Slashdot Mirror


India's Workhorse Rocket Fails For the First Time In Decades (theverge.com)

India's premier rocket, known as the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle, failed to put a navigation satellite into orbit earlier this morning, after some unknown malfunction prevented the satellite from leaving the vehicle. The Verge reports: The rocket successfully took off from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in southeastern India at 9:30AM ET. About a little over 10 minutes into the flight, however, the rocket seemed to be in a lower altitude than it need to be. A host during the live broadcast of the launch noted that there was a "variation" in the rocket's performance. Later, an official with the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) confirmed that the payload fairing -- the cone-like structure that surrounds the satellite on the top of the rocket -- failed to separate and expose the satellite to space. So the satellite was effectively trapped inside the fairing and could not be deployed into orbit. It seems possible that the rocket's low trajectory had to do with the fact that the fairing didn't separate, making the vehicle heavier than it was supposed to be.

It's an unexpected failure for a fairly reliable rocket. Over the last 24 years, the PSLV has flown 41 times and has only suffered two failures in its launch history -- the most recent mishap occurring during a mission in 1997. However, that mission was not a total loss as the satellite it carried was still able to make it to orbit. This was the first total failure of the rocket to happen since the PSLV's very first failure in 1993.

78 comments

  1. IRNSS has problems by johnjones · · Score: 2

    it was IRNSS-1H that was lost and so Space based Navigation System and Disaster Management Support will be reduced

    anyone know of a good IRNSS receiver ?

    regards

    John Jones

  2. When/where does it land? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *nm*

  3. The satellite lost was to replace... by wisebabo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    another failing satellite. Evidently some of the atomic clocks on the Indian equivalent to the U.S.'s GPS system are failing thus preventing their system from becoming functional. This will probably seriously further delay their system.

    I believe that the system was limited (not for global use) to begin with, it was only meant to provide coverage for their part of the world (South Asia). Unfortunately this does not look good in comparison to the U.S., Russian, European and of course Chinese global systems. I have heard that the European system has also had problems, do they share the same vendor for their clocks? (I'm not sure but I heard the Indians outsourced their atomic clocks to a Swiss company?)

    1. Re:The satellite lost was to replace... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I believe that the system was limited (not for global use) to begin with, it was only meant to provide coverage for their part of the world (South Asia).
      That does not sound very plausible, it would require quite obscure orbits and sets of satellites. And it would mean that indian ships require to have multiple positioning systems.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:The satellite lost was to replace... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well the system is called "Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System" - we can safely assume it is regional.

    3. Re:The satellite lost was to replace... by Whibla · · Score: 1

      ... the Indian equivalent to the U.S.'s GPS system are failing thus preventing their system from becoming functional. This will probably seriously further delay their system.

      I believe that the system was limited (not for global use) to begin with, it was only meant to provide coverage for their part of the world (South Asia). Unfortunately this does not look good in comparison to the U.S. ... systems. I have heard that the European system has also had problems ...

      I smell a conspiracy!!!

    4. Re:The satellite lost was to replace... by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Informative

      do they share the same vendor for their clocks?

      Yes. Both IRNSS and GALILEO use SpectraTime (a Swiss company) as the supplier of clocks.

      GALILEO has suffered from 9 clock failures, but no more than 2 in any single satellite so they are still 100% operational ... for now.
      IRNSS has suffered from 5 clock failures, but 3 were in the same satellite rendering satellite 1A unusable.

    5. Re:The satellite lost was to replace... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Both IRNSS and GALILEO use SpectraTime (a Swiss company) as the supplier of clocks.

      GALILEO has suffered from 9 clock failures, but no more than 2 in any single satellite so they are still 100% operational ... for now.
      IRNSS has suffered from 5 clock failures, but 3 were in the same satellite rendering satellite 1A unusable.

      It appears that they found what was wrong with the atomic clocks. Link here: https://phys.org/news/2017-07-europe-galileo-satnav-problems-clocks.html

    6. Re:The satellite lost was to replace... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      And it would mean that indian ships require to have multiple positioning systems.

      I think you'll find all ships already have multiple positioning systems.

