What about the “Russian” space? ..
1 December 2016 of the year in Moscow 17: 52 about the Moscow time from the Baikonur cosmodrome launched a Soyuz-U launch vehicle with a Progress MS-04 cargo vehicle.
It was planned that on December 3 a cargo ship would approach the Zvezda module of the International Space Station. The truck was supposed to deliver into orbit more than two tons of cargo, including means for supporting the life of the crew members of the 50-th long-term expedition of the ISS, equipment for maintaining the station in operation.
The cargo also included the first copy of the spacesuit of the new generation Orlan-ISS for Russian cosmonauts and the greenhouse Lada-2, intended for experiments on growing a number of grain and vegetables in weightless conditions.
After the 382 second flight, the reception of telemetry information ceased. Established controls did not record the functioning of the ship in the estimated orbit. After 2 hours, Roscosmos was forced to admit the loss of the launch vehicle and cargo ship.
The accident occurred over the territory of the Republic of Tuva at an altitude of 190 kilometers. Most of the ship burned in the atmosphere, and several debris fell west of the city of Kyzyl.
There was a question about how much spacecraft were insured for? Did the insurance cover the accident damage? As it turned out, did not cover initially. Insurance coverage of a failed launch was 2,5 billion rubles, but the damage from the loss of a cargo ship clearly exceeds 4 billion rubles. That is at least 1,5 budget billion dog down the drain. Is not too much extravagance on the background of economic problems? This is the first. And, secondly, aren't such feints with conscious, not accidental insurance, but not accidental? .. If we consider the assumption number two, then there are doubts that the “accident” could have happened to the ship .. Does this “accident” have a specific first and last name?
The media put forward many versions of the causes of the fall of the space cargo ship, but on January 11, Roscosmos Corporation made an official announcement about the causes of the Soyuz-U launch vehicle and the Progress MS-2017 space truck. The members of the emergency commission believe that the cause was the opening of the tank “O” of the third stage of the launch vehicle as a result of the elements arising from the destruction of the engine, which most likely collapsed due to fire and further destruction of the oxidizer pump. The ignition of the oxidizer pump could have occurred if foreign particles got into the pump cavity, or there was a violation of the engine assembly technology.
The RD-0110 engine was developed by the Voronezh Design Bureau "Himavtomatika" (KBCH), and is assembled at the Voronezh Mechanical Plant.
Ivan Koptev, Director General of the Voronezh Mechanical Plant FSU, wrote a statement of his own accord and resigned on January 20 of 2017. The reason for dismissal is called “unsatisfactory performance and quality of products”.
Black stripe in stories of the Voronezh engine began 24 August 2011 year from the launch of the carrier rocket "Soyuz-U" with the cargo ship Progress M-12M on board, which in the 325 second flight in the third stage fuel system had a problem, which led to a failure in the operation of the engine with its subsequent complete shutdown. Immediately there was information that the cause of the accident could be poor-quality welding during the production of the RD-0110 engine at KBXA, but then the accident was recognized as an accident.
23 December 2011 of the year, the Soyuz-2.1b booster fell, which was to put the Meridian satellite into orbit and then the cause of the fall was engine failure.
16 May 2015, the Proton carrier rocket failed to put the Mexican satellite MexSat-1 into orbit. As a result of an emergency situation in the dense layers of the atmosphere, the rocket and the apparatus itself burned down. A month later, the head of Roscosmos, Igor Komarov, said that the cause of the incident was a constructive engine defect.
After such a series of failures, the Roskosmos leadership did not renew the contract with Voronezh KBKhA, and Vladimir Rachuk, who managed the enterprise from 1993 of the year, was dismissed from his post as general director of KBKhA.
The December accident put at risk not only the reputation of the Voronezh designers and production workers, but several projects at once. The fact is that the RD-0110 engine is regular for several products of the “Soyuz” family, and the constructors mentioned are counted on the fingers ...
13 January 2017 became aware of the replacement of the Voronezh engine in a new Soyuz-U rocket assembled in Samara, which will have to put another Progress into orbit in place of the lost one.
If we talk about statistics, for the period from 2006 to 2016, in the Russian Federation, every 17 launch of a Russian rocket with a particular spacecraft on board ends in an accident. If you look for the pros, then Russia and start-ups in recent years, carried out more. But the disadvantage is that the percentage ratio of launches and losses is not in our favor - against the background of indicators of the entire so-called “big space troika”. It would seem that if we look at the statistics of the last decade of the space programs of the USSR, then there it will be possible to see a much more blissful picture. However, the “goodness” of a little more - successful starts, according to some data, only on 2, on the other, is 5 percent higher. These are assessments, by the way, of domestic experts - so no conspiracy, as they say.
We often talk a lot about the causes of breakdowns and accidents in the space industry. And, it seems, a whole tangle of reasons emerges, among which are the corruption component, and the lack of an adequate number of qualified personnel — professional (including working) composition of industrial enterprises, obvious problems with the presence of a “young shift”, which in turn rests on problems the adequacy of the educational services provided to real state interests. In general, the tangle is great, plus its threads are pretty tangled. Unwind or just chop like that Gordian knot? ..
It was planned that on December 3 a cargo ship would approach the Zvezda module of the International Space Station. The truck was supposed to deliver into orbit more than two tons of cargo, including means for supporting the life of the crew members of the 50-th long-term expedition of the ISS, equipment for maintaining the station in operation.
The cargo also included the first copy of the spacesuit of the new generation Orlan-ISS for Russian cosmonauts and the greenhouse Lada-2, intended for experiments on growing a number of grain and vegetables in weightless conditions.
Spacesuit "Orlan-ISS"
After the 382 second flight, the reception of telemetry information ceased. Established controls did not record the functioning of the ship in the estimated orbit. After 2 hours, Roscosmos was forced to admit the loss of the launch vehicle and cargo ship.
The accident occurred over the territory of the Republic of Tuva at an altitude of 190 kilometers. Most of the ship burned in the atmosphere, and several debris fell west of the city of Kyzyl.
Debris discovered in Tuva
There was a question about how much spacecraft were insured for? Did the insurance cover the accident damage? As it turned out, did not cover initially. Insurance coverage of a failed launch was 2,5 billion rubles, but the damage from the loss of a cargo ship clearly exceeds 4 billion rubles. That is at least 1,5 budget billion dog down the drain. Is not too much extravagance on the background of economic problems? This is the first. And, secondly, aren't such feints with conscious, not accidental insurance, but not accidental? .. If we consider the assumption number two, then there are doubts that the “accident” could have happened to the ship .. Does this “accident” have a specific first and last name?
The media put forward many versions of the causes of the fall of the space cargo ship, but on January 11, Roscosmos Corporation made an official announcement about the causes of the Soyuz-U launch vehicle and the Progress MS-2017 space truck. The members of the emergency commission believe that the cause was the opening of the tank “O” of the third stage of the launch vehicle as a result of the elements arising from the destruction of the engine, which most likely collapsed due to fire and further destruction of the oxidizer pump. The ignition of the oxidizer pump could have occurred if foreign particles got into the pump cavity, or there was a violation of the engine assembly technology.
The RD-0110 engine was developed by the Voronezh Design Bureau "Himavtomatika" (KBCH), and is assembled at the Voronezh Mechanical Plant.
Ivan Koptev, Director General of the Voronezh Mechanical Plant FSU, wrote a statement of his own accord and resigned on January 20 of 2017. The reason for dismissal is called “unsatisfactory performance and quality of products”.
Black stripe in stories of the Voronezh engine began 24 August 2011 year from the launch of the carrier rocket "Soyuz-U" with the cargo ship Progress M-12M on board, which in the 325 second flight in the third stage fuel system had a problem, which led to a failure in the operation of the engine with its subsequent complete shutdown. Immediately there was information that the cause of the accident could be poor-quality welding during the production of the RD-0110 engine at KBXA, but then the accident was recognized as an accident.
23 December 2011 of the year, the Soyuz-2.1b booster fell, which was to put the Meridian satellite into orbit and then the cause of the fall was engine failure.
16 May 2015, the Proton carrier rocket failed to put the Mexican satellite MexSat-1 into orbit. As a result of an emergency situation in the dense layers of the atmosphere, the rocket and the apparatus itself burned down. A month later, the head of Roscosmos, Igor Komarov, said that the cause of the incident was a constructive engine defect.
After such a series of failures, the Roskosmos leadership did not renew the contract with Voronezh KBKhA, and Vladimir Rachuk, who managed the enterprise from 1993 of the year, was dismissed from his post as general director of KBKhA.
The December accident put at risk not only the reputation of the Voronezh designers and production workers, but several projects at once. The fact is that the RD-0110 engine is regular for several products of the “Soyuz” family, and the constructors mentioned are counted on the fingers ...
13 January 2017 became aware of the replacement of the Voronezh engine in a new Soyuz-U rocket assembled in Samara, which will have to put another Progress into orbit in place of the lost one.
If we talk about statistics, for the period from 2006 to 2016, in the Russian Federation, every 17 launch of a Russian rocket with a particular spacecraft on board ends in an accident. If you look for the pros, then Russia and start-ups in recent years, carried out more. But the disadvantage is that the percentage ratio of launches and losses is not in our favor - against the background of indicators of the entire so-called “big space troika”. It would seem that if we look at the statistics of the last decade of the space programs of the USSR, then there it will be possible to see a much more blissful picture. However, the “goodness” of a little more - successful starts, according to some data, only on 2, on the other, is 5 percent higher. These are assessments, by the way, of domestic experts - so no conspiracy, as they say.
We often talk a lot about the causes of breakdowns and accidents in the space industry. And, it seems, a whole tangle of reasons emerges, among which are the corruption component, and the lack of an adequate number of qualified personnel — professional (including working) composition of industrial enterprises, obvious problems with the presence of a “young shift”, which in turn rests on problems the adequacy of the educational services provided to real state interests. In general, the tangle is great, plus its threads are pretty tangled. Unwind or just chop like that Gordian knot? ..
- Alexei Volodin
- alafor.ru
Information