-
#260
by
Danderman
on 29 May, 2015 18:53
-
I don't know enough about Proton to know whether the vernier engines have their own turbopump, or operate as an integrated system with the main engine, and therefore share the turbopump.
-
#261
by
jgoldader
on 29 May, 2015 19:04
-
With no hardware recovered, I'm a little surprised they were able to narrow it down to this one thing. If somebody who can read Russian can find and summarize the evidence for the conclusion, it would make interesting reading.
-
#262
by
MattMason
on 29 May, 2015 19:08
-
With no hardware recovered, I'm a little surprised they were able to narrow it down to this one thing. If somebody who can read Russian can find and summarize the evidence for the conclusion, it would make interesting reading.
Telemetry would tell them this information from the pump's speed, temperature and other sensors. A quality control check with scheduled-to-fly engines at the factory itself, not to mention the process of building, would support that verdict.
-
#263
by
edkyle99
on 29 May, 2015 21:07
-
-
#264
by
Rocket Science
on 29 May, 2015 21:39
-
Sounds a lot like... “Everything is under control folks... Move along nothing to see here...”
-
#265
by
Space Ghost 1962
on 29 May, 2015 21:47
-
-
#266
by
baldusi
on 29 May, 2015 22:32
-
-
#267
by
Chris Bergin
on 30 May, 2015 00:07
-
I wonder when ILS' report comes out. That would avoid any potential mistranslations per the Roscosmos version.
-
#268
by
owais.usmani
on 30 May, 2015 10:09
-
Hers's Anatoly Zak's report:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/mexsat1.html#outcomeOn May 29, 2015, Roskosmos announced the results of the investigation into the MexSat-1 launch failure. According to the official statement, the steering engine of the third stage failed due to excessive vibration loads, which had been caused by an increasing imbalance of the rotor in the turbopump. The problem was linked to the degradation of the material of the rotor under the influence of high temperatures and to the poor balancing system. The failure was characterized as a design flaw.
According to the agency, the head of Roskosmos Igor Komarov directed GKNPTs Khrunichev and its branches to develop a plan of measures aimed to resolve the issue, including:
To replace the material making up the shaft of the turbopump rotor;
To upgrade procedures for balancing the turbopump rotor;
To upgrade the attachment of the steering engine turbopump to the framework of the main engine.
The agency also announced that the investigation had revealed a number of problems in the management of the quality control issues within the wider industry and promised to develop a plan of measures to resolve them within a month. The launch date for the next Proton mission would be announced in June 2015, Roskosmos said.
During a briefing with reporters on the same day, Deputy Head of Roskosmos, Aleksandr Ivanov said that the quick identification of the culprit in the MexSat-1 failure had become possible thanks to measures taken during a similar Proton accident exactly a year earlier. At the time, the route cause of the failure was mistakenly characterized as a production defect, triggering a massive inspection and re-certification of already manufactured hardware at the Voronezh Mechanical Plant, VMZ. However in addition, new vibration sensors were installed in the turbopump of the engine for future launches. The telemetry from those sensors complemented by ground tests, including a live firing of the engine, enabled to finally re-qualify the issue as an old design flaw rather than poor production. As it turned out, under certain border-line conditions, the shaft of the turbopump tends to fail, even though, it had actually happened in just three launches out of more than 400 Proton missions since 1965.
Aleksandr Medvedev, First Deputy Director at GKNPTs Khrunichev, confirmed during the briefing that the Proton failure on Jan. 18, 1988, had also stemmed from the same design flaw. However, at the time, the rocket completely lacked vibration load sensors and investigators had to work in the dark in search for a culprit, Ivanov added.
The failed rocket of 2014 did carry some vibration sensors on the frame of the engine, however that location turned out to be too far from the turbopump to correctly pinpoint the problem, Ivanov explained. Moreover, investigators into the 2014 failure were under the influence of preceding accidents, which prompted them to focus on the production defects and quality control issues. (In 2013, Proton failed seconds after liftoff due to wrong installation of flight control sensors. In 2010, Proton plunged into the ocean due to mishandling of the fueling procedures.)
Medvedev assured that despite very careful examination of the quality control procedures, no violations of the established process had been found this time. According to Medvedev, the telemetry from the mission provided a very clear picture of the accident, while production and testing of the rocket before the flight caused most controversy. Despite that, all 34 members of the investigative commission, working on seven different aspects of the accident, ultimately came to a consensus, Medvedev said.
