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

[kevin-rf]

Obviously because after nominal flight the engines shut down anyway. But quick restart after shutdown probably not, need to change out new diaphragms.

Change out of diaphragms in a propulsion system that has been contaminated by hypergolics. That could be quite hazardous to ones health.

For those that know, has a proton ever aborted after the diaphragms burst?

What happened to the stage?

Was it de tanked rolled backed and reset, or was it scrapped?

[Nickolai]

But here's a potential silly question: is the Proton held down at all with clamps or is it just supported from below, free to lift up whenever T/W hits >1? Somehow I got the impression that the lift-off signal just results when Proton pulls some final plug off on the way up.

I believe that is not done anymore (letting a rocket lift free whenever it has enough thrust) because of control issues(!). In general you want your liftoff T/W to be around 1.3. Source: aerospace engr coursework.

[Prober]

I know there are some issues with Encyclopedia Astronautica, but did an abort happen in 1979?

Gunter, you also have it listed?

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/proton-k.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/tksva.htm#chrono

Stan a thought, how long was this Proton sitting in a warehouse?

[Stan Black]

I know there are some issues with Encyclopedia Astronautica, but did an abort happen in 1979?

Gunter, you also have it listed?

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/proton-k.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/tksva.htm#chrono

Stan a thought, how long was this Proton sitting in a warehouse?

 If you are talking about the one that just failed, all I have to work off is the long serial number which has 51 as the middle digits. At a guess I’d say it was to be completed by the second half of 2011 (or possibly 2010). That would tie in with it being for the original blok 47 in 2012. Still within the warranty period. The rocket for blok 54 in 2015 is to be delivered in 2014. Also surprising that they are still producing what appears to be a Phase I Proton-M albeit with RD-276.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17568.msg1069535#msg1069535
http://www.zakupki.gov.ru/pgz/public/action/orders/info/common_info/show?notificationId=3232479
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30175.msg1069578#msg1069578

[zaitcev]

But here's a potential silly question: is the Proton held down at all with clamps or is it just supported from below, free to lift up whenever T/W hits >1?

No, Proton is not held down. At T-1.6 (T-1.75 by ILS guide) engines are started at 10% (40%) thrust. At that time a shutdown and abort is possible. At T-0.2 (T-0.15) engines are commanded by the onboard controller to reach 100% and the rocket lifts off. At T+ some small amount, I don't remember exactly, engines are (un-)throttled up to 107%.

You can see a (very brief) video of support retraction here:
 

[clongton]

Angara is the scheduled replacement for Proton but Russia is having its own set of financial difficulties, which set back completing its development and deployment. Soon enough Proton will find its way into a national museum, but not before Angara is ready. The Russian Space agency isn't as stupid as NASA. It won't cancel an operational launch vehicle until its replacement is ready.

[kevin-rf]

From a historical perspective, it appears at arround 6:10 has the '69 Proton failure and what looks to be the crater.

[kevin-rf]

No, Proton is not held down. At T-1.6 (T-1.75 by ILS guide) engines are started at 10% (40%) thrust. At that time a shutdown and abort is possible. At T-0.2 (T-0.15) engines are commanded by the onboard controller to reach 100% and the rocket lifts off. At T+ some small amount, I don't remember exactly, engines are (un-)throttled up to 107%.

Does that mean, once it passes the initial startup and decides everything is healthy at 10%, the 100% point is commanded and you are committed to some sort of flight?

Sorry if I'm being dense, but does that mean it passed the initial health check then on the way to 100% the temperature spike and engine problems where noticed and everything past that point can be ignored in the analysis?

[Stan Black]

No, Proton is not held down. At T-1.6 (T-1.75 by ILS guide) engines are started at 10% (40%) thrust. At that time a shutdown and abort is possible. At T-0.2 (T-0.15) engines are commanded by the onboard controller to reach 100% and the rocket lifts off. At T+ some small amount, I don't remember exactly, engines are (un-)throttled up to 107%.

Does that mean, once it passes the initial startup and decides everything is healthy at 10%, the 100% point is commanded and you are committed to some sort of flight?

Sorry if I'm being dense, but does that mean it passed the initial health check then on the way to 100% the temperature spike and engine problems where noticed and everything past that point can be ignored in the analysis?

 Zaitcev, those different values you give are for the RD-253?

 One thing mentioned on Khrunichev’s website and not in the Proton Planner’s Guide is that Proton-M, and some Proton-K have a second throttle up six seconds after lift-off. No Proton apparently takes off at more than 107% thrust compared to the RD-253.
 Once in flight Proton-M RD-275 increase thrust by 2%, also some K did too. The RD-276 can go to 112% of the thrust compared to an RD-253 but that probably was not required on this mission.

 At approximately T-1.75 s, the six Stage 1 RD-276 engines are commanded to start at 40% of full thrust. Full thrust is commanded at T-0.15 s. Lift-off confirmation is signalled at T+0.5 s. The staged ignition sequence allows verification that all engines are functioning nominally before being committed to launch. The LV executes a roll manoeuvre beginning at T+10 s to align the flight azimuth to the desired direction.

Proton Launch System Mission Planner’s Guide, LKEB-9812-1990
Revision 7, July 2009

 The six Stage 1 RD-253 engines are ignited at approximately T-1.6 sec. and are commanded to 40% of nominal thrust. Thrust is increased to 100% at T-0 sec. Liftoff confirmation is signaled at T+0.5 sec. The staged ignition sequence allows verification that all engines are functioning nominally before being committed to launch. The launch vehicle executes a roll maneuver beginning at T+10 sec. to align the flight azimuth to the desired direction.

Proton Mission Planner’s Guide, LKEB-9812-1990
Issue 1, Revision 4, March 1, 1999

 После набора готовности к пуску приблизительно за 1,75 с (Т -1,75 с) до запуска включаются шесть двигателей первой ступени РД-276 и набирают 107% тяги в момент подачи сигнала "Контакт подъема" (КП), через 6 секунд полёта тяга возрастает до 112 % от номинала. Подтверждение сигнала КП поступает в момент Т + 0,5 с. Ступенчатая последовательность включения позволяет получить подтверждение нормального функционирования всех двигателей до запуска.
 Траектория полета РН имеет начальный вертикальный участок продолжительностью около 10 секунд. Далее ракета выполняет маневр по крену для установления азимута полета в требуемом направлении.

http://coopi.khrunichev.ru/main.php?id=654

[xm11]

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130705/182078855/Russia-Will-Launch-Space-Freighter-on-Schedule--Roscosmos.html

ria say field hardware control system

[Prober]

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130705/182078855/Russia-Will-Launch-Space-Freighter-on-Schedule--Roscosmos.html

ria say field hardware control system

good comeback 

[Galactic Penguin SST]

Within a few seconds the rocket lost roll control and at least 1 (some say 2) of the engines.

Gimbal control may have been lost on one or more engines, but they were all running until shortly before crash, when the Proton was upside down. Several images show this.

If I am reading those Russian translations correctly, it seems that the received "engine shutdown" signals at T+17 seconds were erroneous (probably because the rocket was already flying straight down by that point and instrumentation may have been damaged). Instead it seems that engine no.5 was only at partial thrust (the engine combustion chamber pressure was apparently only at 90 atm. instead of the usual 150 atm.) at liftoff, and then suddenly throttle back up within the next few seconds (probably due to the emergency command).

I'm still reading today's discussions at NK forums - there seems to be quite a bit of interesting discussion out there..... 

[Finn]

As we are on the topic of hydrazine cleanup: Yesterday, there was a hydrazine leak from a freight train in Germany. 20 people hospitalized.

http://www.rbb-online.de/nachrichten/vermischtes/2013_07/Brandenburg_Potsdam_Mittelmark_Seddiner_See_Kesselwagen_Hydrazin.html

I don't know how often hydrazine accidents occur in a non-spaceflight context ...

(edited grammar)

[Danderman]

There was about major hydrazine leak from a cargo train in Ventura county about 20 years that shut the 101 freeway for at least a week, about 20 years ago. It was a very big deal.

The hydrazine was headed for Vandenberg, presumably for a Titan launch.

[Antares]

Is the RD-275 fueldraulic?

Regarding the ornery engine not gimbaling with the others, could it be that the single-plane motion of that engine is tangent to the direction being commanded?  Thus, that engine would be incapable of imparting the proper moment, so its vector command would be to do nothing (or so little it's invisible on the video).

