-
World Missile and Space Launch Vehicle Failures by Art LeBrun on 06 Mar, 2013 06:47
-
This topic is to discuss and illustrate rocket/missile/SLV mishaps, anomalies and failures over the years.
Feedback/corrections on topic title and subjects within the topic encouraged.
Now open for postings. -
#1 by R7 on 06 Mar, 2013 08:19
-
#2 by Archibald on 06 Mar, 2013 10:00
-
As promised I've dug into Ariane V36 failure. And I've found some elements in that story that are even more disturbing than the cloth itself.
Looks like the Murphy law had a pretty good day.
Suffice to say that the two Japanese satellites lost this day very VERY unlucky.
Superbird B had been delayed because the Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989 had damaged Loral facilities in Palo Alto.
The delay resulted in the satellite booking on V36.
In the end the satellite survived an earthquake only to be lost on a rocket failure.
As for the other satellite (http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/bs-2x.htm) - its twin and backup was lost a year later in an Atlas failure.
More on this later. -
#3 by ugordan on 06 Mar, 2013 12:59
-
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/incorrect-2x.htm
Don't tell me the forum's Auto-Incorrect feature (TM) attacks even URLs?
Can you repost that link, just drop one of the empty formatting tags into the offending word? -
#4 by Archibald on 06 Mar, 2013 13:26
-
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/incorrect-2x.htm
Don't tell me the forum's Auto-Incorrect feature (TM) attacks even URLs?
Can you repost that link, just drop one of the empty formatting tags into the offending word?
I don't know whether to laugh or bang my head against the nearest wall. Oh, well...
Superbird B entry
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/superbird-a.htm
(the companion satellite is listed along it)
-
#5 by AnalogMan on 06 Mar, 2013 13:42
-
http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/incorrect-2x.htm
Don't tell me the forum's Auto-Incorrect feature (TM) attacks even URLs?
Can you repost that link, just drop one of the empty formatting tags into the offending word?
main part of url should be
space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/bs-2x.htm -
#6 by Archibald on 06 Mar, 2013 13:54
-
As promised, the story of Ariane flight 36.
(translated from the highly recommended Capcom espace website, whose webmaster is a member of this forum, by the way)
http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_europeen/ariane/index.htm
On February 22 1990 the third Ariane 44L lifted-off from Kourou at 20h17 local with Japanese satellites Superbird and B--S-2X.
110 seconds after the rocket exploded in flight destroying its 3750 kg payload estimated at over one billion Francs (a few hundred of million euros).
The explosion took place while the eight Viking engines operated at full thrust. It was Ariane 36th launch since 1979 and the 5th failure.
The alert was given to Kourou to prevent a possible fallout of toxic gases. Soon French legionaries were to the waist in the mud of the mangroves to find the pieces.
Motor -D was found some days later. Analysis shows a loss of thrust in at least one engine caused the launcher to slowly veer off the nominal trajectory until aerodynamic forces led to a breakup.
According to preliminary data, thrust of first stage and boosters (PALs) was nominal until T+ 6.2 seconds.
At this point, D engine pressure droped from 58 to 30 bar until T+110 seconds. A fire broke out on the defective PAL.
Ariane control system tried to correct the issue by steering the other engines. From T+90 seconds however the engines were pointed to their maximum of four degree - and the deviation continued.
At T+110 seconds loads exceeded Ariane strength leading to the launcher breaking up at a height of 9000 meters, 12.5 km away from the launch pad.
ELA-2 launch complex went on undamaged despite the launcher passing too close from the top - 3 meters instead of the usual 7 meters, with black marks found on top of the structure.
This is a comparison of Ariane V36 (left) and V48 (right), both Ariane 44L.
V36 lack of thrust at takeoff has the launcher rising slowly - it takes one more second for V36 to clear the tower than V48.
On the picture the cross represents the actual position of V36; the square represents the nominal position.
Almost from the start V36 was outside of the curve - and Flight Director M. Gaillard accordingly looks concerned.
And now the priceless moment - why did Ariane failed...
Translated from this document (via google, with all the according caveats)
http://liris.cnrs.fr/amille/enseignements/Master_PRO/BIA/chap10.htm
1989 - Les Mureaux, near Paris - Ariane assembly plantQuoteDuring assembly of a Viking motor, a boilermaker can not connect two pipes as shown on the plan. Thus he gives a little bit of polishing. But to follow the procedure, he must warn his superior that he has done something that was not planned. Now it is Friday evening, there is nobody in sight.
The pipe goes into the Viking cooling assembly, the Viking gets bolted onto Ariane 4 stage 1 and the stage is ferried to Kourou.
