As quoted by Stan in the Russian launches planning, this launch will use the newest version of the Bloc DM : 11S861-03.http://www.energia.ru/ru/news/news-2010/news_09-23.htmlCan you explain what is the goal of Energiya ? Why do they introduce a new version so late ? Will GLONASS launches use this version in the long term future ?
Will GLONASS launches use this version in the long term future?
Can you explain what is the goal of Energiya ? Why do they introduce a new version so late ? Will GLONASS launches use this version in the long term future ?
November 19 navigation satellite Glonass-M, manufactured by JSC "Information Satellite Systems" name Reshetnev, shipped to the launch site in preparation for launch.Spacecraft № 39 delivered to the landfill after the additional work to address the comments received in its preparation in the processing facility. It will be launched into orbit as part of the block № 43 along with two satellites GLONASS-M, which is also currently preparing to launch at Baikonur.
November 15 satellite Glonass-M »№ 41 sent to Baikonur. The spacecraft was developed and manufactured by experts of JSC "Information Satellite Systems" name Reshetnev.Delivery of the spacecraft to the landfill has been successful. Navigation satellite prepares for the orbit in the unit number 43.
Could somebody give me the direct link to the launch webcast because I cannot reach the Tsenki website this morning?Many thanks
Quote from: patchfree on 12/05/2010 09:01 amCould somebody give me the direct link to the launch webcast because I cannot reach the Tsenki website this morning?Many thankshttp://webcaster.rutube.ru:8000/3311850?format=flv
Thank you for the play-by-play Satori. Was the separation visible? I couldn't see it if it was.
A Russian Proton-M carrier rocket, launched from the Baikonur space center in Kazakhstan with three Glonass-M satellites, deviated from its course to 8 degrees, which resulted later in a loss of three spacecrafts in the Pacific Ocean, a source in the aerospace industry said.Glonass-M sattelites have not reached their planned orbit and may fail to function as normal. The satellites were launched into orbit on Sunday to complete the formation of Russia's global navigation system."According to latest information, Proton-M changed the trajectory of a given flight and before booster separation left the pitch to 8 degrees," the source said. "The rocket has entered the so-called non-closed orbit.""The launch proceeded in the normal regime, at the designated time of 13:25 p.m. Moscow time. Three Glonass-M space vehicles will be delivered into orbit at 16:27 p.m. Moscow time to complete the formation of the Russian satellite grouping Glonass," a spokesman for the Russian space agency Roscosmos said earlier on Sunday.Glonass is the Russian equivalent of the U.S. Global Positioning System, or GPS, and is designed for both military and civilian use. Both systems allow users to determine their positions to within a few meters.Russia currently has a total of 26 Glonass satellites in orbit, but three of them are not operational. The three Glonass-M satellites to be put into orbit on Sunday will allow Russia to operate a complete Glonass network of 24 operational satellites and have several satellites in reserve.The three satellites are planned to be put into operation in about 6 weeks.
According to RIA Novosti, the launch was a failure!QuoteA Russian Proton-M carrier rocket, launched from the Baikonur space center in Kazakhstan with three Glonass-M satellites, deviated from its course to 8 degrees, which resulted later in a loss of three spacecrafts in the Pacific Ocean, a source in the aerospace industry said.
A Russian Proton-M carrier rocket, launched from the Baikonur space center in Kazakhstan with three Glonass-M satellites, deviated from its course to 8 degrees, which resulted later in a loss of three spacecrafts in the Pacific Ocean, a source in the aerospace industry said.
Unsuccessful launch. Failure of Proton-M rocket. DM-03 upper stage with three Glonass-M satellites are in the Pacific Ocean.
Nice clean launch, wish there was sound and a video camera feed on the rocket, though.
Is this the new version of Blok-DM that was discussed earlier?
The problem was on the Proton-M third stage?
Does this failure have any potential implications for any other launch systems (i.e. common components etc.)?
Looked like excessive N2O4 on the first stage during launch.
http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=411659This article claims that the failure occurred because the Proton-M provided too much impulse.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 12/05/2010 02:41 pmDoes this failure have any potential implications for any other launch systems (i.e. common components etc.)?Yes, if is a Proton-M related problem.
