From: bihkyan@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Yang Yuanxin)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: CHINESE ROCKET SHROUD BREAKUP CAUSED LONG MARCH FAILURE
Date: 26 Jan 1993 20:01:45 -0600
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Distribution: world,local
NNTP-Posting-Host: uxa.ecn.bgu.edu

In article <1993Jan26.110215.4287@arizona.edu> raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man) writes:
>CHINESE ROCKET SHROUD BREAKUP CAUSED LONG MARCH FAILURE
>Craig Covault/Paris, Aviation Week & Space Technology, Jan. 18, 1993
>
>The Catastrophic breakup of the Chinese-built launch shroud on the
>Long March 2E booster, which carried the Hughes/Optus B2 spacecraft,
>caused the mission failure and satellite loss.

   Before Chinese side's acception, this statement comes too early. I
can't see this magzine is a serious one by this line of statement.

>  Analysis of debris, telemetry and photographic evidence shows that
>the Dec. 22 failure was caused by a problem with the Chinese booster,
>not the Hughes 601 spacecraft, U.S. and European sources told
>AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY.

  There must be some words from the Chinese side, did they mention any?

>  China has yet to accept blame for the accident, and a Chinese
>Aerospace Ministry official last week still denied that the booster
>was to blame (AW&ST Jan. 11, p. 60). But data from the accident show
>a failure of the nose shroud triggered the accident.

  But what triggered the "failure of the nose shroud" ?

>  Sources told Aviation Week the accident occurred when the Chinese-
>built 4.2-meter-dia. (13.8 ft.) nose cone shroud covering the satellite
>broke up while the vehicle was reaching supersonic velocity at about
>23,000 ft., 45 sec. after liftoff.
>  This is the ascent regime, when the greatest aerodynamic pressure and
>structural loading--Max Q--are exerted on the booster.

  Remember China has about 30 years of experiences in supersonic field,
 and has made thousands of planes that can fly up to 2.X times of
 of sound spead since 1960s.

>  When the shroud ripped away, the Hughes satellite was exposed to a
>1,000-mph. slipstream that destroyed it.
>  A flash seen by ground observers at this moment is thought to have been
>caused by a small explosion resulting from liquid propellants used by
>the spacecraft for geosynchronous orbit station-keeping being mixed as
>the satellite was destroyed.
>  The nose shroud was not supposed to separate from the Long March until
>nearly 4 min. into the flight. The vehicle at that point would have been
>at nearly 300,000 ft. (57 mi.) altitude, and above most of Earth's
>atmosphere.
>  Even though the shroud opened too early and the satellite was destroyed,
>the remaining upper section of the booster was strong enough structurally
>to sustain the booster's flight. The Long March upper stage entered orbit
>as palnned, but without its several-hundred-million-dollar payload.
>  Why the Chinese shroud failed is yet to be determined. But the

  It seems almost determined by this "serious magzine".

>investigation is focusing on what Chinese technicians did to the shroud
>when opening and closing the unit before launch.
>  The shroud was closed with the satellite inside, but then reopened so
>Hughes technicians could replace an avionics system in the spacecraft.
>Such operations are not unusual in launch preparations.
>  Weatern engineers believe the shroud then was released improperly or
>that a "small modification" was made to it by the Chinese. They said this
>was not reviewed with Hughes and could have been a factor in the accident.
>  The accident will hurt China's ability to market the Long March
>commercially against the European Ariane, Russian Proton and U.S. Atlas.
>An Atlas suffered a similar failure that destroyed a U.S. Defense Dept.
>satellite several years ago at Cape Cananveral.

 The whole article didn't mention any words from the Chinese side about
the investigation, this is a totally biased, missleading, unfair,
one-side story.

>
>-----End of Unathorized copy from AW&ST-----typos may be introduced by psoter--
>
>Please, Mr. Covault, don't sue me. I am poor.
>-- 
>Just call me `Man'. 
>"And why take ye thought for "    --   Matt. 6:28
>raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu