Author Topic: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015  (Read 340091 times)

Online saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 473
  • Liked: 370
  • Likes Given: 1172
I think the best answer comes from Jonathan McDowell:

Quote
I am scoring the launch as 0.30 success (orbit reached but fatal
payload separation problem).

Heh. I'm scoring Orb-4 0.072 success (Liftoff accomplished, but some problems later). Partial failure. A for effort. At least they tried.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
I think the best answer comes from Jonathan McDowell:

Quote
Progress M-27 was launched on Apr 28; however, the Soyuz-2-1a third
stage did not shut down correctly and damaged the spacecraft during
separation. 44 debris objects were tracked, 20 of them being cataloged
(all  reentered by May 7). Limited telemetry was obtained from the
Progress, but Russian mission control was unable to control the
spacecraft, which was found to be spinning. The damaged spacecraft
reentered over the South Pacific off the SW coast of Chile at 0220 UTC
May 8. I am scoring the launch as 0.30 success (orbit reached but fatal
payload separation problem).
According to Anatoly Zak's site:
Quote
On June 1, 2015, Roskosmos published a press-release entitled "Cause of the Failure Determined." It went as following:

...After a thorough analysis of the failed launch and the completion of full-scale experiments, members of the commission came to the following conclusion:

The damage to the ship during its abnormal separation from the third stage of the Soyuz-2-1a launch vehicle resulted from a particular property of the joint use of the cargo spacecraft and the launch vehicle. This design property was related to frequency and dynamic characteristics of joint vehicles.

This design property was not fully accounted for during the development of the rocket and spacecraft complex.

Limitations on further flights of the Soyuz-2-1a rocket with other spacecraft had not been found.

I'm reading that as an interface design problem. In that sense, I would say that the payload damaged the rocket and not the other way around. I guess the true question is if the payload interface should be considered LV or S/C?
« Last Edit: 06/09/2015 03:58 PM by baldusi »

Online saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 473
  • Liked: 370
  • Likes Given: 1172
I guess the true question is if the payload interface should be considered LV or S/C?

I don't see how that matters. It's part of the whole stack, which was faulty. The launch was ill-prepeared, improperly analyzed and resulted in launch failure.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12779
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3548
  • Likes Given: 608
Launch vehicle failure.  A 0.000 success.  :)

A launch vehicle success results when a launch vehicle inserts a payload into its planned orbit without damaging the payload.  This launch vehicle achieved neither result.

- Ed Kyle

Offline aga

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
  • Per aspera ad astra
  • Germany
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 1266
I guess the true question is if the payload interface should be considered LV or S/C?
I don't see how that matters. It's part of the whole stack, which was faulty. The launch was ill-prepeared, improperly analyzed and resulted in launch failure.

it matters for people who clasify launch vehicle success rates...
if it is considered S/C then from the PoV of LV the launch was successful and only S/C failed - the same goes for launches where LV puts the sat in orbit but the sat does not work, does not communicate, etc - eg. phobos grunt, or the light sail was close - that is not considered as a failure of the LV, just (sorry for the word, but here it is somehow appropriate) a failed mission... and then it is counted in the LV stats as a successful launch
« Last Edit: 06/09/2015 05:31 PM by aga »
42

Offline wronkiew

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 186
  • 34.502327, -116.971697
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 116
A new schedule for Soyuz and Progress:
Quote
1. 3 июля: ТГК «Прогресс М-28М» (РН «Союз–У»);
2. 23-25 июля: ТПК «Союз ТМА-17М» (РН «Союз–ФГ»; дата будет определена позднее в связи с коррекцией обриты МКС, состоявшейся 8 июня);
3. 1 сентября: ТПК «Союз ТМА-18М» (РН «Союз–ФГ»);
4. 21 сентября: ТГК «Прогресс М-29М» (РН «Союз–У»);
5. 21 ноября: – первый запуск модернизированного космического «грузовика» ТГК «Прогресс-МС» (РН «Союз 2.1а»);
6. 15 декабря: ТПК «Союз ТМА-19М» (РН «Союз–ФГ»).
http://www.roscosmos.ru/21529/

Applying the magic decoder ring:

1. 3 July: ТГК «Progress М-28М» (РН «Soyuz–U»);
2. 23-25 July: ТПК «Soyuz ТМА-17М» (РН «Soyuz–FG»; date to be determined due to ISS orbit correction on 8 June);
3. 1 September: ТПК «Soyuz ТМА-18М» (РН «Soyuz–FG»);
4. 21 September: ТГК «Progress М-29М» (РН «Soyuz–U»);
5. 21 November: – first flight of the modernized cargo vehicle ТГК «Progress-МС» (РН «Soyuz 2.1а»);
6. 15 December: ТПК «Soyuz ТМА-19М» (РН «Soyuz–FG»).

