-
#180
by
input~2
on 30 Aug, 2011 13:33
-
Conclusions of the Commission:
http://www.federalspace.ru/main.php?id=2&nid=17791в ходе формирования циклограммы работы разгонного блока (РБ) «Бриз-М» был необоснованно «заужен» временной интервал подворота гиростабилизированной платформы. Это привело к не правильной ориентации РБ «Бриз-М» и как следствие к выведению КА на нерасчетную орбиту.
which could mean:
"during the formation of the Breeze-M actions timeline, the time slots for the gyrostabilized platform have been unreasonably shortened. This led to an incorrect orientation of the Breeze-M and as a consequence to the injection of the spacecraft in an unplanned orbit."
So this text would tend to confirm the "programmer's mistake".
Another interesting information in the same release:
По результатам работы комиссии снят запрет с подготовки РН «Протон-М» с РБ «Бриз-М» и подготовлены необходимые рекомендации, которые будут реализованы до очередных пусков.
"As a result, the ban on the preparation of Proton-M/Breeze-M is lifted and the necessary recommendations to be implemented before the next launch are being prepared."
-
#181
by
MarekCyzio
on 30 Aug, 2011 13:37
-
Will the programmer be sitting underneath the next Proton-M to be launched?
Actually it should be QA that sits under the next Proton-M. Programmers have right to make mistakes. QA is supposed to catch them all.
-
#182
by
input~2
on 30 Aug, 2011 14:07
-
Release from ILS (obviously a translation from Roskosmos text, see above)
http://www.ilslaunch.com/newsroom/news-releases/express-am4-launch-failure-inter-agency-commission-concludes-investigations the Commission has concluded that in the process of formalizing the Breeze M operating timeline, the time interval to manipulate the gyro platform into position was made unduly short. This resulted in an off-nominal orientation of the Breeze M and, as the consequence, in injecting the SC into an off-design orbit.
the ban on Proton M / Breeze M ground processing has been lifted, and appropriate recommendations have been prepared, to be implemented prior to the upcoming launches.
-
#183
by
input~2
on 31 Aug, 2011 15:07
-
-
#184
by
edkyle99
on 31 Aug, 2011 17:40
-
Will the programmer be sitting underneath the next Proton-M to be launched?
Actually it should be QA that sits under the next Proton-M. Programmers have right to make mistakes. QA is supposed to catch them all.
I am not yet convinced that this was a "programmers error", if "programmer" means "coder". The problem, which appears to be insufficient time allotted for a guidance platform alignment (or realignment) step, could have been due to a bad specification OR improper coding (or, as we saw with the bad Titan Centaur a few years back, due to an improper program version upload (bad configuration control), etc..)
- Ed Kyle
-
#185
by
Danderman
on 31 Aug, 2011 17:43
-
Will the programmer be sitting underneath the next Proton-M to be launched?
Actually it should be QA that sits under the next Proton-M. Programmers have right to make mistakes. QA is supposed to catch them all.
I am not yet convinced that this was a "programmers error", if "programmer" means "coder". The problem, which appears to be insufficient time allotted for a guidance platform alignment (or realignment) step, could have been due to a bad specification OR improper coding.
- Ed Kyle
I wouldn't be surprised if this failure were caused by a cascade event, where multiple small errors resulted in disaster; for example, if a programmer were given faulty information on the time required for the guidance system to align, and then the programmer compounded the error by a second mistake, that sort of event(s) would explain how Briz-M could have flown for over 10 years without this failure occurring before now.
-
#186
by
Moe Grills
on 31 Aug, 2011 19:18
-
Will the programmer be sitting underneath the next Proton-M to be launched?
Actually it should be QA that sits under the next Proton-M. Programmers have right to make mistakes. QA is supposed to catch them all.
I am not yet convinced that this was a "programmers error", if "programmer" means "coder". The problem, which appears to be insufficient time allotted for a guidance platform alignment (or realignment) step, could have been due to a bad specification OR improper coding.
- Ed Kyle
I wouldn't be surprised if this failure were caused by a cascade event, where multiple small errors resulted in disaster; for example, if a programmer were given faulty information on the time required for the guidance system to align, and then the programmer compounded the error by a second mistake, that sort of event(s) would explain how Briz-M could have flown for over 10 years without this failure occurring before now.
I know of two instances where tiny software numerical errors caused
the loss of Mariner 1 in 1962; and an misplaced (-), instead of an (+),
doomed a commercial satellite launch in the 1980's
-
#187
by
Targeteer
on 31 Aug, 2011 19:32
-
I believe a Titan IV Centaur mission failed with a Milstar payload because a single 1 should have been a 0 in the guidance program or visa versa.
An Atlas/Fleetsatcom mission also failed because one memory bit was flipped after triggered lightning struck the rocket which was launched into a rain shower.
-
#188
by
input~2
on 01 Sep, 2011 08:56
-
If the failure is due to an allocated time span not long enough for the Briz-M platform to be reoriented to the wanted attitude before firing, it means the error was not detected during flight software simulation tests and that's surprising
!
-
#189
by
kevin-rf
on 01 Sep, 2011 13:59
-
It also means, the stage does not check it's orientation before firing.
-
#190
by
zaitcev
on 01 Sep, 2011 23:50
-
The problem, which appears to be insufficient time allotted for a guidance platform alignment (or realignment) step . . .
