Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Russian Rocket Crashes In Siberia

Posted by Soulskill on from the space-stuff-is-hard dept.

An anonymous reader writes: A Russian Proton-M rocket carrying a Mexican satellite broke down shortly after launch and crashed in Siberia. Russian space agency Roscosmos is investigating the incident, but the cause is not yet known. In the video, the rocket appeared to sputter and stop providing thrust when the third-stage engine unexpectedly switched off. Communications were lost with the rocket before that happened. This comes just a couple weeks after Russia experienced another high profile rocket failure when its cargo ship bound for the International Space Station failed to reach a high enough orbit and began spinning out of control. Russia's Proton family of rockets has been in use since the 1960s, though the current Proton-M incarnation was first flown in 2001.

96 comments

  1. and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by WindBourne · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The GOP continues to gut funding for development of manned private space launch, but will continue to pour money into the SLS, AND having Russia do the manned launches. Fucking insane

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by prefec2 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      First, The russians use different rockets for human spaceflight and quality problems for the cargo rockets might come from sabotage or the Western emargo.

      And second, the GOP is not interested in space flight at all. They would be if you can kick the commies with it. Otherwise it is not necessary. If they would think positively about space flight, they would have funded NASA accordingly.

    2. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 3, Informative

      The GOP continues to gut funding for development of manned private space launch, but will continue to pour money into the SLS, AND having Russia do the manned launches. Fucking insane

      The International Launch Services who operates those Proton rockets is a joint venture between a primary private Russian and an American (i think Lockheed Martin) partner - plus, those Proton rockets have a failure rate about 1 in 10 launches, which is good enough. So i think both the economic and the "patriotic" reasons you mention are covered enough right now. Of course more development is always good, but...

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    3. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by binarylarry · · Score: 1, Troll

      Russian space tech has been known to be inferior to virtually everything made in the west.

      But being cheap is a virtue too (unless it loses *your* satellite).

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    4. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by Virtucon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually you'll find that the request for funding for Russian rockets comes from the current administration. Last time I checked, he wasn't a member of the GOP.
      It's hypocritical to say you'll sanction Russia for issues in the Ukraine yet lobby congress for money to buy the rockets.

      http://www.theblaze.com/storie...

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    5. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 2

      Russian space tech has been known to be inferior to virtually everything made in the west.

      But being cheap is a virtue too (unless it loses *your* satellite).

      Since probably you are referring to rockets i think you are wrong: Russian rockets are well known to be at least as good as the best Western made (and cheaper). The reason you those failures exist as news is because even *YOUR* satelites are usually launced with *THEIR* rockets! The Russian Proton rockets (with a Western -American- company as a partner to the Russian one who operates them) have a good enough failure rate of about 1 in 10 launches.

      Also keep in mind that some Western rockets use Russian engines and other technology...

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    6. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by Virtucon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sabotage huh? Any proof of that or are you just echoing what Russia Today says? Launching things into space isn't without risks and it knows no geopolitical boundaries.

      I think you'll also find that NASA's budget continually grows yet they're not flying shuttles, they still have the ISS (3+ Billion/yr) and they still
      have their other programs.

      Also, if you look at the administrations request for NASA they were funded above their 2015 budget. If the Executive Branch asks for X dollars and Congress funds them above X, your argument about "funded NASA accordingly" is full of shit. If you exclude ISS, NASA has $15B to play with.

      https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Oh and the privatization of space launches was pushed for by the current administration. http://www.space.com/7835-moon...

      Get your facts straight next time please.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    7. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      Funny how they're against Big Gubment - unless it's supplying pork to their districts.

    8. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by WindBourne · · Score: 1, Informative

      First, A progress using the same rocket as manned launches failed last month. That progress is the same as a Soyuz.

      Secondly, all of the companies are suffering from the same problem over there: quality control.

      Thirdly, the quality issues started long before the embargo.

