РКН: КА «Мекссат-1», РН «Протон-М»
Дата запуска: 2 кв. 2015
Страховая сумма (лимит ответственности) млн.руб.: 2 558,10
Страховая премия (максимальный тариф) млн.руб.: 17,9
Launch: satellite Mexsat-1, rocket Proton-M
Launch date: 2nd quarter of 2015
The sum insured (limit of liability), million ruble: 2 558,10
Insurance premium (maximum tariff), million ruble: 17,9
| Operator: | Secretaria de Communicaciones y Transportes México |
| Nation: | Mexico |
| Contractors: | Boeing Satellite Systems |
| Platform: | BSS-702HP |
| Equipment: | L-band, Ku-band transponders |
| Mass: | 5,325 kilogrammes (at launch), 3,200 kilogrammes (start of operation) |
| Service life: | 15 years |
| Launch vehicle: | Proton-M 8К82КМ with improved energy-mass characteristics (phase 3) № 93554 |
| Upper stage: | Briz-M 14С43 with improved energy-mass characteristics (phase 3) № 99555 |
| Fairing: | 15,255 millimetre 14С75 with improved energy-mass characteristics (phase 3) |
| Launch site: | Baikonur 8П882К-4Ф (ПУ № 39) |
| Khrunichev I.L.S. contract: | ILS-SC-1202-686 dated 1st March 2012 |
launch vehicle "Proton-M" and the upper stage "Breeze-M", for the launch of the Mexican satellite Communication «MexSat-1", arrived yesterday to Baikonur Cosmodrome.
tsenki.com (http://www.tsenki.com/news/news_tsenki/?ELEMENT_ID=120129)
Operations on Mexican MexSat-1 Communications Satellite Continue at Baikonur
Intensive pre-launch processing of Proton-M ILV with Breeze-M upper stage and the Mexican MexSat-1 communications satellite continues at Baikonur cosmodrome.
Last Friday, MexSat-1 spacecraft was delivered to the cosmodrome and on Saturday it was unloaded from the container.
Today, foreign experts supported by the teams of FSUE TsENKI division Yuzhny Space Center have started the autonomous tests of the satellite’s systems in the clean room of the assembly, integration, and test building of pad 92A-50 of the cosmodrome.
Proton-M ILV and Breeze-M upper stage, designed for this launch, are undergoing autonomous tests in the same assembly, integration, and test building.
The launch of Proton-M ILV with Breeze-M upper stage and the Mexican MexSat-1 communications satellite is scheduled for late April, 2015.
MexSat-1 (often referred to as MexSat Centenario in the Mexican press) is manufactured upon the order of the Mexican Ministry for Transport and Communications by the American Boeing Satellite Systems. It was built on the basis of the Boeing 702 HP platform, weighs about 5,4 tons and carries retransmission antennas of three ranges. The satellite will be placed into the geostationary orbit to the point of 113° W and provide communications in Mexico and the central part of South America. The satellite is expected to function in orbit for 15 years. The MexSat system is aimed at supplying Mexico’s state and security agencies with land-line and mobile satellite communications. The satellite will also be used to organize telemedical networks, distance education, alert, and communication in emergency situations.
Proton-M ILV and Breeze-M upper stage are manufactured by Moscow Khrunichev center.
As well as other commercial launches, the upcoming launch is provided by International Launch Services, joint Russian-American enterprise, possessing an exclusive right of commercial use of the Russian Proton heavy carrier rocket.
I'm still looking for the launch time on April 29 of this one in vain. Anyone knows this? :-\
we should be correct because we are extremely rarely wrong in our info
Looks like the Baikonur time is the correct one - launch will be at 07:07 UTC
Looks like the Baikonur time is the correct one - launch will be at 07:07 UTC
And the source of this information is...
Launch Date:
May 16, 2015
Launch Time:
11:47 Baikonur
08:47 Moscow
00:47 Mexico
05:47 GMT
01:47 EDT
Launch Site:
Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan
Launch Pad 39
The Proton M launch vehicle, utilizing a 5-burn Breeze M mission design, will lift off from Pad 39 at 13:07 local time (2:07 am Mexico time, 7:07 am GMT) from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, with the Centenario satellite on board. Tminutes after liftoff.
It says right there in the section of the press-release you have quoted.
Launch Date:
May 16, 2015
Launch Time:
11:47 Baikonur
08:47 Moscow
00:47 Mexico
05:47 GMT
01:47 EDT
Launch Site:
Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan
Launch Pad 39
The Proton M launch vehicle, utilizing a 5-burn Breeze M mission design, will lift off from Pad 39 at 13:07 local time (2:07 am Mexico time, 7:07 am GMT) from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, with the Centenario satellite on board. Tminutes after liftoff.
finnaly what time it's the launch ?
Launch Date:
May 16, 2015
Launch Time:
11:47 Baikonur
08:47 Moscow
00:47 Mexico
05:47 GMT
01:47 EDT
Launch Site:
Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan
Launch Pad 39
The Proton M launch vehicle, utilizing a 5-burn Breeze M mission design, will lift off from Pad 39 at 13:07 local time (2:07 am Mexico time, 7:07 am GMT) from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, with the Centenario satellite on board. Tminutes after liftoff.
finnaly what time it's the launch ?
Roscosmos has listed this launch's time as "TBD" since yesterday. :PThe launch is scheduled for May 16 at 05:47 UTC ;) .
14 мая: 03:30-06:30 транспортирование РКН с ТЗП на СК
...
16 мая: 08:47 пуск РКН
Yeah, sounds like they are filling in time. They said before that they have no conformation of 1-2 sep.
Yeah, sounds like they are filling in time. They said before that they have no conformation of 1-2 sep.
I think it was later than that. I heard that one around the T+9 minutes mark....
Moscow. May 16. INTERFAX.RU - During the launch of the Mexican communications satellite MexSat-1 with the help of a rocket "Proton-M" on the 500 seconds of flight there was an emergency situation, the speaker said when reporting on start-up.
During the reporting noted that the first and second stages of the rocket worked normally, the failure occurred during the third stage. Reporting on the start-up has been interrupted.
http://www.interfax.ru/world/442017 (http://www.interfax.ru/world/442017)Is there any chance that the third stage could be re-lit?QuoteMoscow. May 16. INTERFAX.RU - During the launch of the Mexican communications satellite MexSat-1 with the help of a rocket "Proton-M" on the 500 seconds of flight there was an emergency situation, the speaker said when reporting on start-up.
During the reporting noted that the first and second stages of the rocket worked normally, the failure occurred during the third stage. Reporting on the start-up has been interrupted.
Its all over guys.
MOSCOW, May 16. / TASS /. During the flight, the carrier rocket "Proton-M", which was launched today from Baikonur at 08:47 MSK, there was an emergency situation. Told launch commentator, broadcast on the website of Roskosmos.
Abnormal situation has arisen at 08:56 MSK, a minute before the estimated time of separating the upper stage "Briz-M" and the Mexican communications spacecraft "MeksSat-1", which is planned to be put into orbit.
"There was an emergency. The report is over," - said the commentator.
http://www.interfax.ru/world/442017 (http://www.interfax.ru/world/442017)Is there any chance that the third stage could be re-lit?QuoteMoscow. May 16. INTERFAX.RU - During the launch of the Mexican communications satellite MexSat-1 with the help of a rocket "Proton-M" on the 500 seconds of flight there was an emergency situation, the speaker said when reporting on start-up.
During the reporting noted that the first and second stages of the rocket worked normally, the failure occurred during the third stage. Reporting on the start-up has been interrupted.
Its all over guys.
Just seeing if there is any chance it could have survivedhttp://www.interfax.ru/world/442017 (http://www.interfax.ru/world/442017)Is there any chance that the third stage could be re-lit?QuoteMoscow. May 16. INTERFAX.RU - During the launch of the Mexican communications satellite MexSat-1 with the help of a rocket "Proton-M" on the 500 seconds of flight there was an emergency situation, the speaker said when reporting on start-up.
During the reporting noted that the first and second stages of the rocket worked normally, the failure occurred during the third stage. Reporting on the start-up has been interrupted.
Its all over guys.
You kidding me right?
At around 15 seconds... is this normal?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvpbWIQqIG8
http://www.interfax.ru/world/442017 (http://www.interfax.ru/world/442017)QuoteMoscow. May 16. INTERFAX.RU - During the launch of the Mexican communications satellite MexSat-1 with the help of a rocket "Proton-M" on the 500 seconds of flight there was an emergency situation, the speaker said when reporting on start-up.
During the reporting noted that the first and second stages of the rocket worked normally, the failure occurred during the third stage. Reporting on the start-up has been interrupted.
Its all over guys.
At around 15 seconds... is this normal?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvpbWIQqIG8
Do you mean the dark smoke? Yes, that seems to occur during all Proton launches.
Just seeing if there is any chance it could have survivedhttp://www.interfax.ru/world/442017 (http://www.interfax.ru/world/442017)Is there any chance that the third stage could be re-lit?QuoteMoscow. May 16. INTERFAX.RU - During the launch of the Mexican communications satellite MexSat-1 with the help of a rocket "Proton-M" on the 500 seconds of flight there was an emergency situation, the speaker said when reporting on start-up.
During the reporting noted that the first and second stages of the rocket worked normally, the failure occurred during the third stage. Reporting on the start-up has been interrupted.
Its all over guys.
You kidding me right?
Don't worry, going off the assumption that it didn't light between 2-3 sep, not a failure mid burnJust seeing if there is any chance it could have survivedhttp://www.interfax.ru/world/442017 (http://www.interfax.ru/world/442017)Is there any chance that the third stage could be re-lit?QuoteMoscow. May 16. INTERFAX.RU - During the launch of the Mexican communications satellite MexSat-1 with the help of a rocket "Proton-M" on the 500 seconds of flight there was an emergency situation, the speaker said when reporting on start-up.
During the reporting noted that the first and second stages of the rocket worked normally, the failure occurred during the third stage. Reporting on the start-up has been interrupted.
Its all over guys.
You kidding me right?
If the third stage shut down before its time, it did because of some problem. Some thing went kaboom in there. How can it be re-lit?
http://www.interfax.ru/world/442017 (http://www.interfax.ru/world/442017)Almost exactly a year ago, a Proton launch who did carried Ekspress-AM4R failed because the third stage. Its creepy basically almost exactly a year after, now, a similarly situation makes this again failed launch for the Proton.QuoteMoscow. May 16. INTERFAX.RU - During the launch of the Mexican communications satellite MexSat-1 with the help of a rocket "Proton-M" on the 500 seconds of flight there was an emergency situation, the speaker said when reporting on start-up.
During the reporting noted that the first and second stages of the rocket worked normally, the failure occurred during the third stage. Reporting on the start-up has been interrupted.
Its all over guys.
Telemetry indicates that the first burn of BrizM upper stage did start OK in today's #Proton launch. Waiting for confirmation of its status!
ILS: All available data including NORAD info indicates normal flight for #Proton with #MexSat1!
Telemetry display for #Proton launch with #MexSat1 satellite is currently lacking all live data after liftoff.
https://twitter.com/RussianSpaceWeb (https://twitter.com/RussianSpaceWeb)QuoteILS: All available data including NORAD info indicates normal flight for #Proton with #MexSat1!
Moscow. May 16. INTERFAX.RU - During the launch of the Mexican communications satellite MexSat-1 with the help of a rocket "Proton-M" on the 500 seconds of flight there was an emergency situation, the speaker said when reporting on start-up.
During the reporting noted that the first and second stages of the rocket worked normally, the failure occurred during the third stage. Reporting on the start-up has been interrupted.
According to "Interfax" a source in the space industry, while the third stage outage occurs dvgiteley. Possible impact area is stages in the Chita region.
What the hell, some reports are saying everythings fine, some that its crashed. What's going on?A lot of confusion. ILS says they got sources everything still goes well, Russian media says the third stage failed (again in a year time) and we all are confused who to believe because we got no direct proof yet what is going on, especially with no telemetry.
What the hell, some reports are saying everythings fine, some that its crashed. What's going on?
Moscow. May 16. INTERFAX.RU - scheduled for early June launch another rocket "Proton-M" with the British communications satellite "Inmarsat-3-5F" will be postponed until the reasons of emergency rocket launch on May 16 informed "Interfax" in the space industry.
"Start" Proton "suspended, scheduled for early June launch of British satellite will be transferred," - said the agency.
He noted that the investigation into the cause of the accident may take from several weeks to several months.