Quote from: Satori on 12/05/2010 02:42 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 12/05/2010 02:41 pmDoes this failure have any potential implications for any other launch systems (i.e. common components etc.)?Yes, if is a Proton-M related problem.I don't know much about these vehicles' details. Could this potentially ground Soyuz during the investigation?
Thanks for the coverage Rui and the update Andrey. Wonder if this will impact on ILS?
It appears that the Proton-M worked perfectly, but the Blok-DM-03 failed at ignition. Apparently, mission control never received a signal from the Blok-DM-03.
The problem with control system of Proton-M rocket (incorrect software or something else).
The DM-3 booster with three Glonass-M satellites fell into the Pacific Ocean in 1500 kilometers northwest of Honolulu, a source in the aerospace industry said."Three Glonass-M satellites fell into a non-navigational area of the Pacific Ocean in some 1500 kilometers northwest of the city of Honolulu, administrative center of the state of Hawaii," the source said adding that there were no casualties or damage.A Russian Proton-M carrier rocket, launched from the Baikonur space center in Kazakhstan with three Glonass-M satellites and the booster, deviated from its course to 8 degrees.http://en.rian.ru/russia/20101205/161637911.htmlAny of the smart trajectory folks out there able to guess on the failure time based on the impact?
Does this new DM-03 stage introduce a new flight control system for the Proton phase of ascent?
I never expected a proton to fail, literally proton never seems to fail.
Its really not often we find ourselves here discussing a failed launch, I never expected a proton to fail, literally proton never seems to fail. I imagine this may lead spacex to get a few new contracts, but not many I don't think ILS will take a huge hit as a result. Terrible shame to loose three spacecraft though.
Quote from: Danderman on 12/05/2010 02:25 pmIs this the new version of Blok-DM that was discussed earlier?Yes.QuoteIt appears that the Proton-M worked perfectly, but the Blok-DM-03 failed at ignition. Apparently, mission control never received a signal from the Blok-DM-03. No, all published reports indicate a failure of Proton-M to provide the correct state vector at the time of Block DM-03 separation.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 12/05/2010 05:15 pmIts really not often we find ourselves here discussing a failed launch, I never expected a proton to fail, literally proton never seems to fail. I imagine this may lead spacex to get a few new contracts, but not many I don't think ILS will take a huge hit as a result. Terrible shame to loose three spacecraft though. Oh come on...SpaceX doesn't have enough launches under their belt to have companies moving in that direction. Now if SpaceX were to have a good 3-year track record of spotless launches, then MAYBE.
Quote from: robertross on 12/05/2010 05:51 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 12/05/2010 05:15 pmIts really not often we find ourselves here discussing a failed launch, I never expected a proton to fail, literally proton never seems to fail. I imagine this may lead spacex to get a few new contracts, but not many I don't think ILS will take a huge hit as a result. Terrible shame to loose three spacecraft though. Oh come on...SpaceX doesn't have enough launches under their belt to have companies moving in that direction. Now if SpaceX were to have a good 3-year track record of spotless launches, then MAYBE. Also there is the fact that Falcon 9 can maybe lift 3.5-4 tonnes to a GTO 1,800 m/s short of GEO (a capability yet to be demonstrated) while Proton M/Briz M can lift 6.3 tonnes to a GTO only 1,500 m/s short of GEO - a capability repeatedly demonstrated during that particular rocket's 42 flight history - though including three failures.Sure, Proton does fail at times. It failed four times during the past decade during which it flew 82 times. How does that compare to Western launch vehicles? It does not compare - because no Western rocket flew anywhere close to that many times during that period. Not to mention China - Proton outflew China all by itself during that time frame. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/05/2010 06:40 pmAlso there is the fact that Falcon 9 can maybe lift 3.5-4 tonnes to a GTO 1,800 m/s short of GEO (a capability yet to be demonstrated) while Proton M/Briz M can lift 6.3 tonnes to a GTO only 1,500 m/s short of GEO - a capability repeatedly demonstrated during that particular rocket's 42 flight history - though including three failures. - Ed Kyle6,150 kg for the current phase III Proton-M; 6,920 for 1,800 m/s6,300 kg for future phase IV
Also there is the fact that Falcon 9 can maybe lift 3.5-4 tonnes to a GTO 1,800 m/s short of GEO (a capability yet to be demonstrated) while Proton M/Briz M can lift 6.3 tonnes to a GTO only 1,500 m/s short of GEO - a capability repeatedly demonstrated during that particular rocket's 42 flight history - though including three failures. - Ed Kyle
Echostar 14, launched by Proton on March 20, 2010 to a 3120 x 35786 km x 26.7 deg orbit, weighed 6,379 kg. I'm not quite sure where that fits on the delta-v table.
Wasn't the Bigelow Sundancer supposed to be launched on a Proton? He might be starting to think more about Falcon 9 now especially if Tuesday's test of the Falcon is successful.
Russia has been heavily promoting GLONASS attempting to lure commercial applications. It is a shame to lose three satellites through a single launch failure. If they had achieved orbit, GLONASS would have been close to restoring its 24 satellite constellation. --- CHAS
Quote from: HIPAR on 12/05/2010 09:20 pmRussia has been heavily promoting GLONASS attempting to lure commercial applications. It is a shame to lose three satellites through a single launch failure. If they had achieved orbit, GLONASS would have been close to restoring its 24 satellite constellation. --- CHASJust nitpicking, but the constellation is actually complete with 26 satellites. Of course, there are 4 in maintenance -which means there's still not global coverage- and there are some spares still to be launched.
Upon roll out to the pad, that rocket leaves on time and works every time.
Quote from: mr. mark on 12/05/2010 05:43 pmWasn't the Bigelow Sundancer supposed to be launched on a Proton? He might be starting to think more about Falcon 9 now especially if Tuesday's test of the Falcon is successful. Why not Atlas or Delta
Quote from: eeergo on 12/06/2010 12:27 amQuote from: HIPAR on 12/05/2010 09:20 pmRussia has been heavily promoting GLONASS attempting to lure commercial applications. It is a shame to lose three satellites through a single launch failure. If they had achieved orbit, GLONASS would have been close to restoring its 24 satellite constellation. --- CHASJust nitpicking, but the constellation is actually complete with 26 satellites. Of course, there are 4 in maintenance -which means there's still not global coverage- and there are some spares still to be launched.Don't trust this data too much. For example, #715 is dead, #718 is almost dead.
Sure, Proton does fail at times. It failed four times during the past decade during which it flew 82 times. How does that compare to Western launch vehicles? It does not compare - because no Western rocket flew anywhere close to that many times during that period.
Don't trust this data too much. For example, #715 is dead, #718 is almost dead.
It is my understanding that ILS has launched payloads with Atlas-V before. How quickly could ULA schedule new launches if Proton is grounded and how difficult would it be to convert payloads to Atlas-V? This is a valid question because, if it costs too much and takes too long, it would be more rational for ILS to wait for the fix to Proton rather than spend money on a slower option.
Does anybody have any idea if this launch was insured or not? I wonder it the global launch insurance cost will increase if this launch is not insured by Roscosmos.Also, is there any picture from the 3rd stage drop zone area? Is there any 3rd party insurance claim so far?
"Program error caused Russian Glonass satellite loss"http://en.rian.ru/russia/20101206/161647533.html (in English)
Quote from: input~2 on 12/06/2010 02:50 pm"Program error caused Russian Glonass satellite loss"http://en.rian.ru/russia/20101206/161647533.html (in English)No it didn’t!Proton-M LV systems did not cause space rocket accident - manufacturerhttp://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?pg=6&id=207016
I tried to match the data as best I can being half a planet away from myProton notebooks. If the stage 3 pitch was off by 8 deg during its wholeburn, the thing should have crashed in central Russia - I estimate a-240 x 500 km orbit with reentry over circa 100E 63N. Assuming thetraditional Glonass ground track, it goes over Kamchatka and theAleutians before reaching the North Pacific. To reach the latitude ofHawaii (treating "vicinity" very generously) the error must haveoccurred fairly late in the burn, leading to a downward velocitycomponent of only around 100 m/s, an orbit of around 70 to 78 km x 250 km andreentry around 20-25 min after third stage cutoff.- jonathan
"Once separated from the Proton launch rocket, the upper-stage booster rocket with the three satellites aboard should have put them in orbit about 20 kilometres (12 miles) above the earth."
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/05/2010 06:40 pmSure, Proton does fail at times. It failed four times during the past decade during which it flew 82 times. How does that compare to Western launch vehicles? It does not compare - because no Western rocket flew anywhere close to that many times during that period. I don't agree Ed. Four mishaps in 82 launches. That one-in-twenty on average.Delta 2 flew 55 times in the past decade without a single failure. (And yes, I'm well aware of the fact that Delta 2 is not nearly as powerfull as Proton.)
The propellant tank capacity for the Block DM is 15,000 kg. The standard propellant loading to support a Block DM mission profile for a GLONASS M mission is 15,000kg. RSC Energia provided a new Block DM-03 upper stage for this mission. This was the first flight of the upgraded Block DM-03. The propellant tank capacity of the Block DM-03 was increased to approximately 18,700 kg. Guess what happens when you don't load the correct amount of propellants in the tank???Should be relatively easy to check the propellant loading records to determine the ammount of propellants RSC Energia loaded on the Block DM-03 and determine if this matches the actual flight profile!!!!
When it comes to space launch, one in twenty (95% success rate) is pretty good. When it comes to big commercial geosat launch, 95% is about as good as it gets. There are currently only two major players in this market. One, Ariane 5 ECA has a 96% realized success rate in 28 flights (if we don't count the recent W3B satellite loss - still under investigation - as an Ariane failure). The other, Proton M/Briz M, has a 93% realized success rate in 42 flights. Sea Launch Zenit was the third major player until it went bankrupt. It had a 90% realized success rate in 30 launches. Delta 2 currently is working a string of 93 consecutive successes, best in U.S. history. But, as you noted, Delta 2 is a smaller, less complex rocket than Proton, with half as many liquid stages (and one of them pressure-fed hypergolic - as close to failure proof as it comes in spaceflight). - Ed Kyle
Atlas II never had a launch failure, 63 successful launches.Atlas III never had a launch failure, 6 successful launches.Atlas [V] had a single partial launch failure (but reached usable orbit), 23 launches total to date.
Quote from: gospacex on 12/07/2010 02:22 pmAtlas II never had a launch failure, 63 successful launches.Atlas III never had a launch failure, 6 successful launches.Atlas [V] had a single partial launch failure (but reached usable orbit), 23 launches total to date.The Atlas 2, 2A, 2AS series posted a solid record of 63 successes and no failures during its 1991-2004 run. Those vehicles were able to lift 2.8 to 3.8 tonnes to GTO. That's about 208 tonnes to GTO equivalent delivered. During the same period, the contemporary Proton K/DM-2(M) series posted 92 success in 97 attempts (that 95% success rate again). These rockets could lift 4.9 tonnes to GTO. As a result, the 92 successful Protons delivered nearly 451 tonnes GTO equivalent - more than twice as much as Atlas.If Atlas had flown 97 times during that same period, we would have expected - statistically - to see a failure or two based on the history of the type (giving 98% reliability), but even if all 97 had succeeded, Atlas would still have delivered 131 tonnes less GTO equivalent than ILS-class Proton. History gives the final verdict. Proton is still flying. Rocketdyne/Atlas is gone. - Ed Kyle
No Atlas-centaur is still fliying. If you deem that not applicable, then the Protons must be segregated by upperstage.
