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

[smoliarm]

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

I respectfully disagree.
IMHO, Proton retirement is long overdue, although its reliability record is not too bad. The call for retirement comes from two other facts.
1. In normal case - i.e., each and every time - Proton drops the first stage with some hundreds kg of unburned UDMH. Therefore, there must be crush site decontamination after each launch. Unfortunately, there are numerous examples of improper/ineffective crush site treatment.
2. In less-then-nominal case - Proton WILL always create a disaster site -- along with the crater. 200 tons of UDMH will always by a BIG problem, if they did not burn nominally.

This particular launch failure may be not that damaging for Proton performance record, but it gives a clear example of what happens to environment in such case:
* personnel was evacuated from 5 sites on Baikonur, including Gagarin start;
* emergency mode was put in effect in city of Baikonur, some 30 miles from the explosion;
* chemical hazard warning was issued in all Kazakh towns down the river, up to 100 miles to south-west.
   Well, they can say "Stay indoors" -- to people. What about cows and chickens? gardens?
* water plants will be shot down in this area, and who knows for how long. How much it will cost to supply bottled water to some 100 000 people for a week? for two weeks?

Even if it happens once in 10 years - it's way too expensive.
Proton should be retired long time ago. Actually, it should not be used for civilian launches at all.

[clongton]

Don’t be so quick to call for the retirement of the Proton. It has had 2 launch vehicle failures in 119 flights, which is not too terribly different than 2 launch vehicle failures in 135 flights for Shuttle.  And don’t say anything like “but they are 2 entirely different kinds of vehicles” because when the launch sequencer reaches zero on any vehicle, it is the entire launch system that is igniting. Proton is not “just” a rocket, it is a launch system that has a very respectable mission history, including Zarya, the 1st module of the ISS. You may not like what it uses for propellants but there is no denying that it works, and works well.

I disagree with you... past success doesn't mean you continue doing the same thing.  We had many successful Titan launches yet we moved on.  Had many successful Shuttle launches... We moved on.

If it ain't broke then don't fix it. Proton isn't broken. Almost all current and previous launch vehicles have had more failures than Proton. The engineers will figure out what caused this particular incident and make the necessary changes to ensure that this anomaly won't happen again.

[Norm38]

I ask because in both this and the recent Sealaunch failure there is the appearance of the vehicle "attempting" to put distance between itself and the pad, during an albeit-brief period of horizontal flight. Is that just getting lucky, or is there a flight control mode that facilitates that?

If a rocket launches straight up from a pad, then flops over horizontal, it's pretty much guaranteed to be heading away from the pad in one direction or another. No luck involved.

[JimO]

There's talk of a 200-meter crater. I consider that to be credible. But I want pictures!!

The crash of a much SMALLER rocket with identical fuel, in 2006,
created a football-field-sized crater -- and MSNBC had EXCLUSIVE private photographs from a source at the launch site. See http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14346394/

[Kabloona]

There's talk of a 200-meter crater. I consider that to be credible. But I want pictures!!

The crash of a much SMALLER rocket with identical fuel, in 2006,
created a football-field-sized crater -- and MSNBC had EXCLUSIVE private photographs from a source at the launch site. See http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14346394/

Here's the crater from the Proton-M crash in 2007:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/photogalleries/wip-week46/photo7.html

(edit for clarity)

[Prober]

I'm shaking my head right now, having just come from the comments page of the Independent, the paper I read the most.  Over half the comments so far have claimed that this is US sabotage in revenge for the Edward Snowden affair.  This is the sort of hyper-political shallow mindset that makes me despair sometimes.

somehow I knew the USA would be blamed somehow for this Russian mess. 

[Prober]

There's talk of a 200-meter crater. I consider that to be credible. But I want pictures!!

The crash of a much SMALLER rocket with identical fuel, in 2006,
created a football-field-sized crater -- and MSNBC had EXCLUSIVE private photographs from a source at the launch site. See http://www.nbcnews.com/id/14346394/

easy JimO this is the space age or google maps age?
 
should be easy to get high res pictures by some private sat company.

[Prober]

Don’t be so quick to call for the retirement of the Proton. It has had 2 launch vehicle failures in 119 flights, which is not too terribly different than 2 launch vehicle failures in 135 flights for Shuttle.  And don’t say anything like “but they are 2 entirely different kinds of vehicles” because when the launch sequencer reaches zero on any vehicle, it is the entire launch system that is igniting. Proton is not “just” a rocket, it is a launch system that has a very respectable mission history, including Zarya, the 1st module of the ISS. You may not like what it uses for propellants but there is no denying that it works, and works well.