Source: Mexican satellite MexSat-1 is likely lost
MOSCOW, May 16 - RIA Novosti. The Mexican communications satellite Mexsat-1, which is output into orbit on a Russian rocket "Proton-M" is likely lost as a result of which occurred on Saturday morning emergency situation, he told RIA Novosti source in the space industry .
"Proton-M" with the Mexican MexSat-1 satellite was launched from Baikonur
"Telemetry rocket" Proton "lost about a minute before the offices of the Mexican satellite from the third stage of" Proton ": in 8.56 MSK. Mexican satellite is not separated from the third stage and is likely to be recognized as lost, as not able to carry out its functions due to the fact that the orbit of its removal was to be 36 thousand kilometers, and now he has not received and thousands of kilometers from Earth "- a spokesman said.
http://ria.ru/science/20150516/1064826438.html
Today, May 16, 2015 in the process of launching rocket "Proton-M" satellite "MekSat 1" emergency situation occurred. The reasons are found out.
Also in the morning on May 16, at the appointed time, not including engines TGK "Progress M-26M" to correct the ISS orbit. The reasons are studied by experts Mission Control Center FSUE TsNIIMash.
ROSCOSMOS be informed as more information becomes available.
Now officially from Roscosmos:
http://www.federalspace.ru/21490/ (http://www.federalspace.ru/21490/)QuoteToday, May 16, 2015 in the process of launching rocket "Proton-M" satellite "MekSat 1" emergency situation occurred. The reasons are found out.
Also in the morning on May 16, at the appointed time, not including engines TGK "Progress M-26M" to correct the ISS orbit. The reasons are studied by experts Mission Control Center FSUE TsNIIMash.
ROSCOSMOS be informed as more information becomes available.
Now official!
This is terrible for ILS and the Russian space industry as they didn't need another failure!
So 3rd stage eh? In the wake of finding metal debris in the 3rd stage that was to launch Express AM8 last month, anyone wanna bet on this causing this accident? ::)Was it ever verified to any degree that FOD in the vehicle caused the turbo failure on the AJ26? Just curious because I am not sure they ever said (or that they will ever know/bother to know in that case)
(as Antares shows, additional checks on debris does not always guarantee that any debris on the other rockets can be cleared off)
Some experts suppose that one of the causes of the malfunction could be the failure of the steering engine, the same glitch which caused the crash of the same launch vehicle exactly one year ago carrying what would have been Russia’s most advanced and powerful satellite, Express-AM4R.
There will be lots of speculation and very little data to go by. It will be easy to blame a manufacturing defect or debris in a line (workmanship) problem without telemetry...Or the satellite, since this was the first flight of this type of satellite on this launch vehicle. The failure occurred 143 or more seconds after payload fairing jettison was supposed to occur.
There will be lots of speculation and very little data to go by. It will be easy to blame a manufacturing defect or debris in a line (workmanship) problem without telemetry...Or the satellite, since this was the first flight of this type of satellite on this launch vehicle. The failure occurred 143 or more seconds after payload fairing jettison was supposed to occur.
Or it could be that the reported telemetry loss time and stage loss time are being misreport this early after the flight.
- Ed Kyle
Oops. You're right, and specific to this satellite, this is the second Boeing 702HP GEM model with the giant mesh L-band reflector to fly on Proton, the previous being SkyTerra 1 in 2010. MexSat 1 is actually SkyTerra 2, rebuilt, according to Gunter.There will be lots of speculation and very little data to go by. It will be easy to blame a manufacturing defect or debris in a line (workmanship) problem without telemetry...Or the satellite, since this was the first flight of this type of satellite on this launch vehicle. The failure occurred 143 or more seconds after payload fairing jettison was supposed to occur.
Or it could be that the reported telemetry loss time and stage loss time are being misreport this early after the flight.
- Ed Kyle
There have been quite a few flights of Proton with the BSS-702 before today.
Anatoly Zak @RussianSpaceWeb
Pre-launch processing of ill-fated #Proton rocket on pad was cut from usual 5 days for unexplained reasons.
QuoteAnatoly Zak @RussianSpaceWeb
Pre-launch processing of ill-fated #Proton rocket on pad was cut from usual 5 days for unexplained reasons.
Oh boy...
A component failure or design flaw is one thing, but fundamental problems like corruption, or over-working employees is a much more disappointing and preventable error. Unfortunately, the Russian space program seems to have both corruption and overwork.QuoteAnatoly Zak @RussianSpaceWeb
Pre-launch processing of ill-fated #Proton rocket on pad was cut from usual 5 days for unexplained reasons.
Oh boy...
QuoteAnatoly Zak @RussianSpaceWeb
Pre-launch processing of ill-fated #Proton rocket on pad was cut from usual 5 days for unexplained reasons.
Oh boy...
I am sure, that insurance companies are starting to really hate Proton.........
Let's hope this is just my cynicism and not some deeper issue that Putin and Rogozin promised to fix years ago.
Trans-Baikal Territory authorities are gathering information and do not yet have data on the site of the crash of the third stage of "Proton", said Deputy Prime Minister Gennady edge Chupin.
"Conducts a survey of the local population, including in remote villages", - said the deputy prime minister, "Interfax" on Saturday.
Earlier sources said that in the area of the third stage booster rocket "Proton-M", launched on Saturday from Baikonur, there was an emergency situation .
On Saturday, it was reported that is planned for the beginning of June next launch rocket "Proton-M" with the British communications satellite "Inmarsat-3-5F" will be postponed until the reasons of emergency rocket launch May 16.
(as Antares shows, additional checks on debris does not always guarantee that any debris on the other rockets can be cleared off)
...
I can easily imagine ILS effectively collapsing once Long March 5 starts flying.
Gunter is incorrect here. The Mexsat GEMs were new builds, SkyTerra-2 is in storage while its owner works to come out of bankruptcy.Oops. You're right, and specific to this satellite, this is the second Boeing 702HP GEM model with the giant mesh L-band reflector to fly on Proton, the previous being SkyTerra 1 in 2010. MexSat 1 is actually SkyTerra 2, rebuilt, according to Gunter.There will be lots of speculation and very little data to go by. It will be easy to blame a manufacturing defect or debris in a line (workmanship) problem without telemetry...Or the satellite, since this was the first flight of this type of satellite on this launch vehicle. The failure occurred 143 or more seconds after payload fairing jettison was supposed to occur.
