Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Space

Russian Rocket Crashes In Siberia 96

An anonymous reader writes: A Russian Proton-M rocket carrying a Mexican satellite broke down shortly after launch and crashed in Siberia. Russian space agency Roscosmos is investigating the incident, but the cause is not yet known. In the video, the rocket appeared to sputter and stop providing thrust when the third-stage engine unexpectedly switched off. Communications were lost with the rocket before that happened. This comes just a couple weeks after Russia experienced another high profile rocket failure when its cargo ship bound for the International Space Station failed to reach a high enough orbit and began spinning out of control. Russia's Proton family of rockets has been in use since the 1960s, though the current Proton-M incarnation was first flown in 2001.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Russian Rocket Crashes In Siberia

Comments Filter:
  • The GOP continues to gut funding for development of manned private space launch, but will continue to pour money into the SLS, AND having Russia do the manned launches. Fucking insane
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by prefec2 ( 875483 )

      First, The russians use different rockets for human spaceflight and quality problems for the cargo rockets might come from sabotage or the Western emargo.

      And second, the GOP is not interested in space flight at all. They would be if you can kick the commies with it. Otherwise it is not necessary. If they would think positively about space flight, they would have funded NASA accordingly.

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        Russian space tech has been known to be inferior to virtually everything made in the west.

        But being cheap is a virtue too (unless it loses *your* satellite).

        • Russian space tech has been known to be inferior to virtually everything made in the west.

          But being cheap is a virtue too (unless it loses *your* satellite).

          Since probably you are referring to rockets i think you are wrong: Russian rockets are well known to be at least as good as the best Western made (and cheaper). The reason you those failures exist as news is because even *YOUR* satelites are usually launced with *THEIR* rockets! The Russian Proton rockets (with a Western -American- company as a partner to the Russian one who operates them) have a good enough failure rate of about 1 in 10 launches.

          Also keep in mind that some Western rockets use Russian engi

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by WindBourne ( 631190 )
            LOL.
            First, All of America's gov. sats use American launchers. 2 launchers use Russian parts, of which 1 of them blew up several months ago.
            Secondly, SpaceX's F9 is SAFER, and MUCH CHEAPER than the Russian Rockets. In addition, within another year, they will be even cheaper again. Right now, SpaceX has over 1/2 of the commercial launch business that is available for the future.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              LOL. First, All of America's gov. sats use American launchers. 2 launchers use Russian parts, of which 1 of them blew up several months ago. Secondly, SpaceX's F9 is SAFER, and MUCH CHEAPER than the Russian Rockets. In addition, within another year, they will be even cheaper again. Right now, SpaceX has over 1/2 of the commercial launch business that is available for the future.

              First of all: i did not mentioned specificaly USA (other than to inform you that an American company is partner with the Russian that operates the Russian Protons), but just "Western", because i wanted to avoid THIS...

              Also, i used the word "usually": USUALLY, *commercial* satelites are launched with Russian rockets nowdays because of economic reasons - something i find o.k. (note: i am Greek/European - we are "competitors" AND "partners" also!)

              About this "SpaceX has over 1/2 of the commercial launch busine

              • So many things wrong here.
                1) you mentioned that russian parts are used in western rockets. There are exactly TWO rockets that have any major Russian parts. That is OSC and ULA's Atlas. Delta actually has some Russian made parts, or did. And nothing else in Europe uses Russian made, except for your providing a launch site for them and then marketing them.
                2) you are right that we cooperate. However, for the last 10-15 years, America has been cut out of the competition because Boeing, L-Mart and then ULA wer
                • So many things wrong here.

                  With my comment or any of your political issues you may have with Russians and/or GOP [slashdot.org]? Because i really try not to get in to that.

                  1) you mentioned that russian parts are used in western rockets. There are exactly TWO rockets that have any major Russian parts. That is OSC and ULA's Atlas. Delta actually has some Russian made parts, or did. And nothing else in Europe uses Russian made, except for your providing a launch site for them and then marketing them.

                  I just mentioned (not in the comment you reply to but to a previous) "Also keep in mind that some Western rockets use Russian engines and other technology..." - but thanks for the details, i was lazy to write them!

                  2) you are right that we cooperate. However, for the last 10-15 years, America has been cut out of the competition because Boeing, L-Mart and then ULA were worthless. Now, along comes SpaceX and they are destroying EVERYBODY out there. By next year, there is a real good chance that ArianeSpace and all of the various Russian launch systems will be launching only their gov. systems and nothing more. Basically, SpaceX will own 100% of commercial space by the start of 2016. The reason is that not only will FH be live, but so will F9R. In addition, they are SpaceX is currently launching at a rate of about 1 every 3 weeks. In 2016, they will bring that down to 1 every 2 weeks or less.

                  I am not Russian (or Anti-American) - actually i wrote: "note: i am Greek/European - we are "competitors" AND "partners" also!" for anyone to note my comment's "spirit"

                  • I have no issue with the Russians. I have an issue with depending on one group to provide a critical item ( launch ) for so long. The GOP makes a big todo of using Russian, but continue to gut spending on commercial space while increasing our money flow and dendancy on Russia. Total insanity.

                    I want to see the iss group go to the moon. But to do that, we need multiple shlv, multiple manned launchers, multiple base builders, etc.. IOW, we should not depend on any one group for more a year. And right now
                    • Just to clarify: i will never accuse a patriot for his patriotism (i am a Greek that does not "live in the stars") - it is just that, since this was about a commercial type of rocket launching system/business, my comments were in a different "spirit" than the "YOU/US against THEM" that is usual for this kind of discussions, so i tried to stay away from that.

                      I understand that you know enough about the issue, so... i hope we have an understanding!

          • ...good enough failure rate of about 1 in 10 launches.

            ?!

            Damn insurance rates must go higher than their rockets. 10% failure rate is horrible!

        • Not quite, there is a good reason why some of our most critical space launches here in the US are being powered by Russian Engines (at least for now) and it isn't all about cost. The NK-33 (RD-180,AJ26-58, RD-180, etc) has an ISP that most US/European rocket scientists didn't even think was technically possible with RP-1 until after the end of the cold war some heard rumors of the stats for the Russian engine that was supposed to power their moon shot and investigated. The Russians simply had a different

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Virtucon ( 127420 )

        Sabotage huh? Any proof of that or are you just echoing what Russia Today says? Launching things into space isn't without risks and it knows no geopolitical boundaries.

        I think you'll also find that NASA's budget continually grows yet they're not flying shuttles, they still have the ISS (3+ Billion/yr) and they still
        have their other programs.

        Also, if you look at the administrations request for NASA they were funded above their 2015 budget. If the Executive Branch asks for X dollars and Congress funds the

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by WindBourne ( 631190 )
        First, A progress using the same rocket as manned launches failed last month. That progress is the same as a Soyuz.

        Secondly, all of the companies are suffering from the same problem over there: quality control.

        Thirdly, the quality issues started long before the embargo.

        Finally, the GOP is putting loads of money into SLS. Why? Because they view NASA as a jobs bill for themselves.
      • No one in the government really cares about space flight very much these days, except for the people at NASA. No wonder NASA has less than one percent of the entire national budget. On the other hand, no one wants to stop pouring trillions into the massive military. I guess human exploration of the comos isn't very high on their priority list...
      • by Yoda222 ( 943886 )

        It cannot be due to the Western embargo. Here is a quote from Putin: “The response of the Russian Federation to Western sanctions is legal and valid. It will help, and not harm our domestic economy,

        The russian space industry being part of the russian domestic economy, the embargo cannot be the cause of these failures

        .

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      The GOP continues to gut funding for development of manned private space launch, but will continue to pour money into the SLS, AND having Russia do the manned launches. Fucking insane

      The International Launch Services who operates those Proton rockets is a joint venture between a primary private Russian and an American (i think Lockheed Martin) partner - plus, those Proton rockets have a failure rate about 1 in 10 launches, which is good enough. So i think both the economic and the "patriotic" reasons you mention are covered enough right now. Of course more development is always good, but...

    • by Virtucon ( 127420 ) on Saturday May 16, 2015 @09:59AM (#49705485)

      Actually you'll find that the request for funding for Russian rockets comes from the current administration. Last time I checked, he wasn't a member of the GOP.
      It's hypocritical to say you'll sanction Russia for issues in the Ukraine yet lobby congress for money to buy the rockets.

      http://www.theblaze.com/storie... [theblaze.com]

      • And you have it wrong.
        When the shuttle was stopped, W started paying Russia for launching our astronauts.
        We have been doing it eversince. The problem is, that the GOP would rather pay MORE money to Russia for launching humans, then pay less money to our private space program to get multiple launchers off the ground.

        And it is the house GOP that is gutting our private space again, and actually pushed for more flights with Russia.

        No doubt, when Russia loses a manned flight, then the GOP will wonder wha
        • And it was the Obama administration who came up with the plan, you have it wrong. The Obama administration stopped the shuttle, the Bush administration had a plan to replace it and I think you'll find that both sides of the aisle wanted to keep the shuttles and not lose any US manned launch capabilities.

          It's interesting to hear these comments from a few years ago.
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]

          Also, you should review the mixed messages about NASA and space exploration that have come from this administrat

          • http://nasawatch.com/archives/... [nasawatch.com] Ummm no.

            From Bush's 2005 speech "New Vision for Space Exploration Program:

            "To meet this goal, we will return the Space Shuttle to flight as soon as possible, consistent with safety concerns and the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. The Shuttle's chief purpose over the next several years will be to help finish assembly of the International Space Station. In 2010, the Space Shuttle -- after nearly 30 years of duty -- will be retired from serv

          • From the same Wikipedia link you posted: "The Obama administration instituted the Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee, also known as the Augustine Commission, to review the human spaceflight plans of the United States after the time NASA had planned to retire the Space Shuttle. .... The Committee judged the 9 year old Constellation program to be so behind schedule, underfunded and over budget that meeting any of its goals would not be possible. The President removed the program from t

      • BTW, that article was from more than a year ago, and was wrong.
        it was NOT Obama that lobbied for the monies. O lobbied to allow ULA to be allowed their current order. ULA and OSC continue to push to be allowed to buy and use Russian engines. Oddly, the GOP is split. About 1/2 of them are pushing it, and the other half are joining O and the dems in saying NO.
        • Sorry, that article was published and you somehow don't provide any citation that it's wrong. Strange.. Obama asked for funding of Proton's and Manned rockets to service the ISS and change crews, it's his decision and its hypocritical but he's fucked himself by his administration's decisions regarding NASA and manned launch capabilities. The smart thing would be to mothball the ISS until the US manned capability returns because it appears that international politics and Russian failures put the ISS miss

    • Funny how they're against Big Gubment - unless it's supplying pork to their districts.
    • by the gnat ( 153162 ) on Saturday May 16, 2015 @01:24PM (#49706419)

      It goes against every instinct in my body to defend the GOP, but it's a bit unfair to attack the party for "block[ing] private space" when just below this article was another article about Congress making policy to suit the private space industry [slashdot.org], mainly on the Republican side [parabolicarc.com]:

      The commercial space industry had a great day on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, with the Republican-controlled House Science Committee giving it most of what it wanted while swatting away proposed changes from the minority Democrats.

      Among the goodies approved by the committee: a decade-long extension of the moratorium on regulating commercial human spaceflight; a nine-year extension of industry-government cost sharing for damages caused by launch accidents; and an act that would give companies property rights to materials they mine from asteroids.

      • The house GOP is the one gutting private space. They continue to cut funding for CCxDev, while pushing funds for SLS and Russian launches.

        What you posted had absolutely NOTHING to do with funding, but 1 bill that was put forward in a committee and will likely not clear the senate.
  • they need a Russian porn director.
  • For decades launching these rockets was not a problem for Russia. However, since the Western embargo they had several problems with their rockets on their own launch site, while they had no problem in human space flight and when starting in Kourou, French Guiana. However, the Soyuz-2 used in French Guiana is a completely different rocket than the Proton-M which just had that accident.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      So, it's our fault that the Russians can't successfully launch a Russian rocket from a Russian launch site?

      Interesting theory, that.

      • So, it's our fault that the Russians can't successfully launch a Russian rocket from a Russian launch site?

        Interesting theory, that.

        It's rocket science....

        It's possible that they aren't able to get certain parts from their standard outside supplier and are forced to use local, Chinese, or black market parts due to the embargo. All you need is one part that isn't manufactured to the right quality or specification...

        • A very good reason not to start emargo-causing wars...

      • by prefec2 ( 875483 )

        The idea of an embargo is that the embargoed country is weakened and less able to get things done. Fault, however, implies that we build the rocket or we use some CIA means to destroy the rocket. While the latter could be possible, I assume that the embargo limits access to parts or tools which they need to import from the West and now they need it to import it from somewhere else, e.g., China.

        To be clear on that it is definitely the Russians fault, if they are not able to build their rockets up to their ow

    • by thrich81 ( 1357561 ) on Saturday May 16, 2015 @09:19AM (#49705315)

      Per Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P... [wikipedia.org], ten Proton-M launches have failed, the most recent before this being July 2013 and May 2014.The recent Western sanctions were not announced until March 2014. Doesn't seem possible that the sanctions and the Proton failures can be related.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by WindBourne ( 631190 )
        most ppl will continue to ignore the fact that the proton-M has over a 10% failure rate. That is a pretty high rate.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      For decades launching these rockets was not a problem for Russia.

      Decades? The Proton-M was first launched in 2001, and has had 10 launch failures. The Proton-K? I can find at least 3 failures in the 1990s and several in the 1980s and 1970s.

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

      And that's this type of rocket. There are others and they have had problems too.

      Stop the exaggerating.

    • by Virtucon ( 127420 ) on Saturday May 16, 2015 @10:18AM (#49705553)

      You're still full of shit

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      As of May 2015, ten Proton-M launches have failed.

      How is somehow a western conspiracy that these rockets have failed. What motivation would the US have in sabotaging a launch system that's still used by the ISS of which NASA spends over $3B supporting?

      If you also would bother to read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] I think you'll find that although it's gotten better with the Proton K and Proton M, they still have a failure once in awhile. As you go back in time, you'll find that those beloved Protons had more failures than you'd probably like to admit. To be sure, the Atlas/Delta and Titan launch vehicles have also had their share of failures. It comes with the territory so drop the bullshit of it being
      a conspiracy or sabotage and just admit that shit happens!

    • For decades launching these rockets was not a problem for Russia.

      Actually, for several decades, they had just about as many problems as they do now... and their success ratio was more-or-less in the same range (.98-.99) as the Shuttle (or pretty much any other launcher*). The only things that have significantly changed is that until the fall of the Soviet Union you never heard about the failures in the first place, and in the last decade or so the failures have started being covered in the non-specialist

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by WindBourne ( 631190 )
      First off, Russia had has ALWAYS had issues. Far more than is acknowledged.
      Secondly, Russia had quality issues prior to the embargo. This is not their first loss of a progress to the ISS, or now a loss of a sat.
    • For decades launching these rockets was not a problem for Russia.

      The problems at Roscosmos couldn't have anything to do with financial irregularities and misuse of funds [parabolicarc.com], or financial pressures [cnn.com] caused by the current economic crisis. Nope. Nothing to see here. Move along.

  • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Saturday May 16, 2015 @09:00AM (#49705215)
    All of these payloads are insured. The reinsurance companies can't be too happy though...oh well, money goes in, money goes out.
  • In Soviet Russia Rocket Sputniks you!

  • by Anonymous Coward

    may be it's time to start using ISRO for sattelite launches... Seems cheap and reliable..

  • Obligatory (Score:4, Funny)

    by ArcadeMan ( 2766669 ) on Saturday May 16, 2015 @09:12AM (#49705281)

    Mexican satellite... Russian rockets... all made with parts from Taiwan!

  • That was obviously not 3rd stage but the 1st one which failed. The incident occurred just under 2 minutes of flight, right about the time where the first stage burns out and the second stage ignites. The article mentions that the satellite with the third stage would have crashed somewhere in Siberia, not that the 3rd stage has malfunctioned. The 3rd stage motor is the one that provides the final boost and orbital corrections and probably didn't even ignite yet in this accident.

    Learn to read and use common s

    • by janoc ( 699997 )

      Arg correction. Actually the video is misleading. The "sputter" and flameout in the video just under 2 minutes of flight is normal staging, the first stage separating and the second stage igniting - you can even see the second stage continuing on. The video has nothing to do with the accident.

      According to the official press release [federalspace.ru], the accident has occurred at 497 second of flight, with the third stage having an "anomaly" at 161km of altitude. The satellite and the upper stage practically completely burned

  • Sounds like they're getting contaminated fuel. Happened to me way back when you could go out for a drive without worrying about how much it was going to hurt your wallet to tank up. Switched supplier to a closer pump, wrecked my engine. Iron filings in their ground tank. Some cunt of a minimum wage monkey I reckon.

    • by fnj ( 64210 )

      Your fuel filter is so piss poor that it won't trap iron filings?

      • by ihtoit ( 3393327 )

        it was more swarf than filings-grade, the fuel filter was shredded. Lab-grade filings will slime in the filter and simply block it, forcing any fuel that does get past to do so by bypassing the screen. Either way, such particulate contamination will get into the entire fuel system eventually and *can* blow the valves.

  • by PPH ( 736903 ) on Saturday May 16, 2015 @11:35AM (#49705911)

    Where's the obligatory dash-cam video?

    • Was I the only one disappointed that the video on the CNN site didn't involve a huge explosion, preferably upon hitting ground? I find some of these launch failure videos almost [youtube.com] pornographic [youtube.com].

      (Yes, I realize it's much better for the rocket to burn up in orbit instead of crashing in a populated area [youtube.com].)

    • by Anonymous Coward

      the rocket had to crash, the entire space program is a deception, there are no satelites, its all fraud, space flight is not possible, google photos of earth from space and see for yourself, there are no authentic photos of earth from space simply because earth is flat and has a dome over it. do some research on this yourself, good luck trying to prove earth is a ball. NASA use all kind of trickery to fake space missions like fish eye lenses, water tanks and so on

I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best. -- Oscar Wilde

Working...