Another Proton Failure

MeteorWayne · Mar 15, 2008

Proton rocket suffers launch failure For the second time in six months, a commercial launch of the Russian Proton rocket ended in failure early Saturday after an undetermined problem struck the booster's upper stage, leaving the mission's DISH Network broadcasting payload in a useless orbit.http://www.spaceflightnow.com/proton/amc14/ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

bobble_bob · Mar 15, 2008

So will they have to shoot it down or can they just leave it up there doing nothing?  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Mar 15, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So will they have to shoot it down or can they just leave it up there doing nothing?  Posted by bobble_bob</DIV>Well, if you read the link, the choices are:Finding some way to use the moon to use the remaining fuel most efficiently, orDeorbiting it so the Insurance will pay off in full.They be a ponderin' <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

SpaceKiwi · Mar 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They be a ponderin' Posted by meteorwayne</DIV> I'd love to be privvy to those discussions, it's amazing to think they might be able to use the Moon to rectify the situation.  You'd have to think that, unless it's very propellant-efficient to do so, they will go for the de-orbit and collect the insurance cheque though.  It would be a great shame to have to expend all your station-keeping reserves just to get the bird parked right.I bet the ILS and Proton folks have the phone off the hook right now.  There must be a few upcoming customers getting a little nervous that they've made the right decision. SK <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

MeteorWayne · Mar 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So will they have to shoot it down or can they just leave it up there doing nothing?  Posted by bobble_bob</DIV>It's in a high enough orbit that it will be fine.They are still deciding what to do. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

centsworth_II · Mar 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I'd love to be privvy to those discussions, it's amazing to think they might be able to use the Moon to rectify the situation.... Posted by SpaceKiwi</DIV>I wondered at the too.  Then I thought, the moon does move entire oceans a few feet to make the tides.  Then I wondered how the Moon affects all satellites.  Do measures have to be routinely taken to account for its effects on orbits?  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Mar 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I wondered at the too.  Then I thought, the moon does move entire oceans a few feet to make the tides.  Then I wondered how the Moon affects all satellites.  Do measures have to be routinely taken to account for its effects on orbits?  Posted by centsworth_II</DIV>I don't believe it's significant for objects in earth orbit, since the earths gravity is so much more significant.Possible for objects at the Geo stationary/synchronous orbit level it might need to be considered. The use of the moon in this case refers to a long tortuous path that one satellite operator used to get the orbit aligned that involved actually partially orbiting the moon to shift the orbital plane with this type of failure.But that's from memory, so D tails are fuzzy... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Cygnus_X_1 · Mar 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I wondered at the too.  Then I thought, the moon does move entire oceans a few feet to make the tides.  Then I wondered how the Moon affects all satellites.  Do measures have to be routinely taken to account for its effects on orbits?  Posted by centsworth_II</DIV> It is taken into consideration <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

windnwar · Mar 16, 2008

I found the link detailing the method used for Asia Sat 3 and it's moon orbit to get it in place. http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/profile.cfm?MCode=Asiasat&Display=ReadMoreThe sat was put into a proper orbit at the cost of most of its fuel which reduced its effective lifespan by half. Also one of its solar panels didn't deploy because a tether failed due to the heating and cooling it experienced but had not been designed to withstand. It became the first commercial sat to orbit the moon. Since it was written off as a total loss, by getting half the life out of it, they got a pretty good deal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein" </div>

MeteorWayne · Mar 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I found the link detailing the method used for Asia Sat 3 and it's moon orbit to get it in place. http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/profile.cfm?MCode=Asiasat&Display=ReadMoreThe sat was put into a proper orbit at the cost of most of its fuel which reduced its effective lifespan by half. Also one of its solar panels didn't deploy because a tether failed due to the heating and cooling it experienced but had not been designed to withstand. It became the first commercial sat to orbit the moon. Since it was written off as a total loss, by getting half the life out of it, they got a pretty good deal. Posted by windnwar</DIV>Thanx for finding that, you perpetually depressed robot, you

