Slashdot Mirror
Russian Rocket Crashes In Siberia
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.
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.
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!
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.
Mexican satellite... Russian rockets... all made with parts from Taiwan!
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
In Soviet Russia, insurance company pays you!
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_...
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"
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!
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.
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.
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"
Your fuel filter is so piss poor that it won't trap iron filings?
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.
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"
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!
Where's the obligatory dash-cam video?
Have gnu, will travel.
Mexico has, er, "had" a satelite?? I found that surprising.
It refused to learn English and insisted on listening to accordion polkas.
(||) Nehmo (||)
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:
"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."