First failure of Breeze-M upper stage

[syndroma]

It was 13th Breeze-M launched.

 

[edkyle98]

It was actually the 15th Breeze M launched. It was the 11th Proton M/Breeze M combination. Four other Proton K/ Breeze M flights also took place, but the first one in 1999 never had a chance to start because the Proton K beneath it failed. In addition, there have been 10 Breeze K or KM stages launched atop Rokot vehicles.<br /><br />The orbit achieved (something like 500 x 14500 km) hints that the failure occurred during the second or third Breeze burn, of four planned. A drop tank was supposed to be jettisonned between the second and third burns. I wonder if something might have gone wrong with the tank jettison.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[CalliArcale]

That's an interesting thought. It would fit with what happened. It'll be interesting to see what the failure review board and the state commission find out about this accident.<br /><br />I hope the customer doesn't get too anxious about the Arabsat 4B launch scheduled on the same launch vehicle/upper stage later this year. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"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."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[syndroma]

Yes, I was wrong about 13th.<br /><br />Date, LV, Upper Stage, Payload<br />07/05/1999 - Proton-K - Breeze-M #88501 - Raduga - LV failure<br />06/06/2000 - Proton-K - Breeze-M #88502 - Gorizont-33<br />04/07/2001 - Proton-M - Breeze-M #88503 - Ekran-M18<br />12/29/2002 - Proton-M - Breeze-M #88504 - Nimiq<br />06/06/2003 - Proton-K - Breeze-M #88505 - AMC-9<br />12/10/2003 - Proton-K - Breeze-M #88506 - Kosmos-2402, 2403, 2404<br />03/15/2004 - Proton-M - Breeze-M #88507 - Eutelsat-W3A<br />06/16/2004 - Proton-M - Breeze-M #88509 - Intelsat-10-02<br />08/04/2004 - Proton-M - Breeze-M #88508 - Amazonas<br />10/14/2004 - Proton-M - Breeze-M #88510 - AMC-15<br />02/03/2005 - Proton-M - Breeze-M #88511 - AMC-12<br />05/22/2005 - Proton-M - Breeze-M #88512 - DirecTV-8<br />09/08/2005 - Proton-M - Breeze-M #88513 - Anik F-1R<br />12/29/2005 - Proton-M - Breeze-M #88514 - AMC-23<br />02/28/2006 - Proton-M - Breeze-M #88515 - Arabsat-4A - Upper stage failure<br /><br />Breeze-K is a very different beast AFAIK.

 

[syndroma]

Orbit achieved:<br />51.5, 508 x 14695 km<br /><br />The drop tank planned orbit:<br />51.5, 669 x 22257 km<br /><br />So, I guess the failure occurred late in the second burn. There's a confusion about whether satellite separated or not. Even if it did, the orbit seems pretty useless.

 

[russophile]

There is a rumour circulating that the fourth stage used in the Arabsat launch had recycled parts. There was a launch delayed in December because of faulty gyros and it is speculated that these repaired or refurbished parts were slipped into the next stage to keep on schedule.<br /><br />Anybody know if this could be true?

 

[no_way]

the peculiar thing about it is that it might develop into first arab moon mission <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />no, really, they are planning to recover the orbit by using a moon slingshot:<br />http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11594666/#060301d<br />Round-the-moon rescue? What can you do with a satellite in a useless orbit? That's the question now facing the folks who built, launched and hoped to use the Arabsat 4A telecommunications satellite — and one of the potential answers could involve an unorthodox trip all the way around the moon to get the orbit back in sync.

 

[russophile]

Check this out:<br /><br />http://www.kfetter.com/satvideo/28943.wmv<br /><br />Look carefully after the upper stage passes the bright fixed star. Following behind it on the same orbital track is ANOTHER OBJECT.<br /><br />What could that be?

 

[edkyle98]

"Check this out:<br /><br />http://www.kfetter.com/satvideo/28943.wmv<br /><br />Look carefully after the upper stage passes the bright fixed star. Following behind it on the same orbital track is ANOTHER OBJECT.<br /><br />What could that be?"<br /><br />My guess is that these two objects include the Breeze upper stage and the separated Arabsat 4A satellite. I've no idea which would be which! International Launch Services reported that the satellite had been separated after the upper stage failed.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[kumbarov]

If it is possible to recover such an orbit, why don't the launch companies develop a program which will use smaller and cheaper launchers using the moon gravity?

 

[kumbarov]

Yes Asiasat was the first to get gravity assist from the moon.

 

[mlorrey]

Do these sats actually go around the moon, or simply thrust when the moon is in an advantageous position to minimize their gravity drag losses? It seems to me that going all the way around the moon would demand a lot more delta-v than these sats have.<br /><br />I can't say as I'm surprised that arabsat didn't make it to orbit. Methinks the US gov't would like to minimize the amount of anti-semitic anti-western hate media beaming over the airwaves as possible...

 

[mlorrey]

Ah, yes, of course, being launched from Baikanour is a bit far north.

 

[strandedonearth]

Ah yes, the higher altitude the better for a plain old plane change <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />. The moon should be high enough <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[mlorrey]

Ah, very good tip. Interesting relationship.

 

[strandedonearth]

Gotta love the english language, SG, you're stuck on 'plain' for a plane change <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />. Point taken about altitude vs velocity, of course, and thanks for the tidbit that escape velocity is about 41% (square root of 2 = 1.414, IIRC) more than the velocity of the current circular orbit.