Launch News (FAILURE) Proton-M/Block-DM-03 launch with triple GLONASS-M, July 2, 2013

[jumpjack]

Yes, the initial tilt in the wrong direction is pretty obviously a sudden loss of thrust.

Gimbal problem ? Guidance bug ? That almost remembers me the first flight of Ariane 5. :idk: Or worse, because it seems that the rocket is out of control on the 3 axis, we can even see it rolling at an insane rate at the top of the trajectory.

The rolling is the key!
The rocket is NOT out of control, it appears "overcontrolled"!
If thrust was not along same axis of rocket due to one engine failure, the rocket would tilt...
BUT
the rocket is rolling faster and faster and faster around its axis...
BUT
it remains on a parabolic trajectory, the rocket absolutely parallel to its trajectory, like a bullet (but a bullet is not propelled, it's just rotating).
It is VERY hard to keep a rocket within a linear trajectory while the rocket itself is rolling around its longitudinal axis and has asymetric thrust!
Looks like the onboard computer did a "great" job in stabilizing the flight!

 

[N_Molson]

Don't worry. There is always a R-7 Soyuz, and there are cool concepts to make it a Proton-class rocket with some modifications...

So, I hope that I cheer you a bit up.

I know, but that worries me too. I feel like we are playing manned spaceflight fate on dices at each Soyuz-TMA-M launch. What if there was a catastrophic and completely unpredicted failure (the odds are very low, but we know those happen) ? That's the only launch system remaining, there's no backup. The Shuttle-Soyuz made a great combination for that. Even if all goes well for the Dragon, it won't carry astronauts before 2015. The ISS could go derelict by then. And I seriously doubt there would be a replacement before 2035.

And China ? Even if we asked politely and gave them the mass of the rocket in gold, and even if they happily accepted, their current very Soyuz-like Shenzou vehicle could not be technologically mature enough to do it.

 

[statickid]

Urgh, that's already quite far away from the pad, yet I still would not like to be there! :huh:

Авария Протон 2 июля 2013

anybody know what word(s) he said at :15 sec?

or perhaps :50 sec when they're laughing?

I like how nonchalant the camera guy is in this video :lol:

 

[boogabooga]

So, aside from no Proton launches for probably a year or more, what impact would this have on the other agencies. I would assume this would drive business to SpaceX.

Exactly. Forget SpaceX a minute, right ? There are currently 2 operational medium/heavy launchers on the market, now that the Proton is out for a while (though much less than a year I'm sure) : ULA Delta-4H and Arianespace Ariane 5.

The first is known to be quite expensive. The second has already well-filled launch schedules. Maybe it will make those who wanted to shut down Ariane 5 think again.

Or maybe that soon, there will be nothing in the world like those launchers. Only rockets comparable in performance to the R-7. With a lot of powder boosters like Ariane 6. Everyone seem happy to roll themselves into technological regression, so... Forget LH2, spaceplanes, lunar landers, anything that was designed after 1960. People of my father's generation (he was 21 when he spent the night awake to watch Apollo 11 landing and LEVA live) were confident it would be "common" by the 2000's...

Commercial satellites that only add TV channels to TV grids already filled with stupidity or political/religious insanities are way cooler ! Even GPS (or GLONASS) is soo has-been ! Oh and let's launch a bunch of nanosats with them just to perfect Earth artificial debris rings.

What we see know ? The last bits of the now ancient ambitious space programs fall apart. Sometimes, that's a bit depressing, really...

Except that we are banging our head into the theoretical ceiling of chemical propellants for decades already.
There are no new launcher technologies. Refinements, yes, but no technology.

There is only so much ISP you can get out of the chemicals, there is only so light a rocket could be with the most modern materials, there is only so cheap it's construction and fuelling can be done.

To revive space flight we need a technological leap.
Nuclear power with acceptable fallout, or something completely new.

An SSTO with a turnaround of one week and operation price of it's fuel only would change the game. And that might just be at the edge of possible.

