Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Proton-M Rocket Carrying Russia's Most Advanced Satellite Crashes

Posted by timothy on from the tough-thing-to-get-right dept.

schwit1 (797399) writes "When it rains it pours: A Russian Proton rocket crashed Friday nine minutes after launch. Considering the tensions between the U.S. and Russia over space, combined with the increasing competition for the launch market created by SpaceX's lower prices, another Proton failure now is something the Russians could do without. Moreover, the Russians were planning a lot of Proton launches in the next few months to catch up from last year's launch failure. Many of these scheduled launches were commercial and were going to earn them hard cash. This failure definitely hurts, and will certainly be used as justification by their government in increase its control over that country's aging aerospace industry."

34 of 160 comments (clear)

  1. More government control, that's the ticket by Teresita · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This failure definitely hurts, and will certainly be used as justification by their government in increase its control over that country's aging aerospace industry."

    Because paying folks by the hour rather than by the successful launch is a surefire way to cut Space-X off at the knees. This from the land of the three-man shovel.

    1. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is funny to me because even though the Russians beat you in most the early space milestones, the USA finally put a man on the Moon ... by making one giant government-backed project...

      While the Russian approach was to set up various competing design bureaus.

      Like I said, hilarious.

    2. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Teresita · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When you're talking about people's lives at stake, and lobbing enormous explosive devices around, minimizing people's hours and maximizing the profit isn't necessarily the best answer.

      The evil capitalist profit incentive has gone a long way toward making the chances of dying in a plane crash approach the probability of winning a lottery. If an airline lost the entire plane on the twenty-fifth flight ala Challenger, and again on the 113th flight ala Columbia there'd be a lot of empty seats.

    3. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by dave420 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That and the massive amounts of regulation that works directly against the "evil capitalist profit incentive". You picked a really bad industry. Try something with fewer regulations - pogs or Justin Bieber CDs or something.

    4. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by deadweight · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Commercial pilot here: If you think "profit" is why airplanes are safe - I am ROFLMAO x 1000. OMFG you could not be more wrong! I once worked for a place that wanted us to call in on the radio with our registration number insteald of XX airlines Flight XXX so the FAA wouldn't even realize we had paying passengers in our ancient shit-heaps. They were ALL ABOUT profit!

    5. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      It often comes as shocking to many people in the West, but Soviet aerospace industry was pure cutthroat capitalism to the extreme. Competition between respective bureaus was brutal, far more so than current climate in Military Industrial complex in US for example. That is how they ran away several decades ahead of the West in many aspects of that industry. As a result, comparison to current situation with same industry in the West and assuming that what is suggested here is going to Western style "government lead" model is just nonsense.

      Going back to that from the current situation seems like a good plan for the industry in fact. Right now it's massively inbred and corrupt, very similar to industry in the West in the same sectors. This is better than space-x model, this is what it should be - government lead industry that is driven to fierce competition within itself, without the massive overspending that results from need to corrupt government to get contracts and produce profits.

    6. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by arth1 · · Score: 2

      The evil capitalist profit incentive has gone a long way toward making the chances of dying in a plane crash approach the probability of winning a lottery. If an airline lost the entire plane on the twenty-fifth flight ala Challenger, and again on the 113th flight ala Columbia there'd be a lot of empty seats.

      The evil capitalist profit incentive has ensured that we no longer have manned space flight at all, and depend on the evil socialist from-each-according-to-ability system to do our launches.

    7. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Um... you are forgetting that the reason that the airlines have such excellent safety records is due to the strict government oversight of just about every aspect of the industry. Pilot, Fight Attendants, Mechanics... heck, even the luggage handlers have to be certified to one level or another by the FAA. Every, even minor, mishap with a plane is documented in detail by the NTSB.

      Yes, if the evil capitalistic profits were welcome to run amok there would be no seat belts, oxygen masks, life jackets, interiors would be of highly combustible materials, and the seats would rip from the floor/collapse in a crash - because all of those things add weight - and weight reduces profits. They are there to make the planes safe - not because the airlines want them there.

      Challenger blew up due to political reasons (decision to not-launch (line engineers) was overridden by upper mgt. to make the president look good). Columbia was due to errant assumptions on the part of the engineers at both NASA as well as Lockheed Martin's. 'There is no way this chunk of lightweight foam could possibly cause any damage.' Ooops...

    8. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by deadweight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One of the reasons the FAA (then CAA) was INVENTED was because planes crashed so often that the industry was never going to become viable. One thing they did pretty early on was prohibit making wing spars out of wood for commercial airliners after some people died because of either rot or termites. Absent that rule there would always be one airline not ticking off the "make spar out of metal" option box and saving a few dollars.

    9. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, if you dig deeper a lot of regulation comes directly from the business themselves. Established businesses often like regulation because it improves the businesses perception (Hey, where government regulated what could go wrong??) while making it harder for start-ups to compete. A really good example of this is the founding of the USDA. Which came about after the European popularity of "The Jungle" which was basically writing down all the sea monster stores of the meat packing industry. I mean he tells us the meat packers really had us of their thumbs??? Then how did they manage to hold a knife and make exact cuts???
      The US meat packing industry wanted a government seal to put on meat to reassure the European public that American meat was safe to eat.

    10. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by gtall · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, it should be the case that any modification to health coverage in the U.S. should not alter any one person's coverage.

      Get a grip, of course changing health coverage over a large swath of the U.S. economy is going to generate winners and losers. So you lost, how about the ones who couldn't get coverage before due to cherry picking by the insurance companies that can now get insurance?

      Personally, I'd have broken the insurance companies knees. By the way, most of the provisions in the ACA where Republican notions before they became Democrat notions. And the the insurance companies were free to direct that legislation, all in good Republican free market theory. If you didn't get what you expected, blame both parties.

    11. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 2

      I would say "thanks Obama" but it's more like "thanks Democrats" since the ACA disaster was passed on a 100% partisan basis.

      Nevermind that it's virtually identical to the plan that Romney implemented in his home state.

      If you still think there's any meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans, you're hopelessly ignorant of the world around you.

      Pull your head out of your ass, stop throwing your vote away, and support an independent or third party next time around.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    12. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by arth1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is easy to demonstrate. Just look at the health statistics from the rest of the 1st world where government more or less runs it and see how much better off we are then they are. Oh wait.....

      Yes, please do look at the statistics of health and life expectancy for countries like Sweden, Norway and Canada.
      It's way way above what it is in the US.

      I have a surgical joint replacement that doctors here see on the X-rays. More than once they've told me they don't have the expertise to check it out, because US insurance companies would not allow such expensive parts to be implanted in US patients. The US way is to use cheaper parts not built to last, and rely on enough patients dying of other causes before needing replacements for this to pay off.
      Also, the US healthcare system is very reactionary and slow to adopt new techniques based on the fear of lawsuits. Treatments can be available for dozens of years other places before you can get it in the US. Laser eye corrections is a good example. It took some 20 years before the US finally got them like other parts of the world.
      It's about the dollar, not about the quality of life.

    13. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      The thing is Korolev, Chelomei and Yangel were all competing on that project and it wasn't funded until it was way too late. Plus the funding was way below US funding. So... no wonder it fail.

      Korolev was the designer of Soyuz. He had a lot of issues in the beginning. At one point he was sent to a Gulag in Siberia where he had to work as forced labor on a mine. They broke several of his teeth there.

      Chelomei had a lot of clout when Nikita Khrushchev was in power because he employed one of his relatives. Chelomei was the designer of the Proton rocket.

      It did not help that Korolev died in the middle of the N1 project.

    14. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Romney signed legislation that the people of Massachusetts (a very liberal state) wanted.

      Don't try to distance him from this legislation. While the Massachusetts legislature did make a number of changes to Romney's original proposal before it was passed, it was Romney's proposal. It wasn't some ballot initiative or invention of the legislature.

      Additionally, you'll find that there was widespread support for healthcare reform at the national level as well. Much like the Massachusetts healthcare reform, national healthcare reform was also something that the people wanted. And much like the Massachusetts healthcare reform, the national healthcare reform also had its share of opposition. You make it sound like the American public was united against the ACA, when it is plainly obvious to any honest person that there was in fact extensive support for an overhaul of our healthcare system. Obama had made healthcare reform a large part of the platform that got him elected. This wasn't something that was snuck in or pushed down anyone's throat. It may be hard for some people to believe it, but there's actually a whole range of different opinions on this issue. Just because it was pushed down the throat of an unwilling sideslash doesn't mean the rest of the country was opposed to reform.

