The thread for space cadets!

[Perfection]

Russian satellite lost after being set to launch from wrong spaceport
Deputy prime minister admits programmers gave the $45m device coordinates for Baikonur rather than Vostochny cosmodrome




https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/28/russian-satellite-lost-wrong-spaceport-meteor-m


So is this as idiotic as sending a mission to Mars with both metric and imperial measurements mixed up?

I like these stories, they make me less ashamed of my engineering screw ups.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I like these stories, they make me less ashamed of my engineering screw ups.

And there have been plenty of stories like this coming from Russia over the past decade. I take no joy in writing that, it's pretty sucky for humanity as a whole.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Apparently they have re-established contact with the satellite. They are saying the problem with this satellite was the same as with the recent failed launch - the satellite thought that it was launched from a different launch site and was therefore lost in space.

The fix should be straightforward but jeeezus can they get their crap together over there already? Preferably before they kill someone?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Apparently they have re-established contact with the satellite. They are saying the problem with this satellite was the same as with the recent failed launch - the satellite thought that it was launched from a different launch site and was therefore lost in space.

The fix should be straightforward but jeeezus can they get their crap together over there already? Preferably before they kill someone?

With they way things have been going they'll probably blame it on one of the few qualified people they have left so they can kick them out and replace them with more political appointees....
Cronyism 101.

 

[Michkov]

I haven't watched this closely but did any of the ISS launches experience problems on the Soviet side or is it just commercial launches? All I'm hearing is that 3rd party satellites are lost.

 

[red_elk]

I haven't watched this closely but did any of the ISS launches experience problems on the Soviet side or is it just commercial launches? All I'm hearing is that 3rd party satellites are lost.

Manned missions have different level of quality control. But in general, number of failures is indeed too high last years.
I remember ~10 years ago there were similar problems with Bulava SLBM - about 8 out of 10 failed test launches until it finally worked.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I haven't watched this closely but did any of the ISS launches experience problems on the Soviet side or is it just commercial launches? All I'm hearing is that 3rd party satellites are lost.

There was a problem during re-entry where the capsule depressurized prematurely but the astronauts we're fine. Other than that, as far as the public knows the ISS manned launches have been fine. They have had at least one failed unmanned ISS cargo launch in the past few years though.

Red Elk is right in that they do put a lot more effort in QC for manned flights but given how bad things are apparently getting it is only a matter of time before someone gets hurt in my opinion.

Russia had a commanding lead in the commercial launch business until just a couple of years ago at which point all of the failures and heavy US competition just demolished their business. The lack of booked launches decreases funding which in turn means QC took a dive which caused them to lose more launches and so on.

 

[Takhisis]

Erm…

North Korea accidentally hit one of its own cities with a missile, says report
A complex of industrial or agricultural buildings is thought to have been destroyed

A North Korean missile reportedly crashed into one of its own cities after it failed minutes after launch.

US officials said the Hwasong-12 intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) was initially thought to have disintegrated mid-flight after it was fired on 28 April, last year.

However, new data suggests it landed in the city of Tokchon, around 90 miles north of the secretive communist country's capital, Pyongyang. It has a population of around 200,000.

The missile likely exploded on impact, causing significant damage to complex of industrial or agricultural buildings, The Diplomat magazine reported, citing a US intelligence source, alongside satellite imagery.

(…)

However, as the publication pointed out, it is impossible to verify whether the accidental strike caused any deaths due to the secretive nature of the North Korean regime.

(…)​

How likely is this, really? Is it poor quality control, or is this type of engine/missile inherently prone to exploding? I'd tend towards the former but it's not my area.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

There are very different failure modes that explain the two conflicting stories. If the rocket crashed into buildings, that points to a failure in the guidance, navigation and control (GNC) systems. If the rocket exploded in mid-air, that points to a structural or more likely an engine failure. Without more evidence it's hard to say what exactly the root cause is.

Taking out an industrial center is not without precedent. The US puts self-destruct charges on their rockets to avoid this. The Russians launch from such desolate areas that they don't have to bother since there's nothing around to hit. China does not have that luxury but they don't (or at least didn't) use self-destruct back when they leveled an entire village in the 90's with a wayward launcher.

