Russian Rocket Proton-M Crashes At Launch

probably... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 01:26 · Score: 5, Funny

...because the rocket was using GLONASS for navigation instead of GPS.

Re:probably... by MightyYar · 2013-07-02 01:29 · Score: 4, Funny

Normally AC first post comments are throwaways, but the image of a rocket trying to follow the navigation satellites in its nose made me giggle...

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:probably... by Deekin_Scalesinger · 2013-07-02 01:33 · Score: 1

I watched the video first and focused on the plumes. To my untrained eye, I didn't see any sputters or anything from the engine....

--
"As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
Re:probably... by Deekin_Scalesinger · 2013-07-02 01:35 · Score: 1

Correction - just saw it again. Something weird billowed out of the engines at 0:18 or so

--
"As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
Re:probably... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-07-02 01:38 · Score: 1

This is a drag, but it's always a drag when these fail because it still means failure is possible, even SOYUZ.
Protons have historically been highly reliable. A mishap like this happens every now and then to any launcher.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:probably... by ackthpt · 2013-07-02 01:42 · Score: 1

Correction - just saw it again. Something weird billowed out of the engines at 0:18 or so
So glad this was only 3 satellites, rather than 3 cosmonauts. That 0:18 mystery plume would have been guessed, second guessed and investigated. As it is, they'll still need to retrace the assembly and prep of the rocket to try to identify where a flaw was introduced.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:probably... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 02:04 · Score: 2, Informative

FYI, the "wooshing" sound that you heard passing over your head as you posted this response was not the sound of a rocket with a propulsion problem...
Re:probably... by somersault · 2013-07-02 02:25 · Score: 1

Why?
Why shouldn't he be glad that nobody got hurt in this accident? Where did he say anything about impeding progress?
Besides, it's completely pointless to do things exactly the same and hope all goes well, rather than spending money to find out what caused the problem. Whether the next payload is satellites or humans, it's a complete waste if the whole thing blows up again..

--
which is totally what she said
Re:probably... by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-07-02 02:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

Protons have historically been highly reliable. A mishap like this happens every now and then to any launcher.
This was the 387th Proton launch. A quick check, and I find that 36 of them have failed (including this latest one), plus three or four "partial failures" (they got into the wrong orbit, but were still usable).
So Proton has a 9.3% failure rate, which is still much more reliable than Shuttle's 1.5% failure rate.
Oh, wait....
Note, for those who would like to insist that Proton failures were common in the early days, but very rare once they got the bugs out, that Proton failed once in each of 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:probably... by rickb928 · 2013-07-02 02:41 · Score: 1

It's always possible to fail. But Soyuz launches seem to be using the Soyuz FG rocket nowadays, so Proton failures are not directly affecting the Soyuz program.
Space flight is not yet as routine as a trip to the Circle-K for an ICEE.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re:probably... by AmiMoJo · 2013-07-02 02:51 · Score: 1

Protons rockets are a lot cheaper than Shuttles though. It's cheaper to go with the higher failure rate and just buy insurance.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:probably... by RubberDuckie · 2013-07-02 02:57 · Score: 3, Informative

In the words of the immortal Foghorn Leghorn: "That's a joke, ah say, that's a joke, son."
Re:probably... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 03:23 · Score: 1

Yeah, it looks like an engine failure of some kind (the brownish plume), and then the other engines valiantly tried to correct for it (check out the deflection of the other rocket plumes trying to correct for the spin/deviation) and fail.
It reminds me of this Delta II failure, also carrying a GPS satellite, which was a booster failure. Video here, although the ending is rather different.
The part I can't figure out for the Proton rocket is why, as it turned horizontal and started heading back down, the range officer wasn't mashing the "destruct" button or automatic systems weren't triggering. Or why those systems failed if they did. I thought it was standard practice to explode these things as close over the pad as possible once things go wrong rather then let it go to ... well, wherever the hell it might head. Thankfully it doesn't look like it made it far from the pad before impacting on its own.
Re:probably... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 03:37 · Score: 1

In case people are wondering: The FG version had 0% failure rate and the U version hasv 2.8% failure rate.
Re:probably... by Ecuador · 2013-07-02 03:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

Eh, you are comparing man-rated (multiple times the cost, built specifically for 100% reliability) with cargo-only rockets (built for price/performance, where price actually includes failures).
There is simply no comparison. For Proton to still be in use it is obviously reliable enough that its cost including insurance for cargo is competitive. The space shuttle on the other had a much larger than acceptable failure rate.
Hey, get in this "bus", there is only 1.5% chance you will blow up!
Way, way too much and all because of politics basically, it was not really an engineering choice to make the boosters far away and move them disassembled or to fly in temperatures dangerous for the O-rings etc.

--
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Re:probably... by gl4ss · 2013-07-02 05:28 · Score: 1

they're the bargain rocket so what do you expect..
soyuz has much better rate.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:probably... by TuringCheck · 2013-07-02 05:55 · Score: 1

Perhaps for safety reasons the self-destruct arms itself later in flight - although getting horizontal should trigger an immediate self-destruct.
Even rocket scientists get lousy - perhaps from hunger?
Re:probably... by bughunter · 2013-07-02 06:09 · Score: 2

Yes, it would resemble the outcome of this 1986 Trident II test, which I have seen captioned as "Navy Successfully Tests New Self-seeking Missile" in this still photo.

--
I can see the fnords!
Re:probably... by durrr · 2013-07-02 07:20 · Score: 1

I'm quite certain they have some escape vehicles for events like that, not for satellites but for cosmonauts.
Re:probably... by Endovior · 2013-07-02 10:04 · Score: 1

So glad this was only 3 satellites, rather than 3 cosmonauts.
Why? There is 7 billion of us on this rock. Are you one of those 100% safety nuts that are willing to sacrifice progress because we might lose 0.00000000014 of our population? Cant risk hurting three Astronauts, better spend $100 Billion more on this project, meanwhile 3 people die in car accident every 10 minutes on average.
Probably because they feel that human lives are more valuable than satellites, despite the fact that there are more humans in existence than satellites. That's not to say that we should not do dangerous things because of the risk to humans, but it remains a good thing when people survive a potentially fatal accident. Similarly, a lot of people do, in fact, value lives over money, to the degree that the design of dangerous things like rockets (and, y'know, cars and such) involves careful precautions to preserve human life, as opposed to valuable objects.
Even if you didn't care overly much about human lives, though, the safety aspect still needs careful examination in a case like this. After all, satellites are expensive, so if you've got a system that regularly puts them up, but sometimes fails catastrophically, you definitely want to spend some time finding out what causes the catastrophic failures, so you can make that not happen. If for no other reason than to prevent your expensive satellites and such from blowing to bits, since you usually can't just safely eject those in the course of a failed launch.
Re:probably... by Cyberax · 2013-07-02 10:20 · Score: 1

Proton-M is not man-rated (that's also why it uses hydrazine as a propellant), so a small chance of failure is OK if it goes with a much smaller launch price.

Can we have another 3 GLONASS-M sats please? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 01:28 · Score: 1

The video shows a rocket behaving just like mine on Kerbal Space Program.
Maybe the design is exactly the same.

Dashcam? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 01:31 · Score: 5, Funny

I want to see the dashcam footage!

