Slashdot Mirror
A Programing Error Blasted 19 Russian Satellites Back Towards Earth (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes Ars Technica's report on Russia's failed attempt to launch 19 satellites into orbit on Tuesday:
Instead of boosting its payload, the Soyuz 2.1b rocket's Fregat upper stage fired in the wrong direction, sending the satellites on a suborbital trajectory instead, burning them up in Earth's atmosphere... According to normally reliable Russian Space Web, a programming error caused the Fregat upper stage, which is the spacecraft on top of the rocket that deploys satellites, to be unable to orient itself. Specifically, the site reports, the Fregat's flight control system did not have the correct settings for a mission launching from the country's new Vostochny cosmodrome. It evidently was still programmed for Baikonur, or one of Russia's other spaceports capable of launching the workhorse Soyuz vehicle. Essentially, then, after the Fregat vehicle separated from the Soyuz rocket, it was unable to find its correct orientation. Therefore, when the Fregat first fired its engines to boost the satellites into orbit, it was still trying to correct this orientation -- and was in fact aimed downward toward Earth.
Though the Fregat space tug has been in operation since the 1990s, this is its fourth failure -- all of which have happened within the last 8 years.
"In each of the cases, the satellite did not reach its desired orbit," reports Ars Technica, adding "As the country's heritage rockets and upper stages continue to age, the concern is that the failure rate will increase."
"In each of the cases, the satellite did not reach its desired orbit," reports Ars Technica, adding "As the country's heritage rockets and upper stages continue to age, the concern is that the failure rate will increase."
an "In Soviet Russia" joke hiding in there somewhere
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
There is a weird statement in the original coverage from Ars. Having initially explained that the reason for the failure was due to an incorrect configuration setting, the quote then goes on to show where Ars states, "As the country's heritage rockets and upper stages continue to age, the concern is that the failure rate will increase."
But the nature of this specific failure mode has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the rockets or stages, but was due instead to one or more lapses in pre-flight checks of the configuration parameters for the launch. We don't even know for sure if the part which failed (the Fregat Upper Stage) was set by the launch agency directly, or the satellite manufacturer.
In a similar way, the comments also imply that the vehicles themselves age in some way - despite the fact that the cost and complexity of them means that they are literally custom-made for each launch. They are certainly not left languishing "on the shelf" for months or years before use.
Don't get me wrong, any launch failure is unwanted and to be avoided at all costs - regardless of the nationality or company involved. But in this case, I'm not sure the coverage reflects reality.
Nineteen Russian satellites? Well, including the 12 American, the Canadian one, the Norwegian one, two from Sweden and the one from Germany that is...
The rocket was Russian, but the satellites that were riding on it were from various countries: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/russian-rocket-launch-1.4422547 "The booster also carried 18 micro satellites built in Canada, Germany, Japan, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States."
whats russian for YOUR FIRED!!
I don't know, but the unemployment insurance is called Gulag.
Programmed in the sense of "programming your VCR," or "television programming," not programming as in writing computer software.
http://www.dictionary.com/brow...
Actually this is fairly typical of rocket science, at least as I understand it. Spacecraft are complex systems where they only way to avoid catastrophe is to get an almost incomprehensible number of easy-to-overlook details right. Maybe it's the unit conversions, or the temperature rating of the booster O-rings, or the combustibility of cabin materials in a pure oxygen atmosphere.
Maybe this is not what we programmers would technically call a "programming error", although other people might characterize it that way, but it comes from a practice that is all-too-familiar: cutting values from one source and pasting them into another, something you do for convenience but which opens the door for details to be wrong in an unexpected way.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It's exactly how the Russian specialists are educated in Russian universities.
Being a Russian I have seen the tests for exams of "Automatic control theory". And there was a test "There is a satellite with given moment of inertia and given torque from thrusters. Turn the satellite 30 degrees".
The NORMAL technical decision is "Give it some thrust and wait until it turns in position when it's expected to be slightly before the needed target position after braking. Then turn thrusters ON and OFF according to the expected deceleration curve until it's stopped on position". The turn is limited with available fuel and available time.
The "CORRECT" decision expected from the students was "Turn ON the thrusters and accelerate the satellite until it's almost late to brake it. Then turn ON the thrusters backwards". And it does NOT care that the fuel is extremely valuable and that any possible error is NOT to be corrected.
All this is an expected result of our education policy of our former education minister Fursenko: "The Communists were wrong trying to grow a creator. Our task is to grow a qualified consumer of all that has been already created".
But, Americans, if you think that this policy doesn't apply to you...
Did my own research.
The third stage burned up reentering the atmosphere over the north Atlantic. The fireball was observed by at least one transatlantic commercial flight.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com...
See near bottom of page.
From what I can tell, the programming on the spacecraft functioned fine, and operated according to the time-honored "garbage in, garbage out" principle. It was given instructions to orient itself towards Earth and ignite its engines, and it did. Those instructions were wrong, but that is very much a configuration error, not a programming error.
Stop blaming programmers for all the world's ills.