-
#120
by
luhai167
on 14 Dec, 2013 07:37
-
-
#121
by
Phillip Clark
on 14 Dec, 2013 07:51
-
I note that the first link above gives the mass of CBERS 3 as being 1.98 t: I am assuming metric tonnes, not imperial tons.
-
#122
by
input~2
on 14 Dec, 2013 16:55
-
For the record here is a picture posted December 9 at 0336UTC by a microblogger based in Taiyuan
-
#123
by
akula2
on 16 Dec, 2013 02:13
-
Very unfortunate loss.
Just wondering whether the Chinese insured the Satellite or Brazilians?
-
#124
by
input~2
on 16 Dec, 2013 05:05
-
Very unfortunate loss.
Just wondering whether the Chinese insured the Satellite or Brazilians?
Brazilian media said that the satellite was not insured.
O governo brasileiro investiu R$ 160 milhões no projeto. O satélite não era resguardado por nenhum tipo de seguro.
-
#125
by
akula2
on 16 Dec, 2013 05:43
-
Thanks for the info,
input~2
$160 million is like one medium-scale company with 500-600 'heads' so all that money went for a toss? Not to forget time delay costs + commercial/science losses (failure)
I always get jittery about Satellite launches, but never once while conducting Clinical Trials!
-
#126
by
input~2
on 16 Dec, 2013 06:15
-
$160 million is like ....
That was 160 millions Brazilian Real equivalent to about 69 millions US Dollars
Corresponding to the Brazilian 50% share for the program
-
#127
by
anik
on 16 Dec, 2013 13:29
-
Peter B. de Selding @pbdes
China Great Wall Industry Corp: Dec. 9 LM-4B failure caused by fuel-flow depletion to engine #2 of 3rd stage. Root cause still unclear.
http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/38689china%E2%80%99s-great-wall-cites-fuel-flow-issue-in-rocket-failure"PARIS — China’s launch service provider on Dec. 16 said the Dec. 9 failure of its Long March 4B rocket was caused by the premature shutdown of the second of two third-stage engines because of reduced fuel flow.
In a statement, Beijing-based China Great Wall Industry Corp. said the failure investigation, headed by Wang Haoping of the Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology, was continuing to determine the reasons behind the reduction in fuel supplied to the engine"
-
#128
by
akula2
on 16 Dec, 2013 14:32
-
That was 160 millions Brazilian Real equivalent to about 69 millions US Dollars
Corresponding to the Brazilian 50% share for the program
I got you. Still it's quite a good money. I think they ignored Insurance due to high Premium costs etc.
-
#129
by
baldusi
on 16 Dec, 2013 17:04
-
That was 160 millions Brazilian Real equivalent to about 69 millions US Dollars
Corresponding to the Brazilian 50% share for the program
I got you. Still it's quite a good money. I think they ignored Insurance due to high Premium costs etc.
One off projects are usually not insured, but self-insured. In particular, this mission was made by bartering parts, so determining an actual price, would be very difficult, and much of it would be research and not replacement cost.
But more in general, one off projects like these, where there's not a clear economic return, and specially since they have already developing a replacement (CBERS-4), there's no point in the extra cost of insurance. Besides, insurance goes to the general government budget and not to the space agency, so they wouldn't get it anyways.
-
#130
by
Star One
on 16 Dec, 2013 17:11
-
-
#131
by
input~2
on 19 Dec, 2013 18:20
-
As far as I know, the rocket had a problem in the mixture of the fuel with the oxidant that controls the level of performance of the rocket and that mixture was flawed. The rocket had its third engine off ten seconds before what was needed, so the satellite speed was not enough to keep it in orbit ", described the [Brazilian communications] minister, who was in China to accompany the launch
(
source in Portuguese)
-
#132
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 20 Dec, 2013 13:14
-
The launch:
-
#133
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 03 Mar, 2014 05:22
-
-
#134
by
Phillip Clark
on 19 Jun, 2014 15:56
-
The CBERS 1, 2 and 2B satellites were classified as being the Ziyuan-1 programme.
Do we know if CBERS 3 was also Ziyuan-1 (in which case, what was its number? - 3??) or whether it was possibly Ziyuan-4 since we have already had flights in the Ziyuan-2 and -3 series?
-
#135
by
William Graham
on 19 Jun, 2014 17:53
-
The CBERS 1, 2 and 2B satellites were classified as being the Ziyuan-1 programme.
Do we know if CBERS 3 was also Ziyuan-1 (in which case, what was its number? - 3??) or whether it was possibly Ziyuan-4 since we have already had flights in the Ziyuan-2 and -3 series?
I have it as Ziyuan I-03
-
#136
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 19 Aug, 2014 04:42
-
After today's successful launch of GF-2, a bit more information about this botched launch has come out:
- due to blockage in one of the 3rd stage engines, it did not provide enough thrust to reach the planned velocity of 7.9 km/s, instead CBERS-3 was released at only 7.1 km/s.
- after the botched launch SAST pulled back the rocket used today back to Shanghai for detailed inspection - every single engine to be used for future flights has been carefully tested and all pipelines has been inspected for foreign objects.
- new pipelines has been added (around the filters I guess?) to make it triple redundant
Source
-
#137
by
northenarc
on 19 Aug, 2014 22:37
-
Not too dissimilar to some of the issues Russia had with the Proton 3rd stage over the years. I have no idea, but maybe hypergolic engines are more prone or sensitive to debris in the lines for some reason. Just speculating.
Quote
