Major QC control issues found at Proton and Soyuz engine manufacturer

[Kryten]

Multiple sources in Russia are reporting that Voronezh Machine Building Plant have replaced materials used in engine turbopumps with lower-quality alternatives, resulting in all Proton 2nd and 3rd stage engines being withdrawn;

https://themoscowtimes.com/news/experts-check-russian-rocket-engines-for-low-quality-metal-56918

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/proton_2017.html

Proton flights will now not be able to take place until at least June or July this year, meaning Proton will have been out of service for at least a year. The same plant also makes both models of Soyuz third stage engines, and it is suspected that the same switch is the cause for the Progress MS-4 failure last year. Flight preparations for a europeanised Soyuz are ongoing in Kourou, so it seems engines built for arianespace aren't affected. 

[StrandedonEarth]

Heads are gong to roll for that. Since it's Russia, maybe literally!

[Scotius]

 Quantity over Quality strikes again. Seriously though - they skimped on a rocket engine of all things? Component that manifests its failure immediately and very explosively. Someone was very, very shortsighted.

[DDE]

5 hours ago, Scotius said:

 Quantity over Quality strikes again. Seriously though - they skimped on a rocket engine of all things? Component that manifests its failure immediately and very explosively. Someone was very, very shortsighted.

Someone got greedy. The materials involved are described in the Russian press as "precious metals", and they disappeared without a trace with no effect on the final price-tag.

It appears that NPO Energomash is going to try and annihilate the Voronezh plant over this.

[Kerbart]

6 minutes ago, DDE said:

Someone got greedy. The materials involved are described in the Russian press as "precious metals", and they disappeared without a trace with no effect on the final price-tag.

The good ole' "nobody will notice if we replace part 'x' with a cheaper version" played one time too many, I think.

is this the same plant where the head of Quality Control got fired for embezzlement to the tune of $140,000? (And as a podcast hist pointed out, "one does not go out and start with stealing that a,ount from your employer, you work your way up to those amounts, so god knows how much he had stolen all together before he got caught")

[Racescort666]

4 hours ago, Kerbart said:

The good ole' "nobody will notice if we replace part 'x' with a cheaper version" played one time too many, I think.

 

This is one of my biggest concerns as an engineer. When I specify something on a drawing, especially when there has been a very detailed development process, there is a damn good reason for it to be there.

[YNM]

Ah...

Well, time to move away from them then ?

[insert_name]

Not really surprised by this. Any idea how Soyuz launches will be affected?

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, YNM said:

Ah...

Well, time to move away from them then ?

Falcon 9 also had parts below specification issues with the struts for the first rocket who blew up.
This might be part SpaceX fault however as it was no more talk about it, it spaceX was cheated they would have sued,

[DDE]

3 hours ago, insert_name said:

Not really surprised by this. Any idea how Soyuz launches will be affected?

Unknown. Thus far they are a "go"; the upper stage may be affected by this haberdashery, but this is merely an inference.

6 hours ago, YNM said:

Ah...

Well, time to move away from them then ?

Very doubtful. The only place to move from there is Angara 5... which appears to be suffering from much worse issues and is basically a white elephant at this point.

Edited January 27, 2017 by DDE

[Codraroll]

10 hours ago, YNM said:

Ah...

Well, time to move away from them then ?

If I'm not mistaken, the Soviets (and later the Russians) have been trying to create a successor to the Soyuz since the 1970s. It hasn't worked particularly well.

[kerbiloid]

6 hours ago, Codraroll said:

If I'm not mistaken, the Soviets (and later the Russians) have been trying to create a successor to the Soyuz since the 1970s. It hasn't worked particularly well.

There is a whole family of Soyuz ancestors.
(Yes, they all are named Soyuz)

Edited January 28, 2017 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

Well what I mean by "moving away" is :

- Avoid the manufacturer (questionable future at best) or

- Avoid the nation at all cost.

Go ESA !

[magnemoe]

17 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

There is a whole family of Soyuz ancestors.
(Yes, they all are named Soyuz)

Upgrades yes, however they still used H2O2 to run the turbopump who is pretty old fashioned today, does other active rockets use it? 
Know that Copenhagen suborbital plans to use it. Benefit is that you run an steam turbine not an gas turbine so its lower requirements, downside is that you need more h2o2 than you would need fuel. 

[kerbiloid]

17 hours ago, magnemoe said:

does other active rockets use it? 

Stylish Falcon still uses the same kerosene and oxygen.

[magnemoe]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Stylish Falcon still uses the same kerosene and oxygen.

Yes, I was talking about H2O2 for running the turbo pump. Current standard for rocket fuel looks like is either kerosene and oxygen or SRB+ hydrogen and oxygen. 
And yes I see the point in not changing the rocket after man rating it so I'm not saying Russia should rush to replace the soyuz just that its an old design but far newer than the B-52 bomber

[_Augustus_]

[RedKraken]

Update from Anataoly Zak :

On January 28, 2017, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin visited Voronezh Mechanical Plant, VMZ, where he chaired a meeting of Roskosmos management. He announced that launches of Proton rockets would be resumed in three and a half months and all those responsible for falsifying production process and documentation at VMZ would be severely punished. He confirmed that engines on the second and third stage of Proton rockets would be replaced and that VMZ would receive "economic aid" for modernization.

Is propping up old mmh/nto tech worth the investment? Or would it be smarter to bring forward angara?

Maybe not possible with only one pad at plesetsk.

8-10 flights a year is a lot to cover. Only 2 angaras due to fly in 2017.

Vostochny's angara facility PU-1 is not due until 2021.

Is russian heavy lift still dependent on biakonur protons out to 2021? 

[kerbiloid]

5 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Current standard for rocket fuel looks like is either kerosene and oxygen

You forgot TEA+TEB or any other stuf for ignition.
(Yes, I don't argue about H2O2 looks obsolete, but there are many obsolete things in technics, which are still used because "it works - don't repair").

4 hours ago, RedKraken said:

old mmh/nto tech

Proton doesn't have mmh/nto. It uses UDMH.
Ariane-5 also used several years before. Chinese launchers still use. All ships (except the most ancient ones) use without alternatives. It's not "old".

4 hours ago, RedKraken said:

Or would it be smarter to bring forward angara?

Or are 500 launches, includng all Soviet/Russian orbital station modules, enough good to avoid jumping until Angara is ready?

4 hours ago, RedKraken said:

Is russian heavy lift still dependent on biakonur protons out to 2021? 

Any problems with Baikonur?

[Carl]

5 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Yes, I was talking about H2O2 for running the turbo pump. Current standard for rocket fuel looks like is either kerosene and oxygen or SRB+ hydrogen and oxygen. 
And yes I see the point in not changing the rocket after man rating it so I'm not saying Russia should rush to replace the soyuz just that its an old design but far newer than the B-52 bomber

The SSME which NASA looks to be using for the next who knows how long uses the same setup too i think.

[RedKraken]

1 minute ago, kerbiloid said:

Or are 500 launches, includng all Soviet/Russian orbital station modules, enough good to avoid jumping until Angara is ready?

Proton has a tremendous number of launches it is true. Perhaps Angara will too. I am looking forward to the next launch regardless.