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

[N_Molson]

The Proton rocket has only single gimbal TVC for its first stage engines.

Does that means that all 6 engines always have parallel (rather co-linear) thrust vectors ?

Another video with good view angle "Apocalypse in HD"

This is absolutely scary, especially when the shockwave of the explosion reaches the camera.

Notice that, at launch, it seems there is a little deviation first, then another bigger, then the complete loss of control. Like when you code an autopilot that "over-reacts" and amplify errors in Orbiter.

 

[Urwumpe]

Does that means that all 6 engines always have parallel (rather co-linear) thrust vectors ?

No, rather all engines rotate around a radial axis, you can see that well during the rotation of the rocket in the video.

Some nice reading here in Russian:

http://www.lpre.de/energomash/RD-253/index.htm

With many schematics of the engine...BTW, the first staged combustion engine in history.

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

<amateur detective mode>
From the available videos, it seems that the rocket had 3 pitch overs - each one larger than the previous one, and it seems that the rocket was in an excessive roll right after liftoff that continues to accelerate till breaking up.

I have a hypothesis that was first mentioned by a Russian forum member here:

1. For some reason the Proton started to roll excessively within a few seconds of liftoff - reasons not yet known as this point.

2. The excessive roll caused the rocket to start to pitch over towards a certain direction due to torque from the angular acceleration (remember tau = I * alpha?) - it may have been magnified by the initial pitch over command.

3. Sensing that the rocket is pitching over limits, it attempts to gimbal some of the engines towards the other direction, but since the roll is accelerating (and may already be out of control by then), it over-corrects in the opposite direction and caused the rocket to lose pitch (and almost certainly yaw) control.

4. By then the worsening roll puts the rocket in a positive feed-back mechanism - the more the rocket tries to correct the pitch, the more it over-pitches in the other direction. This third pitch over finally sends the rocket horizontally and points it towards the ground. The rocket continues to roll crazily until it breaks up - heads first (tau = r * F) and then the whole rocket as the fuel tanks blasted open. Then it impacted on the ground.

So what caused the excessive roll? Engine loss or partial thrust? Problem with engine gimbals? (failure in one of the six engines is apparently enough to send the rocket towards the ground) Erroneous data from the inertial platform sending the rocket to roll violently? Control system software bug in a specific environment that went out of control? All these would probably be known when all the telemetry data is analyzed in a few day's time.

Any comments on my thoughts?

</amateur detective mode>

 

[Loru]

However loss of rocket made me sad I must admire sturdiness of rocket. I performed almost 270 degree pitch manuever before breaking apart.

 

[Fabri91]

And inevitably:

 

[Urwumpe]

1. For some reason the Proton started to roll excessively within a few seconds of liftoff - reasons not yet known as this point.

The rocket did already an erratic change in elevation a few seconds after launch (about in the altitude of the lightning towers), while roll started exactly as scheduled, resulting with the pitching motion in a wild tumble.

The usually short roll did no stop while the rocket tumbled and when the rocket further lost pitch, the roll accelerated wildly (Shortly before the breakup, it was nearly rotating at 60 RPM).

For comparison:

The roll motion is NOT the cause, as you can see, but caused by an earlier deviation. I am not sure if they changed the Block-DM avionics a lot lately, but it had limits on the attitude changes that it can handle, easily possible that the first pitch over made it loose reference.

The Proton-M has no guidance system anymore, unlike the Proton-K before, which had its own guidance package additionally to the upper stage guidance.

 

[mojoey]

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.

 

[Mantis]

I wonder why the Range Safety Office (or Russian equivalent) did not destroy the rocket rather than allow it to impact the ground largely intact. Do they not have that destruct capability built in?

 

[orb]

Do they not have that destruct capability built in?

<PostID: 427560>
<PostID: 427561>

 

[Urwumpe]

Also, I wonder why the Range Safety Office (or Russian equivalent) did not destroy the rocket rather than allow it to impact the ground largely intact. Do they not have that destruct capability built in?

Again and again: No.

http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=427560&postcount=25

http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?p=427561&postcount=26

Russian range safety is shutting down the engines unless 50 seconds are not yet over and the rocket could crash on the launch site.

---------- Post added at 06:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:53 PM ----------

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.

More likely to Arianespace, since SpaceX still has no way to deliver to GTO. They just plan so and have some initial customers, but this does not make people switch over to them should Russia fail.

 

[N_Molson]

More likely to Arianespace, since SpaceX still has no way to deliver to GTO. They just plan so and have some initial customers, but this does not make people switch over to them should Russia fail.

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... :shrug:

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. :facepalm:

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

 

[Artlav]

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.

 

[MattBaker]

More likely to Arianespace, since SpaceX still has no way to deliver to GTO. They just plan so and have some initial customers, but this does not make people switch over to them should Russia fail.

I would add China for political reasons (if Russia isn't an option they're the second choice if Russia was your first) and money.