    7. Re:The satellite lost was to replace... by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Interesting link but too shy on details. It says that they have identified a component in the rubidium clocks which short circuits, but to date the hydrogen master clocks are failing at twice the rate of the rubidium ones.

      http://www.esa.int/Our_Activit... this link provides more information on the problems with the PHM clocks. It appears there are multiple mechanisms causing multiple different devices to fail.

      According to Wikipedia the mitigation that ISRO has made is to power down 2 of the rubidium clocks and only power them back up in case the primary fails. Could be related to the ESA's work.

    8. Re:The satellite lost was to replace... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > nother failing satellite.

      The satellite was not even deployed, it was the rocket fairing that failed.

  4. Re:Many failures, just unreported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're thinking of a different country.

  5. Satellite separated just fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but couldn't go very far because the fairings did not separate earlier. So it is now a floating piece of junk inside the fairings that are still attached to the upper stage.

    The whole thing was also in a much lower than intended orbit due to the extra weight of the fairings that should've been tossed off way earlier in the flight.

    1. Re:Satellite separated just fine... by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      So it carries a lot of dead weight, doesn't quite achieve the level required and doesn't deploy properly?

      Yup, sounds like my experience with Indian work.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Satellite separated just fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's usually Americans carrying lots of dead weight - in their morbidly obese stomachs and disgustingly fat asses.

    3. Re:Satellite separated just fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crying about one failure in decades? You must have a low tolerance for pain.

    4. Re:Satellite separated just fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry your experience with the help desk was so emasculating!

    5. Re:Satellite separated just fine... by luis_a_espinal · · Score: 1

      So it carries a lot of dead weight, doesn't quite achieve the level required and doesn't deploy properly?

      Yup, sounds like my experience with Indian work.

      Though I've have had bad experience with offshore teams from time to time, I wonder what kind of personal demons make people inject such jokes at every damned opportunity. It's not like we are swimming in a vast talent pool (the horrors I can tell regarding home-grown monkey code.)

    6. Re:Satellite separated just fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My experience with American workers are that they are fat and lazy and think they deserve to have their asses kissed just by virtue of being American alone.

      So many Americans think they DESERVE this, that or the other thing. They also think they're more competent than they actually are.

      I'm a native born white American too and boy our my fellow countrymen mostly a bag of useless dicks.

    7. Re:Satellite separated just fine... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      True. But don't worry, it ain't that much better over here in Europe. The only stereotypes that are actually true are the bad ones.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Satellite separated just fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't really assume it was much better in Europe. Too many people make assumptions. I prefer to judge people by the shit that falls out of their mouth and then make decisions

  6. paths by johnjones · · Score: 3, Informative

    They are in sub Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (sub GTO)

    https://i.stack.imgur.com/k7RDk.jpg

    1. Re:paths by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That is actually a neat idea.
      I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      And this picture with explanation: http://www.daviddarling.info/e...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  7. Re: Many failures, just unreported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, right. It's really easy to hide a rocket launch.

  8. Re:Many failures, just unreported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not true. All Indian launches are known and documented.

    They may have had failures in ground tests that we probably wouldn't know about, but that's normal. Pretty much every rocket engine/stage sheds its guts during testing at test stands at some point - and in some cases on purpose so operating limits can be determined.

  9. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mediocrity reaching new heights all the time.

  10. Re: That's funny.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh it's soooo unfair being white and male in Trump's amerikkka, oh help me Jebus it's so unfaiiiiiiiir.

    #Bitch Captcha : Mocked (really is)

  11. Re: That's funny.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't you have a shotgun to attempt to fuck tonight GOP? #Breakfree #Mike_Pence_wouldn't_lube_with_you

  12. Re:Many failures, just unreported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, didn't you get that was a sarcastic comment !!

  13. 2 failures in 41 flights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now it is 3 failures in 42 flights = 7% failure rate, or 1 in 14. Even the disastrous US Space Shuttles only had a 1.5% flight failure rate.

    So these rockets are maybe not quite man rated, unless of course you have a large and redundant population to draw on...

    1. Re:2 failures in 41 flights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shuttles also cost $1B+ per flight. Compared to that, these rockets are cheap as chips. So what if one or two fails when the whole rocket costs less than one tenth of a Shuttle flight.

      Granted, the payload they carry is often more expensive than the launcher and you don't want to lose too many, but this is what insurances are for. If failure rate of a certain launcher goes up enough, its insurance costs for future launches goes up. Gives a financial incentive to fix the issues and keep the failure rate low, but a failure here and there is not the end of the world. Go check how many Protons have welped and people still put payloads on top of them...