Then, as the tradition of Boilermakers in this case, he disconnect the pipes and puts his handkerchief in the pipe.
He reasons that on monday, the red, flashy color of the cloth will catch his eyes and he will be reminded.
Alas !
During the weekend, he fell ill.
The colleague who replaces him Monday takes the two pipes; they adjusts easily, and voila.
During flight the cloth blocked the flow of water cooling the Viking; the Viking lost power, ruining the rocket trajectory from the beginning.
http://www.forum-conquete-spatiale.fr/t10688-retour-sur-l-echec-d-ariane-4-v36
http://www.ina.fr/video/CAB06056640/ja2-20h-emission-du-23-fevrier-1990.fr.html
(it come damn close of the launch tower...)
Was Arianespace lucky or unlucky on that flight ? it's anyone guess... others were VERY unlucky.
On this fateful flight Ariane 44L carried two Japanese satellites - Superbird B and B--S-2x.
Stage 1 of that launcher was initially planned to fly on V35 - an Ariane 40 to launch Spot 2 into polar orbit.
It happened that Superbird B was delayed by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, which resulted in damages to contractor Loral in Palo Alto.
As a result Ariane flights and stage 1 were swapped.
V35 stage 1 went to V36 and in the process the rocket become an Ariane 44L configuration.
V36 inherited from a defective stage 1, since the -D engine featured the infamous cloth blocking the water coolant tube.
On January 21, 1990 V35 was perfectly nominal - Ariane 40 boosted Spot 2 into the right orbit. A month later V36 was not so lucky.
Had Ariane launched in version 40, the less powerful launcher probably would have collided with the umbilical mast, causing more damage. As a matter of fact only the cryogenic arm had to be changed after V36 failure.
In conclusion
- It can be said that the unfortunate Superbird B satellite escaped an earthquake only to be destroyed in a rocket failure.
- Yet Japan bad luck was far from over. The other satellite destroyed in the flight (B--S-2x) had a backup... that was launched a year later, on April 18, 1991. Unfortunately the satellite was lost when Atlas-Centaur AC-70 Centaur failed to ignite !
- Much like Proton and Titan Ariane carried toxic propellants.
On April 2 1969 Baikonur suffered a major mishap when a Proton exploded close from the ground. A similar disaster happened in Vandenberg AFB on April 18 1986 with Titan 34D-9 failure. Would Ariane 44L V36 have resulted in similar damage to ELA-2 ?
- since that day every single cloth used by Arianespace has a number on it. No cloth can go away.
For the record, most of Ariane failures (1982, 1985, 1986 and the twin1994 failures) can be traced back to the H-10 third stage.
The lowest composite failed only two times - the cloth, and flight test 2 in May 1980. The second Ariane ever was lost due to first stage pogo.
Ariane 5 was another matter.
Proof that man-rating is not exact science: Ariane 1 - 4 had a reliability very similar to the shuttle (2 failures in 144 flights, against 2 in 135 for the shuttle). The Viking is damn reliable, ask ISRO.
Yet it was Ariane 5 that was build to be man-rated, only to suffer a very rocky start (four failures in the first six years). Go figure...
-
#7 by Davd on 06 Mar, 2013 14:09
-
- Much like Proton and Titan Ariane carried toxic propellants
FTR, at least one Proton failure (Soyuz 7K-L1 launch attempt September 1967) was caused this way, only the offender was a rubber plug instead of a cloth. One of the first stage engines shut down at liftoff and the booster crashed downrange (but the LES pulled the capsule to safety).
Pic unrelated: debris recovered from Atlas-Centaur AC-1 (dunno what it is, but judging by the large amount of wiring, an instrument unit?)
-
#8 by kevin-rf on 06 Mar, 2013 14:21
-
Why do you insist on putting unrelated rockets (and parts of rockets) in your posts?
Also, I vote for a test stand accident thread! -
#9 by kevin-rf on 06 Mar, 2013 14:26
-
At this point, D engine pressure droped from 58 to 30 bar until T+110 seconds. A fire broke out on the defective PAL.
Ariane control system tried to correct the issue by steering the other engines. From T+90 seconds however the engines were pointed to their maximum of four degree - and the deviation continued.
At T+110 seconds loads exceeded Ariane strength leading to the launcher breaking up at a height of 9000 meters, 12.5 km away from the launch pad.
So in other words, Ariane engine out capability failed... -
#10 by Jim on 06 Mar, 2013 15:29
-
Pic unrelated: debris recovered from Atlas-Centaur AC-1 (dunno what it is, but judging by the large amount of wiring, an instrument unit?)