People of Orbiter Forum,
A popular rocket has failed, very spectacularly and very publicly. However, said rocket has succeed HUNDREDS of times in the past. I'm sure Arianne Delta, etc. would have days like this if they had to launch 12 times a year for 30 years.

Luckily for ILS, the payload was not commercial. It was not theirs at all. (It was even mostly insured, according to yahoo news.) Yes, I'm sure Angara will eventually replace Proton, but I think it's premature to write Proton off just yet, especially in commercial launch. ILS is going to have to reassure their customers, sure. But they have weathered a small number of Proton failures already. Failure of the fourth stage to stay light when it is already thousands of miles above the ground isn't so spectacular as a flaming impact on the ground, but end-result to the customer is the same.

I agree that SSTO, nuclear rockets, etc. are needed for progress, but not because of one chemical rocket failure. New technologies are not going to be immune from failure, either. Also, commercial/navigation applications put the benefits of satellites in everyday life. That television is getting more stupid and boring (I think so too) or that the space exploration programs seem stalled is not the fault of commercial space. Was not everyone happy yesterday that 3 navigation satellites were going to space? Why sour grapes now?

I don't understand the gloomy narrative.

 

[Cizurator]

It is maybe simpler than that: It is about turning towards a space focussed economy. The right spirit, such a religious thing, is helpful for selling irrational decisions, but for rational decisions, doing the right thing, you only need patience and willpower.

You don't need to indoctrinate people into thinking that space is great. You only need to show them how great space is and how useful it is for them and their wallets. Explain them why investing money into something that pays out in 30 years maybe is more profitable for them or their children, than any short-term concept focussed on Earth.

It really is about the spirit, because space exploration used to be about dangerous and sometimes even irational decisions. Of course, today we talk about those "giant leaps for mankind" with nostalgy, and asking, why can't we go on just like we could fourty or fifty years ago. But the conditions have changed. The Cold war is over.

During the Cold war, space exploration was pretty much powered by both national prestige and fear of nuclar war. The first rocket designs came from ICBM's. New technology always needed money. The money is given by politicians. Politicians always behave according the situation. When USSR launches Gagarin, people need to be assured, that USA can do it too. No matter how rational it was. It was something new and popular. So politician gave money to NASA. And NASA could do it.

But the Cold war is over. Space is a common and boring thing for most people. We got used to it. There's no drama, no race, no fear of failing. When Columbia exploded, we saw that old wide public interest for a while. But that couldn't bring it back. People don't know why they flew there. Target wasn't something like "to establish the first space station" or "to walk on the Moon" but to perform some atmospheric dust and spiderweb experiments. People are not interested in our current space activities anymore. No drama, until somebody dies. And politicians always behave according the situation. No money this time.

 

[N_Molson]

I agree that SSTO, nuclear rockets, etc. are needed for progress, but not because of one chemical rocket failure. New technologies are not going to be immune from failure, either. Also, commercial/navigation applications put the benefits of satellites in everyday life. That television is getting more stupid and boring (I think so too) or that the space exploration programs seem stalled is not the fault of commercial space. Was not everyone happy yesterday that 3 navigation satellites were going to space? Why sour grapes now?

I don't understand the gloomy narrative.

Cool, everything is as fine as it can be, then. :flowers:

This is far more serious than a third stage failure. The people filming from the cars can be very happy that the rocket didn't failed randomly in their way. Not sure if they are conscient of the danger (seems that someone is shouting the equivalent of "toxic" in russian at the end, though).

 

[ADSWNJ]

I told those guys that the open source RV Orientation autopilot code was still a bit iffy ... but the went and launched with it nevertheless .

I could recognize the original upset, and then the big overcorrection!

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

The Proton - is it really THAT bad?

Well I have been digging up the previous launch records of the Proton. And guess what? If we take away the mischief upper stages - the good old Block-D and Breeze-M - it turns out that it is actually quite high on the reliability scale (especially given its high flight rate and relative complexity)! This is only the 6th to fail during the flight of the core 3 stages since 1990 (206 flights) and the 2nd since 2000 (119 flights) - a success rate of > 97%, almost as good as a launcher could be (close to the success rate of the Space Shuttle)!

Interestingly if we include the upper stages the number of failures rise sharply - 16 failures since 1990 and 9 failures since 2000 - but the success rate is still at an acceptable level of 92%.

Here's the list of Proton launch failures since 1990 - those marked with alphabets are upper stage problems and those marked with numbers are failures with the Proton itself:

1. August 9, 1990 - Ekran-M #14L

3rd stage engine shutoff due to termination of oxidizer supply. Fuel line clogged by a piece of textile (wiping rag). Remedial program introduced to prevent wiping rags from being left inside engine and LV.

2. May 27, 1993 - Gorizont #39L

2nd and 3rd stage engine failures. Multiple engine combustion chamber burn-through caused by propellant contaminants. Remedial program introduced to modify propellant specifications and testing procedures. All launch site propellant storage, transfer, and handling equipment purged and cleaned.

a. February 19, 1996 - Raduga #44L

Block DM 4th stage second burn ignition failure. Remedial program involved corrective actions to prevent two possible causes. The first involved introduction of redundant lockers, revised installation procedures, and increased factory inspections to prevent a loosening of a tube joint causing a leak that would prevent engine ignition. The second involved additional contamination control procedures to further preclude particulate contamination of the hypergolic start system.

b. November 16, 1996 - Mars '96

Block DM 4th stage engine failure during second burn due to malfunction of Mars 96 SC control system, and associated improper engine command sequences. Unique configuration of SC and 4th stage. Remedial program includes stringent adherence to established integration and test procedures.

c. December 24, 1997 - AsiaSat 3

Block DM 4th stage engine failure resulting from improperly coated turbo pump seal. Remedial program includes removal of unnecessary (for < 4 burn missions) coating.

3. July 5, 1999 - Raduga #45L

2nd stage engine failure due to foreign particles in gas turbine pump. Implemented inspection of internal cavities of second and third stage engines, improved work processes and changed filter design in the ground portion of the fueling system.

4. October 27, 1999 - Express A-1

2nd stage engine failure due to foreign particles in gas turbine pump. Installed additional filters in the on-board portion of the fueling system. Developed and implemented new design of the turbo pump unit with increased combustion resistance.

d. November 25, 2002 - Astra-1K

Block DM 4th stage engine failure due to a failed second start sequence of the 11D58M engine (Block DM US), which resulted in a burn-through of the exhaust duct and subsequent shutdown of the flight sequence. The failed second start resulted from fuel being introduced into the gas generator and
mixing with O2 before ignition by the restart fluid. Corrective actions include re-certification of quality control procedures at the Block DM manufacturer.

e. February 28, 2006 - Arabsat 4A

Breeze M 4th stage engine failure. Entry of foreign object debris from oxidizer feed line to the booster turbine inlet. Corrective actions included implementing procedures to validate the cleanliness of oxidizer feed line piping on Breeze M Upper Stage engines.

5. September 5, 2007 - JCSAT-11

LV stage 1/stage 2 stage separation failure. Burnthrough of the LV stage 1/stage 2 separation pyrobolt actuation cable. Corrective action is to over-wrap the pyrobolt wiring harness by two layers of asbestos tape with 50% overlap. This increases the heat resistance to well over 400°C, the harness melting point. Additionally the ring and harness are jointly over-wrapped with two layers of tape with 50% overlap impregnated with glue, and the harness was re-routed away from the exhaust gas.

f. March 14, 2008 - AMC-14

Breeze M 4th stage engine failure. US main engine gas duct burnthrough resulting from the combined maximum environments, gas temperature, gas pressure and thin-walled duct. Corrective action is the implementation of quality provisions that ensures a conduit wall thickness greater than or
equal to the 2.5 mm requirement.

g. December 5, 2010 - 3x GLONASS-M

h. August 17, 2011 - Express AM-4

i. August 6, 2012 - Telkom 3 / Express MD-2

j. December 8, 2012 - Yamal-402

6. July 2, 2013 - 3x GLONASS-M (this launch)

(source: ILS Proton Mission Planner's Guide, v7)

Well......not the best of all launchers in history, but the reputation of the Proton is worse than what it deserves to have.

 

[RGClark]

d. November 25, 2002 - Astra-1K

Block DM 4th stage engine failure due to a failed second start sequence of the 11D58M engine (Block DM US), which resulted in a burn-through of the exhaust duct and subsequent shutdown of the flight sequence. The failed second start resulted from fuel being introduced into the gas generator and
mixing with O2 before ignition by the restart fluid. Corrective actions include re-certification of quality control procedures at the Block DM manufacturer.

e. February 28, 2006 - Arabsat 4A

Breeze M 4th stage engine failure. Entry of foreign object debris from oxidizer feed line to the booster turbine inlet. Corrective actions included implementing procedures to validate the cleanliness of oxidizer feed line piping on Breeze M Upper Stage engines.

5. September 5, 2007 - JCSAT-11

LV stage 1/stage 2 stage separation failure. Burnthrough of the LV stage 1/stage 2 separation pyrobolt actuation cable. Corrective action is to over-wrap the pyrobolt wiring harness by two layers of asbestos tape with 50% overlap. This increases the heat resistance to well over 400°C, the harness melting point. Additionally the ring and harness are jointly over-wrapped with two layers of tape with 50% overlap impregnated with glue, and the harness was re-routed away from the exhaust gas.

f. March 14, 2008 - AMC-14

Breeze M 4th stage engine failure. US main engine gas duct burnthrough resulting from the combined maximum environments, gas temperature, gas pressure and thin-walled duct. Corrective action is the implementation of quality provisions that ensures a conduit wall thickness greater than or
equal to the 2.5 mm requirement.

g. December 5, 2010 - 3x GLONASS-M

h. August 17, 2011 - Express AM-4

i. August 6, 2012 - Telkom 3 / Express MD-2

j. December 8, 2012 - Yamal-402

6. July 2, 2013 - 3x GLONASS-M (this launch)

(source: ILS Proton Mission Planner's Guide, v7)

Well......not the best of all launchers in history, but the reputation of the Proton is worse than what it deserves to have.

The number of failures still is disturbingly large when you add on those upper stages.

Bob Clark

 

[Artlav]

anybody know what word(s) he said at :15 sec?

or perhaps :50 sec when they're laughing?

Mostly cursing.
At :15 it's a spiced version of "it fell", "it's falling", at :50 it's something about "time to get out of here".

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

The first video is especially interesting - if I am not seeing things, then I think I saw the flames from one of the engines suddenly became much weaker around 4 seconds after launch, and it was gimballing much more sluggishly than the other engines....

This seems to fit what one Russian source was saying: the rocket lifted off 0.4 seconds earlier than it should have (probably with some engines not yet reaching full thrust), engine compartment temperature reaching 1200 degrees Celsius (3 times the usual limit) and eventually one of the engines failing at T+4 seconds. :hmm:

 

[Keatah]

Sometimes they go zoom, and sometimes they go boom!

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, if the engine turbopump fails to operate at full speed, the hydraulic pressure for the TVC actuator should also drop and the reactions should become sluggish.

 

[Alfastar]

The first video is especially interesting - if I am not seeing things, then I think I saw the flames from one of the engines suddenly became much weaker around 4 seconds after launch, and it was gimballing much more sluggishly than the other engines....

This seems to fit what one Russian source was saying: the rocket lifted off 0.4 seconds earlier than it should have (probably with some engines not yet reaching full thrust), engine compartment temperature reaching 1200 degrees Celsius (3 times the usual limit) and eventually one of the engines failing at T+4 seconds. :hmm:

Well, its always if one of the engines don't working on the minimum stable thrust, then it heads to the side where there is the weakest thrust. Simple logica.

But the most realistic cause of this launch failure was already that something was wrong with one of the engines. Even something like a failed software would not let crash a rocket so fast. The scenario what Urwumpe told is maybe the reason why this happens.

There are some source saying that Baikonour become not used anymore for two-three months. Is this true or not?

 

[Urwumpe]

Looks like the onboard computer did a "great" job in stabilizing the flight!

Not really, it rather looks like a tumbling motion from the start of the anomaly, the pitch angle behaves pretty much like the precession of a gyroscope. The autopilot was maybe trying to correct the situation, but it failed to adapt to the changed engine reaction (you can see well how the engine exhausts fanned out to increase the roll, this was very destabilizing.).

The reaction makes sense, if you assume that the inertial navigation unit was not designed for full 6DOF operation, but rather simplified for in-plane and selective out-of-plane maneuvers (Or ran into a gimbal lock that was not detected and handled).

 

[N_Molson]

There are some source saying that Baikonour become not used anymore for two-three months. Is this true or not?

Baikonur is a huge complex, so I think it is exagerated. However, the area around that launchpad will have to be seriously decontaminated to allow to resume work there.

Edit : I just checked with Google Earth, there are 32 kilometers between LC 81 (Proton-M) and LC 1 (Soyuz-TMA). Seems far enough to be safe, soviet engineers were not completely crazy, they settled the "toxic" Proton in a corner of the complex.

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

It's funny how history went in circles: on April 2, 1969, a Proton rocket carrying a Mars orbiter was lifting off from the very same pad when it lost one of the engines in an engine fire. The rocket struggled to get off the ground, finally went horizontal and crashed near the pad 40 seconds later:

 

[N_Molson]

You might want to add Nedelin's disaster toxic hell, too.

People got sprayed over by the very toxic (and unstable) propellants and ignited like matches. Horrible.

 

[garyw]

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

Initial investigation hypothesis

There has been some vigorous discussion on the preliminary look of the telemetry data from the launch in here over yesterday, and it seems that there's one hypothesis that may turn out to be what happened (some parts of which were already mentioned here). Here's the details, or at least what I understood of it (also see here):

1. Everything through engine ignition at T-1.75 seconds were nominal.

a. What would have happened in normal flight is that the engines would continue to throttle up till T-zero ("contact liftoff time"), which the "contact liftoff command" would be issued by the control system to open up the last valves for the engines to reach 107% thrust and (maybe) to disconnect the last connections from the launch table to the rocket. Actual "sensor data loss" time would be at T+0.5 seconds.

2. It seems that on the flight, for some reason, the "contact liftoff command" was issued 0.4 seconds earlier than normal (as explained to me by a Russian source, most Proton launches aimed at a certain 1 second liftoff time target would have actual T-zero times varying by just +-0.1 seconds). At that time the rocket has already passed the T/W=1 point and is rising up; however some engines are still not at full thrust level and the connectors have not been released yet.

3. Sensing the erroneous "contact liftoff command", the rocket's guidance system checks the main rocket parameters (engine thrust chamber pressure, vertical velocity/acceleration through the inertial guidance components etc.), and yet founds that the state is not right. The guidance system immediately switched to emergency mode.

4. For some reason the initialization of the emergency mode caused the system to command the launch table to release the rocket even when the rocket has not yet reached its nominal thrust level. (not sure if I got this right - couldn't it have ordered the rocket to force the shutdown of all the engines instead? Maybe that have to do with the rocket already rising up and that the forced shutting of fuel and oxidizer valves at this point would only blew up the rocket?) Apparently this premature action caused the launch table to "sink" further than what it should have - 11 mm instead of the usual 5 mm.

5. The rocket lifted off, apparently with 15-20% less thrust than normal. It seems that at the same time the engine compartment went on fire (temperature of 1200 deg. Celsius was recorded) and at least one of the engine's gimbals were damaged, possibly because of the less than usual liftoff thrust. Within a few seconds the rocket lost roll control and at least 1 (some say 2) of the engines. By then, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the rocket was doomed to loss all controls and eventually plunge back on ground.

Of course this is only a working hypothesis - the information source cautioned that work is still on going with acquiring the data from the decoded telemetry and analyzing them - however it might serve as a scenario for discussion. The most interesting points are the source of the premature liftoff command (software bug? voltage spike or some other electrical issues? guidance control channels in dispute causing unexpected results?) and what happened after the system went into emergency mode.

Any comments? :tiphat: