SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Upper Stage Issue Causes Arianespace Launch Failure, Costing 2 Satellites
Upper stage issue causes Arianespace launch failure, costing 2 satellites:
An overnight launch of Arianespace's Vega rocket failed after reaching space, costing France and Spain an Earth-observing satellite each. The failure represents the second in two years after Vega had built up a spotless record over its first six years of service.
[...] Something went wrong with the liquid-fueled [fourth] stage after it had reached an altitude of over 200km. While it's not entirely clear at the time what had failed, in the words of Arianespace CEO Stéphane Israël, "The speed was not nominal anymore." This caused the upper stage and satellites to veer off the planned trajectory, and Arianespace lost control of the vehicle shortly afterward. The spacecraft returned to Earth near where the upper stage was expected to fall in an area that's completely uninhabited.
The failure happened at a stage of the launch where Arianespace is able to obtain detailed telemetry data from tracking stations in North America.
[...] The company's initial investigation focused on the engine of the liquid-fueled fourth stage, specifically "a problem related to the integration of the fourth-stage AVUM nozzle activation system," which was "the most likely cause of the loss of control of the launcher." Arianespace has already named a European Space Agency official who will head the inquiry into the failure, which will focus on why the problem wasn't caught and corrected prior to launch.
Bad Cabling Blamed for Failed Launch of European Satellites
Bad cabling blamed for failed launch of European satellites:
The European Space Agency said the Vega carrier rocket deviated from its trajectory eight minutes after liftoff from Kourou, in French Guiana, late Monday.
France-based Arianespace said an initial investigation showed the first [three] stages of the Vega launch vehicle had functioned as planned. When the final stage of the rocket—known as AVUM—ignited, the spacecraft tumbled off course, leading to a "loss of mission," it said.
"A problem related to the integration of the fourth-stage AVUM nozzle activation system is the most likely cause of the loss of control of the launcher," Arianespace said.
The company's chief technical officer, Roland Lagier, said data indicated the issue was down to wrongly installed cables in a system controlling the thrusters.
He blamed quality control and "a series of human errors," for the problem.
Vega Rocket Failure Apparently Caused by Human Error
Vega Rocket Failure Apparently Caused by Human Error:
An Arianespace Vega rocket carrying two satellites failed to reach orbit yesterday after experiencing a catastrophic failure eight minutes into the launch. Officials are attributing the loss of the rocket to a “series of human errors.”
Original Submission #1 Original Submission #2 Original Submission #3
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Thursday November 19 2020, @07:39AM (7 children)
Design them so it's impossible to plug them in upside down. Frankly I'm surprised they didn't do that in the first place.
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2020, @12:32PM
We replaced all the connectors with USB-C. What could possibly go wrong.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by choose another one on Thursday November 19 2020, @02:34PM
It's standard to do that in aerospace, or at least it was 30 odd years ago...
Thing is, it's also standard (or was) to explain to the new guys that whenever you design something that "cannot" be plugged the wrong way you should also _expect_ that the universe will create a smarter idiot with a bigger hammer who _will_ plug it the wrong way. It's a safety barrier, but it should not be relied upon exclusively.
I'd be more worried about why the doesn't seem to have been any integration / end-to-end testing, or how they missed this. That is what caught Boeing out with Starliner, but it's kind of what you expect from Boeing these days, while Arianespace still has (or had) a solid engineering and reliability reputation. Must be quite worrying for Arianespace, SpaceX is already eating their lunch on price, if they lose the slight reliability edge they had, tough to see what's left for them.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday November 19 2020, @04:37PM (3 children)
My finger can be inserted into my nose in more than one orientation. Furthermore, I have more than one finger that is plug in compatible with each nostril. So nothing prevents using the wrong one or the wrong way. A manual on the proper way would be helpful.
Maybe the software could be smart enough to realize that when it commanded thruster A, but thruster B actually reacted, that maybe they are
weirdwired incorrectly. Alternately each thruster could identify itself as part of the protocol. Or each thruster could have a unique at manufacture time GUID. The software could consult an IoT database in the cloud to identify which thruster it is talking with.If you think a fertilized egg is a child but an immigrant child is not, please don't pretend your concerns are religious
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday November 19 2020, @05:32PM (2 children)
Yeah, and you've just made your software much more complex. Which means more bugs, more testing, more time, and a lot more $$$$.
Better to ensure the plugs only go in one way, and that the tech doing the install doesn't have access to a hammer.
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday November 19 2020, @06:07PM
Could such simplistic solutions actually work?
I still like the cloud database idea.
If you think a fertilized egg is a child but an immigrant child is not, please don't pretend your concerns are religious
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday November 19 2020, @07:14PM
Not a flight controller engineer, but I'm pretty sure the software already knows from gyroscopes, accelerometers, etc., what the motion vectors are. What it does with a discrepancy is the issue. I'll be the first to admit that it'd be annoying to have to program it to compensate for opposite thruster behavior, or other major mistakes.
I agree and commented above- there are ways to make connectors unique, including just using 1 connector for the 2 jets. Or 2 different sized connectors. And assembly techs that know to never use force. If there's a problem, escalate to supervisor, engineer, etc.
But again, I propose they could have tested most of these kinds of subsystems before flight.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 19 2020, @10:14PM
This wasn't a case of something plugged in upside down, like the Boeing 777 fires, but putting plug A into socket B and vice-versa. This is possible because sockets A and B are on identical control modules. The traditional fix for this particular problem is to space the modules apart and then make the cables too short to reach the wrong module, since the cables go to opposite sides of the rocket.