But I actually don't believe there's a lot of change ongoing on the market due to this.
Except maybe ExoMars. Build your one of a kind European mission and then that?

 

[Alfastar]

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... :shrug:

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. :facepalm:

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

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 (Don't worry, it looks still mostly like a normal R-7 rocket)

But, I think this failure can be the first serious step to the end of the Proton rocket, and the start of the Angara (What I still find a wrong choice, but stop with it now would be a waste of all development costs of it, so there is no step back)

For GEO launches, it become more towards the Ariane-5 now, but maybe about a year, people thrust Proton again, and there will launch there stuff with it. For MEO launches, there is already a good alternative, the Soyuz-2-1b (However, you can't then put only one into MEO)

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

 

[Artlav]

Oh, well.

Looks like the problem was that ours wanted to cheer the Americans on their independence day.
But we messed it up - it's 4th of July, not the 2nd, and the rocket is supposed to explode in the air, not on the ground!

 

[Urwumpe]

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.

Except that ISP and mass ratio are maybe all that matters in the rocket equation, but only for the single stage case. If you have multiple stages, there are still many options left to use. Airbreathing has not yet been developed for space launch, unless you consider Pegasus there.

I think that nuclear drives that produce serious amounts of radiation and toxic exhaust particles are no option on Earth and 90% of where we would need nuclear drives is on Earth now. It is a solution, but none that offers any advantages to what we have now. What is the sense in having 10,000 m/s specific impulse, if we can still only permit launching unmanned payloads with it and can't activate the main engine on a normal pad, but rather a prepared nuclear waste dump with dust catcher?

 

[N_Molson]

To revive space flight we need a technological leap.

No, we need the real will to get up there. That's not only a matter of politics. Once you have that "spirit of exploration" in the air, everything follows : tech, money, etc...

Nowadays it is dead. People think we know everything about the Solar System, and that Mars is a barren desert. It's all what they care about. Oceans under Europa, such stuff is way beyond average level of curiosity or knowledge. Ask people in the street what is Europa, as a natural satellite, and not a political entity on Earth. Good Luck.

Nuclear power with acceptable fallout

No, never. "Acceptable" and "fallout" are self-contradictory.

 

[Artlav]

No, never. "Acceptable" and "fallout" are self-contradictory.

Not quite. I meant a nuclear engine that does not produce uncontained fallout, like nuclear power plants do.
There are designs for that, but no practical implementation. It's way worse on ISP than more deadly variants, but still ways better than the chemicals.

If you have multiple stages, there are still many options left to use. Airbreathing has not yet been developed for space launch, unless you consider Pegasus there.

Multiple stages are still limited by the same exponential equation, you can only get that much Dv with given ISP and infinite number of stages.

There might be other ideas - ways to use the atmosphere on the way up, ways to remove the cost of a new vehicle from each launch cost, etc.
And that needs a large scale burning desire to get up there, as N_Molson said.

 

[n122vu]

<amateur detective mode>
From the available videos, it seems that the rocket had 3 pitch overs - each one larger than the previous one, and it seems that the rocket was in an excessive roll right after liftoff that continues to accelerate till breaking up.

I have a hypothesis that was first mentioned by a Russian forum member here:

1. For some reason the Proton started to roll excessively within a few seconds of liftoff - reasons not yet known as this point.

I agree with this.

2. The excessive roll caused the rocket to start to pitch over towards a certain direction due to torque from the angular acceleration (remember tau = I * alpha?) - it may have been magnified by the initial pitch over command.

Agree with this also.

3. Sensing that the rocket is pitching over limits, it attempts to gimbal some of the engines towards the other direction, but since the roll is accelerating (and may already be out of control by then), it over-corrects in the opposite direction and caused the rocket to lose pitch (and almost certainly yaw) control.

Pausing the 'Apocolypse in HD' video at around the :29 - :30 mark seems to support this (happened to spot this accidentally, as YT paused to continue loading the 1080P video).

4. By then the worsening roll puts the rocket in a positive feed-back mechanism - the more the rocket tries to correct the pitch, the more it over-pitches in the other direction. This third pitch over finally sends the rocket horizontally and points it towards the ground. The rocket continues to roll crazily until it breaks up - heads first (tau = r * F) and then the whole rocket as the fuel tanks blasted open. Then it impacted on the ground.

Any comments on my thoughts?

</amateur detective mode>

My comments in bold above.

 

[Urwumpe]

No, we need the real will to get up there. That's not only a matter of politics. Once you have that "spirit of exploration" in the air, everything follows : tech, money, etc...

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.

And the reality is: We run out of resources and out of space on Earth. We need to find new space and new resources.

No, never. "Acceptable" and "fallout" are self-contradictory.

Yes, pretty much. Somebody unaffected might say that nuclear pollution is not that bad, people should not complain about a bit of radiation and step out of the way for progress.

But if you are not making the progress also for them, you are only progressing technologically, but degrading quickly in humanity.