Centaur did not/does not have an instrument unit, which by definition is a separate unit. That would be the Centaur equipment module. -
#11 by Art LeBrun on 06 Mar, 2013 15:54
-
Once enclosed perhaps equipment bay? Just looking for a good proper term - aerospace or manufacturer.
Pic unrelated: debris recovered from Atlas-Centaur AC-1 (dunno what it is, but judging by the large amount of wiring, an instrument unit?)
Centaur did not/does not have an instrument unit, which by definition is a separate unit. That would be the Centaur equipment module.
-
#12 by Jim on 06 Mar, 2013 16:28
-
Once enclosed perhaps equipment bay? Just looking for a good proper term - aerospace or manufacturer.
Pic unrelated: debris recovered from Atlas-Centaur AC-1 (dunno what it is, but judging by the large amount of wiring, an instrument unit?)
Centaur did not/does not have an instrument unit, which by definition is a separate unit. That would be the Centaur equipment module.
I meant the object in both photos is the Centaur equipment module.
I have to reread my posts from an outside POV and not what I think it says. -
#13 by Davd on 06 Mar, 2013 19:44
-
If you watch the video of AC-1, you notice that the initial Centaur breakup produces a water vapor cloud (the product of the LH2/LOX mixing) but nothing like the huge expanding deflagration in AC-5. I would guess because the airstream and speed would prevent that from happening.
-
#14 by Art LeBrun on 06 Mar, 2013 19:53
-
If you watch the video of AC-1, you notice that the initial Centaur breakup produces a water vapor cloud (the product of the LH2/LOX mixing) but nothing like the huge expanding deflagration in AC-5. I would guess because the airstream and speed would prevent that from happening.
My take on that large white cloud was the Atlas lox tank opening up followed by the RP-1 tank and the fireball. If you look closely you will see one of the two liquid nitrogen lines was carried aloft and can be seen flapping against the boattail and in the airstream.
On AC-5 the Centaur would have dropped almost instantly into the buckling Atlas so the mixing was much faster. -
#15 by Davd on 06 Mar, 2013 21:06
-
My take on that large white cloud was the Atlas lox tank opening up followed by the RP-1 tank and the fireball.
In most rocket failures the detonation is caused by propellant touching hot engine parts, although RP-1 and LOX do form a highly explosive gel when mixed.
Interestingly if you see the video of Atlas 3B, there's little or no explosion there, just a smoke cloud (the LOX?) after the vehicle breaks up. The thrust section survives nearly intact and the camera tracks it falling to earth with a little bit of flame coming out. Likely because of the angle it was flying in, the propellants simply dispersed and didn't ignite from contact with the engine.QuoteIf you look closely you will see one of the two liquid nitrogen lines was carried aloft and can be seen flapping against the boattail and in the airstream.
That was presumably ripped off the launch structure during liftoff?QuoteOn AC-5 the Centaur would have dropped almost instantly into the buckling Atlas so the mixing was much faster.
This one is a testimony to the enormous power of LH2/LOX. Most of the blast is a giant yellow-white fireball and you can hardly see any of the orange-red of the RP-1 burning after the first few seconds. That's all considering the Atlas was twice the size and propellant load of the Centaur. -
#16 by Jim on 06 Mar, 2013 21:11
-
In most rocket failures the detonation is caused by propellant touching hot engine parts, although RP-1 and LOX do form a highly explosive gel when .
No, from the hot gases coming out of the engine or destruct charge. -
#17 by Jim on 06 Mar, 2013 21:16
-
If you watch the video of AC-1, you notice that the initial Centaur breakup produces a water vapor cloud (the product of the LH2/LOX mixing) but nothing like the huge expanding deflagration in AC-5. I would guess because the airstream and speed would prevent that from happening.
No, the cloud is the LH2 condensing water vapor in the air. The same effect would happen if there was no LOX onboard. LH2 tank ruptured and LH2 spilt down the sides of the vehicle.
NASA SP-4230 -
#18 by Jim on 06 Mar, 2013 21:17
-
This one is a testimony to the enormous power of LH2/LOX. Most of the blast is a giant yellow-white fireball and you can hardly see any of the orange-red of the RP-1 burning after the first few seconds. That's all considering the Atlas was twice the size and propellant load of the Centaur.
The bulk of the blast is from the RP-1 and not the LH2. The RP-1 is consumed after a few seconds. I am looking for the accident report that I have. -
#19 by Art LeBrun on 06 Mar, 2013 21:22
-
"That was presumably ripped off the launch structure during liftoff?"
It does appear ripped away or broken above the ground connection. The same event happened on 117D (Ranger 2).
