Author Topic: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015  (Read 343735 times)

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9589
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462
The lack of telemetry from the progress could be explained by the rotation (telemetry antenna pointing in the wrong direction).
But what about telemetry from the rocket's third stage? Was there any? What did it show? Was everything nominal?



We have no information about any of this.

To be sure, there were tracking stations receiving third stage telemetry.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7348
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3079
  • Likes Given: 903
The likelihood that the two vehicles would have been inserted into an orbit precisely matching that of a pre-existing debris cloud is so remote as to be nearly-unthinkable.

That is a correct assessment. And if the reports from space command about the 44 pieces of trackable debris turn out to be correct, then it is also safe to conclude that an energetic event took place. A normal separation of the Soyuz third stage and it's payload (in this case Progress) does not usuallly generate 44 trackable pieces of debris.
Unplanned energetic event(s), particularly if they occurred on Progress, usually do not spell the best of news.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2015 11:14 AM by woods170 »

Offline deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
  • California
  • Liked: 1192
  • Likes Given: 1699
Article also provided spin rate: 1 full rotation every 5 seconds or 12 rpm.
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline deruch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
  • California
  • Liked: 1192
  • Likes Given: 1699
Assuming no recovery of the Progress, any likelihood that the IDA-1 could get bumped from the Dragon CRS-7 trunk?
Shouldn't reality posts be in "Advanced concepts"?  --Nomadd

Offline Jarnis

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1084
  • Liked: 550
  • Likes Given: 143
Assuming no recovery of the Progress, any likelihood that the IDA-1 could get bumped from the Dragon CRS-7 trunk?

Why? Dragon without trunk cargo is heavily volume limited and I doubt any potential manifest changes for pressurized cargo would in any way influence the trunk cargo.

Offline Beittil

Though I guess in the extremely hypothetical situation of turning the inside of Dragon into a giant water/fueltank it would kinda push its mass limit and therefore enforce an empty trunk!

Not that this scenario is likely...
« Last Edit: 04/29/2015 11:55 AM by Beittil »

Offline Bubbinski

Yikes, 44 trackable pieces of debris by Progress is not good news. 

The Soyuz crewed launch to ISS is set for May 26th.  Is the same 3rd stage used for crewed Soyuz launches as well?  If so I would imagine there's a possibility for delay as well, if the 3rd stage or any common systems are implicated, but I'm by no means an expert.
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline EgorBotts

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • France
  • Liked: 63
  • Likes Given: 125
French newspaper "Le Monde" also has an article about the situation.

http://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2015/04/29/un-cargo-spatial-russe-chute-vers-la-terre_4625110_1650684.html

Interesting quote was saying a "russian Space director" told the French Press Agency (afp) that there will only be two more recovery attempts before the Progress would be considered as lost and left decaying in the upper atmosphere.
 
Sadly the article was modified since. Sergei Talalasov is now cited "trying with the ground teams to recover control". 

Offline CarlG

The Soyuz crewed launch to ISS is set for May 26th.  Is the same 3rd stage used for crewed Soyuz launches as well?  If so I would imagine there's a possibility for delay as well, if the 3rd stage or any common systems are implicated, but I'm by no means an expert.

I would think the threat of delays to manned Soyuz missions would be of more concern that resupply missions if it turns out to be a Stage 3 problem.

Online Chris Bergin

A reminder that I'm allowing this thread to be updates AND discussion based on gaining understanding on the situation. It is not about SpaceX - bar the posts about consumables on CRS-7 (that's fine).

Small trim. Remember to keep your posts relevant and useful. A lot of people are coming here for relevant information. Let's not disappoint them, because this is a very, very good thread with the updates and expert commentary as it stands.

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7372
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1526
  • Likes Given: 332
I would think the threat of delays to manned Soyuz missions would be of more concern that resupply missions if it turns out to be a Stage 3 problem.

If the cause of the tumble was 3rd stage or something relating to separation, wouldn't they be able to see that in vehicle telemetry, at the very least the signal strength fluctuations due to the stage tumbling as well?

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9589
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 462

The Soyuz crewed launch to ISS is set for May 26th.  Is the same 3rd stage used for crewed Soyuz launches as well?  If so I would imagine there's a possibility for delay as well, if the 3rd stage or any common systems are implicated, but I'm by no means an expert.

The Soyuz 2-1a upper stage uses a different control system than for the Soyuz-FG which is used for crews.  Since if there is a stage 3 problem it will likely be a control system problem, there would be no commonality between the two launchers.


Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8260
  • UK
  • Liked: 1338
  • Likes Given: 168
You can get live tracking here. Please note it is classified under NASA numbering.

http://www.n2yo.com/?s=40619

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7372
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1526
  • Likes Given: 332
Since if there is a stage 3 problem it will likely be a control system problem

How do you come to that conclusion? If the debris reports are correct, that doesn't sound like a control system problem to me.

Offline JimO

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1820
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 52
TASS has some new interesting details, but no signs of any hope.
http://tass.ru/en/non-political/792406

Online SkipMorrow

I haven't seen anything so far indicating how the craft is 'spinning'. From my geometry days we have x axis (front to back) y axis (left right) and z axis(up down). From edkyle's gif it appears rotating around z axis. How hard is it to correct rotation in one, two or all three axes?
Well, you should not read too much into Ed's gif as it's a very simple 2D animation. Based on the video downlinked, it is in a multi-axis spin, so it would require a 3D visualization.

Unless different forces are acting on different parts of an object, it always rotates around a single axis.  The question is just where that axis is.  It might not be close to the x, y, or z axes of the spacecraft.

Not true; in torque-free rigid body motion, the angular velocity vector is not stationary in the body (vehicle) axes.

Conservation of angular momentum says the angular momentum is conserved in a torque-free system, and if the body is rigid, you can only have the same angular momentum if you have the same angular velocity.

Precession comes from small torques.  It also comes from relativistic effects of warped space, but that's more a property of the frame itself precessing -- the inertial frame itself precesses, and in that frame the angular velocity is conserved.

There are various small torques that will affect Progress, including atmospheric drag differential drag, and magnet effects.  Those torques could cause some slow precession, but the scale should be small compared to its current angular velocity.
If precession comes from torques, why does the earth's axial spin precess? I have heard that while the north pole points at the north star right now, in 20,000 years it will not and our seasons will be reversed. What is the cause of torque in that system? Or am I not understanding your explanation?

Online ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7372
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 1526
  • Likes Given: 332
If precession comes from torques, why does the earth's axial spin precess? I have heard that while the north pole points at the north star right now, in 20,000 years it will not and our seasons will be reversed. What is the cause of torque in that system?

Lunar and Solar gravity perturbations acting on a non-spherical Earth, but that's OT here.

Offline kevinof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
  • Dublin/London
  • Liked: 236
  • Likes Given: 292
if there are 44 pieces, a spacecraft tumbling, no communications then my guess is there was an impact between the Progress and the 3rd stage. Pity the video wasn't better quality as it may have been possible to see some of these pieces.


Online Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6997
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 638
TASS has some new interesting details, but no signs of any hope.
http://tass.ru/en/non-political/792406

Bottom line: there has been no useful contact with the spacecraft in six com passes, the spacecraft is unresponsive to ground commands and, consequently, no action, either a deorbit burn or restoration of stability, is considered possible. That's it, I'm afraid! :(

TASS is pretty much a government mouthpiece. I'd expect Roscosmos to formally announce the LOM and accident investigation/board of inquiry shortly.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
No only the control system is different, the manufacturing standards for the human rated -FG are also different, with more rested workers and higher levels of inspection and documentation. Besides, it is not clear at this time, what has happened. But, in any case, the ISS has started to increase its reserves, and they have 3 Dragons, 1 HTV and 1 Cygnus until year's end. So they might have to shuffle the manifest a bit, and there might be some impact to the science works, but that's it.
It's not the first Progress lost, and the next Progress was supposed to fly on Soyuz-U anyways. Let's remember that this was the 148th Progress to fly, and the Soyuz-U/2 has over 850 under its belt. Whatever the root cause of the failure, it most assuredly won't be a design flaw. The critical item for which there's no redundancy is ISS propellant transfer and Roscosmos will make sure they have a replacement flying fast.
It is a bad event, but there's plenty of redundancies on the ISS. Let's remember that this means a failure while one of the other cargo suppliers is in stand down. If they can handle two simultaneous stand downs, they clearly have more than enough redundancies on the cargo side of the logistics. Crew, for now, is a different matter. So is propellant refill.

Tags: