I trying to picture in my mind, just now, this failure mode finally cropping up just after liftoff of the 20th or so Energia/Buran. Would this have been the Soviet's "o-ring"? - Ed Kyle
Would this have been the Soviet's "o-ring"? - Ed Kyle
Not a fun day for those involved, but not a LOCV either.
Quote from: Lee Jay on 02/07/2013 02:30 pmQuote from: russianhalo117 on 02/07/2013 02:02 pmQuote from: R7 on 02/07/2013 01:52 pmpointing the obvious (and speculating): static hotfirings won't reveal the issue if it's root cause is related to the dynamics of actually releasing the vehicle.The BIM was OK at T-0, was it not, otherwise launch would have been cancelled.It was fine until it failed to nominally switch completely over to RP-1 (RG-1) and used up the remaining first stage high-pressure helium gas which is used to spin up and start BIM power generation. This resulted in the gradual deceleration of the BIM turbo-pump and increasing loss of TVC and power generation after liftoff.In essence, that switchover isn't tested before launch commit, correct? Doesn't that seem like a design flaw?Seems to me it's more of a pre-launch-commit-testing flaw. If the switchover occurred prior to T-0, and was not successful, the launch could be halted. "Timing is everything."
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 02/07/2013 02:02 pmQuote from: R7 on 02/07/2013 01:52 pmpointing the obvious (and speculating): static hotfirings won't reveal the issue if it's root cause is related to the dynamics of actually releasing the vehicle.The BIM was OK at T-0, was it not, otherwise launch would have been cancelled.It was fine until it failed to nominally switch completely over to RP-1 (RG-1) and used up the remaining first stage high-pressure helium gas which is used to spin up and start BIM power generation. This resulted in the gradual deceleration of the BIM turbo-pump and increasing loss of TVC and power generation after liftoff.In essence, that switchover isn't tested before launch commit, correct? Doesn't that seem like a design flaw?
Quote from: R7 on 02/07/2013 01:52 pmpointing the obvious (and speculating): static hotfirings won't reveal the issue if it's root cause is related to the dynamics of actually releasing the vehicle.The BIM was OK at T-0, was it not, otherwise launch would have been cancelled.It was fine until it failed to nominally switch completely over to RP-1 (RG-1) and used up the remaining first stage high-pressure helium gas which is used to spin up and start BIM power generation. This resulted in the gradual deceleration of the BIM turbo-pump and increasing loss of TVC and power generation after liftoff.
pointing the obvious (and speculating): static hotfirings won't reveal the issue if it's root cause is related to the dynamics of actually releasing the vehicle.The BIM was OK at T-0, was it not, otherwise launch would have been cancelled.
However, interest in the acquisition of exclusive floating cosmodrome already showing foreign customers. As the " RIA Novosti "a source close to the negotiations, already at least two organizations, one of which - the largest American space rocket corporation Lockheed Martin, have expressed interest in discussing the possibility of buying a " Sea Launch "at the RSC " Energia ".
Quote from: kch on 02/07/2013 03:19 pmQuote from: Lee Jay on 02/07/2013 02:30 pmQuote from: russianhalo117 on 02/07/2013 02:02 pmQuote from: R7 on 02/07/2013 01:52 pmpointing the obvious (and speculating): static hotfirings won't reveal the issue if it's root cause is related to the dynamics of actually releasing the vehicle.The BIM was OK at T-0, was it not, otherwise launch would have been cancelled.It was fine until it failed to nominally switch completely over to RP-1 (RG-1) and used up the remaining first stage high-pressure helium gas which is used to spin up and start BIM power generation. This resulted in the gradual deceleration of the BIM turbo-pump and increasing loss of TVC and power generation after liftoff.In essence, that switchover isn't tested before launch commit, correct? Doesn't that seem like a design flaw?Seems to me it's more of a pre-launch-commit-testing flaw. If the switchover occurred prior to T-0, and was not successful, the launch could be halted. "Timing is everything."Yes.Currently, BIM requires an actual flight engine and stage to be tested. AFAIK, BIM would have to be replaced (or certain elements within it) after any testing or abort and would have to be returned home for that work. Not exactly with the BIM in that the process is started at T-10s via ground side helium to start to spin up the BIM then when it reaches a certain RPM and then it switches over to stage one GHe supply around T-3s and then starts switching over RP-1 at T-0 and switches completely when RD-171M commits to flight and lifts off. So in the final steps of the switching process the only real option is launch and abort downrange into the ocean/nearby land so that the pad isn't destroyed.That is what I understand about the BIM when RD-171M commits to flight liftoff.
Probably a simple--and maybe dumb--question but does the BIM burn RP-1 or just use it a flowing fluid?
Odyssey platform returned to Long Beach.
I assume that the control ship has already been back for some time already?
Although the main engine gimbaling system failed early in this flight, does the RD-171 engine also use turbopump exhaust for steering or roll control?
Addition from http://www.sea-launch.com/missions-q11349-Failure_Review_Oversight_Board.aspxELUS has identified technical consultants to support the FROB review, who encompass broad knowledge and extensive experience with launch vehicle technical and program matters (including prior Sea Launch experience), as well as subject matter expertise. The SL-48 failure investigation Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA) has been approved by the US Government and is currently in the signature cycle with the TAA parties.Based on the Ukrainian commission’s schedule of events, and assuming timely completion of the necessary export compliance efforts, a FROB meeting with the Zenit-2S investigators is tentatively planned for the second half of April. In addition, per standard Sea Launch investigation procedure, the FROB will also review all other segments of the Sea Launch system during the SL-48 mission to verify nominal performance and ensure that there were no other contributors to the failure.
If SL-48 is the Zenit-2S serial, that's quite a jump out of sequence (was expecting SL-36)