Or it could be that the reported telemetry loss time and stage loss time are being misreport this early after the flight.
- Ed Kyle
There have been quite a few flights of Proton with the BSS-702 before today.
- Ed Kyle
Hate to say it like this because I don't wish ill will on anyone but, more business for spacex/ULA's NGLS/ATK?QuoteAnatoly Zak @RussianSpaceWeb
Pre-launch processing of ill-fated #Proton rocket on pad was cut from usual 5 days for unexplained reasons.
Oh boy...
Great. First the Progress failure, now a Proton rocket's third stage malfunctioned, dooming MEXSAT 1. What a month it has been. >:(And apparently an vernier malfunction or data problem during an attempted progress based reboost on ISS 24 hours before this.....
I am going to be willing to bet however, that several contracts with proton may be nixed or backed out of after this.
What about Mitsubishi?I am going to be willing to bet however, that several contracts with proton may be nixed or backed out of after this.
Space News notes that ILS's contracted customers have 'no Plan-B'. ULA are rationing out launches right now due to various supply issues (most notably, Congress trying to block RD-180 purchases). SpaceX and Arianespace are booked solid into 2017 at least. Any delays could be in the order of half a decade or more; some satellite companies wouldn't be able to survive that.
That said, I'm thinking that insurance for a satellite launch on Soyuz-2-1A and Proton-M are going to creep up in cost a mite.
I am going to be willing to bet however, that several contracts with proton may be nixed or backed out of after this.
Space News notes that ILS's contracted customers have 'no Plan-B'. ULA are rationing out launches right now due to various supply issues (most notably, Congress trying to block RD-180 purchases). SpaceX and Arianespace are booked solid into 2017 at least. Any delays could be in the order of half a decade or more; some satellite companies wouldn't be able to survive that.
That said, I'm thinking that insurance for a satellite launch on Soyuz-2-1A and Proton-M are going to creep up in cost a mite.
Besides, Morelos is already flying on Atlas V, so no integration cost.I am going to be willing to bet however, that several contracts with proton may be nixed or backed out of after this.
Space News notes that ILS's contracted customers have 'no Plan-B'. ULA are rationing out launches right now due to various supply issues (most notably, Congress trying to block RD-180 purchases). SpaceX and Arianespace are booked solid into 2017 at least. Any delays could be in the order of half a decade or more; some satellite companies wouldn't be able to survive that.
That said, I'm thinking that insurance for a satellite launch on Soyuz-2-1A and Proton-M are going to creep up in cost a mite.
I hate the RD-180 "ban" as much as anybody, but I don't think it's holding LMCLS back. Orb-4 got an Atlas less than 2 weeks after the Antares failure. Congestion at SLC-41 might be an issue. They're already busy and have the crew access tower construction to negotiate as well.
I hope the Russian politicians try to fix the problems, rather than just manage appearances and blame.
There is clearly a serious problem at Khrunichev, mostly due to the reality that the original designers are gone, and there are not have adequate replacements. This is likely due to the near collapse of the industry in the 1990s, with an entire generation of workers either being laid off or moving to other industries due to economic factors.I wonder if they didn't put their A team on Angara and what's little left, was put to keep churning Protons. Obviously accelerating Angara might be the right answer in that case.
Korolev is probably rolling over in his grave...
If I'm counting right, this puts Proton's failure rate well over 10% since 2010.Eight Proton or Proton upper stage failures since 2010 inclusive, a period that has seen 53 Proton launches. It was also the 48th failure in 404 Proton flights all-time. Proton failed less than half as often during the 1990-2009 period (11 failures in 169 launches) as during this decade. Note that the increasing failure rates have coincided with phase-in of Proton M/Briz M.
Korolev is probably rolling over in his grave...
It is time to retire Proton-M immediately and replace it with Angara 5. Proton-M is far too unreliable for launching expensive comsats.
Have they found the wreckage yet? They might not find much as the vehicle was at over 100mi when the engine prematurely shut down and the apogee was probably even higher. As with Progress-59, this LOM investigation will likely have to rely on what little telemetry that they have and engineers' brainstorming meetings.Who would you consider to be of the caliber of “Chief Designer” today?Korolev is probably rolling over in his grave...
After the loss of Mars 1, Korolev made one of the first 'space is hard' comments (although in his usual flowery and poetic language). He also was reluctant to cooperate with finger-pointing investigations, even when his own head was on the chopping block.
Before everyone jumps on the Proton is unreliable, time for Angara 5 bandwagon. Doesn't the Angara 5 also use the Briz M? Briz M which has been implicated in more than it's fair share of recent failures.
Have they found the wreckage yet? They might not find much as the vehicle was at over 100mi when the engine prematurely shut down and the apogee was probably even higher. As with Progress-59, this LOM investigation will likely have to rely on what little telemetry that they have and engineers' brainstorming meetings.Who would you consider to be of the caliber of “Chief Designer” today?Korolev is probably rolling over in his grave...
After the loss of Mars 1, Korolev made one of the first 'space is hard' comments (although in his usual flowery and poetic language). He also was reluctant to cooperate with finger-pointing investigations, even when his own head was on the chopping block.
I'm trying to get a clearer picture. Given the recent spate of "bad luck", and the bizarre coincidence of 3rd stage issues.
Are both the Proton and Soyuz using the same 3rd stage?
Are both vehicles assembled in the same building and/or by the same people?
That has been the Russians problem, after Korolev died they had to many Chief Designers. They could never put all there resources into one project.
Before everyone jumps on the Proton is unreliable, time for Angara 5 bandwagon. Doesn't the Angara 5 also use the Briz M? Briz M which has been implicated in more than it's fair share of recent failures.
And Angara has just performed 2 flights, so it is a little bit early to speak about Angara's reliability.
If Proton's problems come from problems inside the organisation (quality control, underpayment, over-working, loss of experienced workers, etc.), it is likely, that these problems might as well affect Angara in the same way.
It was actually a manufacturing documentation issue. It didn't stated through which of two possible paths to take the helium lines. And if it was routed next to the hydrazine line, on very long coast missions, it could freeze the hydrazine. It was random placement and it had to be a special mission. It's the sort of mistake that's very difficult to catch before hand. But it is a serious process failure. Given that it had something like 45 missions before, it's the sort of error that might happen. Gyros places incorrectly are not.Before everyone jumps on the Proton is unreliable, time for Angara 5 bandwagon. Doesn't the Angara 5 also use the Briz M? Briz M which has been implicated in more than it's fair share of recent failures.
