-
#120
by
Jim
on 15 Mar, 2008 21:11
-
ASTUTE - 15/3/2008 4:02 PM
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.
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.
-
#121
by
meiza
on 15 Mar, 2008 22:12
-
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...
-
#122
by
Andrewwski
on 15 Mar, 2008 23:12
-
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:
-
#123
by
WHAP
on 15 Mar, 2008 23:20
-
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.
-
#124
by
edkyle99
on 16 Mar, 2008 03:24
-
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
-
#125
by
Nick L.
on 16 Mar, 2008 03:35
-
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.
-
#126
by
MKremer
on 16 Mar, 2008 04:18
-
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).
-
#127
by
newGuy
on 16 Mar, 2008 18:12
-
Andrewwski - 15/3/2008 7:12 PM
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:
I 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.
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.
-
#128
by
Andrewwski
on 16 Mar, 2008 18:16
-
Yes, I've tried explaining it there. Most people seem to be grasping it fairly well, but some of the posts had me laughing pretty hard. And there was also a post where one member pretty much says that all engineers are stupid.
Anyway, this is really off-topic, so I won't go any further.
-
#129
by
Sid454
on 16 Mar, 2008 18:25
-
The breeze-M upper stage seems to have a high failure rate while proton it's self is a very reliable vehicle.
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 .
-
#130
by
@RD170@
on 16 Mar, 2008 18:35
-
Artemis satelite from ESA recovered from a upper stage launch failure with ion thrusters, with relatively small amount of propellent.
-
#131
by
Sid454
on 16 Mar, 2008 18:39
-
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?
-
#132
by
Sid454
on 16 Mar, 2008 18:42
-
Also comsat was saved by using a double lunar flyby to place it in the right orbit.
-
#133
by
@RD170@
on 16 Mar, 2008 18:50
-
krunichev is developing KVRM upper stage to Angara, but all this problems could accelerate develpment ratio.
Russians prefer develop indigenous technology. All improvements in Proton will be done in Russia.
-
#134
by
@RD170@
on 16 Mar, 2008 18:54
-
KVRM is almost done, because part of this was paid from India ( PSLV ). And now the rest of funding is going to be paid from South Korea KSLV and the rest will be paid from ILS parthners.
-
#135
by
newGuy
on 16 Mar, 2008 19:44
-
Andrewwski: Found the thread you referred to... Agree on your assessment. With only a couple of exceptions, the best and brightest are not involved in that discussion!
-
#136
by
DaveS
on 16 Mar, 2008 19:53
-
Sid454 - 16/3/2008 8:25 PM
Maybe customers should request Roscosmos allow a choice of upper stages including the reliable PAM upper stages.
Not Roscosmos, but ILS(International Launch Services). ILS is responsible for providing the LV, not Roscosmos.
-
#137
by
edkyle99
on 16 Mar, 2008 21:58
-
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
-
#138
by
EE Scott
on 16 Mar, 2008 23:57
-
edkyle99 - 16/3/2008 6:58 PM
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
Looking at those figures, it is remarkable how similar Ariane 5/Atlas 5/Proton/Zenit 3SL success rate has been.
-
#139
by
Jim
on 17 Mar, 2008 00:16
-
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