Author Topic: FAILURE: Sea Launch - Intelsat 27 - February 1, 2013 (0656UTC) (Read 169201 times)

Galactic Penguin SST · « **Reply #140 on:** 02/01/2013 08:03 am »

Wow, this was chilling.......

Quote

A monitor in MC shown on the live stream. Upper right box titled, "Worst Case Toxic Corridor Analysis"

https://twitter.com/Garrettishere/status/297261141640482816/photo/1

Galactic Penguin SST · « **Reply #141 on:** 02/01/2013 08:11 am »

Am I correct in remembering that this launch was the last firm launch contract that Sea Launch has right now? There are launch options and apparently they were in talks with two undisclosed customers to transfer their Proton launch contracts to them, but IIRC there were no further confirmed payloads.....

Sad to say that Sea Launch will ground to a halt for a long long time, if not permanently.....

ugordan · « **Reply #142 on:** 02/01/2013 08:17 am »

Quote from: just-nick on 02/01/2013 07:04 am

Command shutdown for an FTS? Isn't that what Soyuz does? Because that sure looks like shutdown, cough, sputter, and fade away rather than passing behind a cloud. If trajectory was off, command is issued and then it is up for 25 seconds, down for about the same, and then end of mission.

Reviewing the video posted, I agree with this assessment. Liftoff looked normal to me, but the rocket started pitching down unusually fast (even for a Zenit!) that you could actually see bending of the engine plume in the airstream. This normally signals a bad day.

I don't know if the command ship is always positioned at the same relative position to the platform, but didn't previous launches show the rocket heading to the "left" after liftoff?

ugordan · « **Reply #143 on:** 02/01/2013 08:19 am »

Quote from: sdsds on 02/01/2013 07:48 am

Contact:
Intelsat
Dianne VanBeber, (EDIT: Chris here. This post originally had "(EDIT: Chris here. This post originally had "+1" as its response, but I really find that pointless, so I've edited this automatic replacement in via the censor options. Clever me! Thanks for listening OH, and by the way, we will have "Likes" added when we upgrade the forum soon, so that'll solve that. Thanks again! )" as its response, but I really find that pointless, so I've edited this automatic replacement in via the censor options. Clever me! Thanks for listening OH, and by the way, we will have "Likes" added when we upgrade the forum soon, so that'll solve that. Thanks again! ) 202 944 7406
Vice President, Investor Relations and Communications
[email protected]

Hilarious. One can't even post phone numbers correctly on this forum without having them "corrected" and "sanitized"...

EDIT: and just to make it even more absurd, the +1 in the replacement text gets replaced once again after you reply to that piece of work...

sdsds · « **Reply #144 on:** 02/01/2013 08:23 am »

Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 02/01/2013 08:03 am

Wow, this was chilling

Nice find! I'm seeing an "x" in the box labeled, "ACS is > 1000 m outside of corridor, no action required." In fact it looks like (maybe) 3728 m from ACS. The apparent concern is "NTO" would would be nitrogen tetroxide (N₂O₄) propellant leaking from the payload? Presumably the other propellant is MMH?

Of the 702MP Boeing says, "Mass at Launch: 5,800 kg to 6,160 kg; Mass in Orbit (beginning of life): 3,582 kg to 3,833 kg." So that's more than two tons of propellant used to reach GEO ... or in this case dumped in the Pacific.

Galactic Penguin SST · « **Reply #145 on:** 02/01/2013 08:38 am »

A member of Novosti Kosmonavtiki (RSC Energia personnel?) reports that there were signals of "loss of rocket movement stability, loss of longitudinal overloading (?) and BTSVK (?) abnormal" after launch.

He reminds that this looks quite similar to an earlier Zenit launch failure (at Baikonur) on May 20, 1997. That one was blamed on engine defects (probably manufacturing): http://88.210.62.157/content/numbers/152/06.shtml / http://88.210.62.157/content/numbers/153/06.shtml

Nicolas PILLET · « **Reply #146 on:** 02/01/2013 08:46 am »

Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 02/01/2013 08:38 am

A member of Novosti Kosmonavtiki (RSC Energia personnel?) reports that there were signals of "loss of rocket movement stability, loss of longitudinal overloading (?) and BTSVK (?) abnormal" after launch.

This member is Vladimir Antipov, and he's not an Energiya employee.

He doesn't report that there was this signal, but he informs that, in general, the safety program (= automatic engine shutdown) of the rocket is activated when there is one of the following signals :

- BTsVK (=onboard computer) anormal
- loss of stability
- problem with longitudinal G force.

Quote

Система безопасности носителя начинает работать по сигналам: НЕНОРМА БЦВК, ПОТЕРЯ УСТОЙЧИВОСТИ ДВИЖЕНИЯ РН, ПОТЕРЯ ПРОДОЛЬНОЙ ПЕРЕГРУЗКИ.

