{domain:"www.qualitydigest.com",server:"169.47.211.87"} Skip to main content

User account menu
Main navigation
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Videos/Webinars
    • All videos
    • Product Demos
    • Webinars
  • Advertise
    • Advertise
    • Submit B2B Press Release
    • Write for us
  • Metrology Hub
  • Training
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
Mobile Menu
  • Home
  • Topics
    • 3D Metrology-CMSC
    • Customer Care
    • FDA Compliance
    • Healthcare
    • Innovation
    • Lean
    • Management
    • Metrology
    • Operations
    • Risk Management
    • Six Sigma
    • Standards
    • Statistics
    • Supply Chain
    • Sustainability
    • Training
  • Login / Subscribe
  • More...
    • All Features
    • All News
    • All Videos
    • Contact
    • Training

Rising Up, Aiming Down

Inspection is not prevention, as Russia’s aerospace industry knows at high cost

Tommaso Sgobba
Mon, 09/09/2013 - 16:16
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
  • Add new comment
Body

During the past two years, almost at regular intervals, we hear news about the failure of a Russian rocket launch. A few weeks ago, on July 2, 2013, a three-stage Proton-M took off from Baikonour Cosmodrome. The rocket started veering off course right after leaving the pad, deviating from the vertical path in various directions and then plunging to the ground, nose first, less than 40 seconds after liftoff. The fragmenting and still-thrusting vehicle crashed approximately 2.5 km from the launch pad. The impact created a 40 m by 25 m crater with a depth of up to 5 m.

ADVERTISEMENT

The immediate safety concern was the 600 tons of fuel: unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine, a toxic chemical compound that can be absorbed through the skin, and dinitrogen tetroxide, an inhalation and contact hazard causing edema and skin burns. Toxic clouds began drifting over the Kazakh plains following the crash. The Cosmodrome was evacuated, and the inhabitants of Baikonour were instructed not to leave their homes, to deactivate air conditioners, and tightly close all doors and windows to avoid breathing contaminated air. During the days following the launch failure a total area of 13,100 sq. meters had to be treated with detoxifying chemical solutions.

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
Enter your username or email address
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.
Create a FREE account
Forgot My Password

Comments

Submitted by umberto mario tunesi on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 15:54

let him who is without sin cast the first stone

Both the NASA and the ESA are not exempt from similar accidents, according to official sources. I am a convinced supporter of prevention, Mr. Sgobba, but, please, go and cry wolf to the villagers selling their measuring widgets or repeating their mostly unheard sermons. Thank you.

  • Reply

Submitted by tsgobba on Thu, 10/03/2013 - 16:35

With reference to the comment by Mr. Tunesi

Dear Mr. Tunesi, the technician who had performed the installation operation was a young guy. The investigation found that the procedure was deficient, open to interpretation and difficult to perform. There was an arrow on the sensor but there was no corresponding arrow on the mounting plate. Apparently the installation procedure had never been validated, and those who carried it in the past did not care to have it clarified and improved. The young technician was not properly trained and he had to work in a difficult location. Now the Russian are going back to the previous system of massive military inspections. They will fail! Yes, now and then we have failures in our operations but there is a solid culture of quality in Europe and US, while the Russians seem to have serious difficulty in transitioning from the old system based on ownership of knowledge by "master" and capillary customers inspections to modern quality control.   

  • Reply

Add new comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Please login to comment.
      

© 2025 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute Inc.

footer
  • Home
  • Print QD: 1995-2008
  • Print QD: 2008-2009
  • Videos
  • Privacy Policy
  • Write for us
footer second menu
  • Subscribe to Quality Digest
  • About Us
  • Contact Us