Russia has lost control over a satellite

Oh, most are UK guys?

I don’t know. There seems to me to be quite a range of nationalities here to me.

Oh, most are UK guys? I don’t actually leave the Navy section, occasionally I visit the missile section, but otherwise I haven’t really been looking around. In the naval section I think there are more US guys.

IF all your sources are genuine (and up till now I have not had a real reason not to believe so, except for you being a bit over pro-russian), then I have to appologize. I have only followed the Russians and hence must have missed the US failures. Maybe they should be posted here too in the future, but I suppose not many people care about it and as most here are US people, they probably don’t want to show it.
So, I sincerely appologize for my bad information.

uh….hello….are you new here? :rolleyes:
Most here are certainly not American. The truth of success rates of space launch lies heavily in not fixing something that works. This can be clearly seen by finding out which rockets from US, USSR, and ESA has the highest success rate. You will quickly find yourself say, holy cow those things existed before i was born. However, if there’s a new specification that can’t be met by existing designs, that’s when success rate takes a hit. There are even stories when one old engineer retires and then followed by a string of launch failures/errors. That’s why it’s called rocket science boys….

Nobody lost the satellite.
This information is false.

and up till now I have not had a real reason not to believe so, except for you being a bit over pro-russian

Define pro Russian.

Maybe they should be posted here too in the future, but I suppose not many people care about it and as most here are US people,

Why do you think most here are American?

Russia has a failed launch, or Russia losses control of satellite, or more Russians killed by Chechen seperatists. People like to sink in the boot when you are down. They are so busy sinking in the boot they aren’t noticing he’s getting up.

IF all your sources are genuine (and up till now I have not had a real reason not to believe so, except for you being a bit over pro-russian), then I have to appologize. I have only followed the Russians and hence must have missed the US failures. Maybe they should be posted here too in the future, but I suppose not many people care about it and as most here are US people, they probably don’t want to show it.
So, I sincerely appologize for my bad information.

Russia loses control of Earth-monitor satellite

Nonsense.
Short-term refusal of one of six channels GIVUS was.The control has been quickly restored also tests Monitor-E renewed.
I am sorry for my English.

I can’t remember the last French or US rocket that came down by failure, yet Russian ones do it all the time.

Yeah, it is only Russian or Soviet Rockets that fail…

Read this:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/launches/boosterwoes.html

But that is just a small slice of time… how about we inject some facts and perhaps a graph into this issue…

Between 1957 and 1999, 4378 space launches were conducted worldwide, including 2770 CIS/USSR launches and 1316 U.S. launches.

Source: http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/winter2001/03.html

And how about a graph of launches vs failures:

Yeah… clearly shows Soviet and Russian launchers are crap… NOT.

As The statement that they have proven their missiles still work isn’t really right either, as last year two SLBMs failed to launch from a Delta IV, they didn’t even come out, afterwards, two of them failed due to loss of track etc., then this year another SLBM, with the ESA satellite failed to launch too from the St-George (Delta III). I think it’s pretty doubtful how good they still are.

Except when they don’t leave the tubes they aren’t blown into millions of little pieces.

Garry, you must have noticed that the Russians don’t really care about such insurance things, normally you wouldn’t transport a nuclear submarine in bad weather with non-closed hatches, yet they still tried it…

That is ********.

Accidents often happen there, and most of the time they’re just caused by neglect, if that missile will be launched, then you better tell it’s fit for the task or your collegue will do that for you and you can go look for another job.

Again… ********. They would have no business if there was any evidence of neglect or derilection of duty. There is plenty of business.

I think it’s quite worrysome nowadays, they better start doing some good launches, otherwise ESA will try to find a better alternative for their satellites and that would be quite some loss…

I’ve posted some facts where are yours?

1) Depends on the make of the missiles. If the older lots are getting launched France use converted ICBM for launch of sats? Nah! I never heard of it. Even if, whats the make of the missiles?

Now why would Neptune let anything like facts get in the way of his personal opinions.

[sarcasm]Wonder how the US launch industry will suffer now that they are introducing Russian Rocket engines into their designs… afterall Russian stuff is crap… so I guess that makes the US engines they are replacing worse than crap…[/sarcasm]

[QUOTE=Neptune]Austin, I think the learning curve of Russia is one of the most advanced in the world, they probably know a lot more about launching missiles/rockets than India, yet they do have considerably more failures. The money at stake doesn’t really allow for so many risks to be taken, normally it shouldn’t go wrong, I can’t remember the last French or US rocket that came down by failure, yet Russian ones do it all the time. ……..QUOTE]

1) Depends on the make of the missiles. If the older lots are getting launched, there has to be problem. The current versions don’t fail. How can you compare US, French commercial launchers to the old ICBM in terms of launche credibility. On commercial US launchers vs Commercial Russian launchers, i don’t see marked differences.
2) US or France use converted ICBM for launch of sats? Nah! I never heard of it. Even if, whats the make of the missiles?

Which also shows how much luck is involved too

True , But it also shows the technical skilled manpower at ISRO and other organisation assisting Indias Space Program , Indias Space Program is much advanced than any one could think about this should make a good read

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SPACE/space-launchers-slv.html
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/SPACE/space-satellite1.html

Austin, I think the learning curve of Russia is one of the most advanced in the world, they probably know a lot more about launching missiles/rockets than India, yet they do have considerably more failures.

True but compare the launches India does per year to Russia does and you will get your answer.

All space faring nations have their own set of failures , Look at the launch record of Delta and other US launchers , Look at the launch record of Japan most were failure , look at launch record of China again many spectacular failures . Even India has its own share of failure , I remember the first PSLV launch was a failure, even the mighty Ariane-5 first launch was a failure.

There is nothing to worry about there.

Garry, you must have noticed that the Russians don’t really care about such insurance things,

If the Russians dont , the country to which the satellites belongs to do care a lot , satellite costs a lot and its always insured , Atleast the civilian one not too sure of the military ones

I think it’s quite worrysome nowadays, they better start doing some good launches, otherwise ESA will try to find a better alternative for their satellites

True Try www.isro.org

Austin, I think the learning curve of Russia is one of the most advanced in the world, they probably know a lot more about launching missiles/rockets than India, yet they do have considerably more failures. The money at stake doesn’t really allow for so many risks to be taken, normally it shouldn’t go wrong, I can’t remember the last French or US rocket that came down by failure, yet Russian ones do it all the time. As The statement that they have proven their missiles still work isn’t really right either, as last year two SLBMs failed to launch from a Delta IV, they didn’t even come out, afterwards, two of them failed due to loss of track etc., then this year another SLBM, with the ESA satellite failed to launch too from the St-George (Delta III). I think it’s pretty doubtful how good they still are.

Garry, you must have noticed that the Russians don’t really care about such insurance things, normally you wouldn’t transport a nuclear submarine in bad weather with non-closed hatches, yet they still tried it… Accidents often happen there, and most of the time they’re just caused by neglect, if that missile will be launched, then you better tell it’s fit for the task or your collegue will do that for you and you can go look for another job.

I think it’s quite worrysome nowadays, they better start doing some good launches, otherwise ESA will try to find a better alternative for their satellites and that would be quite some loss…

On the contrary India with shoe string budget has comparatively less failures and many sucess in satellite and launch business.

Which also shows how much luck is involved too. I remember an early estimate, they expected to lose one Shuttle for every 100 launches. They have certainly done better than they expected to, though the losses were mixed… they expected more earlier and for solutions to reduce the failures. It seems that each problem has been a seperate unique sort of instance. But still they have made a lot of successful launches, and done a lot of things that normal rockets can’t do.

I think it has to do with their missiles, they try to get the most out of their old ****nal, but I think most of them have exceeded their lifetime by now.

They are using surplus rockets for the launches but the time expired ones are only fired during exercise. There is no way an insurance company will insure a billion dollar satellite being launched on a time expired rocket.

Anything from a single screw to a hit from a micro meteoroid could ruin an otherwise flawless program.

They seem to have some problems with their launches lately

Its Part of the risk of the business you are in , Launch Vehical and Satellites are very complicated piece of hardware/software , with thousand of systems and subsystems , any glitches in one subsystem could result in the failure of the whole system, It has nothing to do specifically with Russia , US, India or Japan.

Its just the nature of business one is in , Japan has to go through many failures after spending billion of dollars before it has sucess with its launcher , On the contrary India with shoe string budget has comparatively less failures and many sucess in satellite and launch business.

Its just the learning curve that every nation goes through , russia like any other nation will quickly analyse the cause of failure and try to launch it after correcting it much like any other nation would do.

Look at the records of US,EU and other nations they had many similar problems.

I think it has to do with their missiles, they try to get the most out of their old ****nal, but I think most of them have exceeded their lifetime by now.

It dosent matter if it has exceeded its life time , as long as people who examine it think its fit for launch, There could be many reason for failure what you have suggested could be one of them.

Russia still has many ICBM excedeeding their life time , but time and again in exercises it has been tested and known to have worked perfectly well.

It’s just news, I must thank him for placing the news here as I would have otherwise not come across it. They seem to have some problems with their launches lately, the failed launch from St-George not so long ago of an ESA satellite was just another example. I think it has to do with their missiles, they try to get the most out of their old ****nal, but I think most of them have exceeded their lifetime by now.

Thats the inherent risk when you are in the satellite and launch business , Its not uncommon to come across satellites failing in orbit , or even half of the transponder capability lost due to technical problems or malfunctions of susbsystems.

Also its not uncommon for satellites to exceed their life line expectation for which they are designed for , For example a satellite designed for a life span of 8-10 years, and working perfectly well till 15 years , till the time they are deleberately de-orbitted and destroyed due to insufficient fuel in the LAM for safe operations.

Whats the point in starting a thread for such news , unless you are trying to Flame.