IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Cryosat Mission Feared Lost
general
post Oct 8 2005, 06:15 PM
Post #1


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 21-June 05
Member No.: 417



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4319596.stm

Mission control at ESA is growing increasingly concerned about the fate of Europe's ice monitoring spacecraft, Cryosat.

The Cryosat spacecraft was launched at 1902 local time today, Oct 8, from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in northern Russia, but mission controllers have failed to receive a signal from the spacecraft.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hal_9000
post Oct 8 2005, 07:15 PM
Post #2


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 124
Joined: 23-April 05
Member No.: 358



I never trusted in new Russians vehicles...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RNeuhaus
post Oct 8 2005, 07:22 PM
Post #3


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1636
Joined: 9-May 05
From: Lima, Peru
Member No.: 385



I am afraid it would be alike to ones failed launch of the sun sail spacecraft. Let us see in the next days.

Rodolfo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dilo
post Oct 8 2005, 08:09 PM
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2443
Joined: 15-January 05
From: center Italy
Member No.: 150



QUOTE (hal_9000 @ Oct 8 2005, 07:15 PM)
I never trusted in new Russians vehicles...
*

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...!


--------------------
- Marco -
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BruceMoomaw_*
post Oct 8 2005, 08:27 PM
Post #5





Guests






The Russians have now confirmed that its upper stage failed. Russian ICBM-based boosters seem, to put it mildly, unreliable -- I suppose we can console ourselves that in the event of WW III, half the Soviet ICBMs would never have reached us.

But CryoSat is an important loss; it would have provided a test of just how much one of the most important possible ongoing effects from global warming is actually occurring.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OWW
post Oct 8 2005, 08:38 PM
Post #6


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 690
Joined: 28-September 04
Member No.: 99



QUOTE (dilo @ Oct 8 2005, 08:09 PM)
I know that traditional russian vehicles (like Soyuz) are extremely reliable...
*


A Molnya rocket failed in June. And in October 2002 a Soyuz with ESA microgravity experiments exploded. blink.gif
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. unsure.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ugordan
post Oct 8 2005, 08:50 PM
Post #7


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3559
Joined: 1-October 05
From: Croatia
Member No.: 523



QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Oct 8 2005, 10:27 PM)
The Russians have now confirmed that its upper stage failed.  Russian ICBM-based boosters seem, to put it mildly, unreliable -- I suppose we can console ourselves that in the event of WW III, half the Soviet ICBMs would never have reached us.
*


Rest assured, even if only half of the Soviet ICBM force reached the U.S., you'd still be in for one heck of a bad time. The amount of overkill, even today, still seems mindblowing. ph34r.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
general
post Oct 8 2005, 08:58 PM
Post #8


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 21-June 05
Member No.: 417



Two days ago, another Russian lauch failed:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ap_05...tor_launch.html

sad.gif mad.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hal_9000
post Oct 8 2005, 09:02 PM
Post #9


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 124
Joined: 23-April 05
Member No.: 358



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...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Adam
post Oct 8 2005, 09:43 PM
Post #10


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 61
Joined: 17-September 05
From: Sweden
Member No.: 499



Well it's dead sad.gif :

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMR3Q5Y3EE_index_0.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hal_9000
post Oct 8 2005, 09:46 PM
Post #11


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 124
Joined: 23-April 05
Member No.: 358



ESA NEWS
CryoSat Mission lost due to launch failure

8 October 2005
Today at 21.00 CEST Mr Yuri Bakhvalov, First Deputy Director General of the Khrunichev Space Centre on behalf of the Russian State Commission officially confirmed that the launch of CryoSat ended in a failure due to an anomaly in the launch sequence and expressed his regret to ESA and all partners involved.

Preliminary analysis of the telemetry data indicates that the first stage performed nominally. The second stage performed nominally until main engine cut-off was to occur. Due to a missing command from the onboard flight control system the main engine continued to operate until depletion of the remaining fuel.

As a consequence, the separation of the second stage from upper stage did not occur. Thus, the combined stack of the two stages and the CryoSat satellite fell into the nominal drop zone north of Greenland close to the North Pole into high seas with no consequences to populated areas.

An investigating commission by the Russian State authorities has been established to further analyze the reasons for the failure, results are expected within the next weeks. This commission will work in close cooperation with a failure investigation board consisting of Eurockot, ESA and Khrunichev representatives.

This information is released at the same time by Eurockot and ESA.

>> ESA only notified this all because there were a error in vehicle... I don't think that ESA could give a covering "more complete" if a error of its spacecraft <<

covering '
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMR3Q5Y3EE_index_0.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
paxdan
post Oct 8 2005, 09:49 PM
Post #12


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 556
Joined: 29-March 05
Member No.: 221



oh bollocks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob Shaw
post Oct 8 2005, 09:49 PM
Post #13


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2488
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Member No.: 239



QUOTE (general @ Oct 8 2005, 09:58 PM)
Two days ago, another Russian lauch failed:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ap_05...tor_launch.html

sad.gif  mad.gif
*



I followed the links, but don't see any mention of failure - just no recovery (yet). It took them ages last time they flew one of these chaps... ...oh, and it appears (according to an earlier Space.Com article) that the re-entry system is indeed based on the Mars 96 vehicles: "DaimlerChrysler cooperated with Moscow-based NPO Lavochkin to develop the Inflatable Reentry Descent Technology as a compact and cheap way of returning cargo from space. This system was originally designed for Russia's Mars '96 spacecraft. That project failed to leave the Earth orbit after its launch by a Proton rocket..."

Bob Shaw


--------------------
Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blobrana
post Oct 8 2005, 11:41 PM
Post #14


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 8-August 05
Member No.: 457



An agency official said experts could not establish communication with the vehicle because it might have landed in an area with heavy radio interference or its transmitter had been damaged during the landing. A search would continue for three days as a matter of routine; but it is too early to declare the craft lost.

The Demonstrator launched successfully.

R-29R Volna (Wave) rocket which is based on an RSM-50 ICBM (SS-N-18, 'Stingray'), a design that is very old by todays standards.

For the Cryosat launch, the Rockot's Breeze-KM upper stage is fairly new. The SS-19 ballistic missile to which the second stage was added, is however very dated.

Seemingly the booster unit did not switch on; the flight computer had a missing command.
Doh!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BruceMoomaw_*
post Oct 9 2005, 02:10 AM
Post #15





Guests






QUOTE (ugordan @ Oct 8 2005, 08:50 PM)
Rest assured, even if only half of the Soviet ICBM force reached the U.S., you'd still be in for one heck of a bad time. The amount of overkill, even today, still seems mindblowing.  ph34r.gif
*


Oh, I know. I didn't say it was MUCH of a consolation. (A few years back, Newsweek had a lengthy article on the staggering amount of overkill in both nation's ICBM forces -- they had entire fusion warheads devoted to taking out individual railroad stations. When Cheney, as Bush Sr.'s Secretary of Defense, was told about this, he gasped, "Who's responsible for this?" "Why, you are, sir," a general replied. All Pentagon officials at all levels had routinely supported gradually piling on more and more and more overkill, and of course the same thing happened on the Soviet side.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd April 2014 - 08:02 PM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is a project of the Planetary Society and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep this forum up and running by contributing here.