Galactic Penguin SST · « **Reply #147 on:** 02/01/2013 08:57 am »

There are reports that the sea was quite rough at launch (see the videos - ice flying horizontally at liftoff), and that the rocket (engine) may have been damaged when it hit the platform / umbilical. Or that since the rocket guidance was fixed with reference to the launch platform, a rough (rogue?) wave could have sent the guidance software and gyros crazy.....

woods170 · « **Reply #148 on:** 02/01/2013 08:59 am »

Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 02/01/2013 08:38 am

A member of Novosti Kosmonavtiki (RSC Energia personnel?) reports that there were signals of "loss of rocket movement stability, loss of longitudinal overloading (?) and BTSVK (?) abnormal" after launch.

He reminds that this looks quite similar to an earlier Zenit launch failure (at Baikonur) on May 20, 1997. That one was blamed on engine defects (probably manufacturing): http://88.210.62.157/content/numbers/152/06.shtml / http://88.210.62.157/content/numbers/153/06.shtml

The probable reason this failure reminds him of the failure in 1997 is because the engine in the 1997 failure cut out at approximately 45 seconds into the flight.

woods170 · « **Reply #149 on:** 02/01/2013 09:01 am »

Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 02/01/2013 08:57 am

There are reports that the sea was quite rough at launch (see the videos - ice flying horizontally at liftoff), and that the rocket (engine) may have been damaged when it hit the platform / umbilical. Or that since the rocket guidance was fixed with reference to the launch platform, a rough (rogue?) wave could have sent the guidance software and gyros crazy.....

Pure speculation IMO. Let's wait a few months until the final report from the investigation comes out.

Galactic Penguin SST · « **Reply #150 on:** 02/01/2013 09:07 am »

Quote from: woods170 on 02/01/2013 09:01 am

Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 02/01/2013 08:57 am
There are reports that the sea was quite rough at launch (see the videos - ice flying horizontally at liftoff), and that the rocket (engine) may have been damaged when it hit the platform / umbilical. Or that since the rocket guidance was fixed with reference to the launch platform, a rough (rogue?) wave could have sent the guidance software and gyros crazy.....

Pure speculation IMO. Let's wait a few months until the final report from the investigation comes out.

Of course - I was just throwing out hypotheses to add fuel to this thread.

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #151 on:** 02/01/2013 09:41 am »

Did I read right that the Zenit-3 had a Blok-DM upper stage? What's the propellent on that?

Galactic Penguin SST · « **Reply #152 on:** 02/01/2013 09:43 am »

Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 02/01/2013 09:41 am

Did I read right that the Zenit-3 had a Blok-DM upper stage? What's the propellent on that?

All the stages on the Zenit-3SL use kerosene and LOX.

Nicolas PILLET · « **Reply #153 on:** 02/01/2013 10:10 am »

Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 02/01/2013 09:41 am

Did I read right that the Zenit-3 had a Blok-DM upper stage? What's the propellent on that?

Yes. The Zenit-3SL launch vehicle is made of Zenit-2S two-stage launcher and Blok-DM-SL upper stage. All engines use LOX and kerosene.

owais.usmani · « **Reply #154 on:** 02/01/2013 10:29 am »

http://ria.ru/science/20130201/920839804.html

Quote

likely to have been due to a failure in the control system, according to RIA Novosti source in the space industry.

Liryc · « **Reply #155 on:** 02/01/2013 10:41 am »

Do we have any idea of the reason for the engine shutdown ?
technical failure (pump, motor..) or safety system procedure ?

I don't know if they have a pyro safety system (such as the european launchers) or a simple engine shutdown procedure (zoyuz)..

Cyril

Satori · « **Reply #156 on:** 02/01/2013 10:52 am »

At 1:00 in the video we see the explosion of the vehicle when impacts the waters?

ugordan · « **Reply #157 on:** 02/01/2013 10:58 am »

Quote from: Satori on 02/01/2013 10:52 am

At 1:00 in the video we see the explosion of the vehicle when impacts the waters?

My guess is that's the camera panning back to the launch platform and we're just seeing its lights.

Nicolas PILLET · « **Reply #158 on:** 02/01/2013 11:01 am »

Quote from: cyril_13 on 02/01/2013 10:41 am

I don't know if they have a pyro safety system (such as the european launchers) or a simple engine shutdown procedure (zoyuz).

Automatic engine shutdown.

Satori · « **Reply #159 on:** 02/01/2013 11:06 am »

Quote from: ugordan on 02/01/2013 10:58 am

Quote from: Satori on 02/01/2013 10:52 am
At 1:00 in the video we see the explosion of the vehicle when impacts the waters?

My guess is that's the camera panning back to the launch platform and we're just seeing its lights.

Yes, but at 1:00 we see a flash in the video that can be the result from the impact on the waters. The platform is on the left and the flash illuminates the upper portion of the image.