      Finally, the GOP is putting loads of money into SLS. Why? Because they view NASA as a jobs bill for themselves.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      LOL.
      First, All of America's gov. sats use American launchers. 2 launchers use Russian parts, of which 1 of them blew up several months ago.
      Secondly, SpaceX's F9 is SAFER, and MUCH CHEAPER than the Russian Rockets. In addition, within another year, they will be even cheaper again. Right now, SpaceX has over 1/2 of the commercial launch business that is available for the future.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    10. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by WindBourne · · Score: 0

      And you have it wrong.
      When the shuttle was stopped, W started paying Russia for launching our astronauts.
      We have been doing it eversince. The problem is, that the GOP would rather pay MORE money to Russia for launching humans, then pay less money to our private space program to get multiple launchers off the ground.

      And it is the house GOP that is gutting our private space again, and actually pushed for more flights with Russia.

      No doubt, when Russia loses a manned flight, then the GOP will wonder what went wrong and tell ppl like you that they had nothing to do with the massive movements of CCxDev money to fund their SLS and Russian flights.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    11. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      BTW, that article was from more than a year ago, and was wrong.
      it was NOT Obama that lobbied for the monies. O lobbied to allow ULA to be allowed their current order. ULA and OSC continue to push to be allowed to buy and use Russian engines. Oddly, the GOP is split. About 1/2 of them are pushing it, and the other half are joining O and the dems in saying NO.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    12. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      And it was the Obama administration who came up with the plan, you have it wrong. The Obama administration stopped the shuttle, the Bush administration had a plan to replace it and I think you'll find that both sides of the aisle wanted to keep the shuttles and not lose any US manned launch capabilities.

      It's interesting to hear these comments from a few years ago.
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

      Also, you should review the mixed messages about NASA and space exploration that have come from this administration. Sure, blame the GOP but without any leadership it's no wonder why we're in the predicament we are now.

      Neil Armstrong, Jim Lovell, and Eugene Cernan, commanders of Apollo 11, Apollo 13, and Apollo 17 respectively, said:

              "When President Obama recently released his budget for NASA, he proposed a slight increase in total funding...the accompanying decision to cancel the Constellation program, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets, and the Orion spacecraft, is devastating."
              "It appears that we will have wasted our current ten plus billion dollar investment in Constellation and, equally importantly, we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded."[18]
              "For The United States, the leading space faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature. While the President's plan envisages humans traveling away from Earth and perhaps toward Mars at some time in the future, the lack of developed rockets and spacecraft will assure that ability will not be available for many years."[19]

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    13. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by Virtucon · · Score: 2

      Sorry, that article was published and you somehow don't provide any citation that it's wrong. Strange.. Obama asked for funding of Proton's and Manned rockets to service the ISS and change crews, it's his decision and its hypocritical but he's fucked himself by his administration's decisions regarding NASA and manned launch capabilities. The smart thing would be to mothball the ISS until the US manned capability returns because it appears that international politics and Russian failures put the ISS mission at risk anyway.

      Oddly, the GOP is split. About 1/2 of them are pushing it, and the other half are joining O and the dems in saying NO.

      Oddly the Democrats are concerned on Obama's key trade policy in the TPP, are not advocating that there should be dissent? http://www.theguardian.com/us-...
      http://delauro.house.gov/index...

      Stop blaming the GOP for all the worlds problems and stop sniffing Obama's farts, it'll cause brain damage.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    14. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      LOL. First, All of America's gov. sats use American launchers. 2 launchers use Russian parts, of which 1 of them blew up several months ago. Secondly, SpaceX's F9 is SAFER, and MUCH CHEAPER than the Russian Rockets. In addition, within another year, they will be even cheaper again. Right now, SpaceX has over 1/2 of the commercial launch business that is available for the future.

      First of all: i did not mentioned specificaly USA (other than to inform you that an American company is partner with the Russian that operates the Russian Protons), but just "Western", because i wanted to avoid THIS...