Re:Dashcam? by ackthpt · 2013-07-02 01:44 · Score: 1

I want to see the dashcam footage!
You'd see Putin running away after lighting the fuse.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Dashcam? by Ashenkase · 2013-07-02 01:53 · Score: 4, Informative

Here you go... kinda... Proton Failure
Re:Dashcam? by router · 2013-07-02 04:18 · Score: 1

Awesome link, thanks for this. I feel for the Russians, sucks to lose one like that.
Wonder where range safety was, but don't know what their protocol is; it might cause less damage if it goes off on the ground as long as its unpopulated versus an air burst. Someone in the know can weigh in here?
Maybe people will stop h8n on SpaceX now? Naw, h8rs gonna h8....
andy
Re:Dashcam? by the_other_chewey · 2013-07-02 04:51 · Score: 1

Wonder where range safety was, but don't know what their protocol is; it might cause less damage if it goes off on the ground as long as its unpopulated versus an air burst. Someone in the know can weigh in here?
"Russian rockets do not carry self-destruct explosives like Western boosters"
[Proton Rocket Crashes].
Range safety is entirely achieved by... well... range.

That was one of the larger modifications necessary to Soyuz-2 for it to be allowed to
launch from Kourou in French Guiana: The Kourou-launched russian rockets do have
self-destruct capability.
Re:Dashcam? by TuringCheck · 2013-07-02 06:02 · Score: 1

Rockets have failure modes in which they can fall quite far away with plenty fuel remaining.
Launching without an automatic self-destruct system is totally irresponsible. Oh, wait, this is Russia...
Re:Dashcam? by mirix · 2013-07-02 10:45 · Score: 1

Soviets sent probes to mars and venus 40+ years ago.

--
Sent from my PDP-11

This isn't the Future I was promised. by ackthpt · 2013-07-02 01:31 · Score: 2

Where are the reliable rockets coming and going like London buses?

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar

Re:This isn't the Future I was promised. by RogueyWon · 2013-07-02 01:34 · Score: 1

In fairness, London did have those bendy buses for a while, which had an unfortunate habit of catching fire.
Re:This isn't the Future I was promised. by kannibal_klown · 2013-07-02 01:41 · Score: 1

Gasp! You mean I can't fly around in floating-car like the Jetsons that is able to hold into a small briefcase?
Yeh, science fiction has teased us with a bit too much. Between constraints on materials and the laws of Themodynamics we can't really do all of the cool stuff that we've seen in comics and movies. Not now, possibly never.
Obviously there's room for advancement to be made. Carbon Nanotubes offer interesting manufacturing abilities as the technology (and tube-size) improves. But things are harder to do that people realize.
Re:This isn't the Future I was promised. by msauve · 2013-07-02 01:42 · Score: 1

"Where are the reliable rockets coming and going like London buses?"

Those are the ones which don't find their way into the news.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:This isn't the Future I was promised. by Virtucon · 2013-07-02 01:43 · Score: 1

They're there.. right on the bookshelf where you left them, right there along with your copy of "Tin Tin - Destination Moon." :-p

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Re:This isn't the Future I was promised. by ackthpt · 2013-07-02 01:46 · Score: 1

In fairness, London did have those bendy buses for a while, which had an unfortunate habit of catching fire.
True. They also all tend to come at once and then none for ages.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:This isn't the Future I was promised. by MightyYar · 2013-07-02 01:50 · Score: 1

This is a problem in NYC as well. Bus Bunching.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:This isn't the Future I was promised. by Virtucon · 2013-07-02 01:51 · Score: 1

Yes but fortunately Boris Johnson got rid of them. Unfortunately he's not to good with zip lines and dealing with scandals and being honest about his past.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Re:This isn't the Future I was promised. by TWiTfan · 2013-07-02 01:53 · Score: 1

Where are the reliable rockets coming and going like London buses?
Good news, everyone! The rockets you seek are on Futurama.
Bad news, everyone! It just got cancelled.

--
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Re:This isn't the Future I was promised. by rodrigoandrade · 2013-07-02 01:57 · Score: 1

The Soyuz is reliable and relatively cheap to build.
"It has become the world's most used space launcher, flying over 1700 times, far more than any other rocket. It is a very old basic design, but is notable for low cost and very high reliability, both of which appeal to commercial clients."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_(rocket_family)
Re:This isn't the Future I was promised. by xaxa · 2013-07-02 02:03 · Score: 1

In fairness, London did have those bendy buses for a while, which had an unfortunate habit of catching fire.
Three of them. The (design?) fault was fixed, and there were no further problems.
Boris' withdrawal of bendy buses now means several affected routes are overcrowded, and more buses are needed to run the routes (a bendy bus carries more people than a double-decker bus).
Re:This isn't the Future I was promised. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-07-02 02:04 · Score: 1

If you're intending to suggest that software doesn't breakdown you've never encountered QA.
It's possible to make software that doesn't break down. The fact that most people don't have the chops to do it, and the fact that reliable software is a wasted on most existing hardware does not negate it.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:This isn't the Future I was promised. by TheCarp · 2013-07-02 02:16 · Score: 2

I believe Italy solved this problem once with its trains. People turned out to not be very happy with the results, and they hung the guy who did it. Ever since, nobody has been willing to try.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:This isn't the Future I was promised. by harperska · 2013-07-02 02:20 · Score: 1

It is only possible to make software that can never break down when all possible values of all input parameters are known ahead of time. In practice, this is rarely the case.
Re:This isn't the Future I was promised. by TheCarp · 2013-07-02 06:00 · Score: 1

> ...or black humor from the Italians, yes?
Sarcastic Italians? That is just inconceivable!

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"

Just have to keep trying... by MiniMike · 2013-07-02 01:39 · Score: 2, Funny

I heard that the rocket was also carrying Edward Snowdens political asylum request.

Re:Just have to keep trying... by ackthpt · 2013-07-02 01:43 · Score: 1

I heard that the rocket was also carrying Edward Snowdens political asylum request.
Now that we have that out of the way...

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Just have to keep trying... by Virtucon · 2013-07-02 01:47 · Score: 1

I think he'd have better luck predicting which country would take him if Ms. Cleo were to help him out.
"yo say you want asylum mon? Let me look at da cards."

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"

No Causalities by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 01:39 · Score: 5, Funny

There were no causalities, but evacuation of personnel was ordered because of toxic rocket fuel fumes

Must have been a pretty big explosion to break the laws of space time like that.

Hard Stuff by necro81 · 2013-07-02 01:41 · Score: 1

Oh come on, guys, again? It's not like this is rocket scie... oh, wait, yes it is.

Easy jokes aside, this is becoming a disturbing pattern. The Proton rocket has been launched how many times? 50? 100? It's supposed to be a rock-solid system at this point - the most reliable commercial launch vehicle available. How many launch failures is this in the last year? Someone down in the QA department must be sleeping on the job, or being bought off. Have they been making unwarrented component or material substitutions? Is there deliberate sabotage at work? Are they just getting lazy and cheap?

Re:Hard Stuff by neurogeneticist · 2013-07-02 01:51 · Score: 1

Is there any suggestion that the etiology of the failures could be common across events? The Russians do have a fair bit of experience, although I suppose if the infrastructure supporting construction is poor, it doesn't matter how smart your rocket scientists are...
Re:Hard Stuff by Dan+East · 2013-07-02 02:43 · Score: 1

Oh come on, guys, again? It's not like this is rocket scie... oh, wait, yes it is.
That joke has not gotten ol... oh wait, yes it has.

--
Better known as 318230.
Re:Hard Stuff by wonkey_monkey · 2013-07-02 03:52 · Score: 1

It's supposed to be a rock-solid system at this point - the most reliable commercial launch vehicle available.
So what is the most reliable commercial launch vehicle, and how does its failure rate compare with Proton's?

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:Hard Stuff by wonkey_monkey · 2013-07-02 03:55 · Score: 1

Sorry, I forgot to add the "serious question" disclaimer, since apparently everything on the internet these days is to be treated as sneering sarcasm unless stated otherwise.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

This looks like gross error by PseudoCoder · 2013-07-02 01:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

For a system that's been flying since 2001 with upgrades, it's very troubling to have several doomed flights like this in a very short period of time. Those control divergences so early in the flight suggest either a bad sensor or a mechanical failure in the control links. At first glance it looks like the gains were appropriate to at least correct the initial divergence. If it was mechanical failure it makes me wonder what happened to the days when the Russians overbuilt everything at the expense of sub-optimal performance? Maybe they're just a bit too ambitious with all the advances, upgrades and variations in such a short period of time. Their earlier launch failed to reach orbit because they used outdated fueling data on a new vehicle.

--
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."

Re:This looks like gross error by Lumpy · 2013-07-02 01:50 · Score: 2

Did you even look at the video? It's obvious that there was an engine failure that also caught fire. it was probably laterally thrusting while it was burning.

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:This looks like gross error by sasparillascott · 2013-07-02 03:54 · Score: 1

I saw that too. I was rather surprised they didn't blow it up - it was obvious it was game over when came over the end there - instead just letting it impact with full force (good thing it didn't decide to topple over towards the ground crews or it would have been game over for them). Makes me wonder if they have self destruct on the Proton or not?
Re:This looks like gross error by solartear · 2013-07-02 04:24 · Score: 2

No self-destruct on Protons, but it does have engine cut-off. However, for first 45 seconds the engine cut-off is disabled so the rocket has time to move away from the launch pad before it crashes back down to the ground. It this case it allowed the rocket to go further away from its launch pad than if it was immediately cut-off.
Re:This looks like gross error by DerekLyons · 2013-07-02 05:14 · Score: 1

Yes, I looked at the video. And it shows nothing of the sort - as the rocket goes past horizontal, all engines can briefly be seen to be firing normally with no signs of fire. (At least in the other videos I've seen, it's not clear in the video linked above.)
The OP is correct, the indications (that we can divine from the video) point to a control failure either in the guidance system and associated electronics or the mechanics of the gimbals. One key clue is the unusually high roll rate that builds up quite early.
Re:This looks like gross error by shutdown+-p+now · 2013-07-02 10:34 · Score: 1

If it was mechanical failure it makes me wonder what happened to the days when the Russians overbuilt everything at the expense of sub-optimal performance?

They ended with the USSR. We're cheapskates now, same as everyone else, and with corruption in quality control on top of that. Well, and most of our older professionals in the field have retired, and the best and brightest new ones emigrate before they can make a difference, since pay is less than meager and career prospects are non-existent.

Video from different angle... by toxygen01 · 2013-07-02 01:46 · Score: 2, Informative

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSTVkkDv30k&feature=player_embedded

Re:Video from different angle... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-02 01:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's the bit were it turns over and starts to head towards them that makes that funny.

On a serious note where the hell was the Range Safety Officer on this one?
Re:Video from different angle... by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-07-02 03:42 · Score: 1

The rocket came apart, notably the cargo section, before it crashed. Do you think this was merely due to flight stresses?
If this is hydrazine, I'd guess you'd want to burn as much of it as possible before crashing.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Video from different angle... by sasparillascott · 2013-07-02 04:01 · Score: 1

Yes on the payload section you can see it tear off the vehicle since its not designed to handle flight loads sideways. I was stunned they didn't blow it up when it toppled over, you want as much burned up before hitting the ground (in case it goes where people are). It makes me wonder if they don't have a low altitude self destruct process and system for the vehicle (they sure should) - hydrazine is extremely nasty stuff.
Re:Video from different angle... by Jade_Wayfarer · 2013-07-02 17:38 · Score: 1

Mod parent informative.

--
Absence of proof != proof of absence.

Reminds me of kerbal space program by stewsters · 2013-07-02 01:48 · Score: 2

Needed to install the SAS module and press t to turn it on prior to launch.

GNSS by blackC0pter · 2013-07-02 02:01 · Score: 2

That's really too bad. I was looking forward to GLONASS reliably augmenting GPS and improving global GNSS coverage and accuracy. This will set back GLONASS for years. Looks like Galileo and BDS are the next best hopes.