I disagree with you... past success doesn't mean you continue doing the same thing.  We had many successful Titan launches yet we moved on.  Had many successful Shuttle launches... We moved on.

If it ain't broke then don't fix it. Proton isn't broken. Almost all current and previous launch vehicles have had more failures than Proton. The engineers will figure out what caused this particular incident and make the necessary changes to ensure that this anomaly won't happen again.

sorry you just didn't sell me. 
 
The design is showing its age as Russia tries to do more with this ancient design.  If you add in the problems with the Britz your numbers will go down.   Don't even try to say that the Britz isn't a major part of this launch system.
 
When ILS was partnered with LM, I might have given more thoughts in your direction, but that is no longer the case.   Russia runs this show alone now.

[clongton]

The design is showing its age as Russia tries to do more with this ancient design.

So because it's an old design that makes it no good anymore? That's a juvenile attitude. What about Soyuz? It's much older than Proton. Yet it's good enough to fly US astronauts on. Old does not equate to bad. Proton still flies because it's good, and that has been proven over time. All launch vehicles either have or will suffer failures from time to time. That's the nature of this business. There was a problem with this launch. So until the investigation reveals what actually caused this failure I suggest you label your comments as your own uninformed opinion, unless you know something that literally nobody else on earth knows?

[spectre9]

I'm not living east of Baikonur. I don't have to worry about dead animals, contaminated water and acid rain from discarded Proton stages.

That doesn't mean it isn't a big issue for those that live in those areas.

The problem isn't an old design. The problem is the toxicity combined with overland launch.

After this disaster I'm thinking launch vehicle manufacturers all over the world need to start serious development of LNG/methane engines/stages.

[Lars_J]

The only reason Proton is still in service is because Angara keeps getting delayed.

[baldusi]

The only reason Proton is still in service is because Angara keeps getting delayed.

Or, maybe, just maybe, it has 45% of the commercial GTO market because it's he only option with the capabilities, availability and price with acceptable reliability.

[kevin-rf]

Don't forget how much people are willing to overlook the acceptable reliability bit for the low price until it bites them in the flame trench...

Says the man hiding from his bosses emails because a low cost chinese camera we built a product around is throwing us for more reliability loops than than a Proton launch. But I digress... Proton has a well know reliability rate.

[a_langwich]

The problem isn't an old design. The problem is the toxicity combined with overland launch.

I agree (not sure over water would be better--contamination of coastal water areas could be just as bad).

And doesn't Russia also agree?  Angara 5 is meant to replace Proton with a non-hypergolic fuel rocket.  Replacing a rocket as large and successful and cost-effective--as Proton has been--is not an easy task, and can't be done overnight or without a large budget.

That doesn't mean Angara 5 couldn't suffer from a crash like this one, just that its crash crater will not require hazmat cleanup and remediation teams for a year or two afterward.

[Galactic Penguin SST]

Some food for thought: one Russian source is saying that the rocket may have been released half a second too early. What would happen if the rocket T/W is already >1 but with some of the engines still building up to full thrust (with some others already at full thrust)? Could it have caused an engine fire and eventual failure?

[kevin-rf]

or could something have pulled out bending or tearing some metal, like a TVC or engine mount?

[JimO]

Here's the crater from the Proton-M crash in 2007:

Any idea of the scale? I can see no known-sized objects.

[JimO]

easy JimO this is the space age or google maps age?
 
should be easy to get high res pictures by some private sat company.

Well, I want them NOW. And they already exist, from aircraft. I'll be watching the on-line Kazakh press, tomorrow's editions are now being posted. You want to wait for a future fortuitous commercial overflight, do it your way.

Let me go check ISS daylight passes. But a 200 meter crater might not be an easy target for handheld cameras.

[joek]

Here's the crater from the Proton-M crash in 2007:

Any idea of the scale? I can see no known-sized objects.

IIRC that was the result of a first-second stage separation failure?  It would have impacted at a relatively high velocity but with less unburned propellant, vs. this failure which would have a lower impact velocity but a larger amount of unburned propellant.

[Phillip Clark]

Well, I want them NOW.
Let me go check ISS daylight passes. But a 200 meter crater might not be an easy target for handheld cameras.

When I was a child I was told by my parents that "'I want' doesn't get".   Perhaps JimO could learn that lesson.

Also, I am sure that the ISS crew have better things to do than provide rubber-neckers with happy snaps.