Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russian Rocket Proton-M Crashes At Launch

Posted by timothy on from the up-is-a-hard-direction dept.

First time accepted submitter Jade_Wayfarer writes "Today, at 02:38 UTC (08:38 local time), Russian rocket Proton-M crashed after only several seconds of flight. Proton-M was carrying 3 GLONASS-M satellites of the ill-fated Russian navigational system. There were no causalities, but evacuation of personnel was ordered because of toxic rocket fuel fumes. Video of the event can be found here."

27 of 145 comments (clear)

  1. probably... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:probably... by MightyYar · · 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.
    2. Re:probably... by Anonymous Coward · · 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...

    3. Re:probably... by CrimsonAvenger · · 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"
    4. Re:probably... by RubberDuckie · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the words of the immortal Foghorn Leghorn: "That's a joke, ah say, that's a joke, son."

    5. Re:probably... by Ecuador · · 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
    6. Re:probably... by bughunter · · 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!
  2. Dashcam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I want to see the dashcam footage!

    1. Re:Dashcam? by Ashenkase · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here you go... kinda... Proton Failure

  3. This isn't the Future I was promised. by ackthpt · · Score: 2

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

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:This isn't the Future I was promised. by TheCarp · · 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"
  4. Just have to keep trying... by MiniMike · · Score: 2, Funny

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

  5. No Causalities by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  6. This looks like gross error by PseudoCoder · · 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."
    1. Re:This looks like gross error by Lumpy · · 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.
    2. Re:This looks like gross error by solartear · · 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.

  7. Video from different angle... by toxygen01 · · Score: 2, Informative

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

    1. Re:Video from different angle... by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

  8. Reminds me of kerbal space program by stewsters · · Score: 2

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

  9. GNSS by blackC0pter · · 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.

    1. Re:GNSS by CastrTroy · · 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.
    2. Re:GNSS by heypete · · 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.

  10. Re:Was that sucker nuclear? by Deadstick · · 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.

  11. Re:Was that sucker nuclear? by glwtta · · Score: 2

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

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  12. Bad spellchecker. BAD! by cellocgw · · 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
  13. Re:Range Safety Officer? by somepunk · · 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)
  14. HD distant view with impressive sound by jcdr · · 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