      That being said, I believe the ACA sucks ass and that single payer was the way to go. I suppose you'd count me alongside yourself as part of the "unwilling American public"?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    15. Re: More government control, that's the ticket by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 2

      Uh... are you trolling or just have no idea what you are talking about? Wilbur Wright died from Typhoid fever almost 10 years after the first flights, and after he had made many, many flights.

      Orville died from a heart attack 35 years+ after Wilbur died.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    16. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 2

      See my other response here.

      The bill was Romney's. He campaigned for it. The legislature made a number of changes, but it was his bill. That it was also supported by Democrats has no bearing on this fact. After the bill's passage, Romney engaged in extensive self-congratulatory behavior. He did not grumble about the terrible healthcare reform bill that was passed against his wishes.

      Also, can you please clear up what you mean by "Romney signed the bill with 8 gubernatorial vetos, of which 6 were overridden by the state legislature." I was under the impression that Romney was the governor of Massachusetts at the time. Are you saying he vetoed and signed the bill simultaneously? Or that he didn't sign it because he didn't need to because the bill was passed with a veto-proof majority of the legislature? Or that Romney was battling himself to veto/sign the bill?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    17. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 2

      Not one Republican in Congress has voted for any bill supported by Obama. That's more an indication of hyperpartisanship than merit of the legislation itself. The ACA was pushed down Republicans' throats, for sure. Americans in general, however, supported it to various extents. I myself supported it, despite thinking it's shitty, because it's still less shitty than the alternative. Despite being a part of the "hates the ACA" statistic, I still supported its passage, and I wouldn't say it was pushed down my throat any more than our previous shitty healthcare system was pushed down my throat.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    18. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by cellocgw · · Score: 2

      But those mil-specs were defunked but were picked up by Parachute Industry Association

      To be sure, most MIL-SPEC docs are pretty dang funky (White Boy....).

      Dare I ask: did autocorrect spell-bomb you or have you never seen the correct word in print?

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    19. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a silly thing to say, and it's obviously false.

      *sigh*. You're right, we're living in an era of unparalleled cooperation between the two dominant political parties. The Republicans in the legislature haven't been obstinate for the sake of obstruction at all, no. *sigh*

      According to polls, many Americans were opposed to the passage of the ACA; sometimes a majority.

      And so this is your rationale for claiming that it was pushed down Americans' throats? That for the most part a minority of Americans were opposed to it? I suppose you're similarly opposed to any other legislation that falls short of unanimous support?

      Sadly, it's unlikely that anything interesting will happen this year. I don't see the Democrat/Republican control over our government weakening any time soon. If you expect any meaningful change to come from either side of the same coin, you haven't been paying attention.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
    20. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Derek+Pomery · · Score: 2

      I've also read, although I'm too lazy to google for it, that where the US gets hit hard is infant mortality.
      While part of that is immigrant population, poverty, another interesting factor is supposedly the US tries a lot harder to save preemies that would simply be considered stillborn elsewhere and not counted as infant mortality.

      --
      -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
    21. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What should be an eye-opener is this: "Strikingly, even Americans who are white, insured, college-educated and upper-income are worse off than their counterparts around the world â" a finding that no one quite understands."

      Yes, I am white, insured, college-educated and upper-income, and I definitely agree that healthcare here in the US sucks compared to what I had in Europe. It's old-fashioned and the hospitals work hard to get as much money as possible (doing tests which they can't be sued over, instead of treatments which they can), while the insurance companies work hard to pay them as little money as possible.
      If I ever need major surgery again, I'll have it in Europe. Because the healthcare provided in the US is far from top.

      We may have the best plastic surgeons in the world, and that says a lot about the American society.

    22. Re:More government control, that's the ticket by Pentavirate · · Score: 2

      You have a strange view of the American Dream. The American Dream is that the playing field is level so that if you're smart enough and work hard, you can be successful. I think the statistic is that 80% of all millionaires are first generation rich.

