
Russian Proton Rocket crashes Seconds after Launch - antr
http://www.spaceflight101.com/proton-m-block-dm-03-glonass-launch-2013.html
======
enko
> "you know it's all broken up and it burst into flames right there. crazy
> right?"

I just cannot understand how they choose these anchors. If I wanted to listen
to my 13yo cousin's inane commentary on videos, then .. well I have no idea
actually, because I would never want to. And I never want to listen to this
idiot. Who hires them? Why!?

This is serious news, a hundred million dollar crash, and the best he can do
is "crazy right?". I just don't know what to say.

Imagine if this dipshit was commenting on 9/11\. "and those there planes just
up and flown into them buildings right there! Crazy right?" Yeah bro! Totes
crazy LOL! ROFL

~~~
nawitus
They appeal to the 'mainstream audience', not techies or even the smarter half
of the population.

~~~
dkarl
I would guess that half their viewership is in the smarter half. Remember that
many people don't watch the news at all. I'll just leave you with that
depressing reminder and go back to trying to have hope for the world.

~~~
lmm
Many smart people, or at least HN types, prefer not to watch the news.

(And FWIW as much as we love to complain about the newspapers I find TV news,
even on the BBC, is the worst form of news reporting out there)

------
solomatov
Proton isn't the most reliable rocket. About 10% of all its launches are
unsuccessful. However, it's one of the cheapest ways to deliver cargo to the
space. It's even cheaper than current SpaceX offers
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_heavy_lift_launch_systems))
of course if a satellite isn't too expensive.

~~~
nawitus
That's interesting, I thought SpaceX was cheaper than even the Russian launch
vehicles. By the way, are insurance costs taken into consideration? (Although
the proper insurance rate might be difficult to estimate for SpaceX since they
don't have that many launches behind them).

~~~
leoedin
The cost of a SpaceX launch reflects not only manufacturing costs but also the
cost of development. The cost of a Proton launch (and similarly for other low
cost ICBM based Russian launchers) doesn't reflect the developmment cost
because it was designed a long time ago and borne by the russian government.
The true cost of a Proton launch is much higher than what a user would pay to
International Launch Services.

~~~
solomatov
The true cost is adequate because there was a very large number of total
launches (around 400). What is the reason for launching a rocket if it leads
to a loss.

------
yread
incomparably better writeup [http://www.spaceflight101.com/proton-m-block-
dm-03-glonass-l...](http://www.spaceflight101.com/proton-m-block-
dm-03-glonass-launch-2013.html)

~~~
aidos
Good heavens, that's some terrible commentary on the video. That's for this
link - as you say, there's no comparison in the reporting.

What a sad outcome, hope they manage to figure out what went wrong.

------
plq
This rocket was carrying three of the GLONASS (the Russian GPS) satellites,
very bad news.

The RBTH has some more footage: [http://rbth.ru/news/2013/07/02/proton-
m_rocket_with_glonass_...](http://rbth.ru/news/2013/07/02/proton-
m_rocket_with_glonass_satellites_crashes_ten_seconds_after_takeof_27660.html)

------
smackfu
Another vid:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl12dXYcUTo&hd=1](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl12dXYcUTo&hd=1)

~~~
DoubleCluster
Wow. The rocket exploded about 3 km from the guy filming it (from the speed of
sound). It could have landed on his head...

~~~
InclinedPlane
The Proton is fueled with Nitrogen Tetroxide and a variant of Hydrazine
(UDMH). Both are incredible toxic and hazardous to humans, causing death with
disturbingly small doses. UDMH is also a potent carcinogen.

Hopefully these folks were on the road and miles away before those fumes
drifted their way.

------
ChuckMcM
Reminds us once again that launching rockets is hard and when something goes
wrong, there aren't a lot of 'recovery' scenarios. Insurance covers the
losses, root cause analysis will find the reason this particular launch
failed, and perhaps prevent it from recurring.

One of the interesting questions for the Falcon9 system is whether or not the
return to pad recovery system could work in an abort scenario (unlikely but
you never know). I once asked a NASA engineer why they didn't put a spare
parachute in to recover the payload in case of failure like this and their
response was that it was cheaper to insure it than build such a system (in
crewed systems the opposite is true since replacing the crew is so much more
expensive). Weird to think about it that way but at least for me it made
sense.

~~~
jlgreco
Even in this video you can see the inherent safety of liquid fuel rockets over
solid fuel. (although this is a hypergolic rocket, not like the cryogenic fuel
rockets that we typically use for people.) The launch vehicle started breaking
up and became engulfed in flames, but it didn't _blow up_ per-se until it hit
the ground. Solid fuel rockets do not tend to be so considerate; see the
Challenger or Delta II 7925. Lots of things can go wrong on a liquid fuel
rocket (engine shutoffs, fires, vehicle breakup, etc) but on solid fuel
rockets you basically only have one failure mode: "pop".

