Problems with Plesetsk?

The June 21, 2005 Molniya-M launch vehicle failure
(which was the first Molniya-M failure in 15 years
after 52 consecutive successes) is the fifth failed
space launch in 35 attempts from Plesetsk in Russia
since 1999, exclusive. This includes two failures
by the usually-reliable R-7 types. No other launch
site in the world has suffered more than two failures
during the same time frame.

Are they doing something wrong at the Northern
Cosmodrome?

Launch Results 2000-2005(6/21)
(Sites with more than 10 Launches)
Site Launches(Failures)
-----------------------------
Baikonur 99(1)
Canaveral 66(1)
Kourou 40(2)
Plesetsk 35(5)
Vandenberg 28(1)
KSC 17(1)
Sea Launch 14(2)
Xi Chang 11(0)
-----------------------------

- Ed Kyle

"Ed Kyle" wrote in
oups.com:

Are they doing something wrong at the Northern
Cosmodrome?

Launch technicians are drinking the hydrogen peroxide?

No, wait, that was the V-2 and the ethanol..

--Damon

"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...
The June 21, 2005 Molniya-M launch vehicle failure
(which was the first Molniya-M failure in 15 years
after 52 consecutive successes) is the fifth failed
space launch in 35 attempts from Plesetsk in Russia
since 1999, exclusive. This includes two failures
by the usually-reliable R-7 types. No other launch
site in the world has suffered more than two failures
during the same time frame.

Are they doing something wrong at the Northern
Cosmodrome?

Launch Results 2000-2005(6/21)
(Sites with more than 10 Launches)
Site Launches(Failures)
-----------------------------
Baikonur 99(1)
Canaveral 66(1)
Kourou 40(2)
Plesetsk 35(5)
Vandenberg 28(1)
KSC 17(1)
Sea Launch 14(2)
Xi Chang 11(0)
-----------------------------

- Ed Kyle


As a matter of fact, the difference in reliability of the Soyuz family
between the two launch sites is statistically significant. With 57 launches
since 2000, 12 from Plesetsk, and 2 failures, both from Plesetsk, the
significance prob is .041 (one-sided).

Murray Anderson

Murray Anderson a écrit :
"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...

The June 21, 2005 Molniya-M launch vehicle failure
(which was the first Molniya-M failure in 15 years
after 52 consecutive successes) is the fifth failed
space launch in 35 attempts from Plesetsk in Russia
since 1999, exclusive. This includes two failures
by the usually-reliable R-7 types. No other launch
site in the world has suffered more than two failures
during the same time frame.

Are they doing something wrong at the Northern
Cosmodrome?

Launch Results 2000-2005(6/21)
(Sites with more than 10 Launches)
Site Launches(Failures)
-----------------------------
Baikonur 99(1)
Canaveral 66(1)
Kourou 40(2)
Plesetsk 35(5)
Vandenberg 28(1)
KSC 17(1)
Sea Launch 14(2)
Xi Chang 11(0)
-----------------------------

- Ed Kyle



As a matter of fact, the difference in reliability of the Soyuz family
between the two launch sites is statistically significant. With 57 launches
since 2000, 12 from Plesetsk, and 2 failures, both from Plesetsk, the
significance prob is .041 (one-sided).


Interesting fact. Although the Soyuz-U failure in 2002 at Plesetsk was
due to a manufacture error by the engine maker. It would be difficult to
blame the Plesetsk workers for that.
One difference in reliability might come from the fact that the workers
could pay more attention when it comes to launch human rated rockets in
baikonur than just hardware in Plesetsk But that cannot explain the
whole difference.
Cyrille

Murray Anderson wrote:
"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...
The June 21, 2005 Molniya-M launch vehicle failure
(which was the first Molniya-M failure in 15 years
after 52 consecutive successes) is the fifth failed
space launch in 35 attempts from Plesetsk in Russia
since 1999, exclusive. This includes two failures
by the usually-reliable R-7 types. No other launch
site in the world has suffered more than two failures
during the same time frame.

Are they doing something wrong at the Northern
Cosmodrome?

Launch Results 2000-2005(6/21)
(Sites with more than 10 Launches)
Site Launches(Failures)
-----------------------------
Baikonur 99(1)
Canaveral 66(1)
Kourou 40(2)
Plesetsk 35(5)
Vandenberg 28(1)
KSC 17(1)
Sea Launch 14(2)
Xi Chang 11(0)
-----------------------------

As a matter of fact, the difference in reliability of the Soyuz family
between the two launch sites is statistically significant. With 57 launches
since 2000, 12 from Plesetsk, and 2 failures, both from Plesetsk, the
significance prob is .041 (one-sided).

According to RIA Novosti, Russian officials are looking for
someone to blame. June 22 was a pretty bad day for Russian
space launch activity.

"http://en.rian.ru/science/20050623/40751659.html"

"Guilty parties in Molniya-M rocket accident to be punished"

...."if the reason is poor design of the rocket, the culprits
will be prosecuted. If the failure occurred during the launch
or technical checks, senior officers of the Space Corps will
reprimand the officials involved accordingly."

- Ed Kyle

"Cyrille Vanlerberghe" wrote in message
...
Murray Anderson a écrit :
"Ed Kyle" wrote in message
oups.com...

The June 21, 2005 Molniya-M launch vehicle failure
(which was the first Molniya-M failure in 15 years
after 52 consecutive successes) is the fifth failed
space launch in 35 attempts from Plesetsk in Russia
since 1999, exclusive. This includes two failures
by the usually-reliable R-7 types. No other launch
site in the world has suffered more than two failures
during the same time frame.

Are they doing something wrong at the Northern
Cosmodrome?

Launch Results 2000-2005(6/21)
(Sites with more than 10 Launches)
Site Launches(Failures)
-----------------------------
Baikonur 99(1)
Canaveral 66(1)
Kourou 40(2)
Plesetsk 35(5)
Vandenberg 28(1)
KSC 17(1)
Sea Launch 14(2)
Xi Chang 11(0)
-----------------------------

- Ed Kyle



As a matter of fact, the difference in reliability of the Soyuz family
between the two launch sites is statistically significant. With 57
launches
since 2000, 12 from Plesetsk, and 2 failures, both from Plesetsk, the
significance prob is .041 (one-sided).


Interesting fact. Although the Soyuz-U failure in 2002 at Plesetsk was
due to a manufacture error by the engine maker. It would be difficult to
blame the Plesetsk workers for that.
One difference in reliability might come from the fact that the workers
could pay more attention when it comes to launch human rated rockets in
baikonur than just hardware in Plesetsk But that cannot explain the
whole difference.
Cyrille

The manufacturing error might have been caught at Baikonur. Accident
investigations can be very political, with blame stopping at the first
convenient target.

Murray Anderson