In his turn, Ivanov assured that the newly available information allows to fully remedy the problem. According to Komarov, the new material for the failed rotor shaft had already been identified in the wake of the May 2014 failure.
According to Medvedev, officials also concluded that the turbopump attachment system had contributed to the failure and would have to be redesigned.
Unfortunately, investigators were not able to find surviving fragments of the actual turbopump, which caused the MexSat-1 failure, at the crash site in Eastern Russia, Medvedev said. He added, that the crash site was apparently affected by fire and the effort to recover the hardware would continue. The examining the hardware would draw a line under the accident.
-
#269
by
Rebel44
on 30 May, 2015 10:18
-
If redesign is needed, what is the chance of Proton being scrapped, at least for commercial launches? Satelite operators are already unlikely to give it more contracts anyway - due to high cost of insurance and high risk of failure?
Any estimates, how long would redesign take and what would be the cost?
-
#270
by
Star One
on 30 May, 2015 11:58
-
If redesign is needed, what is the chance of Proton being scrapped, at least for commercial launches? Satelite operators are already unlikely to give it more contracts anyway - due to high cost of insurance and high risk of failure?
Any estimates, how long would redesign take and what would be the cost?
I doubt they can afford to scrap it for commercial launches at this time.
-
#271
by
Rebel44
on 30 May, 2015 12:13
-
If redesign is needed, what is the chance of Proton being scrapped, at least for commercial launches? Satelite operators are already unlikely to give it more contracts anyway - due to high cost of insurance and high risk of failure?
Any estimates, how long would redesign take and what would be the cost?
I doubt they can afford to scrap it for commercial launches at this time.
It may not be entirely in their hands - with high insurance cost, cost of commercial Proton launch might be too high (considering high failure rates), so contracts are much much more likely to go to Arianespace and SpaceX.
-
#272
by
Star One
on 30 May, 2015 12:31
-
If redesign is needed, what is the chance of Proton being scrapped, at least for commercial launches? Satelite operators are already unlikely to give it more contracts anyway - due to high cost of insurance and high risk of failure?
Any estimates, how long would redesign take and what would be the cost?
I doubt they can afford to scrap it for commercial launches at this time.
It may not be entirely in their hands - with high insurance cost, cost of commercial Proton launch might be too high (considering high failure rates), so contracts are much much more likely to go to Arianespace and SpaceX.
But can satellite owners swap launchers that easily especially if they need their payloads to be operating by certain dates?
-
#273
by
Rebel44
on 30 May, 2015 12:36
-
If redesign is needed, what is the chance of Proton being scrapped, at least for commercial launches? Satelite operators are already unlikely to give it more contracts anyway - due to high cost of insurance and high risk of failure?
Any estimates, how long would redesign take and what would be the cost?
I doubt they can afford to scrap it for commercial launches at this time.
It may not be entirely in their hands - with high insurance cost, cost of commercial Proton launch might be too high (considering high failure rates), so contracts are much much more likely to go to Arianespace and SpaceX.
But can satellite owners swap launchers that easily especially if they need their payloads to be operating by certain dates?
I am not talking about already signed contracts - we already know, that both Arianespace and SpaceX have full plate for the next 2 years. But any new commercial lauch contracts are current rather unlikely, to be awarded to Proton/ILS.
-
#274
by
alk3997
on 30 May, 2015 14:00
-
The report is interesting in that, unlike what was reported during the live broadcast, telemetry was flowing at the time of the accident. It seems that only ILS was not getting telemetry during much of ascent. That's an interesting coincidence.
The next launch date for Proton will be announced in June. That's unusual because usually the Russian space industry will announce a planned launch date at the time the cause of the accident is announced (usually a manufacturing defect). So, it appears that Roskosmos and Khrunichev might be taking this accident more seriously than previous ones since it has been labeled as a "design defect".
Also interesting that the new material for the rotor shaft had already been identified before the launch. This is also not unusual in previous launch vehicle accidents where an improvement had already been identified but the urgency for making the change had not been foreseen.
Finally, expect that the next commercial Proton launch will not be the next launch. I'm sure insurers would like to see at least one successful Proton launch before insuring a Proton payload. Rate increases are spread throughout the satellite insurance industry (have to correct for the lost money as quickly as possible). These increases will not be as much as some people seem to think since it won't just be Proton insurance rates that increase. Proton insurance rates were already high, so it would be hard to make those rates much higher without causing some Proton launches to become "self-insured". If a satellite is self-insured, the insurance industry receives no premiums, which does not help it recover from paying out on MexSat-1.