With a proper launch escape system, most failure scenarios of a liquid fuel
rocket should be quite survivable. You can build working launch escape systems
for solid fuel rockets too, but that is a worse situation.

IANARS

~~~
ajross
I don't see how your point follows. A similar deviation with a solid fuel
rocket would have resulted in basically the same event (an impact with the
ground of a fueled, burning rocket at T+25s), no?

There are indeed safety reasons to prefer liquid fuel, but I don't see that
this events provides any new evidence.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
He's saying that a solid-fuel rocket would likely have exploded before even
hitting the ground.

~~~
huhtenberg
This implies that solid rocket fuel is inherently susceptible to detonation,
while liquid fuel is not. Even if it's true, it seems counter-intuitive.

~~~
jlgreco
It seems intuitive enough to me. Solid fuel is basically "pre-mixed". That's
why this Proton rocket didn't blow up until it slammed into the ground, even
though it was rapidly falling apart and completely consumed in fire. The speed
at which it burns is basically the extent to which that fuel and oxidizer is
mixed.

Consider a bucket of kerosene. Gasoline doesn't have it's own oxidizer, it
uses the air for that. If you light the bucket on fire then it will burn
slowly for quite a while, but if you then grab the bucket and fling it into
the air then the fuel and oxidizer will mix and you'll have a rather decent
fireball on your hands.

If you mix the fuel with an oxidizer first (say, ammonium nitrate....^), then
you are going to have a bad situation the moment it catches; no need to shake
it up.

The other major sort of engine, a hybrid engine, is even safer than either
solid or liquid rockets. This is because the fuel and the oxidizer are
separated and unmixed like in liquid fuel rockets but _additionally_ the fuel
is not going to be able to rapidly mix with the oxidizer if it hits the ground
or something (since it is a giant chunk of basically rubber or paraffin or
whatever.)

^ ...and now I'm on a watchlist.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
Nah. The employees at the local Tractor Supply or Fleet Farm coulda told us
the same thing ;-)

------
jstsch
This reminds me of Kerbal Space Program:
[https://kerbalspaceprogram.com](https://kerbalspaceprogram.com)

~~~
axylone
It's awesome how simulation games like KSP teach people about rocketry and
orbital mechanics - I bet KSP will contribute to the coming resurgence of
interest in spaceflight.

Lots of KSP references in the youtube comments:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl12dXYcUTo&hd=1](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl12dXYcUTo&hd=1)

------
japaget
See also
[http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1307/01proton/](http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1307/01proton/)
for another account of this mishap.

Spaceflight Now is one of the best sources for news concerning space launches.

------
deletes
>Russian launchers do not carry a Flight Termination System that could be used
to remotely trigger the destruction of the rocket in a scenario like this.<

Hope there aren't any cities in the rockets path.

~~~
lmm
There's a thousand miles of empty desert to the next settlement, never mind
city. Kazakhstan is big (and unlike the US, its southernmost parts are not the
nicest ones).

~~~
bostonpete
> unlike the US, its southernmost parts are not the nicest ones

Wait, what?

~~~
lmm
Due to the rotation of the Earth it's advantageous to have your rocket launch
facility as close to the Equator as possible. For the US that means the
southern end of Florida, and while there are plenty of big empty deserts in
the US, the southern end of Florida is not one of them. OTOH there's
convenient big empty desert at the southern end of Kazakhstan (which was the
southern end of the USSR when they were picking a launch site).

(FWIW Baikonur is still quite a way north of the Equator. AIUI a joint ESA-
Russia Soyuz launch pad is now being built at the ESA launch site in French
Guiana, which should save them a chunk of fuel).

~~~
bostonpete
Why is a big empty desert better than a big empty ocean?

~~~
mikeash
You can launch from the middle of the big empty desert, while you must launch
from the edge of the ocean.

In other words, launches from Canaveral need systems to ensure that a wild
rocket doesn't land in downtown Orlando, while presumably launches from
Baikonur don't have this problem on the same level.

~~~
mchouza
You _can_ launch from the ocean, though with more limitations:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch)

------
zaph0d
Compare with the ISRO launch on Monday that was a success -
[http://www.spaceflight101.com/pslv-c22-launch-updates-
irnss-...](http://www.spaceflight101.com/pslv-c22-launch-updates-
irnss-1a.html)

~~~
magic_haze
I know the PSLVs have a reputation of being very reliable. Do you happen to
know how much it costs, compared to the Protons or SpaceX's new design?

Also, it's very cool that India:s launching its own GPS alternatives. The
article mentions that it uses the same L5 and S bands as GPS and Galileo:
isn't there any potential of interference, and will existing receivers work
as-is?

~~~
zaph0d
ISRO's total budget for the year 2012-13 is ~$950 million. Apparently this
project cost them ~$250 million all inclusive.

------
ars
Why do they use such toxic and expensive fuel? I understand using it on a
satellite, but why does the rocket need it? Why not just kerosene and LOX?

Is the specific impulse much higher?

Edit: It's not, it's actually lower than kerosene. It's simply easier to
ignite - that seems like a really bad reason to use it.

~~~
Zuph
Reasons are largely historical. The engines used on the Proton were designed
in the late 50's/early 60's for ICBMs.

Ignition! is a great book on the history of rocket propellants:
[http://www.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf](http://www.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf)

~~~
arethuza
"Now it is clear that anyone working with rocket fuels is outstandingly mad. I
don't mean garden-variety crazy or a merely raving lunatic. I mean a record-
shattering exponent of far-out insanity".

Thanks for the link :-)

~~~
dnautics
I'm thinking about working with rocket fuels. I think it should be possible to
build a kerosene-drop-in hydrocarbon fuel with about twice the energy density
- along the lines of syntin or JP-10, that is biologically derived...

I think this is "relatively safe" compared to hypergolics =)

------
Sami_Lehtinen
Strange, I would have expected it to self-destruct immediately when navigation
problem got apparent.

~~~
thu
From the writeup provided as a link in another comment, Russian launchers
don't have such mechanism. Instead the engines are shut down after at least 42
seconds to allow the launcher to be further than the launch area. But here the
launcher hit the ground after about 30 seconds.

------
swamp40
It looks like the payload almost escaped. It pops off and a parachute comes
out, but then it drifts into the flame path of the upside down rocket and
burns up.

~~~
robryk
Why would there be a parachute if the payload contained only non-returning
satellites? I couldn't see anything I would call a parachute on the videos I
watched.

~~~
swamp40
You are correct. The outer shell of the payload peeled off right before the
payload, and I had mistaken that for a parachute.

------
theguycalledtom
Proton's failure rate is concerning given that it is meant to deliver the last
major segment of the ISS at the end of this year.

------
JacobiX
It's worth noting that the combination of Proton-M rocket and the DM-03
booster has previously failed in 2012. This is a relatively new technology
compared to the mature Soyuz rocket for example.

------
JulianMorrison
I'm surprised they don't have a kill switch on that thing, it should never
have been left to do a full 180 and fly straight down at goodness-knows-who.

~~~
Zikes
I was just about to post about that. I thought these things had a self-
destruct to prevent them from inadvertently becoming an ICBM.

~~~
sounds
US rockets have a "range safety officer" who is responsible for the self-
destruct switch.

I believe Russian rockets just rely on the fact that they will either make it
to space, or impact the ground at high velocity.

------
ars
What causes those strange colored flames at the very end?

~~~
thu
You mean alongside the whole vehicle ? From the link provided in another
comment, it seems that the forces on the whole launcher (that made it loose
its payload) put the fuel and oxidizer in contact and they ignited.

If you meant at the exhaust, it is the oxidizer which is red-brown.

------
ommunist
The USSR in 70-ies launched ~120 Protons per year successfully. Modern Russia
cannot do 30 launches. The reason - old workers and engineers physically
perish because of age and no one is coming to replace them. This is sad, but
true.

~~~
mahoro
In 70-ies there was A LOT of Proton failures due to Lunar competition with
USA.

~~~
ommunist
Any evidence you have? I have the following - 3.88% of failures for Proton-K,
10.81% for Proton-M. Proton-M is a modern RUssian build, Proton-K is the old
Soviet one. Proton-K had 311 launches, 34 failed.
[http://habrahabr.ru/post/185664/](http://habrahabr.ru/post/185664/)

------
zozu
I hope this launch doesn't cause Russia a huge setback in their spaceprogram.
That is quite the expensive launch failure if it carried a sattelite.

~~~
jusben1369
Any reason to think these wouldn't be insured?

~~~
VLM
Stereotypically satellite launch insurance is a comsat thing.

That doesn't mean there's no insurance involved in the whole process. Somebody
will pay out third party liability claims, for example, either .gov or some
insurance co or more likely a mixture of them. But specifically launch loss
insurance is something "mostly" found with commercial comsats. Note its just
stereotypical. Maybe this is the first navsat I've ever heard of with launch
insurance.

------
fwr
Such a terrible commentary in the video.

------
gren
"It is not the way it supposes to go" <\- oh, thanks for the comment!

~~~
ioquatix
"Someting going wrong here" +1 insightful.

------
BWStearns
So this is where they put the Bulava staff.....

------
gesman
"We warned ya, give us Snowden or else!"

------
theorique
"Well, it's not like it's rocket science ... oh, wait..."

------
pawelwentpawel
This looks like they were trying to imitate SpaceX's Grasshopper but forgotten
to land vertically.

