Proton-M Failure Reaction and Discussion Thread - July 2, 2013

[Chris Bergin]

Thread for reaction and discussion, seperate from the live thread.

Resources:

Article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/07/proton-m-launch-three-glonass/

Live thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31191.0

Good Proton Resources in L2's Russian Section:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=47.0

[FinalFrontier]

"
The emergency ministry of Kazakhstan is considering evacuating the surrounding areas as nuclear fuel leaked from the rocket could threaten the immediate vicinity. "


First thing to discuss to start this thread off. Typo or something going on here and this is the first we hear of it.

[butters]

Cesium clocks?

[FinalFrontier]

Cesium clocks?

Possibly, does not satisfy me however.

Would not be sufficient amount of contamination to be worthy of merit in a news article for one, nor enough to cause a need for an evacuation. The amount of nuclear material used in a clock like that is minute, far less even than the "source" used in an xray machine. That is no where near enough, or shouldn't be, to cause concern even if it was completely atomized on impact and knocked out of its container (which would be basically impossible IMO due to source container construction).

I am going to go out on a limb here and say they meant to type "toxic" fuel from the rocket.

The alternative is altogether too unsavory.

[joek]

Or posturing on the part of Kazakhstan?

[spectre9]

I called the Proton "noxious" in the leading space nation thread.

This is why.

Using a giant toxic first stage just isn't a good idea.

I hope the Kazakhs crack down hard. They have every right to be disappointed after expressing concerns about the amount of Proton launches taking place in their country.

This land is a rental and needs to be shown more respect.

It's time for a serious plan to retire Proton.

[Rusty Adding Machine]

Douglas Messier's reaction: "@SpaceflightNow Fully fund commercial crew now. Before something like this happens on a Soyuz flight."

https://twitter.com/spacecom/status/351911443316228096

And http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/07/01/hey-congress-wake-the-f-up-another-russian-launch-failed/

Anatoly Zak notes: "Observers: No alternative to #Proton in the Russian #space program until #Angara comes in operation: http://www.RussianSpaceWeb.com"

https://twitter.com/RussianSpaceWeb/status/351912390486532098

[Rusty Adding Machine]

As I asked Liss in the other thread: what do you think this means politically? I'm not sure what Russian space politics are like. And here, do you think this will convince lawmakers to more fully fund commercial crew? I hope so, but I can see it producing more noise than action.

[hop]

Douglas Messier's reaction: "@SpaceflightNow Fully fund commercial crew now. Before something like this happens on a Soyuz flight."

https://twitter.com/spacecom/status/351911443316228096

And http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/07/01/hey-congress-wake-the-f-up-another-russian-launch-failed/

Because nothing like this could happen with an American rocket, I suppose ? 

There are plenty of good reasons to support US crew launch, but that ain't one...

edit:
To clarify, I do think there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about the state of the Russian space industry. My point is that this particular failure is doesn't change the equation much. Any LV that flies as many times as Proton has will have it's share of spectacular failures.

[FinalFrontier]

Certainly this to me is a very good reason to get rid of proton and for our politicians to get a bloody move on on captiol hill toward speeding commercial crew development, because right now the tactic has been to delay it by any means necessary.

It also proves to me that proton should be retired. I don't care what caused this, the first stage of this thing is dated and a hazard. Time to be replaced.

We will have to see what Roscosmos does.

Politically depending on the damage to the area I think there could be very serious political ramifications.

And then there is this "nuclear" typo or not typo we will have to see what the issue was there. If its a typo I would hope, at least, that RT would come forward soon with a correction and explain the typo because that sort of thing will cause massive alarm otherwise.

If its not a typo it means there was illicit cargo onboard or built into the sattilites and that opens a Pandora box of implications, so I am forced to assume it has to be a very serious typo.

There's just no way they'd try something that underhanded.

[William Graham]

Douglas Messier's reaction: "@SpaceflightNow Fully fund commercial crew now. Before something like this happens on a Soyuz flight."

If that failure happened on a Soyuz it should be fully survivable - LES would be activated as soon as the anomalous pitch event occurred. Loss of mission, but the crew should survive.

Russia is having a bad time at the moment, but it will get through this. If Commerical Crew were funded today, the first flight would still be years away. If it is rushed through then mistakes are more likely to happen, and if a new crewed spacecraft comes on line in say 2018, who's to say things won't have picked up for Russia by then, leaving the US to content with a far less-tested and less-proven system.

