Jump to content

21 posts in this topic

Posted

Both an early upper stage shutdown and an attitude control issue. Outside estimates are the Galileo satellites only have 1/4 to 1/3 the deltaV needed to maneuver into the correct orbit.

ESA was still celebrating a successful launch when STRATCOM caught the orbital error.

So after the Proton-M/Briz-M failures, Soyuz/Fregat joins the party.

Peter B. de Selding @pbdes [Space News]
23/08/2014 12:55
Galileo injection anomaly, 1st indications: Inclination is too far off-target (47 v. 56 deg goal) to expect much use of these two sats.

Peter B. de Selding (@pbdes)
23/08/2014 12:58
Galileo anomaly a bitter irony for Europe: It took US military data to announce location of Europe's own positioning/nav/timing sats.

http://www.arianespace.com/news-press-release/2014/8-23-2014.asp

Galileo satellites experience orbital injection anomaly on Soyuz launch: Initial report

Kourou, August 23, 2014

On August 22, 2014, at 9:27 am local time in French Guiana, a Soyuz ST rocket lifted off with the first two satellites in the Galileo constellation.

The liftoff and first part of the mission proceeded nominally, leading to release of the satellites according to the planned timetable, and reception of signals from the satellites. It was only a certain time after the separation of the satellites that the ongoing analysis of the data provided by the telemetry stations operated by the European Space Agency (ESA) and the French space agency CNES showed that the satellites were not in the expected orbit.

The targeted orbit was circular, inclined at 55 degrees with a semi major axis of 29,900 kilometers. The satellites are now in an elliptical orbit, with excentricity of 0.23, a semi major axis of 26,200 km and inclined at 49.8 degrees.

Both the Fregat upper stage and the two satellites are in a stable condition and position that entails absolutely no risk for people on the ground. The residual propellants on the Fregat stage have been purged and the stage was depressurized normally.

According to the initial analyses, an anomaly is thought to have occurred during the flight phase involving the Fregat upper stage, causing the satellites to be injected into a noncompliant orbit.

Studies and data analyses are continuing in Kourou, French Guiana, and at Arianespace headquarters in Evry, near Paris, under the direction of St

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Can they push it over to where it needs to go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Outside estimates are that the Galileo's don't have enough onboard fuel to both change both their orbital inclination and circularize the orbit. One or the other maybe, but not both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Maybe they shouldn't have used Soviet rockets then. Why doesn't Europe have their own rocket technology?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

They do, the Ariane 5. But it's very expensive and optimized for launching larger communications satellites two at a time. Arianespace (the European launch company) started buying Soyuz rockets to cover the medium sized satellite market.

They have a smaller European made launcher planned, Ariane 6, but the success of SpaceX in both the medium and commsat markets has caused them to redesign it for cost and begin to reorganize their bureaucracy.

This is why people call SpaceX "disruptive."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I just think things are going backwards. If we were able to do things like land on the moon 40+ years ago, why are people still relying on this old Soviet technology and failing? You'd think a cheaper, more reliable solution would already exist by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Russia's rocket problems are a meme at this point. Edited by _Alexander

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I just think things are going backwards. If we were able to do things like land on the moon 40+ years ago, why are people still relying on this old Soviet technology and failing? You'd think a cheaper, more reliable solution would already exist by now.

Ariane 5 over $250m, Atlas V about $180-250m and Delta IV Heavy over $400m. The NASA Space Launch System may cost $2-4 billion per launch.

Falcon 9 costs about $60m a launch. Falcon Heavy, the biggest launcher since Saturn V and Energiya, will cost at most $140m. Usually less than $90m. SpaceX also has a super-heavy launcher in development that'll make Saturn V, Energiya and Space Launch System look like bottle rockets. Made for setting up a Mars colony, it is.

Bigger and cheaper are here and more are coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Ariane 5 over $250m, Atlas V about $180-250m and Delta IV Heavy over $400m. The NASA Space Launch System may cost $2-4 billion per launch.

Falcon 9 costs about $60m a launch. Falcon Heavy, the biggest launcher since Saturn V and Energiya, will cost at most $140m. Usually less than $90m. SpaceX also has a super-heavy launcher in development that'll make Saturn V, Energiya and Space Launch System look like bottle rockets. Made for setting up a Mars colony, it is.

Bigger and cheaper are here and more are coming.

