This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
News

Russian Industry Problems

By Marc Boucher
NASA Watch
October 29, 2012
Filed under , ,

What’s Happening to the Russian Space Industry?, Commercial Space Watch
On the morning of August 6, the Russian space industry woke up to yet another failure in a long list of failures over the last 2 years. 2 months later, on October 16th that failure became a catastrophe with the explosion of the Briz-M upperstage. Are we witness to the end of the dominance of the Russian space industry?
Marc’s note:Further down in the article when discussing the Briz-M “break-up” and the ISS.
The differing rates at which the two orbits precess around the Earth’s polar axis mean that the ISS orbital path will periodically move in and out of the debris cloud, and will sometimes spend several days at a time with a large part of its orbit within the cloud.
Depending on the actual number of fragments, this event may eventually be considered to be the most dangerous fragmentation event ever to have occurred in space.

SpaceRef co-founder, entrepreneur, writer, podcaster, nature lover and deep thinker.

12 responses to “Russian Industry Problems”

  1. Frank Coffin says:
    0
    0

    http://nasawatch.com/archiv

    Rejoice Comrades! Glorious era of Soyuz Begins.

    Nuff said?

  2. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    I would say it’s past time we started putting together proposals for testing space debris clean-up methods.  Realistically, we can’t simply say it’s the problem of whoever made a mess to clean it up; they may not have the resources, the technology, or the willingness.  Space belongs to “all mankind,” so we need to take a cooperative approach to keeping it clean and safe.  I’ve read various comments in the past saying that we don’t have the technology to do orbital debris clean-up, but as often as not the same people will propose Moon bases and manned missions to Mars.  You can’t have it both ways.  Future generations, assuming that we leave them a planet they can live on, will judge us by the mess we leave behind, in space as well as on Earth.

    Steve

    • Ralphy999 says:
      0
      0

      It takes a lot to do orbital delta V and just for small material? It is estimated that the X-37b can perform up to about a 20% orbit inclination change and still have enough fuel left to deorbit. And launching an X-37b is an expensive proposition.

      Not only do we have numb skull rocket explosions all the time, we have nations deliberately targeting its own satellites just prove they can do it, like China. The last time the US did it at least the satellite was about to re-enter the atmosphere. But other nations will want to do it just because we have done it. Gotta keep up with the US, you know. If the US imperium can’t keep nukes out of Iran how are we going to keep nations from targeting space? And rockets accidently exploding in space is a whole other category. I think the economic theory of the Tragedy of the Commons applies here.

      IIRC, the AIr Force is applying to Congress for some giga-billions of dollars to build a new giant radar network with super computers to keep track of space objects/junk. We may turn this into a military advantage. Right now, we don’t, we share this info because well comparatively, we’re rich. However, in the near future, the American public may not feel so rich. (Right now, the Euros also help contribute to this database.)

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Ralphy,

        Are you saying that it’s hard, therefore we shouldn’t look at doing it?  I have no argument with your X-37B statements, but it was designed for specific purposes, which don’t include debris clean-up.  We don’t have any existing hardware for clean-up because nobody has ever designed and built anything for that purpose.  Delta-V is going to be an issue for anything we do in space; that’s inescapable basic physics.  That is one reason why  spacecraft have to be purpose designed if we want them to be at all efficient at what they’re to do (there can be no general purpose, one-size-fits-all spacecraft that will do anything well; we saw this clearly with the Shuttle).

        A debris clean-up program will be difficult and expensive, there’s no question about it.  But that has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not we should be trying to do it.  The rationale and the responsibility are both quite obvious, and there are no reasons or excuses that I can see for failing to do what we need to.  And the longer we leave it, the harder, more  expensive, and more dangerous it will become.  Will the human race repeat in space what it has done on Earth by polluting and destroying the environment that we depend upon to live?  How intelligent is an animal that continues to shit in its own nest even after the consequences have become inescapable?

        Cleaning up the debris that we’ve been dumping into orbit for decades can be done, at a cost.  The question is, are we grown up enough to do it?  I don’t think I’m being extreme when I say that how we deal with this issue, or fail to deal with it, is a measure of our maturity as a species.

        Steve

  3. grassrootsofone says:
    0
    0

    Re- “What’s Happening to the Russian Space Industry?”
    By Meidad Pariente

    Just an item of interest (IMO), the article omits a key Soviet space development, that was both momentous and politically weighty, perhaps even more so than Sputnik at the time. That is, on September 14, 1959, the Soviet Union landed (crashed) the Lunik II space probe on the surface of the Moon.

    Khrushchev gloated about it, and I personally distinctly recall the words of candidate John F. Kennedy in one of the TV debates vs Nixon, “I look up and see the Soviet flag on the Moon.”

    I had the distinct impression it was instrumental in that close election.

    But politics aside, it was a momentous achievement for mankind to reach up and touch the Moon, which, since forever, had been a symbol of the unattainable.

  4. fieldtrip says:
    0
    0

    And I see the commies even got the first pics of the “dark side of the moon”!

    Most excellent science reportage.

    Sigh.
     

  5. cuibono1969 says:
    0
    0

    This is worrying at all levels. Not only the debris, but the US reliance on Russian tech to get astronauts into orbit.

    Everything should be done to speed Comercial Crew.

    PS: Paintballs! If they can deflect asteroids, maybe a paintgun in orbit could deal with some of the debris?
    PPS: Not joking.

