Cryosat Mission Feared Lost Options

[Rakhir]

I know that traditional russian vehicles (like Soyuz) are extremely reliable... probably, this do not apply to this launcher (cannot find infos about it).
And yes, this strongly recall me the Solar Sail fiasco...!

You can compare the launch vehicule reliability in the following link (see "2005 Launch Vehicle Reliability Stats")
http://www.geocities.com/launchreport/slr.html

According to these stats, Rokot reliability is not so bad.

This other link is also a good one when you are searching for information on launchers, spacecrafts, missions...
http://www.skyrocket.de/space/space.html

[Rakhir]

A Molnya rocket failed in June. And in October 2002 a Soyuz with ESA microgravity experiments exploded. 
BTW, I recall the last Rokot launch last month also had problems. Or was it just the Monitor-E satellite? The reports were a bit vague about that. 

Actually, the launch of Monitor-E was a success, the satellite suffered a communication glitch shortly after launch, but communication with the satellite was restored shortly after.

http://www.spacedaily.com/2005/050827095150.u72qqpvz.html

[Rakhir]

Cryosat team desperate to rebuild

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4326386.stm

[Tesheiner]

Russians should apply more technology in its vehicles. More technology require more funds... but I can't see it.
I don't think that Russians should abandon this projects as Volna, Dnerp, Rockot...

IMHO, the question is not about technology but quality assurance & testing. Of course, it means $$$ too.

[ljk4-1]

IMHO, the question is not about technology but quality assurance & testing. Of course, it means $$$ too.

You get what you pay for, as the Cosmos 1 team learned the hard way.

My sincere condolences to the Cryosat team.

Russia, if you want to stay in the space business, you better generate a few more dollars for quality control. You are not the only space game in town.

[ljk4-1]

Volker Liebig, ESA’s Director of Earth Observation, answers questions on the
loss of ESA’s CryoSat due to launch failure.

More at:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Cryosat/SEM1OR5Y3EE_0.html

[tty]

Russia, if you want to stay in the space business, you better generate a few more dollars for quality control.  You are not the only space game in town.

Actually if the problem was in the software it is very untypical for the russians. Traditionally hardware quality has been the nemesis of the russian space program (and almost everything else russian).
The traditional view is that in anything that can be done by just thinking hard or with pen and paper the russians are normally the best in the World.

tty

[ugordan]

Actually if the problem was in the software it is very untypical for the russians. Traditionally hardware quality has been the nemesis of the russian space program (and almost everything else russian).

The russians had a few software mess-ups themselves. The first (I think) launch of the Energia vehicle, which was supposed to lift a military payload failed because the upper stage payload guidance was somehow flipped by 180 degrees, the spacecraft ended up braking instead of inserting into orbit.

[ljk4-1]

The russians had a few software mess-ups themselves. The first (I think) launch of the Energia vehicle, which was supposed to lift a military payload failed because the upper stage payload guidance was somehow flipped by 180 degrees, the spacecraft ended up braking instead of inserting into orbit.

The Mars 4 through 7 probes all had their computer chips accidentally degraded, but the Soviets had to launch them anyway to keep within the window timeframe. This is why they all ended up failing evnetually.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/marsm73.htm

[Rakhir]

Recent tests showed that "obsolete" old Russian ICBMs still work. So, I suppose that the space launchers derived from them should also work.

Details at : http://www.spacewar.com/news/icbm-05e.html

[deglr6328]

astronautix: "Unfortunately, this entire series of spacecraft experienced failures on arrival at Mars due to pre-flight test of the electronics with helium, which resulted in degradation of the computer chips during the journey to Mars."

?? Testing with helium caused damage to the microchips? Wish there were more info on this out there...

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

I've got some -- a much more detailed account of the whole affair from a scientist associated with the Soviet Mars program. I'll review it and report later.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

The report (V.G. Perminov, "The Difficult Road to Mars", 1999) doesn't mention helium -- but it does say: "Suddenly, during testing of the power system, the onboard blocks started to fail. Analysis showed thqat in all cases the power system malfunctioned because of a failure of the 2T312 transistor, which was fabricated at the Voronezhskiy plant. An interministry commission carefully analyzed this problem and came to the conclusion that the reason for the transistors' failure was intercrystalline corrosion in the area of the transistor lead.

"To save gold resources, some 'smart person' suggested that the gold leads be replaced by aluminum ones. The necessary tests were not made. And so 2 yeasrs later, this suggestion caused major trouble. The only way to remedy the situation was to replace the flawed transistors with ones fabricated according to the old technology."

Since this would have taken at least 6 months, and studies showed a 50-50 chance that any craft carrying the transistors would make it to Mars before they started to fail, the Kremlin decided to gamble on flying the four 1973 Mars craft in the hope that they could pull off a Mars landing before the Vikings got there. But three of the four craft malfunctioned en route -- Mars 4 faiiled to fire its retrorocket (although it did snatch some photos), Mars 7's lander failed to fire its trajectory-change rocket after ejection, and Mars 6 totally lost its radio transmission system only 2 months out. It neverthless carried out the remainder of its mission automatically, but it's still not known why the lander lost contact virtually at the moment of landing.

By the way, Perminov also reveals that the crash of the Mars 2 lander -- the first man-made object ever to hit the planet -- occurred not because of any onboard failure, but because the Mars ephemeris data programmed into Mars 2's autonomous navigation system for the final midcourse maneuver was slightly inaccurate, so that the lander entered at too steep a trajectory. He's still a little bitter at the US not providing the USSR with the better ephemerides they already had (which occurred only a year later, in exchange for the Soviets releasing more of their data from the Veneras). He also thinks that the post-landing Mars 3 failure may have been due to a static discharge from the massive ongoing dust storm.

[RNeuhaus]

Bruce, Thanks for bring us the knowledge of the previous report and also of others.

Rodolfo

[ljk4-1]

Since this would have taken at least 6 months, and studies showed a 50-50 chance that any craft carrying the transistors would make it to Mars before they started to fail, the Kremlin decided to gamble on flying the four 1973 Mars craft in the hope that they could pull off a Mars landing before the Vikings got there.  But three of the four craft malfunctioned en route -- Mars 4 faiiled to fire its retrorocket (although it did snatch some photos), Mars 7's lander failed to fire its trajectory-change rocket after ejection, and Mars 6 totally lost its radio transmission system only 2 months out.  It neverthless carried out the remainder of its mission automatically, but it's still not known why the lander lost contact virtually at the moment of landing.

Jonathan McDowell told me that Mars 6 came down at too fast a speed on very rough terrain, which could certainly explain the sudden lost of contact.

http://www.planet4589.org/space/space.html

The estimated impact speed was 61 meters per second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_2

So, if the Soviets had not screwed up on this technical point, perhaps the first transmissions from the Martian surface would not have been the Vikings.

I still hope some day the Mars 2, 3, and 6 landing/crash sites are found and investigated.