Re:GNSS by h4rr4r · 2013-07-02 02:13 · Score: 1

True, it would also be nice if we could expand GPS. More sats would really help.
Re:GNSS by dkleinsc · 2013-07-02 02:22 · Score: 1

It's all right: They've come up with a new system called GLADOS.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:GNSS by CastrTroy · 2013-07-02 03:30 · Score: 2

I found all of my GPS problems disappear once I stopped trying to use my phone as a GPS and moved to a proper GPS (Garmin Oregon 450). My phone would literally take over 5 minutes to get a signal, and even after it did, it would drop constantly. My Garmin on the other hand get's a signal seconds after turning on (which is less than 15 seconds). I've never had it lose signal outside. Most people's problems with GPS are probably just due to bad devices, and not really any problems with the GPS system itself. If it was so bad, I don't imagine it would be in such high use for military and commercial systems.

--

Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Re:GNSS by heypete · 2013-07-02 04:14 · Score: 5, Informative

According to the wikipedia, GLONASS has complete global coverage and is fully operational.
I have a GPS/GLONASS receiver and it certainly seems to have comparable coverage to GPS everywhere I've been in the last few years. Accuracy using both GPS and GLONASS, particularly when both are augmented by EGNOS, is quite good (on the order of 2-5 meters).
The satellites they were launching on this rocket were the GLONASS-M type, which was designed in 2001, and were not part of the new GLONASS-K series.
While certainly expensive and troublesome, I don't really see how this incident would set GLONASS back by years. /looking forward to Galileo and modernized GPS as well.
Re:GNSS by h4rr4r · 2013-07-02 04:15 · Score: 1

Newer phone are much faster than that.
I am not going to carry another GPS device everywhere I go. Even if I had to wait a couple minutes. I have had one in the past and it failed in both urban canyons and real ones.
Re:GNSS by thegarbz · 2013-07-02 18:59 · Score: 1

That's really too bad. I was looking forward to GLONASS reliably augmenting GPS and improving global GNSS coverage and accuracy.

Am I right in saying you have this problem simply because you don't have a GLONASS receiver?
There's nothing wrong with GLONASS it works fine in most of the world.

"They Shall Beat ..." by weapons_into_plows · 2013-07-02 02:09 · Score: 1

"Their Swords Into Plowshares..." - United Nations (for pics see: https://www.google.com/search?q=united+nations+plowshares&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&authuser=0&ei=g97SUYC_J8Pk0QHejIFI&biw=1366&bih=617&sei=h97SUa6aKsm00AGvjYGQAg#imgdii=_)

Re:Was that sucker nuclear? by 49152 · 2013-07-02 02:16 · Score: 1

No, I guess they just thought it was a cool name or something.

No one is actually using nuclear powered rockets. There has been plenty of projects in the past but they were all cancelled sooner or later.

But there could be plenty of other dangerous stuff aboard that rocket and I have no idea what might have been in the satellites.

Re:Was that sucker nuclear? by Deadstick · 2013-07-02 02:25 · Score: 2

No, and the Poseidon missile is not powered by a Greek deity, either. The Proton series has been Russia's standard heavy-duty space launcher for close on fifty years.

Re:Was that sucker nuclear? by glwtta · 2013-07-02 02:44 · Score: 2

Although SpaceX's Falcon 9 is, in fact, carried by nine falcons.

--
sic transit gloria mundi

You always hate to see this, but .... by WindBourne · 2013-07-02 03:20 · Score: 1

this is probably going to help ESA, ULA's atlas/delta and SpaceX. However, SpaceX needs to make their new F9 V1.1 and FH launch successful. Assuming that it is, then you can bet on it that a number of companies will throw in with SpaceX.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Sabotage??? by WindBourne · 2013-07-02 03:21 · Score: 1

Nothing to do with sabotage. Simple QA are always the issues here.
However, remember that this is rocket science. Things happen.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Sabotage??? by Nutria · 2013-07-02 03:31 · Score: 1

You must be Russian.

