Quote from: Targeteer on 07/19/2013 03:35 pm"The number of launches is limited by the capacity of the station fueling Briz-M upper stages of Proton-M rockets. The station can fuel only one upper stage per month," he said.I presume this "station" is the carwash.But, is this statement actually true? Have Protons recently been launched within 30 days of one another?
"The number of launches is limited by the capacity of the station fueling Briz-M upper stages of Proton-M rockets. The station can fuel only one upper stage per month," he said.
Quote from: 360-180 on 07/19/2013 10:47 amEngine trust angle profile Are those 1/ commanded anglesor2/ effected angles?Also, how about a chamber pressure profile ... any chance to be published ?
Engine trust angle profile
More from Anatoly Zak at russianspaceweb.com about the incorrect installation of the sensors:" Even though the operation is classified as "under special control," there was neither established procedure for video or photo documentation of the process or its inspection by an outside agency. However the technician's supervisor and a quality control specialist were supposed to check on the completion of the installation. All three people involved in this process did leave their signatures in the assembly log.Lopatin stressed that along with a human error, the investigation commission identified deficiencies in the installation instructions and in the mechanical design of the hardware, which both contributed to the problem. For example, the mounting plate lacked an arrow which would match the direction of an arrow on the DUS unit."Sounds like maybe the supervisor and/ or QC guy didn't actually check the work but signed off anyway. Wow. And now for the lie detector tests...
As with Echostar-15 this Proton found itself no longer in contact with the launch site, and throttled up the engines to get clear? So they will need to inspect both launch sites?Whilst it does not appear to cause an issue with the rocket, I wonder if in this emergency situation it goes full thrust?Proton-M take off at a lower thrust (107% of an RD-253), before throttling up at six-seconds.As the first ten-seconds is straight up, I guess this is done to protect the launch site. So in such a situation there is the potential that the launch site could sustain damage?
Quote from: Stan Black on 07/20/2013 03:02 pmAs with Echostar-15 this Proton found itself no longer in contact with the launch site, and throttled up the engines to get clear? So they will need to inspect both launch sites?Whilst it does not appear to cause an issue with the rocket, I wonder if in this emergency situation it goes full thrust?Proton-M take off at a lower thrust (107% of an RD-253), before throttling up at six-seconds.As the first ten-seconds is straight up, I guess this is done to protect the launch site. So in such a situation there is the potential that the launch site could sustain damage?From Anatoly Zak at russianspaceweb.com, the last sentence seems to answer your question:"On July 4, a source at GKNPTs Khrunichev reported on the online forum of the Novosti Kosmonavtiki magazine that an interface plate connecting a series of cables from ground equipment to the aft end of the launch vehicle, had separated earlier than planned. The plate, designed to shift by around 5 millimeters, normally trails the rocket for few millimeters and separates as the vehicle rises above the pad. However in this case, it apparently moved by as much as 11 millimeters before the rocket had a chance to leave the pad. As a result, all electrical connections between the pad and the rocket were severed, while the vehicle's engines were yet to develop their full thrust. At that point, the engines could still propel the rocket into the air, but could not keep it in stable flight. (According to the telemetry, the pressure inside the combustion chambers of the engines was 90 kilograms per square centimeter, instead of required 150 kilograms per square centimeter.) The flight control system could interpret such a situation as an emergency, (even if the rocket was still standing on the launch pad), and sharply throttle all engines to a maximum thrust in order to prevent the vehicle from falling onto the launch pad."
Quote from: Kabloona on 07/20/2013 03:22 pmQuote from: Stan Black on 07/20/2013 03:02 pmAs with Echostar-15 this Proton found itself no longer in contact with the launch site, and throttled up the engines to get clear? So they will need to inspect both launch sites?Whilst it does not appear to cause an issue with the rocket, I wonder if in this emergency situation it goes full thrust?Proton-M take off at a lower thrust (107% of an RD-253), before throttling up at six-seconds.As the first ten-seconds is straight up, I guess this is done to protect the launch site. So in such a situation there is the potential that the launch site could sustain damage?From Anatoly Zak at russianspaceweb.com, the last sentence seems to answer your question:"On July 4, a source at GKNPTs Khrunichev reported on the online forum of the Novosti Kosmonavtiki magazine that an interface plate connecting a series of cables from ground equipment to the aft end of the launch vehicle, had separated earlier than planned. The plate, designed to shift by around 5 millimeters, normally trails the rocket for few millimeters and separates as the vehicle rises above the pad. However in this case, it apparently moved by as much as 11 millimeters before the rocket had a chance to leave the pad. As a result, all electrical connections between the pad and the rocket were severed, while the vehicle's engines were yet to develop their full thrust. At that point, the engines could still propel the rocket into the air, but could not keep it in stable flight. (According to the telemetry, the pressure inside the combustion chambers of the engines was 90 kilograms per square centimeter, instead of required 150 kilograms per square centimeter.) The flight control system could interpret such a situation as an emergency, (even if the rocket was still standing on the launch pad), and sharply throttle all engines to a maximum thrust in order to prevent the vehicle from falling onto the launch pad."But wasn't that just the early speculation about the cause - before the wrongly installed equipment was revealed as the culprit? In retrospect this report seems highly suspect and speculative.
Quote from: Kabloona on 07/19/2013 07:58 pmMore from Anatoly Zak at russianspaceweb.com about the incorrect installation of the sensors:" Even though the operation is classified as "under special control," there was neither established procedure for video or photo documentation of the process or its inspection by an outside agency. However the technician's supervisor and a quality control specialist were supposed to check on the completion of the installation. All three people involved in this process did leave their signatures in the assembly log.Lopatin stressed that along with a human error, the investigation commission identified deficiencies in the installation instructions and in the mechanical design of the hardware, which both contributed to the problem. For example, the mounting plate lacked an arrow which would match the direction of an arrow on the DUS unit."Sounds like maybe the supervisor and/ or QC guy didn't actually check the work but signed off anyway. Wow. And now for the lie detector tests...Or maybe they checked electrical connections, etc, but it didn't occur to them to check the orientation either?Cheers, Martin
update 26 julyhttp://www.ilslaunch.com/updates-failure-glonass-july-2013
