12 ms·
Russian Proton Rocket crashes Seconds after Launch
- japaget 13y agoSee also http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1307/01proton/ http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1307/01proton/ for another account of this mishap. Spaceflight Now is one of the best sources for news concerning space launches.
- plq 13y agoThis rocket was carrying three of the GLONASS (the Russian GPS) satellites, very bad news. The RBTH has some more footage: http://rbth.ru/news/2013/07/02/proton-m_rocket_with_glonass_satellites_crashes_ten_seconds_after_takeof_27660.html http://rbth.ru/news/2013/07/02/proton-m_rocket_with_glonass_...
- yread 13y agoincomparably better writeup http://www.spaceflight101.com/proton-m-block-dm-03-glonass-launch-2013.html http://www.spaceflight101.com/proton-m-block-dm-03-glonass-l...
- aidos 13y agoGood heavens, that's some terrible commentary on the video. That's for this link - as you say, there's no comparison in the reporting. What a sad outcome, hope they manage to figure out what went wrong.
- MrSourz 13y agoThat is a really good writeup of the situation! Thanks
- LandoCalrissian 13y agoThank you, that is so much better. The CNN coverage was embarrassing, especially since someone could have easily been killed.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ars 13y agoWhat causes those strange colored flames at the very end?
- thu 13y agoYou mean alongside the whole vehicle ? From the link provided in another comment, it seems that the forces on the whole launcher (that made it loose its payload) put the fuel and oxidizer in contact and they ignited. If you meant at the exhaust, it is the oxidizer which is red-brown.
- deletes 13y ago>Russian launchers do not carry a Flight Termination System that could be used to remotely trigger the destruction of the rocket in a scenario like this.< Hope there aren't any cities in the rockets path.
- twistedpair 13y agoIn Kazakhstan the Flight Termination System is the ground. Much cheaper and has never failed.
- loceng 13y agoMy first thought it maybe they triggered the explosion to prevent it - guess not.
- tsukikage 13y agoCrashing in uninhabited desert isn't a feasible failure mode for the American program due to its location. The Roscosmos-owned depopulated area around Baikonur, however, is vastly larger than the parkland around Cape Canaveral launchpads.
- lmm 13y agoThere's a thousand miles of empty desert to the next settlement, never mind city. Kazakhstan is big (and unlike the US, its southernmost parts are not the nicest ones).
- bostonpete 13y ago> unlike the US, its southernmost parts are not the nicest ones Wait, what?
- lmm 13y agoDue to the rotation of the Earth it's advantageous to have your rocket launch facility as close to the Equator as possible. For the US that means the southern end of Florida, and while there are plenty of big empty deserts in the US, the southern end of Florida is not one of them. OTOH there's convenient big empty desert at the southern end of Kazakhstan (which was the southern end of the USSR when they were picking a launch site). (FWIW Baikonur is still quite a way north of the Equator. AIUI a joint ESA-Russia Soyuz launch pad is now being built at the ESA launch site in French Guiana, which should save them a chunk of fuel).
- jstsch 13y agoThis reminds me of Kerbal Space Program: https://kerbalspaceprogram.com https://kerbalspaceprogram.com
- graupel 13y agoSeriously - I have Kerbaled that exact same launch sequence a few times!
- jon-wood 13y agoI dunno, it looked less likely to fall apart on the launch pad due to wobbling in the breeze...
- axylone 13y agoIt's awesome how simulation games like KSP teach people about rocketry and orbital mechanics - I bet KSP will contribute to the coming resurgence of interest in spaceflight. Lots of KSP references in the youtube comments: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl12dXYcUTo&hd=1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl12dXYcUTo&hd=1
- gren 13y ago"It is not the way it supposes to go" <- oh, thanks for the comment!
- ioquatix 13y ago"Someting going wrong here" +1 insightful.
- ars 13y agoWhy do they use such toxic and expensive fuel? I understand using it on a satellite, but why does the rocket need it? Why not just kerosene and LOX? Is the specific impulse much higher? Edit: It's not, it's actually lower than kerosene. It's simply easier to ignite - that seems like a really bad reason to use it.