Quote from: gospacex on 12/07/2010 02:22 pmAtlas II never had a launch failure, 63 successful launches.Atlas III never had a launch failure, 6 successful launches.Atlas [V] had a single partial launch failure (but reached usable orbit), 23 launches total to date.The Atlas 2, 2A, 2AS series posted a solid record of 63 successes and no failures during its 1991-2004 run. Those vehicles were able to lift 2.8 to 3.8 tonnes to GTO. That's about 208 tonnes to GTO equivalent delivered. During the same period, the contemporary Proton K/DM-2(M) series posted 92 success in 97 attempts (that 95% success rate again). These rockets could lift 4.9 tonnes to GTO. As a result, the 92 successful Protons delivered nearly 451 tonnes GTO equivalent - more than twice as much as Atlas.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/07/2010 09:54 pmQuote from: gospacex on 12/07/2010 02:22 pmAtlas II never had a launch failure, 63 successful launches.Atlas III never had a launch failure, 6 successful launches.Atlas [V] had a single partial launch failure (but reached usable orbit), 23 launches total to date.The Atlas 2, 2A, 2AS series posted a solid record of 63 successes and no failures during its 1991-2004 run. Those vehicles were able to lift 2.8 to 3.8 tonnes to GTO. That's about 208 tonnes to GTO equivalent delivered. During the same period, the contemporary Proton K/DM-2(M) series posted 92 success in 97 attempts (that 95% success rate again). These rockets could lift 4.9 tonnes to GTO. As a result, the 92 successful Protons delivered nearly 451 tonnes GTO equivalent - more than twice as much as Atlas.For some reason, you chose to not spell out Atlas II success rate. Basically, it makes your post sound like a spin.It can easily be spun the other way:"Atlas II failure rate is 0%, which is infinitely many times better than Proton".
What is your general opinion of the Atlas-Centaur and related programs, Ed?
Now that's what I'd call a "process escape" - not using the correct amount of propellant and/or not knowing what your upper stage weighs. Unbelievable.
After next year, the most oft-flown active U.S. orbital launch vehicle will be Pegasus, which has flown 40 times in 21 years, but not since 2008 - making it hard to call it "active". Second place will be Atlas 5, with a grand total of 23 launches.
Atlas-Centaur was a NASA machine merged to a modified Air Force rocket, successfully developed only after massive amounts of cash - far beyond original plans - had been expended.
Proton, by comparison, continues to fly 45 years on, reaping returns on its original investment. It has logged 321 successes in 362 flights. And it isn't just still flying, it is one of two dominant GTO commercial launch vehicles in the world.
Mind you, I am not impressed by the progress on US side, but Russian side is worse. The only discernible advantage there is cheap labor. EDIT: and kerolox engines. They do rock.
Proton M could be cleared for return-to-flight by the end of the week.
Quote from: gospacex on 12/08/2010 04:32 amMind you, I am not impressed by the progress on US side, but Russian side is worse. The only discernible advantage there is cheap labor. EDIT: and kerolox engines. They do rock.You'll have to define "progress". Shuttle, the worlds most complex rocket, is being shelved. Russia leads the world in orbital space launch capability by far, and has done so for decades. This year, the U.S. is not even standalone second to Russia, as it has been caught for the first time by China.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/08/2010 03:42 amAtlas-Centaur was a NASA machine merged to a modified Air Force rocket, successfully developed only after massive amounts of cash - far beyond original plans - had been expended.Russian efforts to build working R7 were no less dramatic, with literally dozens of failures in a row.QuoteProton, by comparison, continues to fly 45 years on, reaping returns on its original investment. It has logged 321 successes in 362 flights. And it isn't just still flying, it is one of two dominant GTO commercial launch vehicles in the world.It does so not for the lack of trying by the Russians to build newer, more advanced systems. Unlike newer US launchers, almost all of newer Russian launch systems failed, either technologically or economically, the only exception being Zenith. So here we are, with ancient R7, Proton, and Zenith. Incremental updates to these systems seem to fare better. Proton even has *digital* avionics nowadays, yay, progress...Mind you, I am not impressed by the progress on US side, but Russian side is worse. The only discernible advantage there is cheap labor. EDIT: and kerolox engines. They do rock.
Why are the Block DM used when GLONASS (or military satellites, Raduga comsat, US-KMO early warning satellite and so on.) launch?
