-
#120
by
input~2
on 25 Dec, 2010 12:37
-
I just heard Mr. Radhakrishnan in his conference saying that everything was nominal up to 50s, then [...] higher envelope angle than nominal...leading to high structural loads that led to the destruction ..
-
#121
by
lnb15k
on 25 Dec, 2010 13:00
-
This was the final picture showing the telemetry. RAN 2.7kms means what? It is 2.7kms from the launch pad? It was the first stage fell there?
-
#122
by
tonthomas
on 25 Dec, 2010 13:02
-
The flight computer lost communication with the actuators in the liquid fueled strap ons, and the vehicle left its planned path, I unterstood.
Sad day for ISRO.
Thomas
-
#123
by
ugordan
on 25 Dec, 2010 13:03
-
RAN 2.7kms means what? It is 2.7kms from the launch pad? It was the first stage fell there?
Probably short for range i.e. downrange distance from the pad.
-
#124
by
ugordan
on 25 Dec, 2010 13:07
-
The flight computer lost communication with the actuators in the liquid fueled strap ons, and the vehicle left its planned path, I unterstood.
Sad day for ISRO.
In some respects this was similar to South Korea's KSLV back-to-back failures. First a problem with the subsequent stage with a good first stage and then on the very next launch a disaster even earlier in the flight.
Must be really demoralizing for the engineers in both cases - feels like you're not making progress but actually regressing.
-
#125
by
Salo
on 25 Dec, 2010 13:18
-
The Associated PressThe vehicle developed an error 47 seconds after liftoff and lost command, leading to a higher angle in the flight, said K. Radhakrishnan, chairman of the Indian Space Research Organization.
"That caused a higher stress, breaking up the vehicle," Radhakrishnan told reporters.
-
#126
by
input~2
on 25 Dec, 2010 13:59
-
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Rocket-failed-after-45-seconds-says-ISRO/Article1-642792.aspxThe rocket carrying an Indian communication satellite launched from (Sriharikota] on Saturday began failing after some 45 seconds, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) said. “The controllability was lost after 45 seconds after the lift-off. The control commands to the four strap on motors of the first stage did not reach,” ISRO chairman K Radhakrishnan told reporters. He said the first stage performed well till 50 seconds, and after that the rocket started failing.
According to him, the destruct command was issued 63 seconds after the lift off by the Range Safety Officer
So there was a first internal break-up at around T
0+50s followed by an explosion triggered by a self destruct command at T0+63s
-
#127
by
jcm
on 25 Dec, 2010 14:00
-
So we have the guidance failure at 47 seconds and around 10 km altitude? And breakup a few seconds later at 51 s (estimated from video) at a similar altitude? Destruct signal at 63s but by then the rocket had already broken up.
The screenshot at 61s shows altitude 12 km and velocity 0.453 km/s
but whether that is true realtime data or the planned trajectory is unclear.It looks like it might be real data as the altitude reaches a max of 14.9 km at 77.8 s and 6 km range and then starts to fall.
-
#128
by
jcm
on 25 Dec, 2010 14:03
-
The original GSLV Mk I's third stage was designated 12KRB by Khrunichev.
Does the new 15-tonne version have a different designation? 15KRB maybe :-)?
-
#129
by
ugordan
on 25 Dec, 2010 14:08
-
So we have the guidance failure at 47 seconds and around 10 km altitude?
Guidance and control are linked systems, but this is not what I'd call a guidance failure. First Ariane V and one Titan IV launch were guidance system failures - erroneous data fed to the control system. The official report here is the guidance performed as expected, but the proper gimbal commands never reached the engines for whatever reason.
-
#130
by
lnb15k
on 25 Dec, 2010 14:17
-
RAN 2.7kms means what? It is 2.7kms from the launch pad? It was the first stage fell there?
Probably short for range i.e. downrange distance from the pad.
Thanks, that means it finally went to ground around at 2.7kms from the launch pad. But that for which stage :huh: Who knows satellite may be in the sea bottom in full.
After the breakup three dots were blinking. Except one others stopped blinking after sometime and went missing in atmosphere.
-
#131
by
isro-watch
on 25 Dec, 2010 15:00
-
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Rocket-failed-after-45-seconds-says-ISRO/Article1-642792.aspx
The rocket carrying an Indian communication satellite launched from (Sriharikota] on Saturday began failing after some 45 seconds, the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) said. “The controllability was lost after 45 seconds after the lift-off. The control commands to the four strap on motors of the first stage did not reach,” ISRO chairman K Radhakrishnan told reporters. He said the first stage performed well till 50 seconds, and after that the rocket started failing.
According to him, the destruct command was issued 63 seconds after the lift off by the Range Safety Officer
So there was a first internal break-up at around T0+50s followed by an explosion triggered by a self destruct command at T0+63s
Yes, watching the flight video also gives credence to this....There was a breakup(at the cryo stage) and then authorized destruction
-
#132
by
isro-watch
on 25 Dec, 2010 15:02
-
RAN 2.7kms means what? It is 2.7kms from the launch pad? It was the first stage fell there?
Probably short for range i.e. downrange distance from the pad.
Thanks, that means it finally went to ground around at 2.7kms from the launch pad. But that for which stage :huh: Who knows satellite may be in the sea bottom in full.
After the breakup three dots were blinking. Except one others stopped blinking after sometime and went missing in atmosphere.
This is exactly the reason I believe that they can recover the satellite...probably I am going too far...
-
#133
by
Art LeBrun
on 25 Dec, 2010 15:07
-
Satellites are relatively fragile structures. Once exposed to a high flow airstream it will break up. Not to mention the impact..........
-
#134
by
jcm
on 25 Dec, 2010 15:23
-
So we have the guidance failure at 47 seconds and around 10 km altitude?
Guidance and control are linked systems, but this is not what I'd call a guidance failure. First Ariane V and one Titan IV launch were guidance system failures - erroneous data fed to the control system. The official report here is the guidance performed as expected, but the proper gimbal commands never reached the engines for whatever reason.
OK - so the sound bite version to use is "control failure"?
Or, possibly, interface failure, if the guidance sent the info but the control systems never got it...
Are other folks experiencing extremely slow response from the site today, or is it just me? Got better for a while but now has seized up again.
-
#135
by
William Graham
on 25 Dec, 2010 15:25
-
RAN 2.7kms means what? It is 2.7kms from the launch pad? It was the first stage fell there?
Probably short for range i.e. downrange distance from the pad.
Thanks, that means it finally went to ground around at 2.7kms from the launch pad. But that for which stage :huh: Who knows satellite may be in the sea bottom in full.
After the breakup three dots were blinking. Except one others stopped blinking after sometime and went missing in atmosphere.
This is exactly the reason I believe that they can recover the satellite...probably I am going too far...
In the extremely unlikely event that it survived the disintegration, it would have fallen 15 kilometres, which, neglecting air resistance, would give it an impact velocity of about 542 metres per second.
There won't be much to recover.
-
#136
by
John Santos
on 25 Dec, 2010 15:26
-
RAN 2.7kms means what? It is 2.7kms from the launch pad? It was the first stage fell there?
Probably short for range i.e. downrange distance from the pad.
Thanks, that means it finally went to ground around at 2.7kms from the launch pad. But that for which stage :huh: Who knows satellite may be in the sea bottom in full.
After the breakup three dots were blinking. Except one others stopped blinking after sometime and went missing in atmosphere.
No, it means it was 2.7km downrange from the pad at that time. It is *not* the expected impact point, which depends on the velocity at the time thrust was cut off and the aerodynamics.
-
#137
by
Art LeBrun
on 25 Dec, 2010 15:43
-
It appears one of the strap ons broke apart spilling propellants during the initial loss of attitude control............
-
#138
by
input~2
on 25 Dec, 2010 15:57
-
-
#139
by
ugordan
on 25 Dec, 2010 16:00
-