--
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1

Range Safety Officer? by blueturffan · 2013-07-02 03:50 · Score: 1

Does anyone know whether or not there was a range safety officer monitoring this launch? From the video, it's pretty clear early on that this booster is in trouble, and since it's unmanned it seems like it would be better to detonate the Proton before it impacts the earth.

Without knowing the procedures and capabilities it's hard to know why the flight was not terminated sooner. Any Slashdotters with knowledge of Russian launch safety protocols?

Re:Range Safety Officer? by somepunk · 2013-07-02 04:41 · Score: 2

The payload was jettisoned and a parachute deployed. Aroud 32 seconds in. It appears to have been consumed by the fireball, but it may have been behind it from the viewer's perspective. No idea if that was automatic or not.

--
Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. (Isaac Asimov)

Good by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-07-02 03:55 · Score: 1

but evacuation of personnel was ordered because of toxic rocket fuel fumes.

In Soviet Russia, humans rocket from launch pad!

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Bad spellchecker. BAD! by cellocgw · 2013-07-02 04:30 · Score: 2

TFS said "There were no causalities,"

You would think that we could at least wait a week or two for the assessment teams to tell us if they'd found some causalities. Now, "casualties," OTOH...

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw

Re:Was that sucker nuclear? by wagnerrp · 2013-07-02 04:48 · Score: 1

But there could be plenty of other dangerous stuff aboard that rocket and I have no idea what might have been in the satellites.

Nonsense. Hydrazine is wonderful stuff, and works as a cure-all tonic, guaranteed to make your worries no longer of concern!

Lies by jbeaupre · 2013-07-02 05:03 · Score: 1

The video clearly shows that the payload was successfully inserted into a low orbit before the rocket broke up on reentry.

--
The world is made by those who show up for the job.

Yet another different angle by mbx2000 · 2013-07-02 05:53 · Score: 1

I'd prefer this one : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl12dXYcUTo It seems that video was captured by engineers who prepared rocket to launch (voices in Russian)

Re:Yet another different angle by temcat · 2013-07-02 08:28 · Score: 1

Jeez, in the end, the man seems to be crying. Very touching.

The U.S. is in a boom, not a death spiral by SuperKendall · 2013-07-02 05:58 · Score: 1

You seem to be confused, talking about the U.S. space program being in a death spiral - when we have working robots on Mars, and companies like SpaceX building truly next-gen space capability.

Why should you consider a countries space capability solely on government programs?

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

HD distant view with impressive sound by jcdr · 2013-07-02 05:59 · Score: 2

The best video of the failure I have found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orOcOahNazk

Others good videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH3bY6-ObGg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSTVkkDv30k

Tear or eject? by SuperKendall · 2013-07-02 06:01 · Score: 1

I assumed that was the payload being ejected in order to try and save it. Was is really just structural failure?

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

"They Shall Beat" by weapons_into_plows · 2013-07-02 07:28 · Score: 1

"...Their Swords Into Plowshares..." - United Nations (for pics see: pics)

Re:Was that sucker nuclear? by rubycodez · 2013-07-02 07:32 · Score: 1

yes, it was entirely composed of nuclei surrounded by electron clouds often shared between more than one. it also contained *chemicals*

Re:The real story by rubycodez · 2013-07-02 07:33 · Score: 1

Molly is now old enough to know how to open molly-guards! be afraid!

No self-destruct? by MavEtJu · 2013-07-02 11:03 · Score: 1

Why was there no self-destruct happening?
Where was the guy with his finger on the "press here to explode rocket" button?

--
bash$ :(){ :|:&};:

CERN may be interested by Optali · 2013-07-03 04:29 · Score: 1

I always thought Proton disintegration meant something different.

--
-- 29A the number of the Beast

Slashdot Mirror

Russian Rocket Proton-M Crashes At Launch

95 of 145 comments (clear)