    2. Re:2 failures in 41 flights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that you can compensate for low reliability by simply insuring the payload - think again. The insurance companies are not that naive and will surely take into account the rocket's reliability when insuring it and the payload.

      Decreasing reliability to bring down the total cost is not really a viable option.

    3. Re:2 failures in 41 flights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think that you can compensate for low reliability by simply insuring the payload - think again. The insurance companies are not that naive and will surely take into account the rocket's reliability when insuring it and the payload.

      The cost of failure gets spread around across everyone, plus some premium because the insurer needs to eat, too. But that spreading around makes the cost much more bearable for any one payload owner.

      Decreasing reliability to bring down the total cost is not really a viable option.

      Happens all the time. Just look at the device you were using to type that, whichever device it is.

    4. Re:2 failures in 41 flights by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Partial failures don't really count if they put the payload in a good enough orbit. The partial failure didn't put IRS-1D in the correct orbit, but it got it close enough that it could be corrected. So it's more like two full failures in 42 launches, 4.7% failure rate.

      If you do want to count partial failures, then the shuttle failure rate is much higher than 1.5%. STS-1 suffered an overpressure event that caused damage to the vehicle (bent struts), STS-51-F suffered an in-flight main engine failure that caused an abort to orbit, STS-27 suffered from severe damage to its thermal protection system that put the crew at risk, STS-51 (different flight than STS-51-F) suffered from an unplanned detonation of backup explosive bolts for payload release, STS-93 suffered from a coolant leak leading to an underspeed situation that only got to the desired orbit because of backup units. Add the two RUDs and you'd get seven partial or total failures out of 135 launches, or 5.2%.

      The space shuttle may have had a lower percentage rate for failed launches/missions, but 40% of space shuttles also killed their crews, not exactly ideal.

    5. Re:2 failures in 41 flights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reliability is definitely part of the equation, but it's far from the only one. In some cases the cost per launch is so high that you can almost lose every other payload and still come out on top, and that is a "prestige" that few launchers have achieved. For example if you have a $150m satellite and two launch options (ULA: $250M vs SpaceX: $70m) lets say that the first option is a virtually guaranteed flight ($400M total) and you have a failure on the second option ($220m x 2 = $440m), and that assumes the customer has to pay for the failed launch ($370m if the contract says the launch provider doesn't get paid if their rocket fails). Under more realistic circumstances even the worse launchers have a 1 in 10 failure rate or better, so you only need a 15-20% decrease in launch costs to begin breaking even, and with a higher reliability the cost effectiveness begins to side with the cheaper and less reliable launcher pretty quickly for most payloads, excepting the Billion dollar telescopes and such of course.

  14. What is consider reliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2/41 = 4.89% failure rate.

    What is consider reliable the world of rocketry, or is the story incorrectly conflating reliability with time (one failure every 12 years)?

    1. Re:What is consider reliable by Rei · · Score: 1

      3 failures now; it was previously 2.

      That said, a 7% failure rate is not unusual in the rocketry world.

      --
      He's just being nice so my real father won't freeze him in carbonite and sell him for spice.
    2. Re:What is consider reliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      5% failure rate is fairly common. Average across all launchers was 5.8% an year or two back and is probably still around there (5-6%).

      Paying customers start making noises when its more than 10% for a specific launcher (insurance fees tend to go up at that point). Proton for example has 414 flights and 47 failures and while the failure rate of the latest version is better (Proton-M - 100 launches, 9 failures, 1 partial failure), it is still so high that Russia is having trouble selling those launches.

      US Government lives in a magic fantasy land where everything has to be 100% reliable - no matter the cost - which leads to funny launch prices (see: ULA), but their failure rate is very low (only partial failures - underperformance and such - since ULA was formed, which is very impressive)

      In the grand scheme of things, 2/41 is normal. 3/42 after this failure is bit high, but the sample size is somewhat small.

    3. Re:What is consider reliable by Rei · · Score: 2

      There's also an inherent bias in that everyone talks about failure rates immediately after a rocket fails - aka, the time at which its failure rate is worst.

      --
      He's just being nice so my real father won't freeze him in carbonite and sell him for spice.
    4. Re:What is consider reliable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2/41 = 4.89% failure rate.

      There's also an inherent bias in that everyone talks about failure rates immediately after a rocket fails - aka, the time at which its failure rate is worst.

      This is why I only mentioned 2/42 in my post that started this thread. Of course, this is at the other end of the spectrum and represents best case bias. I suppose reality lies part way in between.

  15. Re: Many failures, just unreported by KGIII · · Score: 4, Funny

    Someone just forgot to do the needful. They'll reboot and try again.

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  16. Rockomax Brand by jittles · · Score: 0

    This is why I only use Rockomax Brand(TM) Decouplers! At twice the size of the next leading brand, they offer plenty of bang for your buck! And they come with handy arrows to indicate which side it will detach from.

    Why do I have to use full size TM instead of the superscript in this day and age, oh Slashdot?

    1. Re: Rockomax Brand by mSparks43 · · Score: 1

      so thisâ doesnt work?

  17. Re: Many failures, just unreported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see why they can't get this right, after so many launches. It's not rocket science.

  18. Was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....stackoverflow down?

  19. Re: That's funny.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some indian guy just rang me looking for your mum.
    He wants his belt back.

  20. Re: Many failures, just unreported by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

    It started making a funny "put-put-put" noise, but they mistook it for somebody talking.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  21. Re:Many failures, just unreported by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    The article doesn't mention why the fairing failed to detach (Maybe it's too early to tell there will be a lot of telemetry to analyse). I'm sure whatever happened it will end up in their regression test pack for future launches.

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  22. Re: That's funny.. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    #PleaseStopWithTheLameTwitterTagsCrapThankYou

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  23. Outsourcing by ghoul · · Score: 1

    This is what happens when you start using American components. Indian rockets were pretty reliable when India did most of its business with Russia who build rugged stuff. Now India is buying a lot of shit made by Boeing and it shows. Probably the Quality guy had Monday night football to watch and just signed off instead of doing his work

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
    1. Re:Outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are quite correct. The US and anything associated with the US is to blame for every single thing that goes wrong in the world. (Of course all the foreigners who were educated in the US are exempt from blame.) While all the other countries on the planet are paragons of enlightened thinking and actions. As long as this state of affairs continues American hostility and animosity towards any thing deemed foreign will continue to rise. Trumps disdain of free loading foreigners who stand around with their hands out looking for more money while demanding US military protection is just the first warning signs of things to come. It won't be long until the US stops giving a damn about others and flattens NK regardless of the harm to any surrounding countries. After all that conflict is on the other side of the world and as long as it stays their the average US citizen will just enjoy watching the cool highlights on CNN.

  24. Re:Funny by Rei · · Score: 1

    Has ISRO been doing that "women in spaceflight" superstition stuff too? I know Russia has, but I've never heard of anything from India about it. Russia even once blamed a technical mishap that could have killed the crew on the fact that there were two women aboard the craft. It appears to stem from the old naval superstition about women on ships being bad luck.

    --
    He's just being nice so my real father won't freeze him in carbonite and sell him for spice.
  25. What a shame by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 0

    It will make no difference though to the more than 600 million Indian citizens who lack such basic facilities as running water, electricity and water - the Indian government, time and again, far more keen on engaging in international me-too, pissing contests than in tackling such mundane issues.

    1. Re:What a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to be a regional superpower and ensure Pakistan doesn't nuke you off the map randomly, an accurate regional positioning system for your military is obviously valuable to the government.

      These days a positioning system that does not rely on GPS - at least within your own borders - seems to be a requirement for being taken seriously militarily. USA has GPS, Russia has GLONASS and EU has Galileo, all global systems. Japan, China and India all have their own regional solutions that nominally exist to improve GPS accuracy in their region, but in reality exist to ensure a satellite positioning system keeps working at least for the military even if global system operators suddenly decide "no positioning for you today".

    2. Re:What a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only thinking about today and never about tomorrow doesn't get you very far.

    3. Re:What a shame by sudarshan85 · · Score: 1

      Have you been to India? Or do you just gobble up whatever your biased western media tells you?
      Everyone here automatically makes this lame argument/joke without knowing the reality. Do you have actual statistics about this? Can you cite a study?
      Are you aware of the awareness campaigns and efforts taken by the current Indian government to combat this? Did you know of a case where there was a divorce awarded to a women because her husband's family didn't have a toilet at home (only an outside one)?

