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

[Stan Black]

When you talk about Proton-M failures, should include 53513 for AMC23, 93524 for SES4 and 93530 for SES5 which all struggled to get off the ground.

[russianhalo117]

LINK: http://www.ilslaunch.com/updates-failure-glonass-july-2013

UPDATE ON RUSSIAN FEDERAL PROTON GLONASS MISSION FAILURE

July 12, 2013

Below is an update on the 2 July 2013 Russian Federal Proton M/Block DM-03 GLONASS mission failure.

Astra 2E Spacecraft Status:
The Astra 2E Spacecraft has been configured for short term storage and is being regularly monitored by Astrium specialists and secured by Astrium/ILS security personnel on site.

Astra 2E Campaign Status:
By 9 July, the majority of the Astra 2E team has left Baikonur.  The team will return after the Russian State Commission and ILS FROB complete their work on root cause and required corrective actions and all parties agree to resume operations.

Proton Launch Pad Facility Status:
The impact area was at a safe distance from Launch Pad 24 and Launch Pad 39 and neither launch pad was damaged.

Environmental Status:
Per ILS standard practice, ILS safety personnel began monitoring building 92A50 and the hotel complex for the presence of propellant vapors prior to the GLONASS launch. In addition, several hours after the failure, ILS monitored for the presence of propellant vapors on the road into the town of Baikonur and Krainy Airport. As of today, no propellant vapors have been detected by ILS in or around the ILS facilities, on the road into Baikonur town, or in the town itself. ILS continues to monitor for the presence of propellants.

Russian Investigation:
The Russian State Commission has been established and is actively investigating the potential causes of the failure. The Russian State Commission will release their findings upon completion of the investigation. It is currently estimated that the Russian State Commission will complete their work in late July.  Only after the Russian State Commission completes their work will an official root cause or causes be published.

ILS FROB:
The Russian State Commission is still in progress. We estimate that the FROB may begin in early to mid-August based on a late July completion of the Russian State Commission.

Return to Flight and Proton Manifest:
The schedule for the return to flight and subsequent missions will be determined once the Russian State Commission and ILS FROB complete their efforts and the required corrective actions have been implemented.

We plan to provide you with regular updates as new information develops.

John L. Palmé
Vice President & Chief Technical Officer

Related Links:
GLONASS Failure Update - July 08 (http://www.ilslaunch.com/update-failure-glonass-july-08)
Investigation into Russian Federal Proton Glonass Mission Failure is Underway (http://www.ilslaunch.com/newsroom/news-releases/investigation-russian-federal-proton-glonass-mission-failure-underway)
GLONASS July 2 (http://www.ilslaunch.com/category/tags/glonass-july-2)

[Prober]

There is a rumor going around Russia that the Glonass sats were known not to work before launch (due to Federal funds being stolen), so the launch was sabotaged to prevent detection of the failed payloads.

if anywhere near the truth it will never come out into the light.

[360-180]

There is a rumor going around Russia that the Glonass sats were known not to work before launch (due to Federal funds being stolen), so the launch was sabotaged to prevent detection of the failed payloads.

Don't hold your breath!

[xm11]

last post from ils 12 july
will be not launch end of july or mid august ?

[renclod]

"Frozen vehicle" video posted at http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum



edit: source

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=z_EEv_CmOyA&NR=1

[kevin-rf]

Someone posts the same conspiracy theory again and again.

This is Russia we are talking about, they even have a conspiracy theory for why the sun coming up in the morning.

[Kabloona]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, because generally the simplest answer is the truth, e.g. the guy who installed the gyros made an honest mistake.

But saying that the mistake required "considerable physical effort" could well raise some eyebrows.

I've seen someone shove a second floppy disk into a drive that already had one in it.  I've also dispo'd paper for someone banging a dent out of flight hardware with their fist.  I've watched the NBA.

Brains are not required to exert considerable physical effort.

More eyebrows may be raised with this latest report from Anatoly Zak on russianspaceweb.com:

"By July 13, investigators simulated the improper installation of the DUS angular velocity sensors on the actual hardware. As it turned out, it would be very difficult to do but not impossible. To achieve that personnel would need to use procedures and instruments not certified either by the design documentation or the installation instructions. As a result, the plate holding the sensors sustained damage. Yet, when the hardware recovered from the accident was delivered to GKNPTs Khrunichev, it was discovered that the nature of the damage to the plate had almost exactly matched the simulated version."

So investigators tried to install a sensor mounting plate upside down, as it had been done on the crashed Proton, and found it so difficult that it could only be done by damaging the mounting plate. And when they inspected the mounting plate from the crash, they found the same type of damage.

It's one thing to exert "considerable effort" while installing flight hardware incorrectly, but if you have to *damage* a gyro mounting plate in order to install it upside down, while ignoring written procedures, it's beyond stupidity and heading towards sabotage.

[spectre9]

Alarming lack of quality assurance if that is the case.

Also alarming hiring practices.

Why any self respecting rocket engineer would ever damage any part of a rocket is beyond comprehension.

[Artyom.]

Government report says yaw sensors forcibly installed upside down
http://www.federalspace.ru/main.php?id=2&nid=20216

[Artyom.]

Incorrect installation of angular rate sensors behind July 2 Proton-M crash - commission findings

The July 2 crash of a Proton-M launch vehicle at the Baikonur Space Center occurred due to the fact that three angular rate sensors had been installed incorrectly while the rocket was being assembled, the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) said in a report.