[Targeteer]

As we are on the topic of hydrazine cleanup: Yesterday, there was a hydrazine leak from a freight train in Germany. 20 people hospitalized.

http://www.rbb-online.de/nachrichten/vermischtes/2013_07/Brandenburg_Potsdam_Mittelmark_Seddiner_See_Kesselwagen_Hydrazin.html

I don't know how often hydrazine accidents occur in a non-spaceflight context ...

(edited grammar)

The Emergency Power unit on the F-16 is hydrazine powered. Prior to a F-16 familiarization flight--an amazing experience BTW  --the pilot said "if you see the maintainers running in all directions, go 100% on the O2 and settle in for at least two hours since we're going nowhere, the EPU has fired."  All the maintainers in the area would have to undergo blood tests as well.

[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/

More details on the crater size and location from Anatoly Zak at russianspaceweb:

"On July 3, a joint team of environmental experts from Russian TsENKI ground support center and Kazakh ecological service reviewed the impact site. Specialists determined that 4.9 hectares of grassland was affected by a fire following the accident. The impact of the rocket formed a 40 by 20-meter crater with a depth of five meters. The coordinates of the site were determined as:

46 degrees 3 minutes 38 seconds North latitude;
62 degrees 59 minutes 43 seconds East longitude.
This coordinates did confirm that the rocket barely missed the main railway line connecting the Proton launch complex at Site 200 with the rocket's processing complex and fell not far from a triple UR-100NU missile silo facility at Site 175."

Edit: plus a map from russianspaceweb:

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/images/rockets/proton/glonass49_crash/crash_map_1.jpg

[Stan Black]

I know there are some issues with Encyclopedia Astronautica, but did an abort happen in 1979?

Gunter, you also have it listed?

http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau_det/proton-k.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/tksva.htm#chrono

Stan a thought, how long was this Proton sitting in a warehouse?

 If you are talking about the one that just failed, all I have to work off is the long serial number which has 51 as the middle digits. At a guess I’d say it was to be completed by the second half of 2011 (or possibly 2010). That would tie in with it being for the original blok 47 in 2012. Still within the warranty period. The rocket for blok 54 in 2015 is to be delivered in 2014. Also surprising that they are still producing what appears to be a Phase I Proton-M albeit with RD-276.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17568.msg1069535#msg1069535
http://www.zakupki.gov.ru/pgz/public/action/orders/info/common_info/show?notificationId=3232479
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30175.msg1069578#msg1069578

November 2011

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum12/topic12414/message1095062/#message1095062
http://www.gazeta.ru/social/news/2013/07/06/n_3022953.shtml

[Galactic Penguin SST]

Proton-M crash was due to human error - source (Part 2)

MOSCOW. July 9 (Interfax-AVN) - The crash of a Proton-M rocket shortly after take off on July 2 was due to a human error, a source close to experts probing the accident told Interfax-AVN.

"The angular velocity sensors were wired up with the wrong polarity. Therefore, the rocket was orientated incorrectly," he said.

A Proton-M carrier rocket with three GLONASS-M satellites blasted off from Site 81 at the Baikonur cosmodrome on July 2. It veered off trajectory shortly after launch, exploded and fell apart. The wreckage came down not far from the launch site.

The project to make the rocket and three GLONASS satellites, and to prepare their launch cost Russia about 4.4 billion rubles.

Launch services with the use of Proton-M rockets and Briz-M upper stages are provided by the ILS company. Proton-M rockets and Briz-M upper stages are manufactured by the Khrunichev space center.


Source: http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?pg=2&id=429110

According to the info leaks on NK forum, a whole assembly of angular velocity sensors and attitude angle transducers (apparently in the roll channel) was simply installed upside down on this unhappy rocket, and that is what was clearly seen in the wreck pieces... How that was possible to do and escaped quality checks is yet to be seen. Rumors are that the guy who was doing the assembling has only worked for several months on the plant.

The sensors are really designed in a symmetrical shape and can theoretically be installed in the wrong way: http://www.zavod-zvezda.ru/produkciya.html

If the information is correct, it seems that the garbage data from these roll control sensors may have caused the erroneous contact liftoff command that caused the rocket to left the pad. Of course this isn't the first time such problems doomed a flight - remember Genesis? 

[kevin-rf]

All I can say is, Murphy's law.

If someone can do something wrong eventually they will do it wrong.

Colonel Stapp called this one..