-
Fregat Production Quality Issue - Discussion/Fallout Thread
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 01 Oct, 2014 12:52
-
Although the vehicle itself was flying on behalf of ESA, it is a Russian-built and -operated vehicle so I think that the reaction thread should be here.
Well, the preliminary results are in and it doesn't look good for the Prime for the Fregat upper stage!
Link to Space News articleOne-in-four vehicles with a serious quality control issue isn't a minor problem. It is actually quite horrifying and raises enormous questions about the NPO Lavochkin's production standards. What will contractor's reaction be, let alone the Russian government? Could this be the end of ESA's use of Soyuz/Fregat? The thoughts and opinions of more knowledgeable posters is welcome.
-
#1
by
Danderman
on 01 Oct, 2014 13:52
-
These are problems endemic to Russian aerospace industry, which is inefficient and underfunded.
Putin's approach to most technical issues is to modify and updated existing systems, so Fregat is really a 1980s evolution of the 1970s era Luna probes, with a little 1990s technology added.
-
#2
by
Runerdieker
on 02 Oct, 2014 08:00
-
How will this financially work out? I suppose the related insurance-company wants to recoup the cost of an almost worthless pair of satellites, due to a standard faulty installation procedure, to NPO Lavochkin? Or does Arianespace face the cost of this loss?
-
#3
by
sdsds
on 02 Oct, 2014 08:08
-
Apparently Fregat are like snowflakes: "No two alike." Was it that reproducible outcomes weren't desired?
-
#4
by
osiossim
on 02 Oct, 2014 08:19
-
Would this case be end up, transferring some of the ESA scientific satellite launches to Vega?
-
#5
by
woods170
on 02 Oct, 2014 09:47
-
Would this case be end up, transferring some of the ESA scientific satellite launches to Vega?
No, too expensive an option. IMO what this will result in is greater insight into-/overview of- Russian design- and manufacturing practices by ESA/Arianespace. ESA/Arianespace might even muscle independent quality review inspections on the Russians.
IMO the Russians would be well advised to accept such independent quality reviews as this latest incident is yet another good-sized hole in Russia's space reputation.
-
#6
by
baldusi
on 02 Oct, 2014 11:03
-
Would this case be end up, transferring some of the ESA scientific satellite launches to Vega?
No, too expensive an option. IMO what this will result in is greater insight into-/overview of- Russian design- and manufacturing practices by ESA/Arianespace. ESA/Arianespace might even muscle independent quality review inspections on the Russians.
IMO the Russians would be well advised to accept such independent quality reviews as this latest incident is yet another good-sized hole in Russia's space reputation.
Would those inpections be made by ESA contracted Russian nationals or are you saying foreign inspectors will have access to Russian designs and technology? I understand that from their technology protection laws that difference is huge.
-
#7
by
owais.usmani
on 02 Oct, 2014 11:40
-
Would this case be end up, transferring some of the ESA scientific satellite launches to Vega?
No, too expensive an option.
Vega is more expensive than Soyuz?
-
#8
by
tobi453
on 02 Oct, 2014 11:52
-
Vega doesn't have the performance. Most small payloads are already on Vega or Eurorockot. There are only a few government payloads currently manifested on Soyuz (excluding Galileo). Sentinel 1B and earthCARE for example. Most Sentinels launch on Vega or Eurorockot.
If the EU abandons the Soyuz, those payloads will have to be moved to another launcher, F9v1.1 or Ariane 5. Ariane 5 would be very expensive, so I think SpaceX is most likely getting another customer in this case. However, I think Europe will not abandon the Soyuz rocket.
-
#9
by
robertross
on 02 Oct, 2014 22:55
-
Apparently Fregat are like snowflakes: "No two alike." Was it that reproducible outcomes weren't desired?
I think it was simply an oversight from the beginning.
As is the case in most things in life: you learn from your mistakes. The airline industry is fraught with them.
In this case, I can only hope they not only address this issue, but take a wholesale account of the Fregat variants & introduce 'Hold Points' for additional oversight, and perhaps do more detailed analysis of potential failure modes.
