-
#180 by anik on 02 Apr, 2008 15:52
-
http://www.ilslaunch.com/proton-return-to-flight-communication/
"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" -
#181 by input~2 on 11 Apr, 2008 15:50
-
SES has just announced that AMC-14 is now considered a total loss. Plans are being developed to "retire" the spacecraft.
see
http://www.ses.com/ses/siteSections/mediaroom/Latest_News/index.php?pressRelease=/pressReleases/pressReleaseList/08-04-11/index.php
-
#182 by jaythehokie on 11 Apr, 2008 16:08
-
I like how 'retire' is in quotes there... I'm glad if I ever work long enough I'm not gonna be 'retired' in the same fashion!
According to spacedaily.com. they're talking about de-orbiting the satellite and splashing it down somewhere... possibly as soon as sometime today.
-
#183 by input~2 on 12 Apr, 2008 17:16
-
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..
-
#184 by HIPAR on 12 Apr, 2008 18:31
-
I wouldn't be surprised if the projected costs of litigation were a major factor in the value judgment. Shouldn't all orbital mechanics related patents be granted posthumously to Kepler and Newton?
--- CHAS
-
#185 by input~2 on 13 Apr, 2008 16:27
-
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..
-
#186 by Satori on 21 Apr, 2008 12:36
-
#187 by Danderman on 21 Apr, 2008 15:06
-
This is the Fregat S5.92 engine. Does anyone have an image of the Briz-M engine for comparison?
-
#188 by input~2 on 22 Apr, 2008 07:01
-
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!
-
#189 by pm1823 on 22 Apr, 2008 08:17
-
Not so fast, respected Input~2! Considering "the most probable" as they haven't exact telemetry data which shows the cause of failure.
Let us to suppose, that they just get burned to death new engine on the test site, and claimed guilty the "weakest link". -
#190 by input~2 on 22 Apr, 2008 14:44
-
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..."
-
#191 by input~2 on 23 Apr, 2008 16:40
-
AMC-14 is now bound to dive in the South Pacific within a few days.
-
#192 by clsspace on 24 Apr, 2008 19:14
-
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! -
#193 by input~2 on 25 Apr, 2008 20:32
-
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"
-
#194 by Andrewwski on 26 Apr, 2008 03:45
-
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! -
#195 by input~2 on 29 Apr, 2008 12:39
-
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?
-
#196 by rocketnerd on 30 Apr, 2008 19:55
-
Quote
Andrewwski - 25/4/2008 10:45 PM
Quoteclsspace - 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. -
#197 by edkyle99 on 30 Apr, 2008 20:12
-
Quote
input~2 - 29/4/2008 7:39 AM
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?
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 -
#198 by pm1823 on 30 Apr, 2008 22:48
-
Certainly, shorter burns give better Delta-V budget to the Briz-M. Space News inventing own physics. Negative part is more COZ firings and risk with transient cut-in\cut-off engine cycles.
-
#199 by input~2 on 05 May, 2008 16:06
-
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.