      Also, i used the word "usually": USUALLY, *commercial* satelites are launched with Russian rockets nowdays because of economic reasons - something i find o.k. (note: i am Greek/European - we are "competitors" AND "partners" also!)

      About this "SpaceX has over 1/2 of the commercial launch business that is available for the future": FOR THE FUTURE...

      Not everything is "YOU/US" against "THEM" - you will be suprised if you learn in how many fields WE cooperate

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    15. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 in 10 launches is not good enough.

    16. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Not quite. Progress has a different upper stage and that is what failed.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    17. Re: and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Soyuz and proton-m have 10% failure rates.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    18. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

      Not quite, there is a good reason why some of our most critical space launches here in the US are being powered by Russian Engines (at least for now) and it isn't all about cost. The NK-33 (RD-180,AJ26-58, RD-180, etc) has an ISP that most US/European rocket scientists didn't even think was technically possible with RP-1 until after the end of the cold war some heard rumors of the stats for the Russian engine that was supposed to power their moon shot and investigated. The Russians simply had a different design method than most other countries, they would quickly slap together and test prototype after prototype knowing they would fail but hoping that with each test they could glean enough information to build it better the next time until they finally had the production rocket. The US and European method was insane amounts of testing and design up front to try to have a production rocket on the first flight. Both methods have their advantages and downsides but both have merit.

    19. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      ...good enough failure rate of about 1 in 10 launches.

      ?!

      Damn insurance rates must go higher than their rockets. 10% failure rate is horrible!

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    20. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where are your "facts" ?

    21. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      http://nasawatch.com/archives/... Ummm no.

      From Bush's 2005 speech "New Vision for Space Exploration Program:

      "To meet this goal, we will return the Space Shuttle to flight as soon as possible, consistent with safety concerns and the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The Shuttle's chief purpose over the next several years will be to help finish assembly of the International Space Station. In 2010, the Space Shuttle -- after nearly 30 years of duty -- will be retired from service. "

      The est of his speech is in the link.

      You are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts.

      Bush cancelled the Shuttle program, and that is a fact. This is why as an independent, I don't like Republicans, they are four flushing liars. and proud of it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    22. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by the+gnat · · Score: 3, Informative

      It goes against every instinct in my body to defend the GOP, but it's a bit unfair to attack the party for "block[ing] private space" when just below this article was another article about Congress making policy to suit the private space industry, mainly on the Republican side:

      The commercial space industry had a great day on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, with the Republican-controlled House Science Committee giving it most of what it wanted while swatting away proposed changes from the minority Democrats.

      Among the goodies approved by the committee: a decade-long extension of the moratorium on regulating commercial human spaceflight; a nine-year extension of industry-government cost sharing for damages caused by launch accidents; and an act that would give companies property rights to materials they mine from asteroids.

    23. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad we scrapped the damn thing--and I'd probably fall into the space nutter category. Our future looks much brighter with SpaceX doing the heavy lifting.

      NASA has its head too far up politicians' asses to do anything really useful.

    24. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by thrich81 · · Score: 1

      From the same Wikipedia link you posted: "The Obama administration instituted the Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee, also known as the Augustine Commission, to review the human spaceflight plans of the United States after the time NASA had planned to retire the Space Shuttle. .... The Committee judged the 9 year old Constellation program to be so behind schedule, underfunded and over budget that meeting any of its goals would not be possible. The President removed the program from the 2010 NASA budget request and a bi-partisan congress refused to fund it any longer, effectively canceling the program."
      Constellation had already failed by the time Obama took office. Constellation was porked out from the start, spent all its money and had nothing to show for it. It wasn't going to work. Read the Augustine Commission's report.

    25. Re: and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Constellation and Aries were supposed to replace it. The fact that Nasa couldn't manage the programs shows how badly managed NASA is.

    26. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by CosmicHuman · · Score: 1

      No one in the government really cares about space flight very much these days, except for the people at NASA. No wonder NASA has less than one percent of the entire national budget. On the other hand, no one wants to stop pouring trillions into the massive military. I guess human exploration of the comos isn't very high on their priority list...