-
#10
by
woods170
on 03 Oct, 2014 07:10
-
Would this case be end up, transferring some of the ESA scientific satellite launches to Vega?
No, too expensive an option.
Vega is more expensive than Soyuz?
I don't understand why you are surprised. This has been common knowledge from before Vega's first flight.
If the payload fits the performance envelope of both vehicles than yes: Vega is more expensive. Most ESA payloads specifically assigned to Vega have been assigned to that vehicle for political reasons, not cost reasons.
-
#11
by
owais.usmani
on 03 Oct, 2014 08:04
-
Would this case be end up, transferring some of the ESA scientific satellite launches to Vega?
No, too expensive an option.
Vega is more expensive than Soyuz?
I don't understand why you are surprised. This has been common knowledge from before Vega's first flight.
Well I didn't know that, that's why I asked.
Btw RIA mentioned recently that a Soyuz mission from Kourou costs 65-70 million euros:
http://ria.ru/space/20141001/1026500201.html
-
#12
by
baldusi
on 03 Oct, 2014 14:25
-
Would this case be end up, transferring some of the ESA scientific satellite launches to Vega?
No, too expensive an option.
Vega is more expensive than Soyuz?
I don't understand why you are surprised. This has been common knowledge from before Vega's first flight.
If the payload fits the performance envelope of both vehicles than yes: Vega is more expensive. Most ESA payloads specifically assigned to Vega have been assigned to that vehicle for political reasons, not cost reasons.
I had thought that ELS Soyuz was about Euro 56M and Vega around Euro 35M. May be that was assuming 4 launches/year for Vega?
-
#13
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 06 Oct, 2014 18:32
-
-
#14
by
Danderman
on 29 Nov, 2014 00:16
-
Russia Plans Massive Productivity and Wage Hike for Space Industry Workforce
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/russia-plans-massive-productivity-and-wage-hike-for-space-industry-workforce/512043.htmlIn a bid to tackle the low productivity stifling Russia's space industry, the state-owned conglomerate that spans the sector has proposed doubling wages and implementing incentive systems to triple the efficiency of its workforce.
The Soviet space program at its height in 1989 employed over a million people and accounted for 1.5 percent of Soviet gross domestic product. To work in the space sector was considered a plumb assignment.
But after years of industrial decay, low wages and brain drain, the industry is struggling to recruit fresh talent and move forward with new projects.
United Rocket and Space Corporation (URSC) was created by presidential decree earlier this year in response to that crash. It has been tasked with reforming and consolidating most of the industry under its auspices. Reforms are expected to begin next year, and by 2016 the numerous companies that make up Russia's space sector will employ 196,000 people, the corporation said in a statement on Friday.
"By 2025 plans are to increase productivity threefold, while real wages will double," the statement said.
-
#15
by
Notaris
on 12 Aug, 2015 13:32
-
Would this case be end up, transferring some of the ESA scientific satellite launches to Vega?
No, too expensive an option.
Vega is more expensive than Soyuz?
I don't understand why you are surprised. This has been common knowledge from before Vega's first flight.
If the payload fits the performance envelope of both vehicles than yes: Vega is more expensive. Most ESA payloads specifically assigned to Vega have been assigned to that vehicle for political reasons, not cost reasons.
I had thought that ELS Soyuz was about Euro 56M and Vega around Euro 35M. May be that was assuming 4 launches/year for Vega?
I am lost in this discussion, but
a) ESA payloads on Sojus are too big for Vega -> thus no option to switch
b) this even holds true for the Galileo case. Even one Galileo-S/C is too heavy for (current) Vega
c) (Procurement) cost (to AE, I have no insight in real Soyuz cost on Russian side) and (selling) price are both lower for Vega compared to Soyuz.
Cost and price per kilogramm is lower for Soyuz, but that is no surprise. However that is rather academic. Launching Vega-payloads as single payloads on Soyuz would cost ESA more and double launch on Soyuz is usually no option for LEO/SSO payloads.
Edit: I noted only after posting that this discussion is awfully off-topic.
