-
#80
by
ChrisGebhardt
on 11 Jul, 2019 02:11
-
*IF* is was a failure of the second stage Solid Rocket Booster to ignite, this would be - I believe, correct me if I'm wrong - the first time in history that a solid failed to light... assuming the command to do so was sent.
-
#81
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 11 Jul, 2019 02:13
-
The livestream is still going, but the screen is completely black.
-
#82
by
ZachS09
on 11 Jul, 2019 02:18
-
Is it appropriate to change the thread title to "FAILURE"?
-
#83
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 11 Jul, 2019 02:21
-
Webcast has ended.
-
#84
by
northenarc
on 11 Jul, 2019 02:24
-
Is it appropriate to change the thread title to "FAILURE"?
I'd say yes, Arianespace officially announced it was a failure.
-
#85
by
Chris Bergin
on 11 Jul, 2019 02:28
-
Couldn't fit this in a twitter video, so put it on youtube:
From the point of failure through to confirmation:
-
#86
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 11 Jul, 2019 02:37
-
-
#87
by
Lars-J
on 11 Jul, 2019 03:09
-
Unfortunate, I feel bad for the people affected by this.
BUT... Ariancespace/CNES P.R. department
- when are they going to learn to not broadcast off a strict script? It again took them minutes for both english and french announcers to realize that something was off. Do the announcers not know what is going on?
-
#88
by
ZachS09
on 11 Jul, 2019 03:17
-
Unfortunate, I feel bad for the people affected by this.
BUT... Arianespace/CNES P.R. department - when are they going to learn to not broadcast off a strict script? It again took them minutes for both english and french announcers to realize that something was off. Do the announcers not know what is going on?
I wish they knew what was going on. If I had to change something about the PAO's responsibility, I would have him/her only use certain elements of a script and not rely on all of it. Basically, ad lib during the launch.
Also, a factor for the ad lib could be sitting in front of a console with realtime telemetry and video of the launch; similar to the NASA PAOs in the Houston MCC. Think about it: an example is when Rob Navias covered the STS-135 launch using telemetry sent by Atlantis.
-
#89
by
catdlr
on 11 Jul, 2019 04:48
-
Since Arianespace deleted it's YouTube link of the broadcast nor provided a replay video, I've found this for those wishing to view the entire webcast.
Arianespace Vega Flight VV15 – FalconEye1
Casual Spaceman
Streamed live July 10, 2019
This is a live launch of a Vega rocket deploying FalconEye1 Earth Observation satellite.
-
#90
by
high road
on 11 Jul, 2019 07:00
-
How strange that the English voice just keeps going through what I assume are prepaired talking points, while there is clearly distress on the people's faces, the graph is showing a problem and the French voice repeatedly says the trajectory is degraded. I'd expect him to at least translate what's being said in French.
Is that standard procedure?
-
#91
by
kevinof
on 11 Jul, 2019 07:31
-
seen this before. it's like they read off a script that is based on timings and they just continue as if the flight is nominal.
How strange that the English voice just keeps going through what I assume are prepaired talking points, while there is clearly distress on the people's faces, the graph is showing a problem and the French voice repeatedly says the trajectory is degraded. I'd expect him to at least translate what's being said in French.
Is that standard procedure?
-
#92
by
Rik ISS-fan
on 11 Jul, 2019 07:40
-
Here is an edited launch footage for SciNews.
My observation is that the P80 (first stage) was a cold engine, it burned longer than expected.
If you look at the video from 2:25 - 2:45 (T+1:50 - T+2:10) I see P80 burning out but with higher residual thrust than normal. I think at 2:38 (T+2:03) it's the first stage flaring up a bit. (part of solid stage burnout.)
At 3:05 in the video (T+2:30) Bruno Gerard really has a look on is face, like he knows it's gone wrong.
They call for first stage (P80) separation and Z-23 (second stage) ignition but both can't be seen on the footage.
The sky is to dark to see the separation and the temprature differences are to small as well. It looks like the footage went from Visual to thermal from 2:00 (T+1:25). I don't know if the firing of first stage retro rockets should be visible.
On the thermal and visual footage the second stage ignition should have been clearly visible, but it wasn't.
I think the staging went wrong.
I compared it with VV14, SciNews. They didn't switch from visual to thermal image here.
But first stage burnout starts at 2:20 (T+150), followed by staging at 2:21 (T+1:51).
This staging isn't at all visible at the VV15 footage. So AFAIK it's a First to second stage separation anomaly.
Edit to add:
This speaker was the same as for the VA241 Ariane 5 launching SES 14(Gold) and Al Yah 3 to GTO.
In both occasions to someone that knows the launch sequence and trajectory and has insight into the rocket's flight path. It's clear it doesn't go nominal. In my opinion Arianespace must change it's protocols for the speaker. This is a lesson not learned from VA241. But the broadcast is a very low priority in the launch sequence.
Vega reliability dropped from (14/14) 100% to (14/15) 93,33%
-
#93
by
starbase
on 11 Jul, 2019 08:12
-
Right, on both flights (VA241 and VV15) Joshua Jampol was the commentator.
-
#94
by
jacqmans
on 11 Jul, 2019 08:44
-
July 11, 2019
Flight VV15: Mission failure
Approximately two minutes after the Vega launcher’s liftoff from the Spaceport in French Guiana, a launcher anomaly occurred shortly after ignition of the Zefiro 23 second stage – leading to the premature end of the mission.
Data analyses are in progress to clarify the reasons for this failure.
An independent inquiry commission will be set up in the coming hours.
http://www.arianespace.com/mission-update/flight-vv15-mission-failure/
-
#95
by
jacqmans
on 11 Jul, 2019 08:49
-
July 11, 2019
VEGA FAILS ON 15TH FLIGHT
Statement by CNES President Jean-Yves Le Gall after the failure of Vega on its 15th flight:
“This failure reminds us once more that we are in a tough business and that the line between success and failure is a very fine one indeed. The failure is all the more unexpected, coming as it does after a run of 14 straight successes that had proved the maturity of the Vega launch system. Our teams shall now be getting straight down to work to analyse, understand and fix the causes of the failure so that Europe can return to flight with Vega as quickly as possible.”
https://presse.cnes.fr/en/vega-fails-15th-flight
-
#96
by
eeergo
on 11 Jul, 2019 10:42
-
That's a puzzling one, also considering the client and the bird's aims.
Thank you for the coverage and the informed discussion!
-
#97
by
Star One
on 11 Jul, 2019 11:58
-
That's a puzzling one, also considering the client and the bird's aims.
Thank you for the coverage and the informed discussion!
In light of this hopefully
all possible causes will be considered.
-
#98
by
woods170
on 11 Jul, 2019 13:17
-
One of my sources got thru to me (just now) and confirms that the second stage solid motor likely did not ignite. Reason for failure to ignite is not immediately clear at this time. However, telemetry has been saved and will be scrutinized.
Due to failure to ignite the second stage, the stack went on a ballistic trajectory and eventually fell into the Atlantic Ocean.
-
#99
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 11 Jul, 2019 14:01
-
Right, I had videos of the live broadcasts of all previous Vega launches. A quick glance at all of them shows that the P80 1st stage motor usually tails off acceleration at around T+1:40-ish and around 1.8 km/s (most Vega launches are to polar orbits and thus are broadly comparable), holding at that velocity or even bleed off 0.05-0.1 km/s for the next 10-15 seconds before 2nd stage ignition. The ignition at T+1:5X usually kicks off an acceleration of 0.03 km/s2.
On this launch when they show the telemetry screen it was right around 2nd stage ignition and the velocity looks normal when compared with earlier launches, at around 1.8 km/s. The velocity looks to rise nominally (compared with earlier flights) for another ~350 m/s until it abruptly ended at T+2:12 and 2.17 km/s, then dropped quickly to 2.0X km/s for the next 10 or so seconds. However, the tracking cameras doesn't show any retro-firing at all, which several night time Vega launches had clear signs of that.
That divergence is puzzling. If the 2nd stage didn't ignite at all, where did the extra 350 m/s come from? Maybe it's an attitude control problem or bad stage separation?
- when are they going to learn to not broadcast off a strict script? It again took them minutes for both english and french announcers to realize that something was off. Do the announcers not know what is going on?