And Angara has just performed 2 flights, so it is a little bit early to speak about Angara's reliability.
If Proton's problems come from problems inside the organisation (quality control, underpayment, over-working, loss of experienced workers, etc.), it is likely, that these problems might as well affect Angara in the same way.
The Briz M does seem to have some reliability issues the question is are they QM or design related.
The Fregat supposedly had a design flaw where a a support that held both a hydrazine and helium lines acted as a thermal bridge causing the hydrazine to freeze under certain conditions.
I'm expecting Rogozin on site to "improve morale (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV2DLkDPwM8)" at Khrunichev.
Details on the failed missile test? I had not seen it in the regular spin cycle.
We should look to start a thread covering the Russian failures debate, while stressing everyone's gone through a bad period (been seeing those historical threads about those Titan failures in a row, etc.)I have started a thread for this
A central thread will allow the specific threads to stay specific. So if someone wants to set that up, probably in the Russian section as our Russian friends will have good input.
No pattern. 2015 Is rapidly becoming for Russia what 1986 was for USA.I'm expecting Rogozin on site to "improve morale (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV2DLkDPwM8)" at Khrunichev.
You know this is the 3rd Russian failure in a number of weeks.
Progress
1 missile test.
Pattern ?
2015 Is rapidly becoming for Russia what 1986 was for USA.
Details on the failed missile test? I had not seen it in the regular spin cycle.
Russian S300 Missile Fails to Launch
http://www.military.com/video/guided-missiles/surface-to-air/russian-s300-missile-fails-to-launch/4187044289001/
Neither 100% sure that this is the video of the incident a couple of weeks ago nor that it was for sure a S300. From what I read, it was a test of a surface-to-air-missile out of Plesetsk which failed. This is in contrast to the hint on the linked site, which mentiones Ukraine. Maybe someone else has better information.
A first attempt to turn on the Progress engines early Saturday failed"
Its this Progress failure that peaks my interest.
Discussion of the aborted Progress M-26M reboost burn begins here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36315.msg1374992#msg1374992A first attempt to turn on the Progress engines early Saturday failed"
Its this Progress failure that peaks my interest.
This some info on this on the ISS Expedition-43 thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36315.0).
2015 Is rapidly becoming for Russia what 1986 was for USA.
2015 is rapidly becoming for Russia what 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 were... for Russia !
Me too. I'm writing up the Progress reboost article.
I forgot to add the Soyuz flights from Kourou! Updated table.
Year Russia US
2011 4/0/35 1/0/15
2012 1/1/29 0/1/13
2013 2/0/35 0/0/19
2014 1/2/37 1/0/23
2015 2/0/10 0/0/ 9
Failures/Partial Failures/Total
That gives a slightly better failure rate of 7.9% for Russia. The US is still the same at 3.2%.
If you look at companies rather than countries, the best probably is ULA and MHI, then SpaceX and Arianespace, I would give a special mention to NPO Energomash, too. RSC Progress, RSC Energyia, KbKhA, Orbital ATK and CASC are probably a second pack. And Yuzhnoye and Khrunichev are at the bottom.I forgot to add the Soyuz flights from Kourou! Updated table.
Year Russia US
2011 4/0/35 1/0/15
2012 1/1/29 0/1/13
2013 2/0/35 0/0/19
2014 1/2/37 1/0/23
2015 2/0/10 0/0/ 9
Failures/Partial Failures/Total
That gives a slightly better failure rate of 7.9% for Russia. The US is still the same at 3.2%.
If my Google-Fu is certain, both 2011 and 2014 U.S. failures came from Taurus XL and Antares vehicles--both Orbital/Orbital ATK vehicles, but from different causes. ULA and its competitors have a sparkling record thus far.
Something that doesn't seems to be discussed yet is the history of this Proton rocket (#935-54) - to which Andrey found out using the long serial numbers in the NK forum (http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum12/topic13651/message1377093/).
It turns out that its long serial number - 5116907974 - did show that it was completed in 2015 ("69" being the year number and "974" the block serial number - here Stan Black et al. can elaborate), BUT interestingly it directly follows the ill-fated Proton launching Express-AM4R 365 days ago, with its # being 5114877973 (despite the "48" showing it to be completed in 2013)!
This, combined with the serial number of the 3rd stage RD-0212 engine under scrutiny (5354855312) as shown in a (now retracted) news report from the Russian newspaper Izvestia (which correctly reported that the engine was completed in 2013), seems to point to the engines from both failures being from the same batch! ::)
Could this be yet another of spaceflight failures that slipped past the investigators the first time? (won't be surprised since even Orbital did that.....) :-X
4925146738 / 93527
739 /
5113656740 / 93528
6303656741 / 93529
4923656742 / 93530
5113656743 / 93531
6303656744 / 93532
4923656745 / 93533
5115656746 / 93534
6305656747 / 93535
4925656748 / 93536
5115656749 / 93537
6305656750 / 93538
4925656751 / 93539
/
4925106752 / 53541
6305106753 / 53542
5115106754 / 53543
/
5118877968 / 93540
6308877969 / 93541
4928877970 / 93542
5118877971 / 93543
/
4924877972 / 93544
5114877973 / 93545
7974 /
6304287975 / 93546
4924287976 / 93547
5114287977 / 93548
6304287978 / 93549
4924287979 / 93550
5118287980 / 93551
6308287981 / 93552
/
/ 93553
/
5116907974 / 93554
Something that doesn't seems to be discussed yet is the history of this Proton rocket (#935-54) - to which Andrey found out using the long serial numbers in the NK forum (http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum12/topic13651/message1377093/).
It turns out that its long serial number - 5116907974 - did show that it was completed in 2015 ("69" being the year number and "974" the block serial number - here Stan Black et al. can elaborate), BUT interestingly it directly follows the ill-fated Proton launching Express-AM4R 365 days ago, with its # being 5114877973 (despite the "48" showing it to be completed in 2013)!
Where have you found this list?
http://www.federalspace.ru/21506/Для обнаружения возможных последствий от падения осколков РН «Протон-М» 16 мая 2015 года РОСКОСМОС организовал мониторинг предполагаемого района падения всеми имеющимися космическими средствами наблюдения. Космическая съемка района проводилась 17, 18, 19, и 20 мая высокодетальными космическими аппаратами Ресурс-П №№ 1 и 2 и Канопус –В № 1. К проведению съемки привлекался также белорусский КА ДЗЗ – «БКА».