- Zuph 13y agoReasons are largely historical. The engines used on the Proton were designed in the late 50's/early 60's for ICBMs. Ignition! is a great book on the history of rocket propellants: http://www.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf http://www.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf
- pavel_lishin 13y agoRed Moon Rising is also a pretty good write-up of the history of the Space Race.
- arethuza 13y ago"Now it is clear that anyone working with rocket fuels is outstandingly mad. I don't mean garden-variety crazy or a merely raving lunatic. I mean a record-shattering exponent of far-out insanity". Thanks for the link :-)
- dnautics 13y agoI'm thinking about working with rocket fuels. I think it should be possible to build a kerosene-drop-in hydrocarbon fuel with about twice the energy density - along the lines of syntin or JP-10, that is biologically derived... I think this is "relatively safe" compared to hypergolics =)
- VLM 13y ago"Ignition! is a great book" You could just stop right there. It was pretty effective at convincing me to go into chemistry for my first year at university. I understand this experience is not all that unusual. Max Gergel's memoirs are also a pretty hair raising recruitment tool. I got out when I figured out that anecdotes about leading an o-chem org in the 40s/50s make leading an o-chem org in the 40s/50s sound like The Best Place To Be, then I figured out I'm not likely to be a o-chem org leader and the 40s/50s are not likely coming back around again anytime soon. Kind of like reading a dotcom story about the late 90s and deciding to become a web designer in 2013, you're in for a bit of a surprise...
- Sami_Lehtinen 13y agoStrange, I would have expected it to self-destruct immediately when navigation problem got apparent.
- thu 13y agoFrom the writeup provided as a link in another comment, Russian launchers don't have such mechanism. Instead the engines are shut down after at least 42 seconds to allow the launcher to be further than the launch area. But here the launcher hit the ground after about 30 seconds.
- fwr 13y agoSuch a terrible commentary in the video.
- zaph0d 13y agoCompare with the ISRO launch on Monday that was a success - http://www.spaceflight101.com/pslv-c22-launch-updates-irnss-1a.html http://www.spaceflight101.com/pslv-c22-launch-updates-irnss-...
- Luc 13y agoWhy?
- zaph0d 13y agoWell, two launches within a day's time, both carrying navigation satellites.
- magic_haze 13y agoI know the PSLVs have a reputation of being very reliable. Do you happen to know how much it costs, compared to the Protons or SpaceX's new design? Also, it's very cool that India:s launching its own GPS alternatives. The article mentions that it uses the same L5 and S bands as GPS and Galileo: isn't there any potential of interference, and will existing receivers work as-is?
- zaph0d 13y agoISRO's total budget for the year 2012-13 is ~$950 million. Apparently this project cost them ~$250 million all inclusive.
- theorique 13y ago"Well, it's not like it's rocket science ... oh, wait..."
- pawelwentpawel 13y agoThis looks like they were trying to imitate SpaceX's Grasshopper but forgotten to land vertically.
- zozu 13y agoI hope this launch doesn't cause Russia a huge setback in their spaceprogram. That is quite the expensive launch failure if it carried a sattelite.
- ddeck 13y agoIt was carrying three GLONASS (Russian GPS, sometimes combined with traditional GPS for improved accuracy, fix time etc - e.g. iPhone 4S/5) satellites. The loss of another three in 2010 was estimated to cost up to $160 million[1]. Expensive, but presumably nothing crippling in the scheme of things ($4.6 billion spent on the program from 2001-2011 [1]) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLONASS#Finishing_the_constellation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GLONASS#Finishing_the_constella...
- wtracy 13y agoIt carried three satellites.
- jusben1369 13y agoAny reason to think these wouldn't be insured?
- VLM 13y agoStereotypically satellite launch insurance is a comsat thing. That doesn't mean there's no insurance involved in the whole process. Somebody will pay out third party liability claims, for example, either .gov or some insurance co or more likely a mixture of them. But specifically launch loss insurance is something "mostly" found with commercial comsats. Note its just stereotypical. Maybe this is the first navsat I've ever heard of with launch insurance.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- JacobiX 13y agoIt's worth noting that the combination of Proton-M rocket and the DM-03 booster has previously failed in 2012. This is a relatively new technology compared to the mature Soyuz rocket for example.
