A Programing Error Blasted 19 Russian Satellites Back Towards Earth (arstechnica.com) 90
An anonymous reader quotes Ars Technica's report on Russia's failed attempt to launch 19 satellites into orbit on Tuesday:
Instead of boosting its payload, the Soyuz 2.1b rocket's Fregat upper stage fired in the wrong direction, sending the satellites on a suborbital trajectory instead, burning them up in Earth's atmosphere... According to normally reliable Russian Space Web, a programming error caused the Fregat upper stage, which is the spacecraft on top of the rocket that deploys satellites, to be unable to orient itself. Specifically, the site reports, the Fregat's flight control system did not have the correct settings for a mission launching from the country's new Vostochny cosmodrome. It evidently was still programmed for Baikonur, or one of Russia's other spaceports capable of launching the workhorse Soyuz vehicle. Essentially, then, after the Fregat vehicle separated from the Soyuz rocket, it was unable to find its correct orientation. Therefore, when the Fregat first fired its engines to boost the satellites into orbit, it was still trying to correct this orientation -- and was in fact aimed downward toward Earth.
Though the Fregat space tug has been in operation since the 1990s, this is its fourth failure -- all of which have happened within the last 8 years.
"In each of the cases, the satellite did not reach its desired orbit," reports Ars Technica, adding "As the country's heritage rockets and upper stages continue to age, the concern is that the failure rate will increase."
"In each of the cases, the satellite did not reach its desired orbit," reports Ars Technica, adding "As the country's heritage rockets and upper stages continue to age, the concern is that the failure rate will increase."
there has to be a... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: there has to be a... (Score:2, Informative)
In USA everyone acts like the sky is falling.
In Soviet Russia the sky is actually falling!
Re:there has to be a... (Score:5, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, satellites orient you!
Re: (Score:1)
In Soviet Russia, configuration management is as difficult as in everywhere else. Wait, that wasn't funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the USA destroyed 12 of its own satellites?
Re: (Score:2)
So the USA destroyed 12 of its own satellites?
In 21st Century Soviet America, it only makes sense that we did.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even a joke. Baikonur is in Kazakhstan, nor Russia, but it was in USSR. Most of Russian space know how is derived straight from USSR base.
Having to rework every little bit about launch trajectories for a new launch site is a difficult thing, and someone clearly fucked up here by assuming that "it always worked before". Because it did, back in Soviet days.
Re: (Score:2)
an "In Soviet Russia" joke hiding in there somewhere
In Soviet Russia, vodka is great!
Nature of the Failure Mode (Score:5, Insightful)
But the nature of this specific failure mode has absolutely nothing to do with the age of the rockets or stages, but was due instead to one or more lapses in pre-flight checks of the configuration parameters for the launch. We don't even know for sure if the part which failed (the Fregat Upper Stage) was set by the launch agency directly, or the satellite manufacturer.
In a similar way, the comments also imply that the vehicles themselves age in some way - despite the fact that the cost and complexity of them means that they are literally custom-made for each launch. They are certainly not left languishing "on the shelf" for months or years before use.
Don't get me wrong, any launch failure is unwanted and to be avoided at all costs - regardless of the nationality or company involved. But in this case, I'm not sure the coverage reflects reality.
Re:Nature of the Failure Mode (Score:4, Insightful)
Early reporting of disasters is always rife with inaccuracy, and someone may have wanted to jump the facts with some speculation about the malfunction.
The rocket was programmed to orient from the old spaceport in Baikonur, rather than it's launch from the new Vostochny cosmodrome. Some poor fellow's wearing a massive face palm right now.
Re: (Score:1)
Agreed, totally, with 'ytene', and generally, with 'rmdingler'.
The "Fake" part is that it is apparent that some reports expect us to believe that, even though this launch is (new), that there is something 'old' causing issues.
Shame on the initial reporter to suggest or imply that an old program is to blame.
More like new personnel doing poor jobs putting this rocket together.
Yep, there seems to be lots of inaccuracies and sp
Re: (Score:2)
Either that, or this was a test of a FOBS (Fractional Orbit Bombardment System)....
Re: (Score:2)
While that sounds right, and I thought the same thing at first, it may be that they also have newer upper stages with better error detection electronics.
We don't know. It might be accurate and a clue where they said too much, or it might be a mistake of translation or reporting.
Just because it is "custom made for each launch" doesn't mean all the parts were manufactured this year. Also, we don't know if the parts they claim to use are really the parts they do use; and they provide their own oversight so no
Re: (Score:2)
"As the country's heritage rockets and upper stages continue to age, the concern is that the failure rate will increase." is just stupid.
In rocketry an older system means a proven system and is SAFER. The failure here was because it was a NEW configuration launching from a NEW launchstation.
If everything had been AGED, it would have gone fine.
Goes to show just because you get to write an article doesnt mean you are not stupid, it just means you are good at stringing words together.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have a proper educational system, new people will pick up old systems as they enter work force and work on them in entry level jobs doing those menial things you need to do to keep them maintained under tutelage of experienced specialists.