    27. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by WindBourne · · Score: 0

      The house GOP is the one gutting private space. They continue to cut funding for CCxDev, while pushing funds for SLS and Russian launches.

      What you posted had absolutely NOTHING to do with funding, but 1 bill that was put forward in a committee and will likely not clear the senate.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    28. Re: and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      NASA had nothing to do with Constellations failure (and Ares was part of Constellation).
      Constellation failed because it was grossly underfunded by neo-cons for 6 years.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    29. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Nope.
      ILS is nothing but a marketing arm for using proton vehicles. ILS has NOTHING to do with the ISS.

      10% failure rate is HORRIBLE.
      How did you get modded up?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    30. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      So many things wrong here.
      1) you mentioned that russian parts are used in western rockets. There are exactly TWO rockets that have any major Russian parts. That is OSC and ULA's Atlas. Delta actually has some Russian made parts, or did. And nothing else in Europe uses Russian made, except for your providing a launch site for them and then marketing them.
      2) you are right that we cooperate. However, for the last 10-15 years, America has been cut out of the competition because Boeing, L-Mart and then ULA were worthless. Now, along comes SpaceX and they are destroying EVERYBODY out there. By next year, there is a real good chance that ArianeSpace and all of the various Russian launch systems will be launching only their gov. systems and nothing more.

      Basically, SpaceX will own 100% of commercial space by the start of 2016. The reason is that not only will FH be live, but so will F9R. In addition, they are SpaceX is currently launching at a rate of about 1 every 3 weeks. In 2016, they will bring that down to 1 every 2 weeks or less.
      This is not about YOU vs. US. In fact, I have said here and elsewhere, that I want to see Europe spend some money on building up a CHEAP launch system. SpaceX has done that, and is doing more. BUT, if we are going to the moon and mars, then Europe needs to have a CHEAP and RELIABLE system.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    31. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      Nope. ILS is nothing but a marketing arm for using proton vehicles.

      So, as what i wrote: "The International Launch Services who operates those Proton rockets is a joint venture between a primary private Russian and an American (i think Lockheed Martin) partner"...

      ILS has NOTHING to do with the ISS.

      But i did not wrote anything about the International Space Station...

      10% failure rate is HORRIBLE.

      For UNMANNED COMMERSIAL LAUNCHES?

      How did you get modded up?

      That is something i wonder many times when i read other's comments - anyway, this time it may happened because i answered to YOUR BAD COMMENT!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    32. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1

      So many things wrong here.

      With my comment or any of your political issues you may have with Russians and/or GOP? Because i really try not to get in to that.

      1) you mentioned that russian parts are used in western rockets. There are exactly TWO rockets that have any major Russian parts. That is OSC and ULA's Atlas. Delta actually has some Russian made parts, or did. And nothing else in Europe uses Russian made, except for your providing a launch site for them and then marketing them.

      I just mentioned (not in the comment you reply to but to a previous) "Also keep in mind that some Western rockets use Russian engines and other technology..." - but thanks for the details, i was lazy to write them!

      2) you are right that we cooperate. However, for the last 10-15 years, America has been cut out of the competition because Boeing, L-Mart and then ULA were worthless. Now, along comes SpaceX and they are destroying EVERYBODY out there. By next year, there is a real good chance that ArianeSpace and all of the various Russian launch systems will be launching only their gov. systems and nothing more. Basically, SpaceX will own 100% of commercial space by the start of 2016. The reason is that not only will FH be live, but so will F9R. In addition, they are SpaceX is currently launching at a rate of about 1 every 3 weeks. In 2016, they will bring that down to 1 every 2 weeks or less.

      I am not Russian (or Anti-American) - actually i wrote: "note: i am Greek/European - we are "competitors" AND "partners" also!" for anyone to note my comment's "spirit", which is far away from yours (i.e., "YOU" against "THEM" - from what i understand from this and some other comment you made in this discussion).