So they are saying no debris on the ground was spotted? Interesting how they used assets to check, so that's interesting and thus I would like to write it up.
http://www.federalspace.ru/21506/Для обнаружения возможных последствий от падения осколков РН «Протон-М» 16 мая 2015 года РОСКОСМОС организовал мониторинг предполагаемого района падения всеми имеющимися космическими средствами наблюдения. Космическая съемка района проводилась 17, 18, 19, и 20 мая высокодетальными космическими аппаратами Ресурс-П №№ 1 и 2 и Канопус –В № 1. К проведению съемки привлекался также белорусский КА ДЗЗ – «БКА».
So they are saying no debris on the ground was spotted? Interesting how they used assets to check, so that's interesting and thus I would like to write it up.
В период 17.05.2015 – 20.05.2015 выполнена космическая съемка района в Забайкальском крае (центральная точка с координатами: 50-41-36 сш, 110-26-36 вд). Всего выполнено 5 маршрутов съемки.
Материалы тщательно проанализированы сотрудниками Оператора космических средств ДЗЗ РОСКОСМОСа – в результате детального изучения полученных снимков признаков падения элементов РН «Протон-М» на поверхность Земли не выявлено.
Roscosmos organized the monitoring of expected debris area by all available space assets to detect aftermath of possible debris hits. Imaging was performed on 17, 18, 19 20 May by high resolution spacecraft Resource-P 1 and 2, Canopus-B 1 and also belarussian spacecraft D33 "BKA".
During 17.05.2015-20.05.2015 the trans Baikal area (center 50-41-36 N, 110-26-36 W) was imaged in 5 passes/strips. The images were thoroughly analyzed by D33 payload operators in ROSCOSMOS. After the detailed analysis no Proton-M debris hits evidence were found.
Source says Russian rocket crash caused by human error
http://tass.ru/en/russia/796547
[...]
According to him, the emergencies commission working at the Khrunichev Centre (Proton manufacturer) has exposed a number of violations in the carrier rocket production. "This is, undoubtedly, a human error. The fault occurred in the rocket manufacturing process," he said.
Here's a short article based on the Roscosmos findings, allowing us to give a bit of a hat tip to the four spacecraft used:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/russian-spacecraft-no-ground-impacts-failed-proton-m/
The problem is that this isn't the first serious set of manufacturing defects identified at this factory in very recent history. It must raise uncomfortable questions in certain circles about the culture and discipline of the management and workforce.That would be like arresting seismologists for not predicting an earthquake. The only reason you get arrested is because their overlord who controls the so called justice apparatus, doesn't like you. I expect alot of barking and other public show off, followed by no actual improvement. The guys running this show don't care about actual launches to space, they only care about fighting each other in the zero-sum game about other's money which is politics.
The problem is that this isn't the first serious set of manufacturing defects identified at this factory in very recent history. It must raise uncomfortable questions in certain circles about the culture and discipline of the management and workforce.That would be like arresting seismologists for not predicting an earthquake. The only reason you get arrested is because their overlord who controls the so called justice apparatus, doesn't like you. I expect alot of barking and other public show off, followed by no actual improvement. The guys running this show don't care about actual launches to space, they only care about fighting each other in the zero-sum game about other's money which is politics.
If the next Russian launch fails too, which I think is scheduled to be the already over two months delayed spy sat "Kvarts" on a Soyuz launch June 5th, it would look really bad. Much is at stake for the Russian space organizations now.
Peter B. de Selding @pbdes 2m2 minutes ago
Roscosmos: May 16 Proton failure caused by degradation at high temp of 3rd stage engine turbopump. Also ID'd: lack of quality control.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/604334599112671232 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/604334599112671232)
Peter B. de Selding @pbdes 2m2 minutes ago
Roscosmos: May 16 Proton failure caused by degradation at high temp of 3rd stage engine turbopump. Also ID'd: lack of quality control.
https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/604334599112671232 (https://twitter.com/pbdes/status/604334599112671232)
The original press release is here: http://www.roscosmos.ru/21511/ (http://www.roscosmos.ru/21511/)
Sounds like the 3rd stage vernier engine turbopump has problems with the inside material coatings at high temperatures that caused it to vibrate beyond its capabilities and the system was unable to recover the imbalance.
I wonder if it's the same failure as the one last year (although they blamed the vernier connection to the thrust frame on that one, which could have been a down-stream failure?).....
With no hardware recovered, I'm a little surprised they were able to narrow it down to this one thing. If somebody who can read Russian can find and summarize the evidence for the conclusion, it would make interesting reading.
I don't know enough about Proton to know whether the vernier engines have their own turbopump, or operate as an integrated system with the main engine, and therefore share the turbopump.Here's a good overview. The verniers share a turbopump that is separate from the main engine.
Seem to recall that it also was under consideration as a high energy US (High Energy Second Stage - HESS):That was the KbKhA's RD-0124, a completely different engine. It's a ORSC RG-1/LOX engine with four nozzles and no verniers.
Space industry giants Orbital upbeat ahead of Antares debut (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/02/orbital-upbeat-ahead-of-antares-debut/)
On May 29, 2015, Roskosmos announced the results of the investigation into the MexSat-1 launch failure. According to the official statement, the steering engine of the third stage failed due to excessive vibration loads, which had been caused by an increasing imbalance of the rotor in the turbopump. The problem was linked to the degradation of the material of the rotor under the influence of high temperatures and to the poor balancing system. The failure was characterized as a design flaw.
According to the agency, the head of Roskosmos Igor Komarov directed GKNPTs Khrunichev and its branches to develop a plan of measures aimed to resolve the issue, including:
To replace the material making up the shaft of the turbopump rotor;
To upgrade procedures for balancing the turbopump rotor;
To upgrade the attachment of the steering engine turbopump to the framework of the main engine.
The agency also announced that the investigation had revealed a number of problems in the management of the quality control issues within the wider industry and promised to develop a plan of measures to resolve them within a month. The launch date for the next Proton mission would be announced in June 2015, Roskosmos said.
During a briefing with reporters on the same day, Deputy Head of Roskosmos, Aleksandr Ivanov said that the quick identification of the culprit in the MexSat-1 failure had become possible thanks to measures taken during a similar Proton accident exactly a year earlier. At the time, the route cause of the failure was mistakenly characterized as a production defect, triggering a massive inspection and re-certification of already manufactured hardware at the Voronezh Mechanical Plant, VMZ. However in addition, new vibration sensors were installed in the turbopump of the engine for future launches. The telemetry from those sensors complemented by ground tests, including a live firing of the engine, enabled to finally re-qualify the issue as an old design flaw rather than poor production. As it turned out, under certain border-line conditions, the shaft of the turbopump tends to fail, even though, it had actually happened in just three launches out of more than 400 Proton missions since 1965.
Aleksandr Medvedev, First Deputy Director at GKNPTs Khrunichev, confirmed during the briefing that the Proton failure on Jan. 18, 1988, had also stemmed from the same design flaw. However, at the time, the rocket completely lacked vibration load sensors and investigators had to work in the dark in search for a culprit, Ivanov added.
The failed rocket of 2014 did carry some vibration sensors on the frame of the engine, however that location turned out to be too far from the turbopump to correctly pinpoint the problem, Ivanov explained. Moreover, investigators into the 2014 failure were under the influence of preceding accidents, which prompted them to focus on the production defects and quality control issues. (In 2013, Proton failed seconds after liftoff due to wrong installation of flight control sensors. In 2010, Proton plunged into the ocean due to mishandling of the fueling procedures.)
Medvedev assured that despite very careful examination of the quality control procedures, no violations of the established process had been found this time. According to Medvedev, the telemetry from the mission provided a very clear picture of the accident, while production and testing of the rocket before the flight caused most controversy. Despite that, all 34 members of the investigative commission, working on seven different aspects of the accident, ultimately came to a consensus, Medvedev said.
In his turn, Ivanov assured that the newly available information allows to fully remedy the problem. According to Komarov, the new material for the failed rotor shaft had already been identified in the wake of the May 2014 failure.
According to Medvedev, officials also concluded that the turbopump attachment system had contributed to the failure and would have to be redesigned.
Unfortunately, investigators were not able to find surviving fragments of the actual turbopump, which caused the MexSat-1 failure, at the crash site in Eastern Russia, Medvedev said. He added, that the crash site was apparently affected by fire and the effort to recover the hardware would continue. The examining the hardware would draw a line under the accident.
If redesign is needed, what is the chance of Proton being scrapped, at least for commercial launches? Satelite operators are already unlikely to give it more contracts anyway - due to high cost of insurance and high risk of failure?
Any estimates, how long would redesign take and what would be the cost?
If redesign is needed, what is the chance of Proton being scrapped, at least for commercial launches? Satelite operators are already unlikely to give it more contracts anyway - due to high cost of insurance and high risk of failure?
Any estimates, how long would redesign take and what would be the cost?
I doubt they can afford to scrap it for commercial launches at this time.
If redesign is needed, what is the chance of Proton being scrapped, at least for commercial launches? Satelite operators are already unlikely to give it more contracts anyway - due to high cost of insurance and high risk of failure?
Any estimates, how long would redesign take and what would be the cost?
I doubt they can afford to scrap it for commercial launches at this time.
It may not be entirely in their hands - with high insurance cost, cost of commercial Proton launch might be too high (considering high failure rates), so contracts are much much more likely to go to Arianespace and SpaceX.
If redesign is needed, what is the chance of Proton being scrapped, at least for commercial launches? Satelite operators are already unlikely to give it more contracts anyway - due to high cost of insurance and high risk of failure?
Any estimates, how long would redesign take and what would be the cost?
I doubt they can afford to scrap it for commercial launches at this time.
It may not be entirely in their hands - with high insurance cost, cost of commercial Proton launch might be too high (considering high failure rates), so contracts are much much more likely to go to Arianespace and SpaceX.
But can satellite owners swap launchers that easily especially if they need their payloads to be operating by certain dates?
......
Finally, expect that the next commercial Proton launch will not be the next launch. I'm sure insurers would like to see at least one successful Proton launch before insuring a Proton payload. Rate increases are spread throughout the satellite insurance industry (have to correct for the lost money as quickly as possible). These increases will not be as much as some people seem to think since it won't just be Proton insurance rates that increase. Proton insurance rates were already high, so it would be hard to make those rates much higher without causing some Proton launches to become "self-insured". If a satellite is self-insured, the insurance industry receives no premiums, which does not help it recover from paying out on MexSat-1.
Andy
If redesign is needed, what is the chance of Proton being scrapped, at least for commercial launches? Satelite operators are already unlikely to give it more contracts anyway - due to high cost of insurance and high risk of failure?
Any estimates, how long would redesign take and what would be the cost?
I doubt they can afford to scrap it for commercial launches at this time.
It may not be entirely in their hands - with high insurance cost, cost of commercial Proton launch might be too high (considering high failure rates), so contracts are much much more likely to go to Arianespace and SpaceX.
But can satellite owners swap launchers that easily especially if they need their payloads to be operating by certain dates?
I am not talking about already signed contracts - we already know, that both Arianespace and SpaceX have full plate for the next 2 years. But any new commercial lauch contracts are current rather unlikely, to be awarded to Proton/ILS.
The report is interesting in that, unlike what was reported during the live broadcast, telemetry was flowing at the time of the accident. It seems that only ILS was not getting telemetry during much of ascent. That's an interesting coincidence.It may be that only real-time telemetry was lost. That is, either the network used to distribute telemetry from the ground stations was (partially) down, or else the signal was weak/corrupt but the raw signal was still recorded, and later postprocessing was able to pull relevant data out.
......
Finally, expect that the next commercial Proton launch will not be the next launch. I'm sure insurers would like to see at least one successful Proton launch before insuring a Proton payload. Rate increases are spread throughout the satellite insurance industry (have to correct for the lost money as quickly as possible). These increases will not be as much as some people seem to think since it won't just be Proton insurance rates that increase. Proton insurance rates were already high, so it would be hard to make those rates much higher without causing some Proton launches to become "self-insured". If a satellite is self-insured, the insurance industry receives no premiums, which does not help it recover from paying out on MexSat-1.