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the information from an insider at Mars Ltd., contradicts the official reason. He conveyed that the alotted time was correct, but as it happened, the Briz was put into an orientation at which "the frames of gyroscope folded up", after which its indications became invalid. As far as I understand how a gyroscope works, this is ONLY possible if, at the moment the frames aligned, Briz has already had a rotation and its axis was exactly perpendicular to the plane in which the frames aligned themselves. Sounds much too coincidential to me. Also, surely they do not have just one gyro.
-
#191
by
Nicolas PILLET
on 02 Sep, 2011 08:59
-
I know of two instances where tiny software numerical errors caused the loss of Mariner 1 in 1962; and an misplaced (-), instead of an (+), doomed a commercial satellite launch in the 1980's
The launch of a Soviet martian probe (Cosmos 419) was a failure because the timer for engine ignition had been set at "1.5 year" instead of "1.5 hour"...
-
#192
by
Jim
on 02 Sep, 2011 11:18
-
The problem, which appears to be insufficient time allotted for a guidance platform alignment (or realignment) step . . .
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the information from an insider at Mars Ltd., contradicts the official reason. He conveyed that the alotted time was correct, but as it happened, the Briz was put into an orientation at which "the frames of gyroscope folded up", after which its indications became invalid. As far as I understand how a gyroscope works, this is ONLY possible if, at the moment the frames aligned, Briz has already had a rotation and its axis was exactly perpendicular to the plane in which the frames aligned themselves. Sounds much too coincidential to me. Also, surely they do not have just one gyro.
Sounds like gimbal lock
-
#193
by
Danderman
on 02 Sep, 2011 14:37
-
I know of two instances where tiny software numerical errors caused the loss of Mariner 1 in 1962; and an misplaced (-), instead of an (+), doomed a commercial satellite launch in the 1980's
The launch of a Soviet martian probe (Cosmos 419) was a failure because the timer for engine ignition had been set at "1.5 year" instead of "1.5 hour"...
Who makes engine ignition timers with intervals of years?
-
#194
by
zaitcev
on 02 Sep, 2011 16:51
-
Attached is the picture of the gyroscope in question, from the website of the manufacturer FGUP NII KP in Saint Petersburg. Hopefuly this is fair use, even if the advertisement may be of negative value. No idea how big it is.
-
#195
by
Prober
on 02 Sep, 2011 17:06
-
Is this from a different manufacturer then used before?
-
#196
by
anik
on 02 Sep, 2011 17:21
-
Is this from a different manufacturer then used before?
No, the inertially stabilized platform for Briz-M upper stage is producing only by NII KP enterprize.
-
#197
by
kevin-rf
on 02 Sep, 2011 18:03
-
Sounds like gimbal lock
Shudder ...
1. Without additional Gyro's to reference against, how would one detect that? You could detect if you are at risk of it by looking at the axis angles, but... how do you know, and correct?
2. Since Briz M has flown successfully in the past without this issue, does this mean it went through an orientation that the stage normally does not? Before the burn, did the stage tumble?
3. Is this a weakness in the Briz-M that needs to be correct, least it crop up at some point in the future?
-
#198
by
Prober
on 02 Sep, 2011 21:24
-
Is this from a different manufacturer then used before?
No, the inertially stabilized platform for Briz-M upper stage is producing only by NII KP enterprize.
I do not wish to offend, just to understand Russian Rocket Industry.
| From 1964, the plant launched production of space sector devices. Next years, the enterprise took part in the development and production of devices and equipment for Bion, Foton, Interkosmos, Kosmos, Soyuz-TM, Progress, Energiya-Buran, Proton, Gorizont, Ekran, Okean-0, Sich, Alfa ISS, and other programmes. At the same time, the association manufactures production equipment and consumer goods. In the last years, Kyivprylad Industrial Association works upon high technology equipment for power industry. http://www.nkau.gov.ua/nsau/catalogNEW.nsf/ByNamesE/645B105AD85A1065C3256BF8004BF980?OpenDocument&Lang=E |
|
[/td] [td] [/td][/tr] [tr] [td]
[/td] [td] [/td][/tr] [/table]
From 1964, the plant launched production of space sector devices. Next years, the enterprise took part in the development and production of devices and equipment for Bion, Foton, Interkosmos, Kosmos, Soyuz-TM, Progress, Energiya-Buran, Proton, Gorizont, Ekran, Okean-0, Sich, Alfa ISS, and other programmes. At the same time, the association manufactures production equipment and consumer goods. In the last years, Kyivprylad Industrial Association works upon high technology equipment for power industry. ==========
I saw very advanced Gyros from Ukraine, that was why i asked the question. |
|
-
#199
by
Danderman
on 02 Sep, 2011 22:20
-
Is this from a different manufacturer then used before?
No, the inertially stabilized platform for Briz-M upper stage is producing only by NII KP enterprize.
I do not wish to offend, just to understand Russian Rocket Industry.[
From 1964, the plant launched production of space sector devices. Next years, the enterprise took part in the development and production of devices and equipment for Bion, Foton, Interkosmos, Kosmos, Soyuz-TM, Progress, Energiya-Buran, Proton, Gorizont, Ekran, Okean-0, Sich, Alfa ISS, and other programmes. At the same time, the association manufactures production equipment and consumer goods. In the last years, Kyivprylad Industrial Association works upon high technology equipment for power industry.
Ooooohhhhh, its made in the Ukraine.
Look for some backwash from that.Not going to be used on Russian Proton.
!