      This is not about YOU vs. US. In fact, I have said here and elsewhere, that I want to see Europe spend some money on building up a CHEAP launch system. SpaceX has done that, and is doing more. BUT, if we are going to the moon and mars, then Europe needs to have a CHEAP and RELIABLE system.

      I think you have issues with Russians specificaly, not us Europeans generaly. PLEASE NOTE: I don't blame you, i just note that this is not my "spirit" for those comments.

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    33. Re: and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by WindBourne · · Score: 0

      I have no issue with the Russians. I have an issue with depending on one group to provide a critical item ( launch ) for so long. The GOP makes a big todo of using Russian, but continue to gut spending on commercial space while increasing our money flow and dendancy on Russia. Total insanity.

      I want to see the iss group go to the moon. But to do that, we need multiple shlv, multiple manned launchers, multiple base builders, etc.. IOW, we should not depend on any one group for more a year. And right now, the neo-cons have broken that rule by many times over.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    34. Re: and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not depend on any one group for more than a year? You must be completely ignorant of manufacturing processes, and especially so in the case of manufacturing of critical components that have specific sign off requirements. You don't just toss some dust and a couple of wizards in a room and come back three months later for your $thing.

    35. Re: and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 1
      Just to clarify: i will never accuse a patriot for his patriotism (i am a Greek that does not "live in the stars") - it is just that, since this was about a commercial type of rocket launching system/business, my comments were in a different "spirit" than the "YOU/US against THEM" that is usual for this kind of discussions, so i tried to stay away from that.

      I understand that you know enough about the issue, so... i hope we have an understanding!

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    36. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by Yoda222 · · Score: 1

      It cannot be due to the Western embargo. Here is a quote from Putin: “The response of the Russian Federation to Western sanctions is legal and valid. It will help, and not harm our domestic economy,”

      The russian space industry being part of the russian domestic economy, the embargo cannot be the cause of these failures

      .

    37. Re:and yet, the GOP blocks private space. by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Well in that case, I must be wrong.

  2. to sputter and stop providing thrust by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    they need a Russian porn director.

  3. Mexico? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mexico has, er, "had" a satelite?? I found that surprising.

    1. Re:Mexico? by hawguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Mexico has, er, "had" a satelite?? I found that surprising.

      I was surprised too and wondered why they just didn't contract out to buy time on someone else's satellite since a billion dollars over the 15 year projected lifetime of the satellites will buy a lot of satellite time. Turns out it's for "National Security Needs", which I guess means they don't trust anyone else to provide service, though if the USA reneges on a deal to provide national security satellite services to them, Mexico has far bigger problems to worry about.

      The NSA is going to intercept their data whether they have their own satellite or not -- it was bought from Boeing, so the NSA will certainly have full access to the Satellite during construction.

      http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_...

    2. Re:Mexico? by belthize · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why, they have 7 already, one fewer than Norway and and the same number as Denmark. They have the 15th largest GDP in the world, roughly the same as Australia's. The US has 10X the GDP and 200X the number of satellites so we spend a much higher percentage of GDP on satellites. The US has a sense of Mexico being a god awful poor 3rd world country mostly due to it's proximity. We unfavorably compare it directly to our own economy where as other countries further away have more of a 'must be better' mysterious sense.

      Sure it's 66th in per capita GDP but that doesn't mean they as a nation they can't afford more modern technologies, particularly now that the cost is so low.

    3. Re:Mexico? by tompaulco · · Score: 1, Troll

      Why, they have 7 already, one fewer than Norway and and the same number as Denmark. They have the 15th largest GDP in the world, roughly the same as Australia's. The US has 10X the GDP and 200X the number of satellites so we spend a much higher percentage of GDP on satellites. The US has a sense of Mexico being a god awful poor 3rd world country mostly due to it's proximity. We unfavorably compare it directly to our own economy where as other countries further away have more of a 'must be better' mysterious sense.