  6. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    noah,

    I don’t think it needs to use giant anything, but rather requires a systematic approach.  When you vacuum a room, you don’t stand in the middle of the room and turn up the suction until everything is pulled in.  Instead, you use reasonably little suction and you move the vacuum cleaner head systematically back and forth covering each small area of the room in turn, and concentrating on “bad” areas as you encounter them.

    A similar approach to “vacuum cleaning” space makes sense to me.  Instead of “flying” from item to item of debris to collect them, we would simply make use of free fall orbits.  Once you are in a particular free fall orbit, it costs you nothing in delta-V to stay in that orbit, and if we are looking at cleaning LEO first, our velocity within that orbit (a function of the orbital altitude) should be low enough to allow the “cleaning” process to proceed smoothly (and yes, the cleaning process will include magnets).  You complete how ever many orbits at that altitude are necessary to “clean” it, and them you expend a little Delta-V to move into a slightly higher altitude orbit and repeat he process.  You move outward in small orbital altitude increments, cleaning from the planet outward over time.

    Clearly this will be a slow process and won’t be completed over night.  But since it is so simple, it can be almost entirely automated.  Human involvement would be oversight (babysitting) and probably refueling when necessary.  Assuming that a refueling mechanism is in place, the “cleaning system” can be operational continuously. Once it has reached and cleaned at GEO (which will probably take considerably longer than LEO because of longer orbital circumference and faster orbital speed), then we expend a larger chunk of Delta-V returning to LEO altitude to start on the next sweep, letting it continue the LEO to GEO cycle for as long as it lasts.

    The remaining part of the job, which will actually be the hardest and most expensive, is unloading the collected debris from our cleaning system and “disposing” of it, which may be actual disposal, or recycling, or a combination of the two.  One aspect of the problem that makes it simpler than it might first seem is that, like the cleaning process, there are no time limiting factors to overcome.  Launching something from the surface of the Earth into space must be done quickly, but moving debris around in space can be done as slowly as you like with no risk of it falling back to the planet (assuming we stay away from extended low orbit drag).

    So, although there’s clearly a lot to work out and prove, it all appears to me to be doable — for a cost — without the need of giant magnets.  And I’d like to stress that, as time passes, it might cost a lot more to not do it than to do it.

    Steve

  7. bobhudson54 says:
    0
    0

    What we have here is a prime example of “failure to communicate”. The degradation of Quality Assurance in the  complex structure of the Russian space industry, which is made up of
    tens of companies, each specializing in different areas results in mishaps such as these.
    In the structure used in the past, all of the Russian space industries
    were under oversight by one central body. This meant that all the
    companies
    involved were subject to the same oversight and quality control by an
    experienced group of professional military officers and engineers.The disbandment of this central oversight group meant that each company,
    both large and small, had to establish its own quality control
    capability.
    The larger companies built their own in-house capability, or hired
    outside consultants from Europe or the United States.The smaller companies found it difficult to contend with the
    demand for in-house quality control. They found themselves fighting
    increased competition, and locked into demanding schedules without
    proper quality control capabilities.This is the prime
    reason for the slate of expensive failures over the last 2 years.
    The adoption of improved quality control practices, as well as advanced
    work techniques will restore
    the space industry to a more respectable position..

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      >In the structure used in the past, all of the Russian>space industries were under oversight by one central body.

      Symbolically yes but their space program was far from quality control by experienced group of professional military officers and engineers. According to Jim Oberg’s article of the Soviet space program in a 1990s IEEE Spectrum magazine (I’m recalling from memory so may not be exact), Jim said Soviet programs were a combination of lashup and payoffs of key people to make it happen (cover of that magazine shows a Soyuz lifting off pad with a ball and chain strapped around the booster).

      In James Harford’s book “Korolev” it talks about obstacles Sergei was faced of arguing with other managers and engineers, competing for resources at industrial centers, persuading Politburo for money, etc. Unlike Von Braun can concentrate on building a big rocket because he has Webb persuading Washington DC for money, others working on programs such as weather and recon satellites. and USA had lots of industrial centers i.e. Boeing, Grumman, Ball Aerospace, Douglas, McDonnell, Aerojet, General Dynamics, Convair, North American, Northrop, Lockheed, etc. Reading this book it is amazing the Soviets accomplished what they did, at expense of major accidents i.e. when a large rocket exploded (prototype of Proton?) that killed about 300.

  8. Jeff Smith says:
    0
    0

    How much of this is due to the traditional separation between Soviet
    (now Russian) design bureaus that would do the the design and
    engineering, and the factories that actually manufacture the engines and
    other aerospace components?  This system is very unusual and probably
    has a large impact of the ability to perform QA/QC functions.  The
    military was the glue that held the system together, having insight into
    both design and manufacturing, and was the final arbiter of disputes. 
    With that link gone, the smaller design bureaus will likely be gobbled
    up by larger ones, or have to be merge with production houses to
    survive.

  9. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    Noah,

    The concept of using a large concave mirror to concentrate solar energy is one of those things that has been accepted as viable for decades but not actually used yet.  With a “solar furnace” of this type it should be possible to separate materials to some extent, much like cracking different oils from crude in a refinery.

    If my understanding is correct, and current, then the ability to do this down to the chemical element level in one system is still a ways beyond us.  But taking the different types of “junk” separated with a solar furnace and refining them further might make for a series of cottage industries in space, ideal for letting the smaller players get involved, which is something that I believe will become very important with time but has been given little thought so far.  If developing space becomes the province of only the big companies then things could turn out just like all of the bad sci-fi movies depict it.

    Steve