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

3488 · Mar 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I found the link detailing the method used for Asia Sat 3 and it's moon orbit to get it in place. http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/missions/profile.cfm?MCode=Asiasat&Display=ReadMoreThe sat was put into a proper orbit at the cost of most of its fuel which reduced its effective lifespan by half. Also one of its solar panels didn't deploy because a tether failed due to the heating and cooling it experienced but had not been designed to withstand. It became the first commercial sat to orbit the moon. Since it was written off as a total loss, by getting half the life out of it, they got a pretty good deal. Posted by windnwar</DIV>Hi windnwar,Yes that was pretty clever, two encounters with the Moon, put Asia Sat 3 into geostationary orbit.It looks like some 'fiddling' had caused the problem, the DM3 Block was designed for a 2.4 metric tonnes payload max, whereas Asia Sat 3 was 2.53 metric tonnes.Something does not ring quite true, it was either fraud to cut costs or just crappy administration, but I fail to see how a 2.53 metric tonne satellite was launched using an upper stage that was desgned for 2.4 metric tonnes max?Perhaps some explaining needs to be done. I wonder if an overloaded payload caused this latest failure?Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before". Linda Morabito on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.http://www.launchphotography.com/ http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearthhttp://web.me.com/meridianijournal </div>

Zipi · Mar 16, 2008

I'm just wondering can this affect to ISS construction? MPLM is designed to launch with Proton and if it is unreliable which could mean delays or even destroys MPLM during the launch what are the contingencies to whole ISS? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

windnwar · Mar 16, 2008

Replying to 3488, It's possible though I'd imagine the insurers will look at that first to see if it's the case. I did a little further digging, looks like the moon orbit was proposed to Hughes by a couple former JPL guys, one of which had been working on several different theories for novel orbits. His plan would have put it in place in only one orbit and used less fuel then was used by Hughes in the two orbits, however it had the problem of leaving the sat out of communication with ground for alot longer, roughly 3-5 months. Hughes got 4 years of service out of it, if his plan had worked it'd have been closer to 7 years of use. Of course who knows what sort of damage might have been done to the sat being beyond moon orbit for that long. In the end the sat apparently started having bad cells in its battery pack, probably because of the greater strain on them with only one fully functioning solar panel. Still it was a pretty cool idea and Hughes funded it themselves with $1 million out of thier own pocket. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein" </div>

Zipi · Apr 11, 2008

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Boeing_Patent_Shuts_Down_AMC_14_Lunar_Flyby_Salvage_Attempt_999.html <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-surprised.gif" border="0" alt="Surprised" title="Surprised" />Is this real? Seems that patents don't have any limits... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

CalliArcale · Apr 14, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Is this real? Seems that patents don't have any limits... Posted by Zipi</DIV>Unfortunately, that sounds entirely plausible.  You can patent anything you want, provided the patent clerk isn't reading it too carefully -- and they get so many patent applications that a lot of stupid patents slip by them.  They mainly make sure there isn't a similar patent already, without checking to see if it's legitimate in other ways.  For instance, you can  patent things which don't exist, and that can be totally legitimate -- you're patenting the idea, theoretically in hopes of eventually making it practical and making money off of it.  A legitimate patent is supposed to be something which is novel.  So if there is "prior art" (somebody's done it before), the patent can be invalidated.  Certainly gravity assists have been done before, including ones involving the Moon.  There was even a scientific spacecraft (Japanese, IIRC) which was stranded in the wrong orbit but saved by gravity assists, so prior art certainly exists.  The technique also cannot be obvious, though this is a bit of a judgment call.  One could argue that to anybody who knows anything about celestial mechanics, this fails the obviousness test.Bottom line, this patent would not stand up to a legal challenge. The problem with patents is that you'd have to *pay* to mount a legal challenge. Sure, you might be able to sue to recover court costs, but you'd have to have enough capital to keep the court case going long enough.  Large corporations thus have an unfair advantage in this kind of patent battle, and some particularly unscrupulous companies have deliberately exploited patent law for profit.  (Copyright law has also been exploited in this way.  SCO attempted to do this when it obtained copyright to certain Unix source code, but made the fatal mistake of going after IBM first.  This tactic really only works when attacking smaller entities, since the real intent is not to prevail in court but to intimidate potential defendants into settling out of court and/or paying license fees.)  There have been some notable cases in the software arena in recent years, with Amazon's One-Click Technology being one of the more infamous.  Amazon was not attempting to profit from patent protection lawsuits but was instead attempting to defend its market share by preventing others from competing.  They had patented the idea of being able to buy an item from a website with a single click.  This patent was ultimately overturned, as the idea is ridiculously obvious, and Amazon wasn't even the first to use it.  But like all invalid patents, it stood until it was successfully challenged in court.Boeing's patent will probably also stand until it is successfully challenged in court. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

KosmicHero · Apr 14, 2008

Replying to 3488, As for the Asia Sat 3 it is entirely possible that they launched a heavier satellite than they could possibly get to GEO.  When they do this, the satellite is usually responsible for making that final manuever to GEO.  But, had this been the case, I don't know if they would be calling it a launch failure (rather than an on-orbit failure).  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> kosmichero.wordpress.com </div>

windnwar · Apr 16, 2008

Yet another reason why the patent office and copyrights need serious reform. Both are hopelessly broken. Recent examples include the Vonage debacle and the RIM's issues with patents over the Blackberry. Now a days companies that make no products at all simply go out an buy up various patents and then litigate like crazy, they employ no inventors, engineers etc, just an army of lawyers. It would have been very interesting to see this sat attempt tried out, sadly its just going to burn up. grrrrrrrrrrrrr <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein" </div>

CalliArcale · Apr 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yet another reason why the patent office and copyrights need serious reform. Both are hopelessly broken. Recent examples include the Vonage debacle and the RIM's issues with patents over the Blackberry. Now a days companies that make no products at all simply go out an buy up various patents and then litigate like crazy, they employ no inventors, engineers etc, just an army of lawyers. It would have been very interesting to see this sat attempt tried out, sadly its just going to burn up. grrrrrrrrrrrrr Posted by windnwar</DIV>It is worth pointing out that even if Boeing didn't hold that patent, it might not affect the outcome -- apparently SES AMERICOM decided to deorbit before even learning of that possibility.  It is unclear how extensively (or even "if") SES explored the option; sounds like it was a third party who was interested in buying it and trying that out until Boeing exerted its patent claim, perhaps scaring away the insurer, who might not want to get involved in such a dispute. So if SES was uninterested in reboosting or selling from the get-go, the rest is all academic.  (And yes, big corporations can be that boneheaded.)So, either Boeing's at fault for using their dumb patent to hold the spacecraft for ransom, or SES's stupid CEOs are at fault for a lack of vision.  Either way, it's business as usual in the corporate world.  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-undecided.gif" border="0" alt="Undecided" title="Undecided" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

SpaceKiwi · Apr 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A legitimate patent is supposed to be something which is novel.  So if there is "prior art" (somebody's done it before), the patent can be invalidated.  Certainly gravity assists have been done before, including ones involving the Moon. Posted by CalliArcale</DIV> I guess the most celebrated example of this is Apollo 13, though I feel certain some 'legal eagle' would argue successfully that it is not.  Nonetheless you are right, it is a ridiculous attempt on Boeing's part. SK  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/8/9/c852eb08-ea50-41d7-a9eb-b8e699008801.Medium.gif" alt="" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who is this superhero? Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bring Back The Black! </div>

Zipi · Apr 24, 2008

Since no-one hasn't posted this earlier, here it is now: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/proton/amc14/080421report.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

CalliArcale · Apr 24, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I guess the most celebrated example of this is Apollo 13, though I feel certain some 'legal eagle' would argue successfully that it is not.  Nonetheless you are right, it is a ridiculous attempt on Boeing's part. SK  Posted by SpaceKiwi</DIV>It's right up there with "One Click Shopping", IMHO. Thanks, Zipi, for linking to that article about the cause of the accident.  ILS is certainly taking this seriously, which is always nice to see.According to Heavens Above, AMC-14 is still in orbit.  Anyone have any word on how soon it might be deorbited?  One article I had read seemed to suggest it might be any day now.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Another Proton Failure

MeteorWayne

Guest

bobble_bob

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

centsworth_II

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Cygnus_X_1

Guest

windnwar

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

3488

Guest

Zipi

Guest

windnwar

Guest

Zipi

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

KosmicHero

Guest

windnwar

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

SpaceKiwi

Guest

Zipi

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page