In any case, Soyuz has historically been more reliable than Proton. It's also worth noting that Russian failure rates are somewhat artificially inflated by the fact that Soyuz and Proton launch far more frequently than most other rockets.

[Bubbinski]

Regarding the "nuclear" comments - do the Glonass satellites have RTG's? 

[FinalFrontier]

It looks like the nuclear problem may be from RTG fuel.

I had thought Glonass did not use RTG's. Still not totally sure but there was mention of it in this document:

http://ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nwgs/physics-space-security.pdf.

If anyone can clarify as to whether Glonass M uses RTG's and if so how many that would be appreciated.

That is a very concerning development because release of RTG fuel would have occurred when the payload and payload fairing split apart prior to the rocket catching fire when it pitched down completely, meaning they could have been atomized and spread over a wide area in bits.

And RTG fuel tends to be a very nasty isotope of plutonium.

[Galactic Penguin SST]

It looks like the nuclear problem may be from RTG fuel.

I had thought Glonass did not use RTG's. Still not totally sure but there was mention of it in this document:

http://ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nwgs/physics-space-security.pdf.

If anyone can clarify as to whether Glonass M uses RTG's and if so how many that would be appreciated.

That is a very concerning development because release of RTG fuel would have occurred when the payload and payload fairing split apart prior to the rocket catching fire when it pitched down completely, meaning they could have been atomized and spread over a wide area in bits.

And RTG fuel tends to be a very nasty isotope of plutonium.

No they don't - otherwise they won't need the solar panels.

[FinalFrontier]

It looks like the nuclear problem may be from RTG fuel.

I had thought Glonass did not use RTG's. Still not totally sure but there was mention of it in this document:

http://ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nwgs/physics-space-security.pdf.

If anyone can clarify as to whether Glonass M uses RTG's and if so how many that would be appreciated.

That is a very concerning development because release of RTG fuel would have occurred when the payload and payload fairing split apart prior to the rocket catching fire when it pitched down completely, meaning they could have been atomized and spread over a wide area in bits.

And RTG fuel tends to be a very nasty isotope of plutonium.

No they don't - otherwise they won't need the solar panels.

Document states its for backup power.


I still want a better source to clarify whether this is true or not. I was of the impression that they did not have RTGs until I saw that. I am still not sure here.

I suppose I want to believe they don't, regardless of the case because adding nuclear contamination to this mess would just be awful.

[NovaSilisko]

Good god... that was scary. I guess Proton lacks a range safety system...? Or did it malfunction?

[edkyle99]

I wouldn't be so quick to call for stopping Proton.  Since 2000 inclusive, there have been 119 Proton launches.  This is only the second actual Proton failure during that span (a third failed to reach orbit due to the DM-03 propellant overloading in 2010).  The other six failures involved upper stages after reaching orbit - many of them the same upper stages that will fly on Angara. 

 - Ed Kyle

[FinalFrontier]

Good god... that was scary. I guess Proton lacks a range safety system...? Or did it malfunction?

No explosive RSS exists on proton apparently.

Also an agency source said on his twitter that engine shutdown is blocked for the first 45 seconds.

It wouldn't really have helped much either way in this situation.

Also, MASSIVELY, good news here, looks like this current form of Glonass does not have any RTGs, although it may have, or the design may have at one point included them in the past.

RT also updated their posting to reflect a typo correction. Its stated as Toxic Fuel now, so I think we can safely assume this was a typo: http://rt.com/news/proton-m-rocket-takeoff-crash-514/

[JimO]

Whew! OK, next crisis-mongering.

What would a first stage quality control problem do to the launch date of Nauka to ISS?

[joek]

Certainly this to me is a very good reason to get rid of proton and for our politicians to get a bloody move on on captiol hill toward speeding commercial crew development, because right now the tactic has been to delay it by any means necessary.

Let's not overreact.  Proton != Soyuz.  While this failure may lend credence to to the argument for retiring Proton, it is irrelevant with respect to the development of an indigenous U.S. crew capability.

I had thought Glonass did not use RTG's. Still not totally sure but there was mention of it in this document:
http://ucsusa.org/assets/documents/nwgs/physics-space-security.pdf.

If you have a specific cite from that document that leads you to believe GLONASS uses RTGs, then please quote it. I've read it, and find no such indication.