I have to say that the lack of robustness in the Proton-M/Blok-DM system is pretty disappointing. Block-DM should have responded to the delta-V anomaly by adjusting its burn, not by packing up and plunging into the ocean, especially with an extra ton of prop in it tank.
Agreed. Another show of robustness would be loading the correct mass of propellant required, not percentage!
How can the Proton-M function normally if the upper stage contained a couple of tons of extra propellant?
What may be a simple/stupid question. If the upper stage had extra propellant, why didn't it use it to try and compensate for insufficient velocity caused by it's own extra weight?
Russian flight software just don't "think" that way.
Quote from: Danderman on 12/08/2010 10:02 pmI have to say that the lack of robustness in the Proton-M/Blok-DM system is pretty disappointing. Block-DM should have responded to the delta-V anomaly by adjusting its burn, not by packing up and plunging into the ocean, especially with an extra ton of prop in it tank.In this configuration, the Blok DM-03 stage was not slated to perform a burn to reach a parking orbit. Proton was supposed to do the job, with the upper stage just along for the ride until called upon to perform its first transfer orbit burn, probably an hour or more after liftoff.
Quote from: Space Lizard on 12/13/2010 03:53 pmRussian flight software just don't "think" that way.Nor does any other software... Do you really think any LV is going to recognize that it has underperformed (or over loaded), and somehow program the upper stage to perform a burn that didn't even exist in the original flight profile ? Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/10/2010 02:23 amQuote from: Danderman on 12/08/2010 10:02 pmI have to say that the lack of robustness in the Proton-M/Blok-DM system is pretty disappointing. Block-DM should have responded to the delta-V anomaly by adjusting its burn, not by packing up and plunging into the ocean, especially with an extra ton of prop in it tank.In this configuration, the Blok DM-03 stage was not slated to perform a burn to reach a parking orbit. Proton was supposed to do the job, with the upper stage just along for the ride until called upon to perform its first transfer orbit burn, probably an hour or more after liftoff.
The mission was doomed because the DM-03 expected to start it's journey from orbit. During one of the Cluster-II missions Fregat recovered from a Blok-I failure; and DM has also corrected Proton-K injection accuracies.
All this neglecting the question of whether DM would have been able to do anything useful. Maybe it should also have been smart enough to eject one or two of the three Glonass to lighten it's load ?
Well, the overfill of oxygen tank of DM-03 (which is made on pad, of course) is the leading version as of today. Flight telemetry was exactly matched on the computer model with larger mass of DM-03. Maybe human or instrumentation error, can't say yet, but not flight hardware.Versions of wrong flight data load or control system failure are essentially rejected.The 8 degrees figure seems to be misquoted or misinterpreted.Hats off to Jonathan for brilliant calculations.
Mr. McDowell you make it sound so easy! So if I understand you, the Proton-M did not deviate much just the speed was insufficient? Is the 8 degrees figure missing a decimal point? According to Proton Launch System Mission Planner’s Guide Proton-M 3rd stage dry mass is 3,500 kg but that is for the current phase III 935 series [Revision 7, July 2009]? The previous 535 series was 3,700 kg [Revision 6, December 2004]. 11С861-03 dry mass 2,350 kg. There is also a lower adapter from the DM which remains attached to the Proton third stage. в том числе массу отделяемых в полёте элементов - 1090 кгhttp://www.buran.ru/htm/gud%2025.htm My own attempt to understand the problem involved an empty cardboard tube and running around in short trousers making whoosh noises.