Andy
If I am an insurance company and someone asks me to insure satelite launch worth $400M on a vehicle with 15% failure rate, you can bet your house, that insurance will be over 15% of value of potential payout, because insurance companies are not willing to lose the money on its contracts. For insurance company, not getting a contract, is a much more preferable, than statistical certainty, of losing money on such contract.
Also, since insurance business isnt a monopoly, ability to spread a loss to other customers (launching on Arianespace and SpaceX rockets) is fairly limited.
And, 15% is still better than 5/6th successful and certainly not a "statistical certainty" of failure. If the premiums are high enough, then many companies would cover that bet. Again, self-insurance is always an option.......
Finally, expect that the next commercial Proton launch will not be the next launch. I'm sure insurers would like to see at least one successful Proton launch before insuring a Proton payload. Rate increases are spread throughout the satellite insurance industry (have to correct for the lost money as quickly as possible). These increases will not be as much as some people seem to think since it won't just be Proton insurance rates that increase. Proton insurance rates were already high, so it would be hard to make those rates much higher without causing some Proton launches to become "self-insured". If a satellite is self-insured, the insurance industry receives no premiums, which does not help it recover from paying out on MexSat-1.
Andy
If I am an insurance company and someone asks me to insure satelite launch worth $400M on a vehicle with 15% failure rate, you can bet your house, that insurance will be over 15% of value of potential payout, because insurance companies are not willing to lose the money on its contracts. For insurance company, not getting a contract, is a much more preferable, than statistical certainty, of losing money on such contract.
Also, since insurance business isnt a monopoly, ability to spread a loss to other customers (launching on Arianespace and SpaceX rockets) is fairly limited.
I wonder. In recent years Khrunichev has been more and more "enhancing" Proton M to squeeze more GTO performance. Could the shaving of a few kg in the bracket holding the turbopump, or of some associated structure, have allowed more vibration modes?If the 1988 failure was due to the same root cause, it seems that recent changes are not (solely) to blame.
- Ed Kyle
Hers's Anatoly Zak's report:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/mexsat1.html#outcome (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/mexsat1.html#outcome)QuoteAleksandr Medvedev, First Deputy Director at GKNPTs Khrunichev, confirmed during the briefing that the Proton failure on Jan. 18, 1988, had also stemmed from the same design flaw. However, at the time, the rocket completely lacked vibration load sensors and investigators had to work in the dark in search for a culprit, Ivanov added.
I wonder. In recent years Khrunichev has been more and more "enhancing" Proton M to squeeze more GTO performance. Could the shaving of a few kg in the bracket holding the turbopump, or of some associated structure, have allowed more vibration modes?
- Ed Kyle
The telemetry from those sensors complemented by ground tests, including a live firing of the engine, enabled to finally re-qualify the issue as an old design flaw rather than poor production. As it turned out, under certain border-line conditions, an improperly balanced shaft of the turbopump tends to excessively vibrate, deform and fail. Investigators determined that the same problem doomed three launches out of more than 400 Proton missions since 1965.
The trick is knowing what to look for, I expect. It's a very rare failure mode.
The report is interesting in that, unlike what was reported during the live broadcast, telemetry was flowing at the time of the accident. It seems that only ILS was not getting telemetry during much of ascent. That's an interesting coincidence.
Spaceflight now article on turbo pump design flaw blamed for failure.
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/06/01/roscosmos-design-flaw-brought-down-proton-rocket/
4. Направить в Роскосмос предложения о необходимости финансирования проведения работ по двигателю 8Д611 вследствие произошедших в 2013 и 2014 годах аварийных пусков РН «Протон-М»;http://www.e-disclosure.ru/portal/FileLoad.ashx?Fileid=1094198
Someone help translate please!From google translate it would seem a request for funds to Roscosmos to redesign (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/mexsat1.html#outcome) the RD-0214 turbopump that was found to be unreliable in the failed MexSat-1 launch. That's the Proton-M third stage engine vernier engine, with the RD-0213 make the RD-0212 propulsion module. I have it as the 8D811, both from astronautix and lpre.de, so I guess they made a typo?
From KBKhA annual report:-Quote4. Направить в Роскосмос предложения о необходимости финансирования проведения работ по двигателю 8Д611 вследствие произошедших в 2013 и 2014 годах аварийных пусков РН «Протон-М»;http://www.e-disclosure.ru/portal/FileLoad.ashx?Fileid=1094198
The 8Д611 is the steering engine.
Someone help translate please!From google translate it would seem a request for funds to Roscosmos to redesign (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/mexsat1.html#outcome) the RD-0214 turbopump that was found to be unreliable in the failed MexSat-1 launch. That's the Proton-M third stage engine vernier engine, with the RD-0213 make the RD-0212 propulsion module. I have it as the 8D811, both from astronautix and lpre.de, so I guess they made a typo?
From KBKhA annual report:-Quote4. Направить в Роскосмос предложения о необходимости финансирования проведения работ по двигателю 8Д611 вследствие произошедших в 2013 и 2014 годах аварийных пусков РН «Протон-М»;http://www.e-disclosure.ru/portal/FileLoad.ashx?Fileid=1094198
The 8Д611 is the steering engine.
The engine for the launch failure in 2014 was manufactured in 2013.Someone help translate please!From google translate it would seem a request for funds to Roscosmos to redesign (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/mexsat1.html#outcome) the RD-0214 turbopump that was found to be unreliable in the failed MexSat-1 launch. That's the Proton-M third stage engine vernier engine, with the RD-0213 make the RD-0212 propulsion module. I have it as the 8D811, both from astronautix and lpre.de, so I guess they made a typo?
From KBKhA annual report:-Quote4. Направить в Роскосмос предложения о необходимости финансирования проведения работ по двигателю 8Д611 вследствие произошедших в 2013 и 2014 годах аварийных пусков РН «Протон-М»;http://www.e-disclosure.ru/portal/FileLoad.ashx?Fileid=1094198
The 8Д611 is the steering engine.
It is the reference to 2013 I am not sure about.
I have it as the 8D811, both from astronautix and lpre.de, so I guess they made a typo?
I'm really interested in solving this conundrum. Can Nicolas, Anik, Fregat or Russianhalo get an authoritative answer? I've wrote the Wikipedia article on the RD-0214 and I want to get all facts right.I have it as the 8D811, both from astronautix and lpre.de, so I guess they made a typo?
Hmmm... I have 8D611 on my website...
http://www.kosmonavtika.com/lanceurs/proton/partie2/3.html