      Sure it's 66th in per capita GDP but that doesn't mean they as a nation they can't afford more modern technologies, particularly now that the cost is so low.

      Ah, well that explains the flood of U.S. citizens illegally streaming into Mexico in search of a better life.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    4. Re:Mexico? by WindBourne · · Score: 0

      Russia was the cheap safe bet 2 years ago.
      Right now, everybody is jumping on SpaceX. Rightly.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:Mexico? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ah, well that explains the flood of U.S. citizens illegally streaming into Mexico in search of a better life.

      It is more than a trickle. Most 'illegals' come down and then just overstay. Heh, but U.S. citizens are outnumbered by the Italians.

    6. Re:Mexico? by Nehmo · · Score: 2

      Mexico has, er, "had" a satelite?? I found that surprising.

      It refused to learn English and insisted on listening to accordion polkas.

      --
      (||) Nehmo (||)
    7. Re:Mexico? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mexico has their own satellites since 80s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morelos_Satellite_System

      Full list (only spanish)

  4. It happens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rockets fail. As an American, I think it's great that SpaceX, etc. are entering the business, but they'll also have their own issues. Russia, in spite of its long history in space exploration, is not immune to technical failures. Neither is NASA.

    1. Re:It happens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You'd think Russia, precisely because of its long history of space "exploration", would have had tremendous "benefits" and "spinoffs" by now?

  5. Strange quality problems by prefec2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    For decades launching these rockets was not a problem for Russia. However, since the Western embargo they had several problems with their rockets on their own launch site, while they had no problem in human space flight and when starting in Kourou, French Guiana. However, the Soyuz-2 used in French Guiana is a completely different rocket than the Proton-M which just had that accident.

    1. Re:Strange quality problems by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, it's our fault that the Russians can't successfully launch a Russian rocket from a Russian launch site?

      Interesting theory, that.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Strange quality problems by David_Hart · · Score: 2

      So, it's our fault that the Russians can't successfully launch a Russian rocket from a Russian launch site?

      Interesting theory, that.

      It's rocket science....

      It's possible that they aren't able to get certain parts from their standard outside supplier and are forced to use local, Chinese, or black market parts due to the embargo. All you need is one part that isn't manufactured to the right quality or specification...

    3. Re:Strange quality problems by thrich81 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Per Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P..., ten Proton-M launches have failed, the most recent before this being July 2013 and May 2014.The recent Western sanctions were not announced until March 2014. Doesn't seem possible that the sanctions and the Proton failures can be related.

    4. Re:Strange quality problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For decades launching these rockets was not a problem for Russia.

      Decades? The Proton-M was first launched in 2001, and has had 10 launch failures. The Proton-K? I can find at least 3 failures in the 1990s and several in the 1980s and 1970s.

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

      And that's this type of rocket. There are others and they have had problems too.

      Stop the exaggerating.

    5. Re:Strange quality problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be ironic: America can't launch American satellites because of the American embargo on Russia, who is launching the American satellites. What are the odds on the Russians exploding the American satellites intentionally (i.e. sabotage) and blaming it on the embargo?

    6. Re:Strange quality problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be ironic if the satellite was American, not Mexican, you hipster.

    7. Re:Strange quality problems by StuffMaster · · Score: 2

      A very good reason not to start emargo-causing wars...

    8. Re:Strange quality problems by Virtucon · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're still full of shit

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      As of May 2015, ten Proton-M launches have failed.

      How is somehow a western conspiracy that these rockets have failed. What motivation would the US have in sabotaging a launch system that's still used by the ISS of which NASA spends over $3B supporting?

      If you also would bother to read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... I think you'll find that although it's gotten better with the Proton K and Proton M, they still have a failure once in awhile. As you go back in time, you'll find that those beloved Protons had more failures than you'd probably like to admit. To be sure, the Atlas/Delta and Titan launch vehicles have also had their share of failures. It comes with the territory so drop the bullshit of it being
      a conspiracy or sabotage and just admit that shit happens!

