Major Proton launch failure

[Alfastar]

Partway through the video, once the camera trains back onto the vehichle, it appears that the payload has broken off in at least two peices. Could this due to aerodynamical stress? seems like that would take a lot of force. Does the payload eject in case of error?

Aerodynamic stress.

If I hear another ASAS or strut comment, I think I'm gonna scream. Come on, how many times are people going to say the exact same KSP joke?

Its something what makes my angry. See how much people jokes about things as this, but there don't known how dramatically bad this is for all people who worked for this launch.

Why didn't they hit the self destruct button once it veered off into the horizon?

Because Russia don't got something like a self-destruct thing. The only thing it does normally by a failure is shutting down the engines.

I thing a most likely reason for this failure is that one of the six engines failed in thrust. Simple: If you got one of the six engines don't make a good thrust to make it stable, then the object (rocket) goes towards the side where there is the less thrust (the failed engine)

But, there can be other reason(s) for this launch failure.

(God no, Kryten don't steal my answers )

Edited July 2, 2013 by Alfastar
Uhhh, reasons.

[The Jedi Master]

They really should get a self-destruct, even NASA has one...

[Alfastar]

They really should get a self-destruct, even NASA has one...

Well, how much would cost that? And would be it serious useful for failures as this? Remember that the Proton-M use not LOX/RP1 or something, but N2O4/UDMH. And that are not very funny stuff to have in the air. No matter of you add a self-destruct system or not, the result would be the same as now: debris and toxic stuff in the air / ground. Maybe it would be even worse with the debris if there was a self-destruct system, because the debris would be smaller, but more, and can hit the two launchpads.

[Sof]

I couldn't help thinking I've had that happen to me when I watched it earlier.

[sgt_flyer]

the russians should really go for their angara launcher to replace ASAP their old protons

[Flixxbeatz]

I thing a most likely reason for this failure is that one of the six engines failed in thrust. Simple: If you got one of the six engines don't make a good thrust to make it stable, then the object (rocket) goes towards the side where there is the less thrust (the failed engine)

It's been an accepted fact that more engines = more chances to fail (that is, if the engine was the problem). Is the official summary released already?

[Dive]

A self-destruction system is not really needed in case of Baikonur. NASA's launch facilities are mostly located in dense-populated areas, while steppes around Baikonur are mostly wasteland. So it's more practical to let a rocket make a crater in the desert than explode it in air and spend next month cleaning the launchpad from fallen debris. Btw, i heared that the terrain around launchpads still has a lot of scars from the fallen rockets, some of them are there for decades already. And it seems like there is another one created today.

[Flixxbeatz]

A self-destruction system is not really needed in case of Baikonur. NASA's launch facilities are mostly located in dense-populated areas, while steppes around Baikonur are mostly wasteland. So it's more practical to let a rocket make a crater in the desert than explode it in air and spend next month cleaning the launchpad from fallen debris. Btw, i heared that the terrain around launchpads still has a lot of scars from the fallen rockets, some of them are there for decades already. And it seems like there is another one created today.

F* yeah persistence!

[jwenting]

They really should get a self-destruct, even NASA has one...

NASA self destructed, that's not the same as blowing up a rocket that veers off course

[olex]

Self-destruct would do more harm than good with the Proton, since the fuels it's using are all highly toxic - better it impacts the desert floor than spreading a poisonous cloud up high in the air.

[maro]

scary, scary.....

and now the question.....should KSP include "part failures" once in a finished version....probably as part of an "expert career mode" ?

[Canopus]

scary, scary.....

and now the question.....should KSP include "part failures" once in a finished version....probably as part of an "expert career mode" ?

The devs said no to random failures.

[olex]

Harvester once said that random failures won't ever happen in KSP - this way, mission success depends on player skill alone and not on luck. KSP can be frustrating enough without random failures.

However, I do see this a potential plugin idea - sort of like Deadly Re-entry, something to make the game harder and more realistic for the players who want it that way.

[Flixxbeatz]

The debs said no to random failures.

And I believe that every failure has a reason behind, thus burying the "random failures" suggestion deeper.

[squeaky024]

Someone Kerbalized the video:

[Pugspaceprogram]

I dont know who to blame...

Jebediah or R4M0N

[Pawelk198604]

Someone played to much KSP

[zarakon]

And I believe that every failure has a reason behind, thus burying the "random failures" suggestion deeper.

Oversights, mistakes, laziness, etc. I don't know about you guys, but I get plenty of failures based on those in KSP!

Wrong symmetry when placing fuel lines, bad staging order, etc.

[Alfastar]

And I believe that every failure has a reason behind, thus burying the "random failures" suggestion deeper.

This sounds maybe strange, but failures are the human part of spaceflight. We are humans, so we make sometimes mistakes, no matter of it become a tiny or a large problem. Even robots makes mistakes, because there are made by humans.

So, become a alien

[Canopus]

This sounds maybe strange, but failures are the human part of spaceflight. We are humans, so we make sometimes mistakes, no matter of it become a tiny or a large problem. Even robots makes mistakes, because there are made by humans.

So, become a alien

He was talking about the game and that there will never be random failures.

[Dive]

Just read a presumption that engineers have probably randomly swapped "yaw" and "roll" outputs of the main computer.. That would definitely explain the crazy spin during launch.

And that would be a bit kerbal-ish as well.

[Kilmeister]

"Yaw/Roll". I guess that's close to the "oops" level of "English/Metric". Although that one was more embarrassing.

[Holo]

Translation of the Russian:

"Oh crap, I used LV-T30s instead of LV-T45s."

[nothke]

What a coincidence!!! I just had a veeeery similar launch failure last week.. The coincidence is not really the failure... But the fact I wanted to make a GLONASS recreation all with a proton launcher..

Roll the conspiracy theories right in!! xD

[NeoMorph]

The fault was... THE RUSSIANS COULDN'T FIND THE "T" KEY ON THEIR KEYBOARD... Silly Russians.