Proton-M crash

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Sooner Boomer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2011
Messages
5,888
Reaction score
4,847
No freakin' way! Did this tech graduate from A&M*?

https://arstechnica.com/science/201...-caused-last-weeks-russian-rocket-to-explode/

Rocket carrying GLONASS navigation satellites crashed 32 seconds after launch


While America was looking forward to the July 4 holiday, the Russian space program was busy putting the final touches on its latest rocket launch. A Proton-M rocket carrying three satellites for the GLONASS navigation constellation (Russia's answer to GPS) launched on July 2, 2013 at 06:38:22 Moscow Time.
Just one problem: the rocket came crashing back down to Earth at 06:38:54—landing in a massive fireball. The crash marked another setback for the beleaguered Russian space program. There were fears that the massive quantity of propellant could leak, potentially creating a very toxic disaster for the local population. And there was no immediate explanation as to why the Proton-M failed so spectacularly, so fast.
But on Tuesday, Anatoly Zak reports on his own site, RussianSpaceWeb.com, that investigators have determined the culprit was the “critical angular velocity sensors, DUS, installed upside down.”
He writes:
Each of those sensors had an arrow that was suppose to point toward the top of the vehicle, however multiple sensors on the failed rocket were pointing downward instead. As a result, the flight control system was receiving wrong information about the position of the rocket and tried to "correct" it, causing the vehicle to swing wildly and, ultimately, crash. The paper trail led to a young technician responsible for the wrong assembly of the hardware, but also raised serious issues of quality control at the Proton's manufacturing plant, at the rocket's testing facility, and at the assembly building in Baikonur. It appeared that no visual control of the faulty installation had been conducted, while electrical checks had not detected the problem since all circuits had been working correctly.
Zak also added that Russian authorities have launched a criminal investigation.

Check out Zak's site on the accident: https://www.russianspaceweb.com/proton_glonass49.html#culprit

"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Since the emergency cutoff of the first stage engines is blocked during the first 42 seconds of the flight to ensure that the rocket clears the launch complex, the vehicle continued flying with its propulsion system firing practically until the impact on the ground."

THAT explains a lot. No wonder they launch in the middle of BFE.
[/FONT]


*pick one...It's still an A&M
 
Last edited:
All in good fun, A&M finished the season at spot 5 in the 2012 NCAA football rankings and OU finished ... 15.

As I recall, we also had Johnny Football, oh make that Johnny Heisman. ;)

But I digress.

Seriously, the reason it crashed was obvious. They forgot the fins and if you look very closely there was no launch lug. :wink:

Greg

Former student, Texas A&M University, Class of '87
 
One would think that a part as critical as this would be designed so that it could be installed in only 1 orientation..The correct one..Tab and slot orientation, how difficult would that have been?:confused:
 
Well, the US has done the same bone-headed thing... so who knows... maybe Aggies are going international now... LOL:p There was a reentry capsule from a deep-space probe that had collected solar wind particles or cometary dust particles that reentered over the Utah desert and was supposed to deploy its parachute and be snagged in midair by helicopter (as was done with the old Corona spysat film buckets over the Pacific by Flying Boxcar cargo planes in the 50's and 60's). Unfortunately, someone installed the g-switches upside down in the probe, so they never activated the recovery sequence, and the thing plowed into the desert floor at a couple hundred miles an hour... they managed to salvage some of the samples though despite the carnage and their extremely delicate nature...

NASA also managed to lose a Mars lander (Mars Polar Lander IIRC off the cuff) when its landing legs deployed shortly before landing at a couple hundred feet altitude... when the legs popped open, they activated the "ground contact" switch, which was designed to shut down the landing engines a couple feet off the ground... instead the switch turned the engines off at a couple hundred feet above the ground due to the spurious signal, and the probe dropped like a rock and smashed to bits on the surface. The whole thing could have been avoided by proper testing of the landing leg deployment sequence and the effects on the switches, which technicians thought could be a problem, but were overruled by management. Later ground tests on a backup vehicle assemblies proved the technicians right.

This was the era of Dan Goldin's "Better, Faster, Cheaper" modus operandii at NASA, and a string of failures like this led to the discounting of the entire paradigm...

As for the Russians, their quality control and testing programs are rudimentary to say the least compared to the US space industry, and some would say "nonexistent"... so this is hardly something new...

Later! OL JR :)
 
Seriously, the reason it crashed was obvious. They forgot the fins and if you look very closely there was no launch lug. :wink:

Greg

Don't need no stinkin' fins...

9170927604_7668b6a632_b.jpg


...just enough nose weight and the proper music...

[video=youtube_share;Go0mnxRTMBw]https://youtu.be/Go0mnxRTMBw[/video]

:)

FC
 
Back
Top