      Change doesn't occur overnight. Especially when it involves that many amount of people. But it is happening slowly. In fact I would argue compared to the current political state of the US we are moving forward while the US is moving backward.

    4. Re:What a shame by AC-x · · Score: 1

      I think you're using out of date figures there, this year that number is down to around 250 million.

    5. Re:What a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You act like this is some kind of abnormal thing for any country. The US blows $600B a year despite a 14% poverty rate.

    6. Re: What a shame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than 500 million indians shit outdoors. Compare that to Vietnam for example, which reduced their numbers for this to residual levels over a couple of decades.

  26. Re: Many failures, just unreported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your mom

  27. No one mentioned..first privately built satellite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No one mentioned heat sheild failure or that it was first private company built the satelite. "The IRNSS-1H, was built by a consortium led by Alpha Design Technologies, a defence equipment supplier from Bengaluru, over eight months. Led by Colonel HS Shankar, a team of 70 scientists from ISRO supervised the operations". Here is the link http://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2017/aug/31/pslv-fails-to-deploy-indias-first-privately-built-satellite-isro-looking-for-answers-1650751.html

  28. Re: Many failures, just unreported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, right. It's really easy to hide a rocket launch.

    It's not easy, but it's possible.

  29. Re:Many failures, just unreported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There were a lot of failures that went unreported

    But nobody died, right? Unlike failures in other parts of the world.

  30. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It appears to stem from the old naval superstition about women on ships being bad luck.

    It's not superstition. It's called *wisdom*.

  31. It's about those trains that continually FAIL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not really impressed by "India's Workhorse Rocket'.
    It would be nice if India had a civilized rail system that didn't slaughter its passengers.

  32. big surprise: world (not dog) as dim as ever by epine · · Score: 1

    It's an unexpected failure for a fairly reliable rocket.

    Over the last 24 years, the PSLV has flown 41 times and has only suffered two failures in its launch history — the most recent mishap occurring during a mission in 1997.

    This is about the same failure rate the Feynman estimated for the space shuttle—and that one had human cargo.

    Engineers at Rocketdyne, the manufacturer, estimate the total probability [of catastrophic failure] as 1/10,000.

    Engineers at Marshal estimate it as 1/300, while NASA management, to whom these engineers report, claims it is 1/100,000.

    An independent engineer consulting for NASA thought 1 or 2 per 100 a reasonable estimate.
              — Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle

    ____

    Algorithms to Live By (2016) is far from a perfect book, but it's about 20 dB less dunderheaded that the paragraph quoted from OP. When the book is not busy hitting soft pitches of its own manufacture, it offers up a unique (or less commonly seen) distillation of some important topics.

    I got the most value from the chapter on Bayes rule.

    * multiplicative rule: use for power-law prior
    * average rule: use for normal prior
    * additive rule: use for Erlang prior

    In the power-law prior, your expectation is to continue waiting roughly (to a constant factor) as long as you've already been waiting.

    In a power-law distribution, the longer something has gone on, the longer we expect it to continue going on. So a power-law event is more surprising the longer we've been waiting for it—and maximally surprising right before it happens.

    Read that as "maximally surprising every damn time".

    Lower layer of neural network: "My God, it's full of stars!"

    Just a few layers up: "Well, an infinite dimensional object of impossible precision blacker than black wasn't going to divulge a small surprise in chapter N-1, was it now?"

    For the normal distribution, you expect the average, until the event is already overdue (past average) and then you predict RSN (real soon now).

    For the Erlang distribution, you just keep predicting "just five more minutes, I'm sure my quick fix will work this time!"

    Raging against this kind of OP idiocy: definitely a power-law, on a data set so vast, even the stars feel lonely.

  33. Re: Many failures, just unreported by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot of Indians shed their guts every day. On the street. It's a filthy country and the rocket probably got coated with bacteria which screwed up the trajectory.

  34. Re: Many failures, just unreported by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    You mean a *toy* rocket launch. Yes, that's possible. This is about orbital launch vehicles, though.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  35. Clearly they need to play more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kerbal Space Program. Everyone knows you shoud always watch the launch, and manually deploy the fairing if it doesn't deploy by itself.