Quote from: Stan Black on 12/17/2010 10:28 amMr. McDowell you make it sound so easy! So if I understand you, the Proton-M did not deviate much just the speed was insufficient? Is the 8 degrees figure missing a decimal point? According to Proton Launch System Mission Planner’s Guide Proton-M 3rd stage dry mass is 3,500 kg but that is for the current phase III 935 series [Revision 7, July 2009]? The previous 535 series was 3,700 kg [Revision 6, December 2004]. 11С861-03 dry mass 2,350 kg. There is also a lower adapter from the DM which remains attached to the Proton third stage. в том числе массу отделяемых в полёте элементов - 1090 кгhttp://www.buran.ru/htm/gud%2025.htm My own attempt to understand the problem involved an empty cardboard tube and running around in short trousers making whoosh noises.Stan - I can't figure out the 8 degree thing. Maybe Russia will release a more detailed failure report that will explain what angle they were actually talking about. But in general, it's clear that the main problem was extra inert mass during the burn, and that leads to insufficient speed.The 1070 kg figure for separable stuff includes the upper adapter and the lower adapter - I believe the upper adapter is circa 800 kg so that wouldmake the lower adapter 270 kg - but does it include the SOZ ullage motors as well? Perhaps for the -03 they don't separate.Do we know the serial for this Proton, whether it was a 535- or a 935- ?I really appreciate all the work you've done into tracking down all the serial numbers! - Jonathan
Quote from: jcm on 12/17/2010 12:20 pmDo we know the serial for this Proton, whether it was a 535- or a 935- ?I really appreciate all the work you've done into tracking down all the serial numbers! - Jonathan53537http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=1133.msg631771#msg631771
Do we know the serial for this Proton, whether it was a 535- or a 935- ?I really appreciate all the work you've done into tracking down all the serial numbers! - Jonathan
Quote from: ntrgc89 on 12/09/2010 08:34 pmAgreed. Another show of robustness would be loading the correct mass of propellant required, not percentage!most propellant systems on upperstages measure percentage
Conclusion: The three reported constraints (A) 8 degree pitch, (B) 100 m/s underburn, (C) NW of Hawaii impact,can't all be right - pick at most two. The exact meaning of (A) is open to possible other interpretationsso I choose to discount it. This leads us to perigees in the -150 km (+/- 50 km) range and apogeesin the 165 km (+/-20 km) range.
Quote from: jcm on 12/17/2010 01:20 am Conclusion: The three reported constraints (A) 8 degree pitch, (B) 100 m/s underburn, (C) NW of Hawaii impact,can't all be right - pick at most two. The exact meaning of (A) is open to possible other interpretationsso I choose to discount it. This leads us to perigees in the -150 km (+/- 50 km) range and apogeesin the 165 km (+/-20 km) range. You got very close!Perigee = -154 kmApogee = 189 kmInclination = 64.8 deg.
Quote from: McDew on 12/17/2010 09:05 pmQuote from: jcm on 12/17/2010 01:20 am Conclusion: The three reported constraints (A) 8 degree pitch, (B) 100 m/s underburn, (C) NW of Hawaii impact,can't all be right - pick at most two. The exact meaning of (A) is open to possible other interpretationsso I choose to discount it. This leads us to perigees in the -150 km (+/- 50 km) range and apogeesin the 165 km (+/-20 km) range. You got very close!Perigee = -154 kmApogee = 189 kmInclination = 64.8 deg.Very interesting - care to give a hint as to the source of those numbers?(Russian data? US tracking? News report I missed?) Thanks, Jonathan
Quote from: Jim on 12/10/2010 10:39 amQuote from: ntrgc89 on 12/09/2010 08:34 pmAgreed. Another show of robustness would be loading the correct mass of propellant required, not percentage!most propellant systems on upperstages measure percentageIs that because most designers figure the additional weight of a mass measurement device isn't necessary when you can just measure percentage? Or is there some other reason?
(B) 100 m/s underburn
I can't figure out the 8 degree thing. - Jonathan
Quote from: jcm on 12/17/2010 01:20 am(B) 100 m/s underburn107 m/s.
The only caveat being that Stage 3 probably had some residual propellants, since AFAIK, Stage 3 does not burn to depletion. If Stage 3 HAD burned to depletion, the payload would probably had been injected into orbit.
Quote from: Danderman on 12/18/2010 07:08 pmThe only caveat being that Stage 3 probably had some residual propellants, since AFAIK, Stage 3 does not burn to depletion. If Stage 3 HAD burned to depletion, the payload would probably had been injected into orbit.It wouldn't burn to depletion if the target insertion is a stable orbit and it had performance reserve to do that in the nominal case. What makes you think it didn't burn to depletion trying to insert the stack into the desired orbit this time?
