Prton Failure

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Rick Jones wrote:

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/world/...sion/index.htm
l?hpt=hp_t2

Looks like Russia lost another Proton rocket.

I suspect the flew off course and exploded really means "flew off
course
and
range safety destroyed it".

I was looking at an embedded video on theatlantic.com - looked like if
range safety did terminate the rocket with extreme prejudice they
seemed to wait quite a while. I suppose some of that was "wait till
the damn thing clears the launch complex" but even then it looked like
they might have waited

rick jones

It looks like either platform failure or control system failure.



Knight: Would you qualify that as a launch problem or a design problem?





--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

"bob haller" wrote in message
...


: bob haller

: imagine a out of control ISS sheding modules and dropping them
: randomly on their ground track.....


Ha! Oh my. Bob prolly thinks if you drop something while on a spacewalk
it'll also fall randomly on the ground track. Probably one of those
who think an orbit is like a little train track in the sky.

Most amusing. The things people like Bob can get to worrying about.
Must amusing indeed.

I mean, not that it wouldn't be a problem if control of ISS were lost.
But the projected scenario... most amusing.

When skylab deorbited everyone was told it would fall somewhere on its
ground track and what percentage was over ocean........

a ISS with no astronauts.... control could be lost....


ISS and Skylab are SO different in terms of what control is possible that's
like comparing a Model T to a modern car with Anti-lock brakes on an icy
road.





--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

: bob haller
: a ISS with no astronauts.... control could be lost....

Yeah. If nobody's at the wheel, it'll fall off those
celestial train tracks within minutes.

Really, you don't have to *try* to make it more hilarious.
What you've already done is adequate.

In article ,
"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:

"Orval Fairbairn" wrote in message
news
In article ,
Rick Jones wrote:

"Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/world/...xplosion/index.
htm
l?hpt=hp_t2

Looks like Russia lost another Proton rocket.

I suspect the flew off course and exploded really means "flew off
course
and
range safety destroyed it".

I was looking at an embedded video on theatlantic.com - looked like if
range safety did terminate the rocket with extreme prejudice they
seemed to wait quite a while. I suppose some of that was "wait till
the damn thing clears the launch complex" but even then it looked like
they might have waited

rick jones

It looks like either platform failure or control system failure.



Knight: Would you qualify that as a launch problem or a design problem?





It could be either -- or an assembly failure.

ISS without a crew, and nasa published risks of loss if unmanned, they were concerned about it......

if russias ability to launch people somehow fails, within 6 months ISS will be uncrewed......

although I suppose one or two crewmembers could be left behind stranded.
soyuz are only good for 6 months

In article ,
says...

ISS without a crew, and nasa published risks of loss if unmanned, they were concerned about it......

They are "concerned" about a lot of things, but that does not mean that
ISS will violate the laws of physics and deviate from its orbit and come
crashing down shortly after "control" is lost. This is not a bad
Hollywood movie; this is *real life*. Orbital mechanics is well
understood.

Due note that Skylab stayed up for years without active control. It
only came down sooner than expected due to higher than expected drag
caused by the solar maximum. NASA won't make that same mistake twice.
Its models for such a thing are no doubt far better today than they were
in the 1970's. Plus, ISS can have its attitude controlled and its orbit
raised by a number of unmanned vehicles. So, even if ISS is "dead", it
might still be possible to maintain some degree of control over it.

if russias ability to launch people somehow fails, within 6 months
ISS will be uncrewed......

It would be nice if you would "somehow" get a clue. The Russians have
been doing this literally for decades. Yes there are problems, but when
they crop up, the Russians have become very good at addressing them and
moving forward. It would take two or more Soyuz (crewed mission)
failures in a row to present a real problem to the station, since crew
rotations are *already* staggered (i.e. these days, two or three Soyuz
vehicles are docked to ISS at all times).

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On 7/3/2013 9:57 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

ISS without a crew, and nasa published risks of loss if unmanned, they were concerned about it......

if russias ability to launch people somehow fails, within 6 months ISS will be uncrewed......

although I suppose one or two crewmembers could be left behind stranded.
soyuz are only good for 6 months

How many times does this have to be exploded before you quit bringing
it up every 6 months or so?

Yes, and everyone on Earth might fart at the same time, expanding the
atmosphere and knocking ISS down...

Seen several days ago, that the Proton launch failed because some
accelerometers the flight system reads for control, were installed
*upside down*. I've heard nothing since contrary to this, rather, I
notice the topic seems to be out of the news.

Titeotwawki -- Martha Adams [Sat 2013 Jly 20]

russia appears to have rot in their space systems.... ths should be totally unacceptable...

russia may no longer be a dependable ISS partner their launch vehcles are no longer dependable and russias support of assad isnt good either...

short term giving extra bucks to musk might be a good idea, for a few emergency iSS return capsules. sent to the station with supples with some minimal life support plus perhaps some hanging hammock type return capacity..

so a american astronaut could remain longer at the station....

"bob haller" wrote in message
...

russia may no longer be a dependable ISS partner their launch vehcles are
no longer dependable and russias support of assad isnt good either...


And OUR launch systems are? When's the last time the US launched astronauts
to the space station? Oh right, we can't any more.


short term giving extra bucks to musk might be a good idea, for a few
emergency iSS return capsules. sent to the station with supples with some
minimal life support plus perhaps some hanging hammock type return
capacity..

so a american astronaut could remain longer at the station....


If it's so dangerous Bob, shouldn't we be brining them home right now?




--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net