May 20, 2014 at 10:39Why, why, our Protons do not fly
I think everyone is already in the know about another accident of the Proton-M launch vehicle with Russian communications satellites on board. The Express-AM4R satellite was lost, which, ironically, was to replace the Express AM4 satellite that did not enter the calculated orbit on August 18, 2011. A new accident occurred on May 16, 2014 - at the 540th second of the flight with the carrier, communication was lost, the engines shut down abnormally, and the head unit did not separate from the rocket.
Puzzled by the question of why accidents occur precisely with Russian satellites, I decided to research this topic a bit.
The first thought that comes to mind is thatpolymers were drained by modern Russian engineers who lost the necessary skills and organization of labor, compared with the Soviet period.
However, turning to Wikipedia ( link1 and link2 ), you can find that in our time the percentage of failures is almost no different from the Soviet one (in both cases, the percentage of successful launches is 89%). And the respected darkalexey has long since even made a more detailed post about this. Yes, at the beginning of Proton flights there were significantly more accidents, but “in the hospital as a whole” there was parity.
Thus, I think there is no difference in which socio-economic structure launches were made.
The second thought, maybe 89% of successful launches is not so little? And what about ourfriends rivals?
The first competitor is Arian-5 European launch vehicle .
The reliability of Ariane 5 launches is an impressive 97%. But at the same time, the launch cost is twice as high - about 220 $ million. 5-6 launches are carried out per year.
The second competitor is Zenit-3SL (Sea Launch) .
Reliability - similar to Proton 89-91%. The cost is also comparable, about $ 80 million. 4-5 launches are carried out per year.
Competitors from the United States - of Delta IV of and Atlas the V .
Reliability coefficient is 95-97%. Launch costs range from an impressive $ 160 million for the Atlas V 521 to a whopping $ 265 million for the Delta IV Heavy. In a year, Americans launch only 5-6 ships of both types.
Thus, we can make a banal conclusion that the reliability of launches directly correlates with their cost.
On Wikipedia there is a wonderful tablet for Proton rivals. I took the liberty of editing it a bit:
Atlas IV has 45 successful launches, but half of them account for the launch of the lightweight options 401 and 501. Excluding them, we get a figure of 19 common launches for heavy modifications. The situation with Delta IV is similar, out of 25 total launches, heavy and medium ones accounted for 21.
The main issue regarding proton accidents is that many accidents are associated with launches of various Russian high-tech communications and navigation satellites. Which, in theory, can compete with foreign satellites. Here is a short list of recent unsuccessful launches:
May 6, 2014 Express-AM4R (Communication Satellites)
July 2, 2013 Glonass-M (Navigation Satellites)
August 6, 2012 Express MD2 (Communication Satellites)
August 18, 2011 Express AM4 (Communication Satellite)
December 5, 2010 Glonass-M (Navigation satellites)
It would seem, it can be argued that insidious saboteurs crept into the very center of Russian cosmonautics and sabotaged the launches of Russian units.
But "not everything is so simple." I liked this opinion, which, incidentally, I met in the LJ respected Zelenyikot :
The proton is on the heels of a promising development of the private American corporation SpaceX Falcon 9. Since 2010, there have been only 9 launches, of which 1 is partially unsuccessful. The launch cost is estimated at $ 49.9 million to $ 56 million depending on the load. But at the same time, the load itself is 13 tons for a low reference orbit (versus 23 tons for Proton) and 4.8 tons (versus 6.15 tons for Proton) for a geo-transition orbit. The heavy version of the Falcon 9 has not even flown.
Proton itself is a “leaving” launch vehicle. It is replaced by the Angara. The hangar is a modular missile, i.e. depending on the required load, there are 8 modifications of the launch vehicle with an output mass of 2 to 50 t for a low reference orbit. Moreover, it is alleged that the complex will be fully designed and manufactured by the cooperation of Russian enterprises located in Russia. The main launch point will also be the fully Russian space launch site Plesetsk. The first launch of the Angara launch vehicle was planned from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome for 2005. But then it was postponed many times: to 2011, to 2012, 2013, and now to 2014. At the moment, this is the ninth transfer of the first launch of the launch vehicle. Dmitry Rogozin reportedback in 2013, the following deadlines for launching a light rocket were May 2014, and heavy on the end of November 2014. Let's see if they start it or not. It is believed that some parts for the Angara are still produced in Ukraine. In this case, the start of the Angara, we will not see soon.
Thus, we can say that the chronic underfinancing of Russian launches rather than mythical saboteurs affects the quality of flights to a large extent. Moreover, more recently, a specific Russian military communications satellite was successfully launched by Proton.
I will not predict anything, because I am not professional in the space industry. I hope that after this accident really correct “financial” measures will be taken, and not “personnel-punitive”. I will also be happy with any additions / clarifications to the article.
Puzzled by the question of why accidents occur precisely with Russian satellites, I decided to research this topic a bit.
Version number one - crooked hands
The first thought that comes to mind is that
However, turning to Wikipedia ( link1 and link2 ), you can find that in our time the percentage of failures is almost no different from the Soviet one (in both cases, the percentage of successful launches is 89%). And the respected darkalexey has long since even made a more detailed post about this. Yes, at the beginning of Proton flights there were significantly more accidents, but “in the hospital as a whole” there was parity.
Thus, I think there is no difference in which socio-economic structure launches were made.
Version number two - maybe others do the same?
The second thought, maybe 89% of successful launches is not so little? And what about our
The first competitor is Arian-5 European launch vehicle .
The reliability of Ariane 5 launches is an impressive 97%. But at the same time, the launch cost is twice as high - about 220 $ million. 5-6 launches are carried out per year.
The second competitor is Zenit-3SL (Sea Launch) .
Reliability - similar to Proton 89-91%. The cost is also comparable, about $ 80 million. 4-5 launches are carried out per year.
Competitors from the United States - of Delta IV of and Atlas the V .
Reliability coefficient is 95-97%. Launch costs range from an impressive $ 160 million for the Atlas V 521 to a whopping $ 265 million for the Delta IV Heavy. In a year, Americans launch only 5-6 ships of both types.
Thus, we can make a banal conclusion that the reliability of launches directly correlates with their cost.
On Wikipedia there is a wonderful tablet for Proton rivals. I took the liberty of editing it a bit:
Atlas IV has 45 successful launches, but half of them account for the launch of the lightweight options 401 and 501. Excluding them, we get a figure of 19 common launches for heavy modifications. The situation with Delta IV is similar, out of 25 total launches, heavy and medium ones accounted for 21.
Back to the long-suffering
The main issue regarding proton accidents is that many accidents are associated with launches of various Russian high-tech communications and navigation satellites. Which, in theory, can compete with foreign satellites. Here is a short list of recent unsuccessful launches:
May 6, 2014 Express-AM4R (Communication Satellites)
July 2, 2013 Glonass-M (Navigation Satellites)
August 6, 2012 Express MD2 (Communication Satellites)
August 18, 2011 Express AM4 (Communication Satellite)
December 5, 2010 Glonass-M (Navigation satellites)
It would seem, it can be argued that insidious saboteurs crept into the very center of Russian cosmonautics and sabotaged the launches of Russian units.
But "not everything is so simple." I liked this opinion, which, incidentally, I met in the LJ respected Zelenyikot :
An essential role at launch is played by the state’s pricing policy.
IN THE WEST: The state always pays more than a commercial buyer. That is, just like that - for the state customer the price is higher. This is due to risk. In the USA, for example, when a government purchases risk-related services, it is forbidden to buy commercial insurance (anti-corruption law). Therefore, the state customer “insures itself” by buying additional services - checks, tests, etc.
Example: Falcon-9 launch price for commercial customers = $ 56 million, and it is fixed - it does not depend on the type of satellite or the final orbit. But - two launches of state satellites by Volkons have already been booked, and they will cost 87 million and 95 million (In fact, commercial customers also buy insurance - 15-25 million, depends on the satellite price. But anyway, the difference is significant) . The state pays more.
In RUSSIA: the opposite is true. The state has a “boyar approach” to Khrunichev - they say that we allow you to trade with Basurmans — for this, give us a discount. And bargains the launch at almost cost. The result is quite obvious - quality suffers.
Miser pays twice. Yes, and crying - also twice.
The proton is on the heels of a promising development of the private American corporation SpaceX Falcon 9. Since 2010, there have been only 9 launches, of which 1 is partially unsuccessful. The launch cost is estimated at $ 49.9 million to $ 56 million depending on the load. But at the same time, the load itself is 13 tons for a low reference orbit (versus 23 tons for Proton) and 4.8 tons (versus 6.15 tons for Proton) for a geo-transition orbit. The heavy version of the Falcon 9 has not even flown.
Proton itself is a “leaving” launch vehicle. It is replaced by the Angara. The hangar is a modular missile, i.e. depending on the required load, there are 8 modifications of the launch vehicle with an output mass of 2 to 50 t for a low reference orbit. Moreover, it is alleged that the complex will be fully designed and manufactured by the cooperation of Russian enterprises located in Russia. The main launch point will also be the fully Russian space launch site Plesetsk. The first launch of the Angara launch vehicle was planned from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome for 2005. But then it was postponed many times: to 2011, to 2012, 2013, and now to 2014. At the moment, this is the ninth transfer of the first launch of the launch vehicle. Dmitry Rogozin reportedback in 2013, the following deadlines for launching a light rocket were May 2014, and heavy on the end of November 2014. Let's see if they start it or not. It is believed that some parts for the Angara are still produced in Ukraine. In this case, the start of the Angara, we will not see soon.
Conclusion
Thus, we can say that the chronic underfinancing of Russian launches rather than mythical saboteurs affects the quality of flights to a large extent. Moreover, more recently, a specific Russian military communications satellite was successfully launched by Proton.
I will not predict anything, because I am not professional in the space industry. I hope that after this accident really correct “financial” measures will be taken, and not “personnel-punitive”. I will also be happy with any additions / clarifications to the article.