Author Topic: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015  (Read 340524 times)

Online Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6985
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 550
  • Likes Given: 624
Tass reports that it will be deorbited May 5-7.
http://tass.ru/en/non-political/792523

Curiously more-or-less the time independent observers were predicting the orbit would naturally decay.
"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 BabaORileyUSA

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 17
Poor wording by TASS (or poor translation).  The Progress will NOT be de-orbited; its orbit will naturally decay into the atmosphere.  Without attitude control, engine firings are possible, but stupid, since you are guaranteed to be firing in random directions, which increases the possibility of raising the orbit and slowing the decay.  No engine firing will take place. 

Oh, and solar panels don't work to brake the vehicle because they break off pretty quickly (yes, intentional slight play on words).

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3030
  • Liked: 532
  • Likes Given: 604
Yes, I imagine "assets" could be put into place and would likely be able to break up the Progress on its way down.  They'd want to hit it from the trailing part of the orbit to minmize the chance of any debris bouncing back up in orbit.

?!

Striking from behind would _increase_ chances of generating longer-lived chunks, as it adds velocity to the target, some chunks may end up having a higher apogee.

Anyway, striking from behind is energetically impossible, unless ASAT launcher is even more powerful than an ordinary LEO LV, which would be a massive overkill.

Ground-based ASATs strike their target spacecraft from the front. Or rather, they place their warhead in a spot where *spacecraft hits it* - the warhead has much lower velocity relative to Earth than the sat.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8515
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1026
  • Likes Given: 235
The USA-193 pieces reentered quickly, including in a meteor shower observed twenty minutes later in Canada with a MOVING radiant [imagine that!]. But the time factor is the show-stopper.

Time also helps, in the other direction, maybe ten days isn't a long-enough 'cold soak' to get the geptyl down really really cold. How much do we think is on board? What's the amount at insertion?
Jim,

Not to argue with you but, trackable debris from the USA-193 event was shot as high as 147 km x 2,689 km. While most of it reentered quickly, a trackable amount was sent into higher orbits. That is what would endanger ISS.

Take a look at CelesTrak's Gabbard plot: https://celestrak.com/events/USA-193-Gabbard.pdf

Article: https://celestrak.com/events/usa-193.asp

Again, this is why an similar intercept is a bad idea for ISS.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2015 06:27 PM by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7952
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2157
  • Likes Given: 5101
I'm not questioning anything but I don't understand. Full tanks of anything getting hot and exploding would seem to reduce the risk of substantial anything getting to the ground. Frozen fuel is what makes this more dangerous than usual?

Your 'common sense' take on it is entirely reasonable, on Earth. Most people reach the same conclusion. But please read my treatment of the real science, here: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/down-in-flames
Great article Jim, thanks for linking it! :)
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8515
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1026
  • Likes Given: 235
Ground-based ASATs strike their target spacecraft from the front. Or rather, they place their warhead in a spot where *spacecraft hits it* - the warhead has much lower velocity relative to Earth than the sat.

Small nit, the SM-3 during the USA-193 intercept actually came in from the side, the satellite still ran it over, but it wasn't a true down the throat shot. It was a bit more complicated intercept.

I vaguely recall a "controlled" progress reentry a few years back that was observed by a commercial airline with some debris passing close enough to cause the a complaint to be filed by the pilot (and all the sensational headlines to match). Some debris will most likely survive reentry, if it reenters over a populated area someone may find some of it.

The real question is was and chocolate and marshmallows on the manifest. Imagine finding space Smores!
« Last Edit: 04/29/2015 06:29 PM by kevin-rf »
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3520
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2083
  • Likes Given: 2468
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.

It's too early to conclude that.

First of all, there could be a design flaw that only gives a 0.1% chance of failure and it wouldn't be surprising if it took 850 flights before it happened to turn up.

Secondly, there have been many design changes over the years.  Not all 148 of those Progresses had the same design in every detail and not all of those 850 Soyuz had the same design.  Far from it.

Offline Elvis in Space

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
  • Elvis is Everywhere
  • Still on Earth
  • Liked: 263
  • Likes Given: 1417
I'm not questioning anything but I don't understand. Full tanks of anything getting hot and exploding would seem to reduce the risk of substantial anything getting to the ground. Frozen fuel is what makes this more dangerous than usual?

Your 'common sense' take on it is entirely reasonable, on Earth. Most people reach the same conclusion. But please read my treatment of the real science, here: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/down-in-flames
Great article Jim, thanks for linking it! :)

Agreed. Thank you for taking time to respond with a complete explanation. I recalled USA-183 but the explanation seemed to make sense to me at the time.
Cheeseburgers on Mars!

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3520
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2083
  • Likes Given: 2468
Too bad we don't have a few ships equipped with railguns, as those would blow it apart in one shot.

We already have the ability to hit it with missiles either from U.S. Navy ships or land bases.  A rail gun would add nothing to that existing capability.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3520
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2083
  • Likes Given: 2468
Poor wording by TASS (or poor translation).  The Progress will NOT be de-orbited; its orbit will naturally decay into the atmosphere.  Without attitude control, engine firings are possible, but stupid, since you are guaranteed to be firing in random directions, which increases the possibility of raising the orbit and slowing the decay.  No engine firing will take place. 

Oh, and solar panels don't work to brake the vehicle because they break off pretty quickly (yes, intentional slight play on words).

Technically, Russia probably does have the capability to shoot it down.  It's not at all likely that's what they meant, but it is possible a possible interpretation of the claim they'll de-orbit it.

Offline JimO

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 49
Not to argue with you but, trackable debris from the USA-193 event was shot as high as 147 km x 2,689 km. While most of it reentered quickly, a trackable amount was sent into higher orbits. That is what would endanger ISS.

Again, this is why an similar intercept is a bad idea for ISS.

I gratefully stand corrected, and will need it more and more as time goes by, so lay on, MacDuff!

Offline Space Pete

Apparently the heavy docking mechanism usually survives re-entry. Don't want that landing on your head!
Electronic Engineer by day, NASASpaceflight's ISS Editor by night | Read my NASASpaceflight articles here

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299

If they can at least get it to hit the atmosphere broadside instead of front or rear first, it would stand a much better chance of breaking up and burning.

That can't happen.  Drag would reorient the vehicle

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31294
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9578
  • Likes Given: 299

Crazy as it sounds, so long as it still has its solar panels and they can be controlled from groundside, as it starts to brush the atmosphere, they could be used to adjust the attitude of the whole spacecraft through drag.


The arrays are fixed

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Apparently the heavy docking mechanism usually survives re-entry. Don't want that landing on your head!

Wonder if they have enough power and control to separate the sections?  That Also might also break the fuel line connections.



« Last Edit: 04/29/2015 07:08 PM by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Kaputnik

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2789
  • Liked: 445
  • Likes Given: 375
Apparently the heavy docking mechanism usually survives re-entry. Don't want that landing on your head!

Wonder if they have enough power and control to separate the sections?  That Also might also break the fuel line connections.





I don't think Progress can be split up into sections, like Soyuz is.
Waiting for joy and raptor

Offline Nicolas PILLET

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2207
  • Gien, France
    • Kosmonavtika
  • Liked: 354
  • Likes Given: 35
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.

It was 150th Progress to fly.

http://www.kosmonavtika.com/vaisseaux/progress/liste/tous.html
Nicolas PILLET
Kosmonavtika : The French site on Russian Space

Offline MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 917
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 622
  • Likes Given: 1080
Apparently the heavy docking mechanism usually survives re-entry. Don't want that landing on your head!

Wonder if they have enough power and control to separate the sections?  That Also might also break the fuel line connections.



I don't think Progress can be split up into sections, like Soyuz is.

That's correct. While superficially in appearance to the manned Soyuz crew vehicle, Progress is, in reality, a single module with compartments that are fundamentally different. No heat shield; where the reentry vehicle would be is the giant ISS fuel reserve, and there aren't modules to separate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_%28spacecraft%29#Design
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline Nicolas PILLET

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2207
  • Gien, France
    • Kosmonavtika
  • Liked: 354
  • Likes Given: 35
I don't think Progress can be split up into sections, like Soyuz is.

No, it can't. There would be no interest to split compartments, since none is designed to survive reentry.
Nicolas PILLET
Kosmonavtika : The French site on Russian Space

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3452
  • California
  • Liked: 2691
  • Likes Given: 1702

Not to argue with you but, trackable debris from the USA-193 event was shot as high as 147 km x 2,689 km. While most of it reentered quickly, a trackable amount was sent into higher orbits. That is what would endanger ISS.

Again, this is why an similar intercept is a bad idea for ISS.

I gratefully stand corrected, and will need it more and more as time goes by, so lay on, MacDuff!

Yes, it would be a bad idea. Imagine trying to control and extinguish a fire by throwing a grenade on it.

ASAT weapons are intended for destruction of satellites. Not debris removal - it will have the opposite effect.

Tags: