Post-mortem explains CryoSat’s launch failure
12:46 28 October 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Maggie McKeeRussian investigators have homed in on the cause of the rocket failure that destroyed Europe’s CryoSat satellite upon launch, and have cleared the rockets for future flights.
CryoSat cost €136 ($165) million and was designed to measure the thickness of polar ice sheets and floating sea ice to an unprecedented level of accuracy, providing valuable new data to climate scientists. But it crashed into the Arctic Ocean on 8 October after the second stage of its Rockot launcher failed to shut down and did not separate as planned from the upper stage.
All Rockots were then grounded as Russia, the European Space Agency (ESA) and Eurockot – the joint Russian and German venture that manufactures the launchers – began separate investigations.
Now, the Russian Failure Investigation State Commission has traced the problem to the flight control system of the rocket’s Breeze upper stage. It says that system failed to send a command to shut down the engines of the second stage. Eurockot is awaiting the Russian investigation team’s full report, expected next week, and is taking measures to prevent another failure. MORE
If the ESA decides to put another expensive satellite on a Russian rocket I sure hope it’s insured :p
By: WisePanda - 13th December 2005 at 07:35
the dedicated russian/ukraine launchers are among the most reliable rockets ever invented.
dunno about the converted ICBM thing…some of these SLBMs have failed in testing.
By: Arabella-Cox - 13th December 2005 at 07:18
I don’t know where you’ve been the last 30 years….the Shuttle is quite old and that’s why we’re getting rid of it. Most rockets of the same name, ie Deltas are not the same airframe designs…the shuttle on the other hand has the same exterior design except some changes of the thermal shields. From that perspective, it is the oldest thing going into space, except those old Soviet ICBMs.
By: legolas - 12th December 2005 at 06:12
Actually, I was wondering why the ESA didn’t launch their own satellite using one of their Ariane 5 boosters. Why rely on some old Soviet-era ICBM cobbled together for commercial use when they’re perfectly capable of putting a satellite into orbit themselves?
Why dont they launching it using the US Space shuttle :diablo: :diablo: . It is new and can reliable.
By: Arabella-Cox - 13th November 2005 at 01:06
don’t make it sound like it never happens, there has been launches even when the insurance companies refuse to take it. Under such circumstances, either the launch is at very low cost or the launching agency/government includes a guarentee clause. Basically, they will pay for the cost if it fails. Most of the time the bigger problem isn’t the lost of a satellite (expensive yes, but often times it’s not a death kneel) but the inability to keep the schedule. Imagine satellite TVs couldn’t replace their satellites in time and didn’t have a reliable backup. Those losses would be way more than the satellite itself. That’s why the launch business is a tough one to be in.
By: Arabella-Cox - 7th November 2005 at 07:13
If Soviet ICBMs were unreliable they’d never bother to use them… no one would insure the launch… and there would be no launches even if they offered to do it at cost without insurance.
By: Chacko - 6th November 2005 at 13:00
Actually, I was wondering why the ESA didn’t launch their own satellite using one of their Ariane 5 boosters. Why rely on some old Soviet-era ICBM cobbled together for commercial use when they’re perfectly capable of putting a satellite into orbit themselves?
Sometimes it depends on launch schedules. Most launches are usually booked years in advance. There is also a limitation of the number of launchers an agency can churn out is a year.
Russian converted ICBM’s looks like launcher super market. Most are avaliable at short notice. In addition to savings in launch costs.
By: Austin - 6th November 2005 at 10:41
If the ESA decides to put another expensive satellite on a Russian rocket I sure hope it’s insured
All satellites to my undestanding are insured ,These insurances takes care of tragedy upon launch and even during unforseen technical problem which might take place during its orbital life.
But then no one can make up for the lost time or the loss of cruicial scientific data when such incidents take place.
I was wondering why the ESA didn’t launch their own satellite using one of their Ariane 5 boosters
I would think cost efectiveness and availability of Boosters for such a launch.
By: Jeff - 6th November 2005 at 10:37
Actually, I was wondering why the ESA didn’t launch their own satellite using one of their Ariane 5 boosters. Why rely on some old Soviet-era ICBM cobbled together for commercial use when they’re perfectly capable of putting a satellite into orbit themselves?
By: Arabella-Cox - 6th November 2005 at 10:11
If the ESA decides to put another expensive satellite on a Russian rocket I sure hope it’s insured
Yeah, fire it up on a deltas they don’t even require insurance… NOT.
http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/YIR_spacebiz_991228.html
Sign In
November 6, 2005 at 9:24 am