"The space rocket's failed launch was due to an error during installation of three yaw-axis angular rate sensors on the Proton-M rocket by the Khrunichev State Space Research and Production Center," an interagency commission investigating the crash said in a report posted on the Roscosmos website on Thursday.

Control methods currently used during the rocket's ground preparations and tests make it impossible to detect the incorrect installation of the sensors, the report said. "The error was committed during the production stage and became apparent during flight," the document says.

The commission determined that the liftoff switch was activated 0.4 seconds before the rocket actually separated from the launch pad.

http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=431318

[woods170]

Incorrect installation of angular rate sensors behind July 2 Proton-M crash - commission findings

The July 2 crash of a Proton-M launch vehicle at the Baikonur Space Center occurred due to the fact that three angular rate sensors had been installed incorrectly while the rocket was being assembled, the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) said in a report.

"The space rocket's failed launch was due to an error during installation of three yaw-axis angular rate sensors on the Proton-M rocket by the Khrunichev State Space Research and Production Center," an interagency commission investigating the crash said in a report posted on the Roscosmos website on Thursday.

Control methods currently used during the rocket's ground preparations and tests make it impossible to detect the incorrect installation of the sensors, the report said. "The error was committed during the production stage and became apparent during flight," the document says.

The commission determined that the liftoff switch was activated 0.4 seconds before the rocket actually separated from the launch pad.

http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=431318

Heads are gonna roll for this. If this wasn't plain stupidity on behalf of the people installing the sensors, than it was only one possible other thing IMO: sabotage.
Naturally, the latter possibility is not the most obvious, simply because it would be too obvious. As seen in the investigation so far, the nature of incorrect installation of the sensors became apparent very quickly. And a paper trail points to the people involved in the installation. Anyone seriously wanting to sabotage the Proton flight, would have done a much better job of covering it's tracks, and would have 'disappeared' the minute this Proton left the launchpad, or even before it.

[Prober]

This is turning into a real space "drama".   
 
Quick someone write it up, get a kickstarter started and we can make a very exciting space movie.   

[notsorandom]

Incorrect installation of angular rate sensors behind July 2 Proton-M crash - commission findings

The July 2 crash of a Proton-M launch vehicle at the Baikonur Space Center occurred due to the fact that three angular rate sensors had been installed incorrectly while the rocket was being assembled, the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) said in a report.

"The space rocket's failed launch was due to an error during installation of three yaw-axis angular rate sensors on the Proton-M rocket by the Khrunichev State Space Research and Production Center," an interagency commission investigating the crash said in a report posted on the Roscosmos website on Thursday.

Control methods currently used during the rocket's ground preparations and tests make it impossible to detect the incorrect installation of the sensors, the report said. "The error was committed during the production stage and became apparent during flight," the document says.

The commission determined that the liftoff switch was activated 0.4 seconds before the rocket actually separated from the launch pad.

http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=431318

Heads are gonna roll for this. If this wasn't plain stupidity on behalf of the people installing the sensors, than it was only one possible other thing IMO: sabotage.
Naturally, the latter possibility is not the most obvious, simply because it would be too obvious. As seen in the investigation so far, the nature of incorrect installation of the sensors became apparent very quickly. And a paper trail points to the people involved in the installation. Anyone seriously wanting to sabotage the Proton flight, would have done a much better job of covering it's tracks, and would have 'disappeared' the minute this Proton left the launchpad, or even before it.

Agreed, This is a rocket we are talking about with thousands of parts that all have to work for a successful flight. If one was going to sabotage the rocket there were likely more subtle ways of doing so. Also if the goal is to destroy the flight sabotage on the second or higher stage makes more sense. Evidence would have been harder to pull from the wreckage do to its more distant location and higher impact velocity. Its interesting to speculate about deliberate sabotage but its often the case that incompetence is a more likely explanation than malice.

[kevin-rf]

It could be incompetence and malice, aka the new employee was told to make it fit by someone who knew better. No paper trail and it would be his word against the trusted saboteurs. The saboteur only has to say the stooge is thick as a brick and he wins.

But more likely he wasn't given proper training or was confused by the training he was given and "forced it". A shame closeout imagery is not SOP.

[russianhalo117]

Anatoly Zak's website has been updated today: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/proton_glonass49.html#official

[notsorandom]

This is just morbid curiosity on my part but have any pictures of the impact site been released?

[renclod]

"... The space rocket's failed launch was due to an error during installation of three yaw-axis angular rate sensors on the Proton-M rocket ..."

Could someone please explain what is the presumed relation between
a reversed yaw rate input signal
and
the accelerated roll visible in videos ?

edit: the commission findings published today do not make the full story of this fallen bird; there is more to come for sure - if they allow it in the open.

[russianhalo117]

Published on Jul 18, 2013
Заместитель Руководителя Федерального космического агентства Александр Лопатин 18 июля 2013 года на встрече с журналистами в Роскосмосе сообщил о работе Межведомственной комиссии по расследованию причин аварии РКН «Протон-М» (2 июля 2013 года).

[Danderman]

The discovery of a specific hardware failure will allow other launch vehicles to return to flight right away, and will speed up return to flight of Proton.

Heads will roll at Khrunichev. Again.