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2515
  • Liked: 1711
  • Likes Given: 656
Since the SpaceX forums are swarming with "IDA payload integration did it" theories for the SpaceX CRS-7 failure, I think it may be worthwhile reflecting again on the M-27M failure, which was also apparently caused by a payload integration failure.

Do we have any additional information on M-27M?  As I recall it, the final verdict was that there was an unexpected resonance between Progress and the Soyuz-2, not present for Soyuz-U/FG.  Did this resonance then cause a third stage valve/pump failure, or am I misremembering that?

EDIT: I was misremembering!  The third stage failure was Proton-M/Briz-M/MexSat-1.  So we have any details other than "bad integration"?
« Last Edit: 07/01/2015 04:10 PM by cscott »

Offline jcm

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2802
  • Jonathan McDowell
  • Somerville, Massachusetts, USA
    • Jonathan's Space Report
  • Liked: 338
  • Likes Given: 293
Launch vehicle failure.  A 0.000 success.  :)

A launch vehicle success results when a launch vehicle inserts a payload into its planned orbit without damaging the payload.  This launch vehicle achieved neither result.

- Ed Kyle

I have scored it 0.30 success in my arcane system (correct orbit reached but payload separation unsuccessful/damaging)

It is definitely a launch vehicle failure in my opinion - clean payload separation is part of the LV responsibility, and payload-LV bad interaction is part of what the LV provider should check for prior to launch.


-----------------------------

Jonathan McDowell
http://planet4589.org

Online Skyrocket

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2073
  • Frankfurt am Main, Germany
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 65
Launch vehicle failure.  A 0.000 success.  :)

A launch vehicle success results when a launch vehicle inserts a payload into its planned orbit without damaging the payload.  This launch vehicle achieved neither result.

- Ed Kyle

I have scored it 0.30 success in my arcane system (correct orbit reached but payload separation unsuccessful/damaging)

It is definitely a launch vehicle failure in my opinion - clean payload separation is part of the LV responsibility, and payload-LV bad interaction is part of what the LV provider should check for prior to launch.

I also consider it a launch vehicle failure.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9566
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 457
So, SpaceX suffered an upper stage failure due to a structural fault in a part that had flown many times before.

Offline asmi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 658
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 91
So, SpaceX suffered an upper stage failure due to a structural fault in a part that had flown many times before.
Which is another way of saying "sh*t happened", and this failure is yet another proof that no one (not even Elon Musk) is immune to occasional failures. Beyond that it doesn't mean much.

Online eeergo

  • Phystronaut
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4739
  • Milan, Italy; Spain; Virginia
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 342
I found information I had never read before about the cause of the Progress M-27M in this report of the newly launched Progress MS-1 in SpaceFlight101:

http://spaceflight101.com/successful-launch-of-first-progress-ms/

Apparently, the redesign of the Block I tanks led to the hammering effects of the propellants rushing towards the front of the stage at RD-0110 shutdown to exceed the allowable limits because of resonance coupling with the stack. This lead to a premature uncommanded Progress separation and a loss of structural integrity of the Block I tanks (stage blew up), which damaged the Service Module. The corrective action was a delay of 0.34s introduced in the shutdown sequence to avoid the resonant condition. More details on the report.
-DaviD-

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1138
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Commonwealth of Virginia
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 697
Progress M-25M flew on Soyuz 2.1a rocket also. Was it just good luck this didn't happen then?
Apparently, yes.  From the new article eeergo refers to: Progress MS Spacecraft begins Debut Mission to ISS with successful Launch atop Soyuz Rocket
Quote
Progress M-25M that had an uneventful separation sequence was just lucky as frequency dynamics may not have been tuned right to the natural resonant frequency, allowing the craft to avoid a disaster at separation.
Support your local planetarium!

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1138
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Commonwealth of Virginia
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 697
I found this interesting; Wayne Hale also refers to this failure in his blog post of October 5, 2015: How to Avoid Train Wrecks
Quote
[It] is well known that [with] a new heavy payload on the top of a new and spindly rocket (they are all spindly) it is imperative that the springy interaction be analyzed. If you don’t do that, well, you run the risk of failure like 59P last April.
Support your local planetarium!

Tags: