunch on 03/21/2008 01:38 pm
Post by: Stephan on 03/21/2008 04:53 pm
Quote
input~2 - 17/3/2008 9:15 AMAMC-14 apogee has been raised, now 767 x 32 334 Km (still at 49°).
From observation data:
AMC-14 and Breeze-M are both in an HEO orbit inclined at 49.2°
Approximate apsides: apogee= 26450 km; perigee = 770 km
Any news about what they plan to do ? Some Asiasat 3 kind maneuver ?
Post by: input~2 on 03/21/2008 05:35 pm
Quote
Stephan - 21/3/2008 12:53 PM
AMC-14 apogee has been raised, now 767 x 32 334 Km (still at 49°).
From this morning (GMT) observation, apogee would now be at 35 718 km, same perigee and inclination. Seems like they don't want to give it up!
Post by: input~2 on 03/22/2008 02:45 pm
Quote
input~2 - 21/3/2008 5:24 AMPartial English translations at:It 's revealing to look back on what was written in the Russian press in April 2006 after the Arabsat-4A failure; Kommersant had this predictive article: http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=669148
A new article published last Tuesday (3/18/2008) also by Kommersant about AMC-14 hints at some consequential delays on forthcoming Russian launches
http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=868115
http://www.kommersant.com/p669148/r_500/Briz-M_Failed_on_Bearing/
Post by: zaitcev on 03/22/2008 05:05 pm
Quote
Jirka Dlouhy - 21/3/2008 7:18 AMToo bad there's no permalink, but here's the executive summary:
On the "Novosti kosmonavtiki" pages is an article about failures of DM upper stages, which are produced by RKK Energia because of them Khrunichev decided to develop of Briz upper stages. In russian:
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/content/news.shtml
Total flights where DM was actually fired: 280
Last failure - 12/25 1997
Success rate with known failures: 0.964
Success rate with failures for unknown reasons added: 0.957
They did not bother to calculate the same for Briz, letting Khrunichev partizans to do the job no doubt. Also, they neglected to mention that Zenit-SL continues to use DM and had a successful flight just a couple days ago (although its flight program was not as complex as that for Briz launched from Baikonur).
Post by: input~2 on 03/22/2008 10:13 pm
According to the Proton Launch System Mission Planner's Guide, in a standard/9-hour 5-burn mission profile, "the duration of the 3rd burn is defined by the complete depletion of the propellant in the APT" (additional propellant tank).
I would assume that there is a similar situation in the standard/7-hour 3-burn mission profile such as planned for AMC-14: the 2nd burn duration is defined by the complete depletion of the propellant in the APT.
In this case, AMC-14 mission parameters reveal something peculiar: the cumulative burn duration for APT depletion was to be 2521s, the longest among 20 Breeze-M launches I have data for. With the same engine, this would mean that the APT had been filled up more than usual…creating unusual conditions?
Post by: krrr on 03/23/2008 05:18 pm
Given the Breeze-M data from astronautix.com (Isp 326s, thrust 19600N) a 2521 seconds burn would consume 15456 kg of propellant. However, this doesn't seem consistent with the mass breakdown. Total wet mass is given as 22170 kg, empty mass 2370 kg. Given that the core stage is basically a Breeze-KM (wet 6565 kg, empty 1600 kg), we can estimate the APT's empty mass as 770 kg and maximum propellant load as 14835 kg.
A 2388 sec burn (2521 minus the shortfall of 133 sec) would use 14640 kg, which fits nicely with the calculations above. The core stage would then burn 133+370=503 seconds, consuming 3084 of its estimated 4965 kg propellant.
Post by: input~2 on 03/23/2008 08:44 pm
You may be right; the Planner's guide gives a total propellant mass of 14600 kg in the APT and 5200 kg in the CPT. In the 5-burn case, when they say they deplete the APT right at the end of the 3rd burn, the maximum observed time for depletion I have is 2266s. So 2521s, as in the AMC-14 case, seems too long for feeding the turbopump from the APT only, during the second burn.
If we assume that more than 2388s means a switch to the CPT, they did it successfully at least twice: for Thor-5 (2438s) and for Sirius-4 (2433s).
A standard 9 hour/5 burn mission profile when they switch to the CPT feed when the engine is off, seems safer. That profile has always been successful up to now!
The case of Arabsat-4A was different, it was a so-called "express mission" 4 hour/4 burn with drop of the depleted APT after a cumulative 2055s. (assuming an identical profile to Arabsat-4B)
Post by: pm1823 on 03/23/2008 10:14 pm
There are no a such thing like "tank switching" in the Breeze-M.
Working state:
APT(under higher gas pressure)-->liquid>-->CPT(under lower gas pressure)-->capillar feeding--> pressure booster--> turbopump.
Depleted APT state:
APT(equal gas pressure)<-->gas<-->CPT(equal gas pressure)-->capillar feeding--> pressure booster--> turbopump.
When "gas detector" in the tube goes ON - goes tanks separation by the valve. Jettisoning performed only when engine is OFF and this valve in CLOSED. Something like that...
In the Arabsat case an official cause was - not enough pressure between the "pressure booster" and the "turbopump", maybe(!) because "foreign particle".
Post by: input~2 on 03/24/2008 07:02 am
So we forget about switching the feeds, and we seem to have now the following adjusted understanding, noting that the Planner's Guide says:"The main engine can be commanded to shutdown either upon achieving a desired state vector or propellant depletion."
For a 9 hour/5 burn mission profile
- Start 3rd burn
- Feeding turbopump from CPT + APT
- APT depleted
- Sense APT depletion and send signal to stop the burn
- Isolate APT by closing valves
- Stop 3rd burn on "propellant depletion" condition
- Jettison APT
- Start 4th burn from CPT
- Start 2nd burn
- Feeding turbopump from CPT+APT
- APT depleted
- Sense depletion and isolate APT by closing valves
- Continue the burn, feeding from CPT during about 2 minutes
- Stop 2nd burn on "desired state vector reached" condition
- Jettison APT
- Coast phase
- Start 3rd burn from CPT
As far as I can see we still have a specific sequence for the 7-hour/3 burn mission profile and as krrr mentionned the AMC-14 Breeze-M failure could have occured at the time of APT isolation...
Post by: pm1823 on 03/24/2008 08:16 am
Post by: krrr on 03/24/2008 10:21 am
Given the planned burn time of 370 seconds, this can only be done with the CPT less than half full.
Propellant consumption would be 2268 kg, and to achieve 1036 m/s with an ISP of 326 s, total initial mass would have to be about 8200 kg. Since the payload is 4140 kg, core stage empty mass plus residual propellant at the end of the burn would be around 1790 kg.
This would suggest that the CPT was not fully loaded. However, if I understand pm1823 correctly, this isn't possible since APT and CPT form "logical" single tanks with the CPT portion always full before APT depletion. Strange. Were they even planning to jettison some propellant before the third burn?
Post by: krrr on 03/24/2008 11:13 am
Post by: PDJennings on 03/24/2008 01:06 pm
Note that the cutoff of the apogee raising burn (second to last burn) must always be inertial, since the target orbit apogee parameter is determined by this cutoff. The cutoff of this burn is not synchronized with the actual depletion of the APT, although the mission profiles are usually designed to allow for the APT to be drained close to the end of this burn. No Breeze M mission to date has carried the APT to GTO apogee, and in fact I believe there are additional design constraints which prohibit this.
As for the Breeze M "burn to depletion" function referenced in the Proton Planners Guide, this refers to the final burn only. Since the declination of the burn is held roughly constant, additional burn time can be allowed beyond the normal calculated 2.33-sigma propellant margin cutoff point. The final burn can be prolonged until "imminent depletion" is sensed by the Breeze M propellant supply system. Any additional burn time reduces the Delta-v to GSO for the payload. However, in practice this was not a great selling point for the Proton because most customers would still calculate their orbit maneuver lifetime only from the 2.33-sigma LV performance benchmark. Additionally, some customer spacecraft designs were either (a) already lifetime limited for other reasons, or (b) unable to convert reduced Delta-v to GSO into additional orbit maneuver life. In fact, there was one spacecraft design that could actually lose lifetime from reduced Delta-v to GSO.
Post by: input~2 on 03/24/2008 02:21 pm
Quote
PDJennings - 24/3/2008 9:06 AM
As for the Breeze M "burn to depletion" function referenced in the Proton Planners Guide, this refers to the final burn only.
I don't quite read the Guide as you do:
Here is what it says: "The duration of the third burn is defined by the complete depletion of the propellant in the additional propellant tank (APT). When the propellant in this tank is depleted, the main engine shuts down for 2 minutes while the APT is jettisoned"
This is in the context of 5 burn. I still read it as meaning that the burn to APT depletion refers to the 3rd burn...
Could you please clear this up?
Post by: input~2 on 03/24/2008 03:39 pm
More food for thoughts, comparing AMC-15 vs AMC-14 Breeze-M events:
| | | AMC-15 (4021 kg) | | AMC-14 (4140 kg) | |||
| Event | | Breeze-M actual telemetry time tags (s. from T0) | actual burn duration (s) | | Breeze-M planned time tags (s.from T0) | planned burn duration (s) | achieved burn duration (s) |
| Start engine -1 | | 682.951 | | | 679 | | |
| Stop engine -1 | | 999.883 | | | 1134 | | |
| | | | 316.932 | | | 455 | 455 |
| | | Achieved orbit 173.21km x 176.13km x 51.5° | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| Start engine -2 | | 3521.184 | | | 3521 | | |
| Stop engine -2 | | 5539.430 | | | 5587 | | |
| | | | 2018.246 | | | 2066 | 1933 |
| | | Achieved orbit 890.6km x 35767.7km x 49.1° | | target orbit: 890km x 35745km x49.1° | | ||
| APT separation | | 5620.466 | | | 5668 | | |
| | | | | | | | |
| Start engine -3 | | 23791.993 | | | 23790 | | |
| Stop engine-3 | | 24179.180 | | | 24160 | ||
| | | | 387.187 | | | 370 | |
| | | achieved orbit 7166.4km x 35781.7km x 18.5° | | | | ||
| Spacecraft separation | | 24870.420 | | | 24950 | | |
| | | | | | target orbit: 6257km x 35786km x19.7° | | |
| Total burn time | | | 2722.365 | | | 2891 | 2388 |
| | | | | | | | |
| Assumed engine mass flow rate (kg/s) | | | 6.13 | | | 6.13 | |
| Spent propellant mass (kg) | | | 16688.1 | | | 17721.8 | |
| Published max propellant mass (kg) | | | 19800.0 | | | 19800.0 | |
| delta (kg) | | | -3111.9 | | | -2078.2 | |
Note that according to ILS AMC-14 brochure, "BREEZE M UPPER STAGE:The quantity of propellant carried is dependent on specific mission requirements and is varied to maximize mission performance."
Post by: krrr on 03/24/2008 05:41 pm
Assuming ATP was loaded with 12600 kg of propellant (not the maximum 14600 kg):
Burn 1: 455 seconds with 2790 kg propellants consumed from the APT.
Burn 2 phase 1: 1600 seconds with 9810 kg consumed until APT depletion.
Burn 2 phase 2: 466 seconds consuming 2860 kg from the CPT (empty APT still attached).
Burn 3: 370 seconds, 2270 kg. After that, 70 kg residual propellant in the CPT.
So, in that scenario, the problem occurred 333 seconds after APT depletion. No connection, then.
Post by: pm1823 on 03/25/2008 07:56 am
Post by: PDJennings on 03/25/2008 12:47 pm
Also there are some assumptions about propellant mass flow rate that may or may not be accurate. The propellant load calculation above is only as good as the mass flow rate estimate. To my knowledge, the Breeze M main engine mass flow rate is not public info (no, I don't know it either, but I used to have my own estimate). If anyone has a source document, I'd love to see it.
Note that the SC mass is not equal to the payload mass for Proton (or Atlas, for that matter). You have to add the mission unique items, which on Proton is typically only a 110 kg payload adapter.
Offloading propellant from the APT is a Khrunichev practice. The propellants cost money, even in Russia. There is some propellant margin against low booster performance, but there's no reason to launch with grossly more propellant than needed for a given mission design.
For the proposed Angara-3, Khrunichev still plans to use the Breeze M stage with APT. But since the Angara-3 throw weight to LEO is much smaller than for Proton, the APT has to start with something like half its maximum propellant load.
Post by: input~2 on 03/25/2008 02:06 pm
Quote
PDJennings - 25/3/2008 8:47 AM
The AMC-14 vs AMC-15 comparison above may have an error. The first burn is shown as significantly longer for AMC-15 even though the payload mass is only 3% or so greater. I suspect a typo in the source materials (launch brochure?).
I suspect you had a typo here, you mean AMC-14 in the second sentence..
The value of 455s for the first AMC-14 burn does not seem to be a typo: it appears in the Russian pamphlet (see here on page 8) under two different time scales. It also appears in another format in the ILS pre-flight brochure.
I agree that the engine mass flow rate value is subject to caution, we know the ISP and the thrust of the S5.98M engine but how do we take into account the small impulses from the vernier and orientation thrusters?
Concerning your preceding post#260550, when you say "No Breeze M mission to date has carried the APT to GTO apogee," I assume you mean with low inclination because a quick check shows that the APT apogees in the case of at least AMC-15, Sirius-4, Express-AM33, Thor-5 are all above 35519 km..albeit with around 48° inclination..
Do you have any remarks on my preceding question (see post #260574 above.) on your same post?
Post by: Sco7Buck on 03/25/2008 02:45 pm
What's up?
Post by: pm1823 on 03/25/2008 03:52 pm
Post by: input~2 on 03/25/2008 04:10 pm
772 km x 35576 km x 49.0°
Post by: Mighty-T on 03/26/2008 01:25 pm
Post by: PDJennings on 03/26/2008 04:13 pm
>Here is what it says: "The duration of the third burn is defined by the complete depletion of the propellant in the additional propellant tank (APT). When the propellant in this tank is depleted, the main engine shuts down for 2 minutes while the APT is jettisoned"
>This is in the context of 5 burn. I still read it as meaning that the burn to APT depletion refers to the 3rd burn...
Don't get hung up on the burn numbers, because you can't compare the same burn number across multiple mission designs. The third burn can happen anywhere from LEO (DirecTV) to synchronous altitude (Thor), or in between (Arabsat). Missions have been flown with 3, 4, and 5 burns of the Breeze M.
The fact is, the APT is always depleted and jettisoned within the first 2-3 hours of the mission, and the CPT always has plenty of propellant left when APT depletion happens. Whether the APT is held on after its depletion is a function of payload mass and mission design. The apogee raising operation can be interrupted for APT jettison, or the APT can be held until the apogee-raising velocity increase is completed. This operation always uses a guidance commanded shutdown.
In contrast, the final Breeze M burn (in a successful mission) can use guidance commanded shutdown or burn-to-depletion of the CPT. The CPT burn-to-depletion function is not yet demonstrated on a real mission, as far as I know, but the capability is there.
>Concerning your preceding post#260550, when you say "No Breeze M mission to date has carried the APT to GTO apogee," I assume you mean with low inclination because a quick check shows that the APT apogees in the case of at least AMC-15, Sirius-4, Express-AM33, Thor-5 are all above 35519 km..albeit with around 48° inclination..
The APT is always separated at relatively low altitude, closer to the GTO perigee. It is never carried to apogee as a part of the "orbital block," although it does end up in its own orbit, often with a very high apogee altitude in its own right. These objects are tracked on Space Track and will probably remain in orbit for centuries, along with most of the Blocks DM.
Post by: input~2 on 03/26/2008 05:08 pm
Post by: adbarv on 03/31/2008 02:51 pm
Post by: kevin-rf on 03/31/2008 03:54 pm
Quote
adbarv - 31/3/2008 10:51 AM
Which satellite programs have used over 30 continuous minutes Breeze M burn duration. I know that Arabsat 4A and AMC-14 failed, but how about the others?
Look at input~2's Post on 20/3/2008 2:33 PM #259014, it contains the five longest burns to date.
Post by: adbarv on 03/31/2008 06:57 pm
Post by: anik on 04/02/2008 03:52 pm
"April 2, 2008 - The Russian State Commission investigating the recent Breeze M failure reports that it is close to determining a root cause for the incident"
Post by: input~2 on 04/11/2008 03:50 pm
SES has just announced that AMC-14 is now considered a total loss. Plans are being developed to "retire" the spacecraft.
see
Post by: jaythehokie on 04/11/2008 04:08 pm
According to spacedaily.com. they're talking about de-orbiting the satellite and splashing it down somewhere... possibly as soon as sometime today.
Post by: input~2 on 04/12/2008 05:16 pm
The spacedaily article dated April 10 indicates that the Boeing patent on the lunar flyby (which could be US Patent #6149103) played a role in the decision by SES-Americom not to pursue the lunar flyby maneuver.
On the other hand, a Space News article on the same subject posted on April 11 after an interview with SES personnel, does not make any reference to the patent issue and mentions only associated risks and short useful life as the reason for not attempting the maneuver..
Post by: HIPAR on 04/12/2008 06:31 pm
--- CHAS
Post by: input~2 on 04/13/2008 04:27 pm
Concerning the lunar flyby maneuver there was at least one patent granted prior to Boeing's (which got its first patent on the subject on Sept 12, 2000):
the first one was granted to the French company SNECMA on May 9, 2000 (US Patent#6 059 233) it is entitled "Method and a system for launching satellites on non coplanar orbits, making use of gravitational assistance from the moon".. it also describes the lunar flyby maneuver to get an HEO satellite into GSO..so the case for a potential AMC-14 lunar flyby maneuver countered by a Boeing patent does not appear so obvious..
Post by: Satori on 04/21/2008 12:36 pm
Post by: Danderman on 04/21/2008 03:06 pm
This is the Fregat S5.92 engine. Does anyone have an image of the Briz-M engine for comparison?
Post by: input~2 on 04/22/2008 07:01 am
There is a view of the Briz-M with its main engine (S5.98M aka 14D30) at this site (page 12) http://www.roscosmos.ru/video/AMC_15_www.pdf
From the ILS press release:"the most probable cause of the gas duct rupture was due to the combined effects of duct wall erosion, high temperatures and prolonged low frequency pressure fluctuation in the duct", in other words the second burn was too long!
This is what we said right after the failure (see post#258397 on page 10)
Our advice to Proton customers: use the 9-hour 5-burn Briz-M standard mission profile!
Post by: pm1823 on 04/22/2008 08:17 am
Let us to suppose, that they just get burned to death new engine on the test site, and claimed guilty the "weakest link".
Post by: input~2 on 04/22/2008 02:44 pm
Interesting to note that the Russian paper "Izvestia" in its issue dated to-day (in Russian) reached the same conclusion as I mentionned already above:
(speaking about the results of the Commission:)
"In translating from the technical language this can mean that the support engine “Breeze- M” malfunctioned because of too prolonged an operating time with the second burn. Usually the insertion of communication satellites in intended orbit is achieved due to five activations of the engine of the support stage (RB). On March 15 a profile with three burns was used. Thus, with the second burn with the injection in an intermediate orbit with an apogee close to the apogee of the final orbit, the engine had to work longer than when using a profile with five burns, resulting in the burning out of a conduit..."
Post by: input~2 on 04/23/2008 04:40 pm
Post by: clsspace on 04/24/2008 07:14 pm
http://www.spacemart.com/reports/SES_Negotiating_To_Sell_AMC-14_To_US_Government_Agency_999.html
Who says space chicken isn't alive and well!
Post by: input~2 on 04/25/2008 08:32 pm
Quote
input~2 - 23/4/2008 11:40 AM AMC-14 is now bound to dive in the South Pacific within a few days.
This statement was prompted by a request to the FCC filed by Echostar on April 22 for a "controlled re-entry of AMC-14 in an unpopulated area of the South Pacific"
Post by: Andrewwski on 04/26/2008 03:45 am
Quote
clsspace - 24/4/2008 3:14 PM
SES Negotiating To Sell AMC-14 To US Government Agency
http://www.spacemart.com/reports/SES_Negotiating_To_Sell_AMC-14_To_US_Government_Agency_999.html
Who says space chicken isn't alive and well!
Who the heck wrote that article? It seems to have little credibility, makes little sense, and talks about geostationary satellites with a 10 degree inclination!
Post by: input~2 on 04/29/2008 12:39 pm
According to a recent article in Space News about the conclusions of the Russian Commission: "A long, continuous burn of the upper stage is viewed as optimal for larger telecommunications satellites. If Khrunichev and Proton are obliged to limit their launches to multiple, shorter-duration burns, the rocket may be less able to lift the heaviest satellites that have become ILS's core market."
However the heaviest satellite launched by Proton-M/Briz-M was DirecTV-10 (5893 kg) using a 5 short-burn/9 hour mission profile.... Anyone has argument to support the Space News claim?
Post by: rocketnerd on 04/30/2008 07:55 pm
Quote
Andrewwski - 25/4/2008 10:45 PMQuoteclsspace - 24/4/2008 3:14 PM
SES Negotiating To Sell AMC-14 To US Government Agency
http://www.spacemart.com/reports/SES_Negotiating_To_Sell_AMC-14_To_US_Government_Agency_999.html
Who says space chicken isn't alive and well!
Who the heck wrote that article? It seems to have little credibility, makes little sense, and talks about geostationary satellites with a 10 degree inclination!
My guess is that they meant [inclined] geosynchronous, not geostationary.
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/30/2008 08:12 pm
Quote
input~2 - 29/4/2008 7:39 AMAccording to a recent article in Space News about the conclusions of the Russian Commission: "A long, continuous burn of the upper stage is viewed as optimal for larger telecommunications satellites. If Khrunichev and Proton are obliged to limit their launches to multiple, shorter-duration burns, the rocket may be less able to lift the heaviest satellites that have become ILS's core market."
However the heaviest satellite launched by Proton-M/Briz-M was DirecTV-10 (5893 kg) using a 5 short-burn/9 hour mission profile.... Anyone has argument to support the Space News claim?
You are right. A larger number of shorter burns is more efficient, for the low-thrust Briz stage, than a smaller number of longer burns. The longer burn was used for a lighter satellite, in this case, probably because margin was thought to be available to shorten the overall mission duration.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: pm1823 on 04/30/2008 10:48 pm
Post by: input~2 on 05/05/2008 04:06 pm
50 days after the failure Roskosmos is ready to resume launching Proton-M/Briz-M.
ITAR-TASS reports that the deputy head of Roskosmos has declared this Monday to journalists that the reasons for the failure had been eliminated and that nothing prevented the launch of Proton-M/Briz-M.
Post by: input~2 on 05/06/2008 08:46 am
The discussion on Proton-M/Briz-M resuming launches continues in a dedicated thread
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=12380&mid=275369#M275369
(The link is changed - anik)
Post by: Orlin on 05/09/2008 04:20 am
Thanks.
Post by: input~2 on 05/09/2008 05:58 am
Something may be in the works...
a) On May 2 Echostar withdrew their previous request to the FCC for authorization to dive AMC-14 in the South Pacific
b) AMC-14 perigee has been recently moved up from 775km to 1146km and inclination has been slightly reduced by 2.6 degrees
Post by: Orlin on 05/09/2008 10:15 am
Post by: krrr on 05/12/2008 09:58 pm
Incredible. Do they actually have sufficient propellant to reach GSO without high apogee or lunar encounter scenarios?
Post by: krrr on 05/12/2008 10:14 pm
Post by: risktaker on 05/13/2008 08:24 pm
Post by: krrr on 05/15/2008 08:01 am
Post by: pm1823 on 05/15/2008 09:37 am
Quote
risktaker - 13/5/2008 3:24 PM
Yes, that is what is happening. The US government paid $10m for the satellite after a 100% payout ($192m) for the total loss to SES.
Public source, pls? Or it's insider' info? :)
$192m just too big, and $10m just too small payment for me.
Quote
Mark Rigolle, Chief Financial Officer of SES commented: 'The loss of any satellite is a disappointment, and the failure of AMC-14 means there will be no revenues to come from this programme. However, SES is fully insured for its investment, and there will be no negative P&L impact from the accelerated writedown of AMC-14. We expect to receive the insurance proceeds of approximately USD 150 million in the next few months, thereby enhancing our cash position. The rest of our business in North America and worldwide has no connection with, and is unaffected by, this launch failure.'
Post by: risktaker on 05/21/2008 07:09 pm
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/22/2008 06:26 pm
Quote
risktaker - 21/5/2008 3:09 PM
$150m for SES and $42m for Echostar (who was anchor customer). The purchase amount is in the public record, although not confirmed as being the selected option...see Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMC-14_(satellite)
wiki is not a first source...
It sources an april 23rd spacedaily article as the source on the bid http://www.spacemart.com/reports/SES_Negotiating_To_Sell_AMC-14_To_US_Government_Agency_999.html and does not source the payouts or the counter offer...
So we are back to the origonal question...
Post by: Danderman on 06/25/2008 06:58 pm
Maybe this is old news:
"MOSCOW, June 16, 2008 – The Failure Review Oversight Board (FROB) convened by International Launch Services (ILS) has cleared the Proton Breeze M to return to flight this summer, following its examination of test results and analysis regarding a redesigned engine component."
Post by: Danderman on 07/04/2008 05:25 am
Post by: yinzer on 07/04/2008 06:18 am
OK, something that I am not understanding, there were earlier posts about varying burn times for the Briz-M stage. but it occurred to me that since Briz-M is more or less loaded with the same amount of propellant for each mission, how can burn times vary by much among different missions?
Many short burns vs. fewer long burns. It appears that the problem was an exhaust duct heating up and burning through - it could presumably cool down during coast periods.
Post by: PDJennings on 07/07/2008 02:05 pm
OK, something that I am not understanding, there were earlier posts about varying burn times for the Briz-M stage. but it occurred to me that since Briz-M is more or less loaded with the same amount of propellant for each mission, how can burn times vary by much among different missions?
It has to do with perigee raising strategy for GTO missions. Some missions use an intermediate revolution with apogee altitude ~5000 km. Other missions skip this revolution and rely on a really long perigee burn instead to get apogee all the way to 35786 km. The mission profile depends on payload mass and customer preferences (e.g. mission duration, separation longitude).
Post by: Danderman on 07/09/2008 05:26 am
Post by: PDJennings on 07/09/2008 02:05 pm
The implication is that Briz-M is not really suitable for interplanetary missions, without some unusual mission designs.
Not at all. Launching to GTO (~1500 m/s) from Baikonur is actually harder than a planetary mission in that you have to add a perigee raising/inclination reducing maneuver onto the end of it. That's why Proton missions to GTO are so long (7-9 hours for Block DM or Breeze M).
For a Breeze M planetary mission, you would still use the intermediate revolution, but then burn to depletion at the last perigee crossing, instead of cutting off when Ha = 35786 km. With careful selection of the launch instant, no plane change should be required. The mission duration would even be shorter (~4 hrs).
Proton, or any Russian LV, is well-suited to using a launch instant because they don't use the count and hold rigamarole of US launchers. Launch time is more like an appointment. If you miss it, you are done for the day. Lots of pad is in the schedule to make sure the chance of hitting the launch time is high.
Post by: cneth on 07/09/2008 02:55 pm
Proton, or any Russian LV, is well-suited to using a launch instant because they don't use the count and hold rigamarole of US launchers. Launch time is more like an appointment. If you miss it, you are done for the day. Lots of pad is in the schedule to make sure the chance of hitting the launch time is high.
This is an interesting topic, and one I've long been interested in - is there a thread on the forum already to discuss 'countdown designs?' I'd love to see a discussion of both the history of them as well as how you'd do it if you could start over....
Post by: Danderman on 07/09/2008 03:32 pm
For a Breeze M planetary mission, you would still use the intermediate revolution, but then burn to depletion at the last perigee crossing, instead of cutting off when Ha = 35786 km.
Its that "burn to depletion" part that is the issue.