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    9. Re:Strange quality problems by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      For decades launching these rockets was not a problem for Russia.

      Actually, for several decades, they had just about as many problems as they do now... and their success ratio was more-or-less in the same range (.98-.99) as the Shuttle (or pretty much any other launcher*). The only things that have significantly changed is that until the fall of the Soviet Union you never heard about the failures in the first place, and in the last decade or so the failures have started being covered in the non-specialist/popular press. These changes have conspired to create the illusion of 'extremely reliable' Soviet/Russian boosters and a recent and unusual string of failures.

      * Yes, essentially all boosters that end up in regular service pretty much end up in this narrow range. There's a few a hair lower, and few a bit higher, but they're outliers.

    10. Re:Strange quality problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe for the first time in decades they're actually competing with other companies, not just some research agencies wholly dependent on their governments good will, and they aren't cutting it.

    11. Re:Strange quality problems by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      The idea of an embargo is that the embargoed country is weakened and less able to get things done. Fault, however, implies that we build the rocket or we use some CIA means to destroy the rocket. While the latter could be possible, I assume that the embargo limits access to parts or tools which they need to import from the West and now they need it to import it from somewhere else, e.g., China.

      To be clear on that it is definitely the Russians fault, if they are not able to build their rockets up to their own specs.

    12. Re:Strange quality problems by WindBourne · · Score: 1, Informative

      First off, Russia had has ALWAYS had issues. Far more than is acknowledged.
      Secondly, Russia had quality issues prior to the embargo. This is not their first loss of a progress to the ISS, or now a loss of a sat.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    13. Re:Strange quality problems by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      It would be considering that American companies have pretty much stopped using Russia due to Russian quality issues.

      OTOH, SpaceX is much cheap and safer than Russia.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    14. Re:Strange quality problems by WindBourne · · Score: 1, Informative

      most ppl will continue to ignore the fact that the proton-M has over a 10% failure rate. That is a pretty high rate.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    15. Re:Strange quality problems by catchblue22 · · Score: 1

      For decades launching these rockets was not a problem for Russia.

      The problems at Roscosmos couldn't have anything to do with financial irregularities and misuse of funds, or financial pressures caused by the current economic crisis. Nope. Nothing to see here. Move along.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    16. Re:Strange quality problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would cut trust in the Russian space program which is leveraged to be sold to other countries which want to launch their own satellites, which the US may not like.

  6. I can imagine the premiums will be going up again by Dunbal · · Score: 2

    All of these payloads are insured. The reinsurance companies can't be too happy though...oh well, money goes in, money goes out.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  7. requisite Yakoff by Virtucon · · Score: 1, Funny

    In Soviet Russia Rocket Sputniks you!

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  8. time to use ISRO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    may be it's time to start using ISRO for sattelite launches... Seems cheap and reliable..

  9. Obligatory by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Mexican satellite... Russian rockets... all made with parts from Taiwan!

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
    1. Re:Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taiwan isn't even in this story... I take it you're Chinese?

    2. Re:Obligatory by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt01...

      Lev Andropov: It's stuck, yes?
      Watts: Back off! You don't know the components!
      Lev Andropov: [annoyed] Components. American components, Russian Components, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!

      --
      Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  10. Re:I can imagine the premiums will be going up aga by itzly · · Score: 4, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, insurance company pays you!

  11. All the best sci/tech minds in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are now gainfully employed hacking into data centers and mobile phones, leaving the bureaucrats' nephews to do the engineering and operations work for space missions.

  12. Fix the clueless summary by janoc · · Score: 1

    That was obviously not 3rd stage but the 1st one which failed. The incident occurred just under 2 minutes of flight, right about the time where the first stage burns out and the second stage ignites. The article mentions that the satellite with the third stage would have crashed somewhere in Siberia, not that the 3rd stage has malfunctioned. The 3rd stage motor is the one that provides the final boost and orbital corrections and probably didn't even ignite yet in this accident.

    Learn to read and use common sense, folks!

    1. Re:Fix the clueless summary by janoc · · Score: 2

      Arg correction. Actually the video is misleading. The "sputter" and flameout in the video just under 2 minutes of flight is normal staging, the first stage separating and the second stage igniting - you can even see the second stage continuing on. The video has nothing to do with the accident.

      According to the official press release, the accident has occurred at 497 second of flight, with the third stage having an "anomaly" at 161km of altitude. The satellite and the upper stage practically completely burned up in the atmosphere.

    2. Re:Fix the clueless summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Russians count the stages bottom-up. Stage 1 is the lowest stage.

    3. Re:Fix the clueless summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what *everyone* does.

  13. May 15 2014 Proton-M crash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2014 Proton-M crash

    Feel free to ignore the UFO theme

  14. have they changed their fuel supplier? by ihtoit · · Score: 0

    Sounds like they're getting contaminated fuel. Happened to me way back when you could go out for a drive without worrying about how much it was going to hurt your wallet to tank up. Switched supplier to a closer pump, wrecked my engine. Iron filings in their ground tank. Some cunt of a minimum wage monkey I reckon.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    1. Re:have they changed their fuel supplier? by fnj · · Score: 2

      Your fuel filter is so piss poor that it won't trap iron filings?

    2. Re:have they changed their fuel supplier? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      it was more swarf than filings-grade, the fuel filter was shredded. Lab-grade filings will slime in the filter and simply block it, forcing any fuel that does get past to do so by bypassing the screen. Either way, such particulate contamination will get into the entire fuel system eventually and *can* blow the valves.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  15. object @ 58 seconds-left to right- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wtf was that!? Idk maybe a satellite but its moving so fast i doubt it. Seems to pass through the flight path.

    1. Re:object @ 58 seconds-left to right- by belthize · · Score: 1

      That was a bit odd. I'd guess a planet though that's a heck of a lucky image. It may also have been a monitoring plane. The camera is likely tracking left to right fairly quickly so a relatively stationary object will appear to track right to left equally quickly. It only appears to get close in 2 dimensions, it's hard to say how close the object was along the viewing axis.

      That video cuts out long before the actual failure. There were no cameras on it by the time it failed. The end of the video is showing the stage 1 to stage 2 transfer.

  16. Russian accident? by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

    Where's the obligatory dash-cam video?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Russian accident? by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      Was I the only one disappointed that the video on the CNN site didn't involve a huge explosion, preferably upon hitting ground? I find some of these launch failure videos almost pornographic.

      (Yes, I realize it's much better for the rocket to burn up in orbit instead of crashing in a populated area.)

    2. Re:Russian accident? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      the rocket had to crash, the entire space program is a deception, there are no satelites, its all fraud, space flight is not possible, google photos of earth from space and see for yourself, there are no authentic photos of earth from space simply because earth is flat and has a dome over it. do some research on this yourself, good luck trying to prove earth is a ball. NASA use all kind of trickery to fake space missions like fish eye lenses, water tanks and so on

  17. you've been .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you - have - been - hacked.

  18. Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To much grease in the pipes caused the engine to have the dreaded "blue flameout", which was unable to be contained by the dual layered retention mechanisms.

  19. malware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet they just need to run a full system scan with AVG Free

  20. Re:Obligatory - Alan Shepard Quote by bkmoore · · Score: 2

    "It's a very sobering feeling to be up in space and realize that one's safety factor was determined by the lowest bidder on a government contract."

  21. It was a bird from the looks of things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scroll to 00:55 and look on the right side, zoom all the way in, and you'll see a small white object go near the rocket then a second later it starts to go to shit.

  22. Like automobiles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like what happens with autos whose basic design has been in production for a long time. They start making the components as cheaply as possible and/or fail to maintain quality standards and systems that haven't failed for years begin to fail due to that.