This is actually a major problem point for Russia, and likely one of the strategic reasons US decided to pick a major fight with Russia now, rather than earlier or later. Soviet Union collapsed in early 1990s, and with it, the education system and the "university to
Re: (Score:3)
It's not always about uniting the public through an external enemy. Sometimes it's just finding an excuse for those hyper-expensive defence programs. IMHO China isn't there yet with its military hardware, while Russia which is putting out new military hardware and making a big noise about it (maybe some exaggeration included), it just what the doctor ordered.
Maybe it was closer than we think (Score:2)
As the country's heritage rockets and upper stages continue to age
The way that probably should have been worded was "as the nations experienced rocket scientists continue to age..."
Just all around it would appear the whole Russian rocketry program is decaying. Makes you wonder how the nuclear fleet is faring.
Re: (Score:2)
Suppressed quote from supervisor (Score:2)
It's not being reported, but in the control room, the supervisor, a former drill instructor, was screaming, "Your OTHER up!" :)
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
That's not always true, NK-33 engines were launched decades after being made. Space shuttle engines are being brought out of retirement for the SLS.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you hear? Flat Earth Theory was started by NASA and the ATC to keep you from finding the real truth: Great Ice Ball Earth Theory [tapatalk-cdn.com]. Get woke sheeples!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I didn't see anything in the summary that the rocket had rusted...
Don't forget the US is relying on Russia (Score:2)
to carry our astronauts to the space station.
Re: (Score:2)
and it may be a LAST day for a bunch of people.
whats russian for YOUR FIRED!!
Re: (Score:3)
whats russian for YOUR FIRED!!
I don't know, but the unemployment insurance is called Gulag.
Re: (Score:2)
whose what fired?
Did I miss several invasions? (Score:4, Informative)
Nineteen Russian satellites? Well, including the 12 American, the Canadian one, the Norwegian one, two from Sweden and the one from Germany that is...
Re: (Score:1)
"Nineteen Russian satellites?" They became Russia's satellites the minute they failed to reach orbit. The "break it you buy it" orbital services contract clause went into effect.
Slashdot headline is factually incorrect (Score:5, Informative)
The rocket was Russian, but the satellites that were riding on it were from various countries: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/russian-rocket-launch-1.4422547 "The booster also carried 18 micro satellites built in Canada, Germany, Japan, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States."
Not a programming error (Score:2)
This is user error. It's like going to Google Maps and plugging in a route for New York to Atlanta when you live in LA, and then wondering why you don't have directions to Denver. Then you drive around aimlessly looking for the tunnels, end up in a bad neighborhood and get robbed.
Re: (Score:2)
It happens to me every time I use Google Maps for directions, because I keep location off until I need it, and I'm usually indoors with no GPS (and I don't let it use network location) and so it thinks I am starting from wherever I last used the GPS. Which is usually some remote place in the mountains, wherever I was parked when I returned to my vehicle and turned of GPS.
Unlike the Russian rocket though, it updates automatically as soon as I walk outside.
Re: (Score:2)
Why was Russia trying to put a bunch of satellites in Denver?
Re: (Score:3)
Programmed in the sense of "programming your VCR," or "television programming," not programming as in writing computer software.
http://www.dictionary.com/brow... [dictionary.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's exactly how the Russian specialists are educated in Russian universities.
Being a Russian I have seen the tests for exams of "Automatic control theory". And there was a test "There is a satellite with given moment of inertia and given torque from thrusters. Turn the satellite 30 degrees".
The NORMAL technical decision is "Give it some thrust and wait until it turns in position when it's expected to be slightly before the needed target position after braking. Then turn thrusters ON and OFF according to t
Re: (Score:1)
If you are facing the blue and white thing, you are probably in the wrong direction.
C'mon guys, this isn't rocket science. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually this is fairly typical of rocket science, at least as I understand it. Spacecraft are complex systems where they only way to avoid catastrophe is to get an almost incomprehensible number of easy-to-overlook details right. Maybe it's the unit conversions, or the temperature rating of the booster O-rings, or the combustibility of cabin materials in a pure oxygen atmosphere.
Maybe this is not what we programmers would technically call a "programming error", although other people might characterize it that way, but it comes from a practice that is all-too-familiar: cutting values from one source and pasting them into another, something you do for convenience but which opens the door for details to be wrong in an unexpected way.
Video (Score:2)
I don't mean to be morbid, as this is a pretty frustrating thing if you're an engineer of any sort, but does anyone have a link to a video of the incident?
Re:Video (Score:5, Informative)
Did my own research.
The third stage burned up reentering the atmosphere over the north Atlantic. The fireball was observed by at least one transatlantic commercial flight.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com... [russianspaceweb.com]
See near bottom of page.
"Configuration error", not "programming error" (Score:3)
From what I can tell, the programming on the spacecraft functioned fine, and operated according to the time-honored "garbage in, garbage out" principle. It was given instructions to orient itself towards Earth and ignite its engines, and it did. Those instructions were wrong, but that is very much a configuration error, not a programming error.
Stop blaming programmers for all the world's ills.
Ooooops. (Score:1)