Andy
-
#275
by
Rebel44
on 30 May, 2015 14:16
-
......
Finally, expect that the next commercial Proton launch will not be the next launch. I'm sure insurers would like to see at least one successful Proton launch before insuring a Proton payload. Rate increases are spread throughout the satellite insurance industry (have to correct for the lost money as quickly as possible). These increases will not be as much as some people seem to think since it won't just be Proton insurance rates that increase. Proton insurance rates were already high, so it would be hard to make those rates much higher without causing some Proton launches to become "self-insured". If a satellite is self-insured, the insurance industry receives no premiums, which does not help it recover from paying out on MexSat-1.
Andy
If I am an insurance company and someone asks me to insure satelite launch worth $400M on a vehicle with 15% failure rate, you can bet your house, that insurance will be over 15% of value of potential payout, because insurance companies are not willing to lose the money on its contracts. For insurance company, not getting a contract, is a much more preferable, than statistical certainty, of losing money on such contract.
Also, since insurance business isnt a monopoly, ability to spread a loss to other customers (launching on Arianespace and SpaceX rockets) is fairly limited.
-
#276
by
Star One
on 30 May, 2015 14:22
-
If redesign is needed, what is the chance of Proton being scrapped, at least for commercial launches? Satelite operators are already unlikely to give it more contracts anyway - due to high cost of insurance and high risk of failure?
Any estimates, how long would redesign take and what would be the cost?
I doubt they can afford to scrap it for commercial launches at this time.
It may not be entirely in their hands - with high insurance cost, cost of commercial Proton launch might be too high (considering high failure rates), so contracts are much much more likely to go to Arianespace and SpaceX.
But can satellite owners swap launchers that easily especially if they need their payloads to be operating by certain dates?
I am not talking about already signed contracts - we already know, that both Arianespace and SpaceX have full plate for the next 2 years. But any new commercial lauch contracts are current rather unlikely, to be awarded to Proton/ILS.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. In that case I'm more inclined to agree with your analysis.
-
#277
by
cscott
on 30 May, 2015 15:36
-
The report is interesting in that, unlike what was reported during the live broadcast, telemetry was flowing at the time of the accident. It seems that only ILS was not getting telemetry during much of ascent. That's an interesting coincidence.
It may be that only real-time telemetry was lost. That is, either the network used to distribute telemetry from the ground stations was (partially) down, or else the signal was weak/corrupt but the raw signal was still recorded, and later postprocessing was able to pull relevant data out.
-
#278
by
alk3997
on 30 May, 2015 16:09
-
......
Finally, expect that the next commercial Proton launch will not be the next launch. I'm sure insurers would like to see at least one successful Proton launch before insuring a Proton payload. Rate increases are spread throughout the satellite insurance industry (have to correct for the lost money as quickly as possible). These increases will not be as much as some people seem to think since it won't just be Proton insurance rates that increase. Proton insurance rates were already high, so it would be hard to make those rates much higher without causing some Proton launches to become "self-insured". If a satellite is self-insured, the insurance industry receives no premiums, which does not help it recover from paying out on MexSat-1.
Andy
If I am an insurance company and someone asks me to insure satelite launch worth $400M on a vehicle with 15% failure rate, you can bet your house, that insurance will be over 15% of value of potential payout, because insurance companies are not willing to lose the money on its contracts. For insurance company, not getting a contract, is a much more preferable, than statistical certainty, of losing money on such contract.
Also, since insurance business isnt a monopoly, ability to spread a loss to other customers (launching on Arianespace and SpaceX rockets) is fairly limited.
Actually the pool of money that all satellite insurers use is limited. You might want to check past payouts and how they all come from the same source of money - Lloyds of London is involved, if I remember correctly. So while the insurers aren't a monopoly, the all pull from a very limited pool of money.
And, 15% is still better than 5/6th successful and certainly not a "statistical certainty" of failure. If the premiums are high enough, then many companies would cover that bet. Again, self-insurance is always an option.
-
#279
by
sdsds
on 30 May, 2015 16:21
-
"You are probably not an insurance company."
Congratulations to Proton for the relatively quick identification of a root cause, not because they got lucky but because they had on-board sensors that reported the unexpected behavior.