 

What about a space shuttle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What about a space shuttle?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program

 

 The incremental cost per flight of the Space Shuttle was estimated at $450 million,[3] or $18,000 per kilogram (approximately $8,000 per pound) to low Earth orbit (LEO). By comparison, Russian Proton expendable launchers, still largely based on the design that dates back to 1965, are said to cost as little as $110 million,[4] or around $5,000/kg (approximately $2,300 per pound) to LEO. When all design and maintenance costs are taken into account, the final cost of the Space Shuttle program, averaged over all missions and adjusted for inflation, was estimated to come out to $1.5 billion per launch, or $60,000/kg (approximately $27,000 per pound) to LEO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program

 

 The incremental cost per flight of the Space Shuttle was estimated at $450 million,[3] or $18,000 per kilogram (approximately $8,000 per pound) to low Earth orbit (LEO). By comparison, Russian Proton expendable launchers, still largely based on the design that dates back to 1965, are said to cost as little as $110 million,[4] or around $5,000/kg (approximately $2,300 per pound) to LEO. When all design and maintenance costs are taken into account, the final cost of the Space Shuttle program, averaged over all missions and adjusted for inflation, was estimated to come out to $1.5 billion per launch, or $60,000/kg (approximately $27,000 per pound) to LEO

 

I'm talking about making a new, more cost effective shuttle. Or are we still relying on the Soviets to get people into space?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Shuttle was a boondoggle.

Doing large payloads and crew the way they did it (straddle launch) was not only much more expensive but dangerous. 14 dead astronauts prove it.

The true launch cost (program cost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm talking about making a new, more cost effective shuttle. Or are we still relying on the Soviets to get people into space?

 

Shuttles are never cost effective, no point having wings in space. Rockets were always the better solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Shuttles are never cost effective, no point having wings in space. Rockets were always the better solution.

 

Oh right so in your version of things, Star Wars wouldn't have X-Wings either!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm talking about making a new, more cost effective shuttle. Or are we still relying on the Soviets to get people into space?

Sometime in the next 2-3 week's NASA will announce contract winners for Commercial Crew. At least 2 awards are expected, most likely for -

Dragon V2 (SpaceX)

Space-X-Dragon-V2.jpg

DragonV2-interior3.jpg

4468240_orig.jpg

Dream Chaser (Sierra Nevada Corp.)
1029_dream-chaser.jpg

301764_317815598296770_598974469_n.jpg

snc-dc_zps55bb518b.jpg

Both seat up to 7, both are reusable, both use "pusher" launch abort rockets instead of the usual tower, but one is a winged lifting body spaceplane, and the other an advanced capsule. This provides dissimilar redundancy; we have 2 spacecraft that can fly very different missions yet back each other up.

Boeing also is competing with their CST-100 but news of their having trouble making the business case and issuing layoff noticeable cast a pall on their program.

No flight hardware pics for it, nothing but mockups and PowerPoints.

Boeing-Spacecraft.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What's interesting is that the European investigating body will only have a Russian liaison, no full members.

Also, non-govt Russian sources are giving info that indicate either, or both, programming errors and propellant leaks in the Fregat upper stage.

DLR (German Space Agency) forum post by the head of the German Aerospace Center indicates the satellites had trouble too.

http://dlr.de/blogs/de/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-5896/9578_read-761/

(Google Translate)

The launch of the Soyuz rockets of the type carried out by the European spaceport in Kourou. First of all measurement results indicated a perfect mission progress towards: the rocket lifted off on time, followed the prescribed trajectory and the staging was perfect. First problems were recognized as the solar panels do not properly deployed at two satellites on board. Then showed a more detailed analysis that the achieved orbit corresponded neither in form and amount still in the inclination with respect to the Earth equator of the default and that obviously the upper the planned rotation around the longitudinal axis (the so-called Barbeque mode to the heat balance low, even in sunlight hold) was not excited. It is still too early to make definitive statements about the causes and consequences. Returning to the quote from Elon Musk (note: Rockets are tricky) , it is important to me that now is not made like the experienced game of mutual recrimination, but to clarify the cause and which are consequent measures necessary for the next start in the foreground.
>


From Russia,

How does a launcher work properly but still inject satellites into the wrong orbit?

http://en.itar-tass.com/non-political/746603

Russian booster worked properly when deploying Galileo satellites

MOSCOW, August 25. /ITAR-TASS/. Russias Soyuz rocket and Fregat booster worked properly when deploying European Galileo satellites last week when they found to be slightly deviating from the target orbit, the Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) said on Monday. The express analysis of the telemetric data shows that there are no complaints about the work of the onboard equipment of the Soyuz carrier rocket and Fregat booster, Roscosmos said.

Russias Lavochkin aerospace company confirmed on Saturday there were errors in the deployment of European Galileo satellites by its Fregat-MT booster.

There were orbiting errors, the company said, following reports that the satellites had deviated from the target orbit.

Russias Soyuz rocket with a Fregat-MT upper stage and two Galileo navigation system satellites blasted off from Kourou, French Guiana, on Friday, August 22.

Roscomos has set up an independent emergency commission to investigate the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

@pbdes (Space News)

Euro official: Inspection of Soyuz Fregat stages at Lavochkin found 1 in 4 had same wrongly installed helium/hydrazine lines.#IAC2014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So, once again it comes down to sheer incompetence...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Pretty much. Sounds like Boris has graduated from liquid lunches to liquid breakfasts and lunches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.