FAILED: Proton-M launch - AMC-14 - March 14, 2008

• #100 by William Graham on 15 Mar, 2008 10:19
• Do we know if this was the standard or enhanced Proton-M?
• #101 by input~2 on 15 Mar, 2008 10:25
• Presumably AMC-14 perigee is less than 800 km
• #102 by eeergo on 15 Mar, 2008 10:31
• 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 Kyle

  The 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.
• #103 by 8900 on 15 Mar, 2008 10:49
• Do you think that this failure will seriously impact the Russians' launcher business
  I know Soyuz is good, but the heavy launch vehicle Proton repeatedly fail........
  Will the potential customers switch to ArianeV?
• #104 by Svetoslav on 15 Mar, 2008 10:59
• 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.
• #105 by input~2 on 15 Mar, 2008 11:41

• 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" />
  
  

• #106 by Mighty-T on 15 Mar, 2008 13:56
• 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.
• #107 by ASTUTE on 15 Mar, 2008 16:18
• 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.
• #108 by edkyle99 on 15 Mar, 2008 16:46
• Quote

  eeergo - 15/3/2008  6:31 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 Kyle

  The 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
• #109 by Blackstar on 15 Mar, 2008 17:02
• 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.
• #110 by WHAP on 15 Mar, 2008 17:22
• I doubt the Navy would volunteer for this assignment.  Why not ask China to do it?
  
  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?
• #111 by Lee Jay on 15 Mar, 2008 17:43
• I'm just trying to summarize here to see if I have this straight.  The final stage was supposed to provide three burns.  Instead, 2 minutes short of completing the second burn, it shut down prematurely *and* separated the spacecraft.  Is that correct?
• #112 by WHAP on 15 Mar, 2008 17:53
• That's the way I read the reports.
• #113 by Svetoslav on 15 Mar, 2008 18:07
• 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?
• #114 by krrr on 15 Mar, 2008 18:17
• Some back-of-the-envelope calculations:
  
  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.
• #115 by yinzer on 15 Mar, 2008 18:20
• My gut feeling is that something in a 400x28000 km orbit is going to be up there for a while.  I found equations to calculate the perturbations (eccentricity and semi-major axis) on an orbit due to atmospheric drag, but they look like a bit of a pain to solve.
• #116 by Jim on 15 Mar, 2008 18:53
• 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
• #117 by ASTUTE on 15 Mar, 2008 19:02
• 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.
• #118 by kevin-rf on 15 Mar, 2008 19:07
• And as usual, the fact checkers are out to lunch in the popular media...
  
  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."
• #119 by marsavian on 15 Mar, 2008 20:47
• 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