      That's not to say that the people who have made it don't try and use the government to throw up barriers of entry, but that's not part of the American Dream. Those are people who are trying to foil the American Dream, but it's still out there and as viable as ever.

      --
      www.joshferguson.org
  2. Re:at least they are trying. by Teresita · · Score: 3, Funny

    They "DO WORK" when it comes to space. WTF are WE doing? Sitting around, remembering the good-old-days while NASA fine-tunes its diversity statement.

    Meanwhile the USA is building up quite a portfolio of images from the surface of Mars and shit. Russia's got a gig driving a space limousine.

  3. Russian lift platform crashes by Chas · · Score: 5, Funny

    Russia: Maybe you should use trampoline to get into space.
    *BOOM*
    America: You know what Yuri? That sounds like a damn smart decision!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  4. Someone by heezer7 · · Score: 2

    is going to Siberia.

    1. Re:Someone by jratcliffe · · Score: 2

      is going to Siberia.

      They're already in Baikonur, so Siberia wouldn't be a huge downgrade.

  5. Different problem by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Last year's failure occurred immediately - it was clear there was a major issue with one of the first stage engines from ignition. This latest failure was in the third stage. That's actually worse, because it's showing problems across the board with different engines in different stages, which would be because of totally unrelated issues. Sounds like either fundamental engineering issues or major quality and control problems (probably the latter).

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Different problem by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      Last year's failure occurred immediately - it was clear there was a major issue with one of the first stage engines from ignition.

      Not to anyone with any actual knowledge of rocketry - to them it was clear there was a major problem with the guidance and control systems. (Which in fact turned out to be the case.)

    2. Re:Different problem by pushing-robot · · Score: 5, Funny

      They're claiming the rocket malfunctioned after entering a region of intense gay-waves emitted from western Europe.

      I should probably stop watching Russian news.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  6. Elon should launch for Baikonur by Thagg · · Score: 2

    After all, the first stage could land safely in the uninhabited steppe to the east.

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
  7. Re:at least they are trying. by bobbied · · Score: 2

    They "DO WORK" when it comes to space. WTF are WE doing? Sitting around, remembering the good-old-days while NASA fine-tunes its diversity statement. Meanwhile the USA is building up quite a portfolio of images from the surface of Mars and shit. Russia's got a gig driving a space limousine.

    Not a limousine, I'd call it more of a small truck, like a Ford ranger king cab with a manual transmission and a 4 cylinder engine. Crude way to travel, but if it's the only ride that stops when your thumb is out, you are just happy not to be walking or riding in the cargo bay.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  8. Russia never upgrades by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's amazing to me just how ancient most Russian rocket designs are. The Soyuz launcher is literally based on the same design that launched Sputnik, with the addition of a second stage. And even after fifty years of iteration, they still have only a 97.5% success rate with the current Soyuz launchers (Soyuz-U, Soyuz-U2, and Soyuz-FG). That's a full point worse than the Space Shuttle (98.5%), which was a completely new design that didn't have several decades of production testing on basically any of the parts.

    Proton is almost as old, dating back to the Soviet lunar program. It was actually first intended as an ICBM, to launch ridiculously heavy warheads (think Tsar Bomba on an ICBM). The changes since then have been fairly minimal, compared to the design changes American rockets went through. One of the biggest features of the latest Proton-M design is "uses less parts made outside Russia". Counting this latest failure, Proton-M has only an 88.9% success rate.

    The oft-repeated engineering mantra is "quality, reliability, cost - pick two". Russia's antiquated designs don't give you quality (in terms of efficiency or even lifting power), and they really aren't as reliable as you'd expect from such well-established designs. I can only hope that they're cheap enough that it's worth it - and when you're launching multi-million-dollar satellites, maybe cheaping out on the launcher isn't such a good idea.

  9. Sad, really. by asylumx · · Score: 2

    I find this sad because it's one of the sole means we, as a species, have of exploring the next frontier right now. Any time a space launch fails, regardless of who launched it, it sets us all back. The silver lining is, perhaps we can all learn from whatever happened, and hopefully the next launch will be more successful no matter within whose borders it launches.