- solomatov 13y agoProton isn't the most reliable rocket. About 10% of all its launches are unsuccessful. However, it's one of the cheapest ways to deliver cargo to the space. It's even cheaper than current SpaceX offers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch...) of course if a satellite isn't too expensive.
- nawitus 13y agoThat's interesting, I thought SpaceX was cheaper than even the Russian launch vehicles. By the way, are insurance costs taken into consideration? (Although the proper insurance rate might be difficult to estimate for SpaceX since they don't have that many launches behind them).
- leoedin 13y agoThe cost of a SpaceX launch reflects not only manufacturing costs but also the cost of development. The cost of a Proton launch (and similarly for other low cost ICBM based Russian launchers) doesn't reflect the developmment cost because it was designed a long time ago and borne by the russian government. The true cost of a Proton launch is much higher than what a user would pay to International Launch Services.
- reeses 13y agoSilly Internet person of irrelevant gender, insurance can be bought for anything. Actuaries will calculate the risk of not knowing as well. Whether someone can afford the premiums and abide by the term and conditions presented is another matter.
- enko 13y ago> "you know it's all broken up and it burst into flames right there. crazy right?" I just cannot understand how they choose these anchors. If I wanted to listen to my 13yo cousin's inane commentary on videos, then .. well I have no idea actually, because I would never want to. And I never want to listen to this idiot. Who hires them? Why!? This is serious news, a hundred million dollar crash, and the best he can do is "crazy right?". I just don't know what to say. Imagine if this dipshit was commenting on 9/11. "and those there planes just up and flown into them buildings right there! Crazy right?" Yeah bro! Totes crazy LOL! ROFL
- nawitus 13y agoThey appeal to the 'mainstream audience', not techies or even the smarter half of the population.
- dkarl 13y agoI would guess that half their viewership is in the smarter half. Remember that many people don't watch the news at all. I'll just leave you with that depressing reminder and go back to trying to have hope for the world.
- lmm 13y agoMany smart people, or at least HN types, prefer not to watch the news. (And FWIW as much as we love to complain about the newspapers I find TV news, even on the BBC, is the worst form of news reporting out there)
- chill1 13y agoI've found that watching almost any form of news -- in the United States -- is a complete waste of time, and even a hinderince to my own personal happiness.
- kunai 13y ago(Warning, this will sound extremely elitist.) I'd argue that the "smart" portion of the population is even less than you figure. It depends on what you interpret to be smart. With my own personal judgment, intelligence, true intelligence, is derived from skepticism, curiosity, and a thirst for knowledge, not by success financially. If we use those criteria, I'd say that most people in that list would be about 1/8th down on the bell curve. People just don't care, I've seen it with my own family.
- BWStearns 13y agoSo this is where they put the Bulava staff.....
- gesman 13y ago"We warned ya, give us Snowden or else!"
- orokusaki 13y agoIt's amazing how so much engineering and time/money can go into these rockets over a span of years, and then everything can wrong in just a few seconds :(
- JulianMorrison 13y agoI'm surprised they don't have a kill switch on that thing, it should never have been left to do a full 180 and fly straight down at goodness-knows-who.
- ceejayoz 13y agoThis is why the US launches rockets towards the Atlantic and Russia launches them in the middle of a (mostly) uninhabited desert.
- Zikes 13y agoI was just about to post about that. I thought these things had a self-destruct to prevent them from inadvertently becoming an ICBM.
- sounds 13y agoUS rockets have a "range safety officer" who is responsible for the self-destruct switch. I believe Russian rockets just rely on the fact that they will either make it to space, or impact the ground at high velocity.
- swamp40 13y agoIt looks like the payload almost escaped. It pops off and a parachute comes out, but then it drifts into the flame path of the upside down rocket and burns up.
- robryk 13y agoWhy would there be a parachute if the payload contained only non-returning satellites? I couldn't see anything I would call a parachute on the videos I watched.
- swamp40 13y agoYou are correct. The outer shell of the payload peeled off right before the payload, and I had mistaken that for a parachute.
- smackfu 13y agoAnother vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl12dXYcUTo&hd=1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl12dXYcUTo&hd=1
- DoubleCluster 13y agoWow. The rocket exploded about 3 km from the guy filming it (from the speed of sound). It could have landed on his head...
- InclinedPlane 13y agoThe Proton is fueled with Nitrogen Tetroxide and a variant of Hydrazine (UDMH). Both are incredible toxic and hazardous to humans, causing death with disturbingly small doses. UDMH is also a potent carcinogen. Hopefully these folks were on the road and miles away before those fumes drifted their way.
- theguycalledtom 13y agoProton's failure rate is concerning given that it is meant to deliver the last major segment of the ISS at the end of this year.
- ChuckMcM 13y agoReminds us once again that launching rockets is hard and when something goes wrong, there aren't a lot of 'recovery' scenarios. Insurance covers the losses, root cause analysis will find the reason this particular launch failed, and perhaps prevent it from recurring. One of the interesting questions for the Falcon9 system is whether or not the return to pad recovery system could work in an abort scenario (unlikely but you never know). I once asked a NASA engineer why they didn't put a spare parachute in to recover the payload in case of failure like this and their response was that it was cheaper to insure it than build such a system (in crewed systems the opposite is true since replacing the crew is so much more expensive). Weird to think about it that way but at least for me it made sense.
- jlgreco 13y agoEven in this video you can see the inherent safety of liquid fuel rockets over solid fuel. (although this is a hypergolic rocket, not like the cryogenic fuel rockets that we typically use for people.) The launch vehicle started breaking up and became engulfed in flames, but it didn't blow up per-se until it hit the ground. Solid fuel rockets do not tend to be so considerate; see the Challenger or Delta II 7925. Lots of things can go wrong on a liquid fuel rocket (engine shutoffs, fires, vehicle breakup, etc) but on solid fuel rockets you basically only have one failure mode: "pop". With a proper launch escape system, most failure scenarios of a liquid fuel rocket should be quite survivable. You can build working launch escape systems for solid fuel rockets too, but that is a worse situation. IANARS
- ajross 13y agoI don't see how your point follows. A similar deviation with a solid fuel rocket would have resulted in basically the same event (an impact with the ground of a fueled, burning rocket at T+25s), no? There are indeed safety reasons to prefer liquid fuel, but I don't see that this events provides any new evidence.
- HeyLaughingBoy 13y agoHe's saying that a solid-fuel rocket would likely have exploded before even hitting the ground.
- ommunist 13y agoThe USSR in 70-ies launched ~120 Protons per year successfully. Modern Russia cannot do 30 launches. The reason - old workers and engineers physically perish because of age and no one is coming to replace them. This is sad, but true.
- gus_massa 13y agoIn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Proton_launches_(1970%E2%80%931979) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Proton_launches_(1970%E... I only found ~10 Proton launched per year, with ~1 failure per year.
- ommunist 13y agoAlltogether there have been around 300 Proton launches in Soviet times. http://www.baikonur-info.ru/kosmos.htm http://www.baikonur-info.ru/kosmos.htm Partial almanac is here - http://astro.uni-altai.ru/space/view-all-list.php?page=253 http://astro.uni-altai.ru/space/view-all-list.php?page=253
- mahoro 13y agoIn 70-ies there was A LOT of Proton failures due to Lunar competition with USA.
- ommunist 13y agoAny evidence you have? I have the following - 3.88% of failures for Proton-K, 10.81% for Proton-M. Proton-M is a modern RUssian build, Proton-K is the old Soviet one. Proton-K had 311 launches, 34 failed. http://habrahabr.ru/post/185664/ http://habrahabr.ru/post/185664/
- ommunist 13y agoProton-K - 311 launches. American Saturn-5 - only 13 launches. I consider Saturn-5 was never real commercial launcher. Proton-K was.