I guess some really sick calculus was used to determine it was less expensive to risk entire villages than to outfit complicated self-destruct systems. Self-destruct sounds simple on the face of it but it's devilishly complicated.

 

[Samez]

*conspiracy mode on*
Something like Stuxnet could be an option. If capable of doing so the agencys would happily sabotage the NK missile program. I have no kind of proof for this theory, but it would probably be a high priority target to delay the NK nuclear weapon delivery system program as much as possible, as NK icbms are probably a higher threat to the US than all the terrorist out there.
Taking out NK industrial capacities would be a nice bonus.

 

[r16]

or it really helps to a sound sleep at night that the no clowns could ever hit the US .

 

[Takhisis]

There are very different failure modes that explain the two conflicting stories. If the rocket crashed into buildings, that points to a failure in the guidance, navigation and control (GNC) systems. If the rocket exploded in mid-air, that points to a structural or more likely an engine failure. Without more evidence it's hard to say what exactly the root cause is.

Either way it's a failure.

Taking out an industrial center is not without precedent. The US puts self-destruct charges on their rockets to avoid this. The Russians launch from such desolate areas that they don't have to bother since there's nothing around to hit. China does not have that luxury but they don't (or at least didn't) use self-destruct back when they leveled an entire village in the 90's with a wayward launcher.

I guess some really sick calculus was used to determine it was less expensive to risk entire villages than to outfit complicated self-destruct systems. Self-destruct sounds simple on the face of it but it's devilishly complicated.

Assuming the self-destruct mechanism is working properly, how much of an advance warning you need in order to use it and dispose of the missile harmlessly?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It depends on how the mechanism is triggered. Up until recently, every single launch had a self destruct mechanism controlled by a USAF airman which meant ultimately the reaction time was down to how fast a human could process information and make a decision. There are what are called 'flight rules' which stipulate if a rocket exceeds the boundary of a box on a map or various other metrics then it should be instantly destroyed. In practice this just comes down to the airman's reaction time and judgement but typically the self-destruct was done pretty quickly after control of the rocket was lost or in some cases when contact with the rocket was lost even if the rocket was still controlling itself alright.

The USAF has recently debuted a completely automated system that SpaceX helped develop for its rockets to take human error and reaction time out of the equation. This also helps them launch at a higher cadence because the less resources they need from the USAF, the faster they can line up launches. That system is essentially instantaneous.

There are also some contingencies where they don't blow up the rocket but instead shut it down and let if fall - this is what happened to the New Zealand rocket last year.

 

[Berzerker]

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-cigar-shaped-alien-asteroid-oumuamua.html

They say it likely formed at the asteroid belt... Not ours, but about that distance from its home star... It apparently has a roughly even distribution of ice and dust/rock. Maybe came from a binary system and got ejected and was actually traveling rather slowly wandering around until another star (ours) latched onto it for a brief time.

 

[GinandTonic]

It depends on how the mechanism is triggered. Up until recently, every single launch had a self destruct mechanism controlled by a USAF airman which meant ultimately the reaction time was down to how fast a human could process information and make a decision. There are what are called 'flight rules' which stipulate if a rocket exceeds the boundary of a box on a map or various other metrics then it should be instantly destroyed. In practice this just comes down to the airman's reaction time and judgement but typically the self-destruct was done pretty quickly after control of the rocket was lost or in some cases when contact with the rocket was lost even if the rocket was still controlling itself alright.

The USAF has recently debuted a completely automated system that SpaceX helped develop for its rockets to take human error and reaction time out of the equation. This also helps them launch at a higher cadence because the less resources they need from the USAF, the faster they can line up launches. That system is essentially instantaneous.

There are also some contingencies where they don't blow up the rocket but instead shut it down and let if fall - this is what happened to the New Zealand rocket last year.

Havent the ESA rockets had auto self-destruct for decades? I might be remembering this wrong but IIRC there was a rocket that flipped over and was detonated in the very early naughties. The geeks at Sussex (my old place) were excited because their contribution had been working on the self destruct and never expected to know that it worked. I'ld left by then so take it with a pinch of salt.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm not sure if it is an automatic self-destruct or manual but you are correct and that was a huge oversight on my part. I would also expect that part of the 'Europeanizing' process for the Europeanized Soyuz booster they fly out of Kourou include adding a self destruct.

The fun starts at about 50 seconds.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

There are a ton of conflicting reports about the launch of the codenamed Zuma satellite by SpaceX. According to the company, the launch vehicle performed as intended. However, there have been rumors that the satellite is either dead on orbit or was de-orbited still attached to the second stage. Obfuscating everything is the fact that this was a classified launch where we would hear next to nothing about it or else there may be a ton of intentional misinformation put out by the government.

I find the theory that the satellite failed to separate and was de-orbited with the second stage incredible (in the sense that it can't be believed). For one, the second stage was spotted de-orbiting roughly where and when it was expected. That is highly unlikely to be the case if the satellite was still attached. For one, unless the satellite was teeny-tiny, the second stage would not have the fuel to de-orbit itself and the satellite, much less to do so at the place and time it was intended. For another, SpaceX would have known if the satellite was detached and I can't see them going through a de-orbit maneuver at the right time and place if the payload was still attached.

The payload adapter fitting (PAF - responsible for holding and releasing the satellite) has never failed before but apparently Northrup (who built Zuma) provided the PAF for this mission so that is a potential problem source.

In the end I expect that the satellite is up there doing whatever it was supposed to be doing and all of this noise is just that - intentional misinformation by the government. It doesn't help the case either way that the satellite was launched into an orbit where the lighting is such that the satellite cannot be seen by ground observers for the next few weeks - and if it performs maneuvers in the dark then no one will likely find it.

The government agency that tracks launches did assign a call sign to Zuma which is something they only do typically when the satellite has achieved a stable orbit - regardless if the satellite is dead or alive in that orbit. So that too goes against the theory that it was de-orbited. It's all very confusing.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It really doesn't help that the media is making completely uneducated assumptions about what happened. It's become an opinion-driven story where the journalists don't know what they don't know but are quite confident in pronouncing what they think happened. It's really starting to piss me off.

In other news, Europe is beginning to make some tentative steps into re-use. However, their half measures are about a decade late and they are going to have to seriously step up their game to avoid being steamrolled in the competition for international commercial launchers. Arianespace is going to have to work very hard to avoid becoming a company that only launches government payloads for Europe the way ULA took on that role for the US after losing its ability to compete for commercial launches.

Article



Looks familiar, doesn't it?

 

[r16]

was in much doubt whether this should have been in rants thread . Winning the silliest post of the month thing is much harder if people are so ready to look for endless pearls of wisdom in whatever ı post .


the post does not aim at any CFC member .

confess it ! That Russians hacked the X-37 "mission" within two days of the attack on Tankograd and you can't hack it back . Tried to reason with the Commies , even tried to enlist people here to reason with the Commies . Now that it was practically the height of the days when the Turkish Republic was a "paranthesis" , a void between the so called greatness of the Islamists and the "Golden Generation" was working super , the only response was a "Bad boooy , baaaad booooy" or however that's written in Russian . So tried to reason with Putin , with the practical result of Turkey passed over as a "sömürge" . While that's a colony in English , try exploited in a bad way . Emboldened , Putin also tried his luck in Syria to control Iranians in the interests of the White Man . Stuff , stuff and stuff and you can't still hack it back and in two months time the thrust capacity will not be enough to deflect it at all . Explains the Kurds' plight , even the stunt double trouble to enlist feminine feelings about what's right and what's wrong . You know , after the brilliant offer of putting an idiot of a Russian puppet in the White House was accepted and realized by Putin , much to the disbelief of sane people in the DC ... And while China gets ready to march , whereever the impact , even yours idiotly suffers by the "constant" pressure of like being not able to download . Not real , never was and didn't hack anything , not me nor us . And shall we also think the everdumbing of the country will keep going on because of the high hopes of this Zuma mission ?

and yes , American rockets can blow up , too .

or Musk is fully with the US Goverment and shedding corcodile tears for the "stealth" satellite ?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It doesn't help the case either way that the satellite was launched into an orbit where the lighting is such that the satellite cannot be seen by ground observers for the next few weeks - and if it performs maneuvers in the dark then no one will likely find it.

It may not help the case, but it very likely furthers the mission. I'd be very surprised if anyone admits to seeing or hearing from this satellite ever again...but that hardly means that it isn't working.