NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

International Space Flight (ESA, Russia, China and others) => Russian Launchers - Soyuz, Progress and Unmanned => Topic started by: Satori on 10/06/2014 11:00 AM

Title: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Satori on 10/06/2014 11:00 AM
Progress M-27M arrived at the Baikonur Cosmodrome on October 4, 2014: http://www.roscosmos.ru/20984/ (http://www.roscosmos.ru/20984/) (in Russian).

Launch is schedule for April 30, 2015, using a Soyuz-2-1A.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 03/28/2015 03:00 PM
But the master schedule here says April 28,
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Satori on 03/28/2015 05:00 PM
But the master schedule here says April 28,


Latest official update gives that launch date.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 03/28/2015 06:40 PM
Which launch date is correct? Is there a link to the Roskosmos official schedule?



Since this mission will use Soyuz 2-1A,  the implication is that the payload fairing would be  maintained for about an extra minute, or else the Progress will carry more cargo than normal, it would be interesting to see which approach would be taken for this launch,



Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Satori on 03/28/2015 06:42 PM
Our schedule is correct.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 03/28/2015 07:22 PM
Since this mission will use Soyuz 2-1A,  the implication is that the payload fairing would be  maintained for about an extra minute, or else the Progress will carry more cargo than normal, it would be interesting to see which approach would be taken for this launch,
The following attachments of Soyuz-U and Soyuz 2-1a are for comparison only and should give you an idea of the plan based on past flights.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Satori on 04/10/2015 01:12 PM
At Baikonur work started to prepare the launcher for the mission: http://www.federalspace.ru/21422/ (in Russian)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Satori on 04/14/2015 09:05 PM
A meeting of the Technical management

April 14, 2015

At Baikonur launch site the preparations continue for the launch of Progress M-27M cargo vehicle under the International Space Station program.

Today the Technical Management meeting took place, which made a decision to fuel Progress M-27M cargo vehicle with propellant components and compressed gases.

http://www.energia.ru/en/iss/iss43/progress_m-27m/photo_04-14.html
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Satori on 04/14/2015 09:07 PM
Progress M-27M was sent to the fueling station... http://www.roscosmos.ru/21434/ (in Russian)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Stan Black on 04/16/2015 08:02 PM
So there is only one contract for four rockets at the moment.

The tender for four 2-1A rockets was raised in July 2012, contract signed August 2012.

1st delivery was scheduled for June 2014, for the launch of Progress-MS № 432, scheduled for launch in October 2014.

http://www.zakupki.gov.ru/pgz/public/action/orders/info/events_journal/show?notificationId=3885879

So any earlier possible use of 2-1A is incorrect?

Yes. You can do us a favor and calculate the increased cost of using 2-1A vs Soyuz-U for Progress, to see if there is a significant difference.  We could then figure out the launch cost of flying the additional 400 kg of payload.

2014 - Soyuz-U 685,047,000 ruble - Soyuz-FG 742,880,000 ruble - Soyuz-2-1A 0,939,502,000 ruble
2015 - Soyuz-U 737,558,000 ruble - Soyuz-FG 799,466,000 ruble - Soyuz-2-1A 1,019,087,000 ruble

http://www.zakupki.gov.ru/pgz/public/action/orders/info/common_info/show?notificationId=3194165
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17286.msg1052136#msg1052136

2014 - Soyuz-FG 742,880,000 ruble - Soyuz-2-1A   939,502,000 ruble - Soyuz-U 685,047,000 ruble
2015 - Soyuz-FG 799,466,000 ruble - Soyuz-2-1A 1,019,087,000 ruble - Soyuz-U 737,558,000 ruble
2016 - Soyuz-FG 773,600,000 ruble - Soyuz-2-1A 1,055,578,000 ruble

http://www.zakupki.gov.ru/epz/order/notice/ep44/view/common-info.html?regNumber=0173100007014000162
http://www.zakupki.gov.ru/epz/order/notice/ep44/view/common-info.html?regNumber=0173100007014000257

Serial numbers starting Г15000 are for 2014. If the sequence repeats as before then Р15000 for 2015 and У15000 for 2016.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17286.msg1296218#msg1296218
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/17/2015 10:07 PM
Победный «Прогресс»
Телестудия Роскосмоса
Published on 17 Apr 2015
Старт ракеты "Союз-2.1а" с транспортным грузовым кораблем "Прогресс М-27М" намечен на 28 апреля. «Прогресс» почти полностью загружен. В нем – четыре тонны необходимых на орбите продуктов питания, воды, сжатого воздуха, сменных комплектов одежды для космонавтов. Есть и несколько особенных грузов. Ведь нынешний старт на МКС накануне Дня Победы. На его борту ставшие уже традиционными георгиевские ленточки для всего экипажа станции и копия знамени Победы.
Category: Non-profits & Activism
Licence: Standard YouTube Licence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqKffKfGy1M
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jacqmans on 04/18/2015 11:28 AM
Progress M-27M cargo vehicle was delivered to the Spacecraft Assembly and Testing Facility

April 17, 2015

At Baikonur launch site the preparations continue for the launch of Progress M-27M cargo vehicle under the International Space Station program.

Today Progress M-27M cargo vehicle fuelled with propellant components and compressed gases was delivered to the Spacecraft Assembly and Testing Facility for final processing operations.

http://www.energia.ru/en/iss/iss43/progress_m-27m/photo_04-17.html
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Satori on 04/21/2015 12:10 PM
A transfer compartment was docked with Progress M-27M cargo vehicle

April 21, 2015

At Baikonur launch site the preparations continue for the launch of Progress M-27M cargo vehicle under the International Space Station program.

Progress M-27M transport cargo vehicle was docked with the transfer compartment in the Spacecraft Assembly and Testing Facility.

http://www.energia.ru/en/iss/iss43/progress_m-27m/photo_04-21.html
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/21/2015 03:03 PM
A transfer compartment was docked with Progress M-27M cargo vehicle

April 21, 2015

At Baikonur launch site the preparations continue for the launch of Progress M-27M cargo vehicle under the International Space Station program.

Progress M-27M transport cargo vehicle was docked with the transfer compartment in the Spacecraft Assembly and Testing Facility.

http://www.energia.ru/en/iss/iss43/progress_m-27m/photo_04-21.html
Cool the next few fairing and Soyuz are flying 70 Anniversary seal and flags
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/21/2015 06:02 PM
A transfer compartment was docked with Progress M-27M cargo vehicle

April 21, 2015

At Baikonur launch site the preparations continue for the launch of Progress M-27M cargo vehicle under the International Space Station program.

Progress M-27M transport cargo vehicle was docked with the transfer compartment in the Spacecraft Assembly and Testing Facility.

http://www.energia.ru/en/iss/iss43/progress_m-27m/photo_04-21.html
Cool the next few fairing and Soyuz are flying 70 Anniversary seal and flags

What is the anniversary occasion?  May 9--Victory Day?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jacqmans on 04/21/2015 07:55 PM
April 21, 2015

MEDIA ADVISORY M15-063

NASA TV Coverage Set for Space Station Cargo Ship Activities

NASA Television will provide live coverage of the departure of one cargo spacecraft from the International Space Station (ISS) and the arrival of another this month.

The ISS Progress 57 cargo ship departs the station Saturday, April 25. NASA TV coverage of the undocking will begin at 2:15 a.m. EDT. The Russian resupply ship, which arrived at the orbital laboratory last October, will undock from the Pirs Docking Compartment at 2:40 a.m. After it undocks, the spacecraft will move to a safe distance from the station until it is deorbited on Sunday, April 26.

Progress 59 will launch and dock to the station Tuesday, April 28 with almost three tons of food, fuel and supplies for the station's Expedition 43 crew.

NASA TV will begin at 2:45 a.m. The spacecraft will launch at 3:09 a.m. (1:09 p.m. Baikonur time) from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan, make a four-orbit, six-hour trip to the space station and dock at 9:07 a.m. Docking coverage will begin at 8:30 a.m.

The NASA Television schedule is available at:

http://www.nasa.gov/nasatv

For more information about the International Space Station, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/station
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Lewis007 on 04/22/2015 06:48 AM
A transfer compartment was docked with Progress M-27M cargo vehicle

April 21, 2015

At Baikonur launch site the preparations continue for the launch of Progress M-27M cargo vehicle under the International Space Station program.

Progress M-27M transport cargo vehicle was docked with the transfer compartment in the Spacecraft Assembly and Testing Facility.

http://www.energia.ru/en/iss/iss43/progress_m-27m/photo_04-21.html
Cool the next few fairing and Soyuz are flying 70 Anniversary seal and flags

What is the anniversary occasion?  May 9--Victory Day?

and 70th anniversary of the end of World War II (or the Great Patriotic War, as it is called in Russia)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jacqmans on 04/22/2015 09:18 AM
Designers inspection of Progress M-27M cargo vehicle and payload shroud roll were performed

April 22, 2015

At Baikonur launch site the preparations continue for the launch of Progress M-27M cargo vehicle under the International Space Station program.

Designers inspection of the Progress M-27M cargo vehicle was completed.

Payload shroud roll on to the Progress M-27M cargo vehicle was performed.

http://www.energia.ru/en/iss/iss43/progress_m-27m/photo_04-22.html
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Satori on 04/24/2015 01:59 PM
LV Soyuz general integration is completed

April 24, 2015

At Baikonur launch site the preparations continue for the launch of Progress M-27M cargo vehicle under the International Space Station program.

Orbital module containing Progress M-27M spacecraft was integrated with the Soyuz-2.1a launch vehicle in the processing facility.

http://www.energia.ru/en/iss/iss43/progress_m-27m/photo_04-24.html
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Satori on 04/24/2015 02:00 PM
Technical management meeting and Government Commission meeting were convened

April 24, 2015

At Baikonur launch site the preparations continue for the launch of Progress M-27M cargo vehicle under the International Space Station program.

Technical management meeting and Government Commission meeting were convened today. A decision is made to roll out Soyuz-2.1a launch vehicle with Progress M-27M transport vehicle to the launch pad.

http://www.energia.ru/en/iss/iss43/progress_m-27m/photo_04-24_2.html
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Satori on 04/24/2015 02:04 PM
Other launcher assembly images available at http://www.roscosmos.ru/21445/ (in Russian)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Satori on 04/25/2015 10:08 AM
Launch information from TsUP...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jacqmans on 04/26/2015 11:02 AM
Soyuz launch vehicle rollout to the launch pad

April 26, 2015

At Baikonur launch site the preparations continue for the launch of Progress M-27M cargo vehicle under the International Space Station program.

Soyuz launch vehicle was rolled out from the integration building to the launch pad. Soyuz-U launch vehicle with Progress M-27M transport vehicle is installed on the launch pad. L-2 days activities have been started.

http://www.energia.ru/en/iss/iss43/progress_m-27m/photo_04-26.html
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/27/2015 06:38 AM
Launch is at 19:09 UTC (3:09 pm EDT) according to the NASA manifest.

http://www.nasa.gov/launchschedule/
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/27/2015 12:17 PM
Moved for live coverage.  ;)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/27/2015 05:31 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dbLwympVeY
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: mheney on 04/27/2015 05:43 PM
Launch is at 19:09 UTC (3:09 pm EDT) according to the NASA manifest.

http://www.nasa.gov/launchschedule/

The site lists the time as 3:09 am, not pm - which would make it 0709 UTC 28 Apr
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: RonM on 04/27/2015 05:50 PM
From NASA TV:

Quote
2:45 a.m., Tuesday, April 28 - Coverage of the Launch of the ISS Progress 59 Cargo Ship to the ISS (all channels)

That's 2:45 am EDT and 0645 UTC 28 April.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 05:00 AM
The site lists the time as 3:09 am, not pm - which would make it 0709 UTC 28 Apr

Thanks. I'm not sure how I got that mixed up. The NASA manifest is not showing the mission now. Here's the Tsenki page on the launch.

http://www.tsenki.com/en/launch_services/help_information/launch/2015/?EID=120974

The broadcast site

http://www.tsenki.com/en/broadcast/

is showing a launch time of 10:09 Moscow time (7:09 UTC, 3:09 EDT). Coverage begins at 8:10 Moscow time (5:09 UTC, 1:09 EDT).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 05:27 AM
We got a picture on the TV!
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 05:31 AM
Close up.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 05:33 AM
Lots of workers at the base of the vehicle.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/28/2015 05:35 AM
I have just counted and it looks like this is the 150th Progress mission. Is that correct?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 05:43 AM
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 05:46 AM
Moving the train.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 05:48 AM
Nice shot of the flame trench.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 06:03 AM
Back to the payload fairing. The workers appear to have gone.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 06:06 AM
Looks like a guy on the left is setting up a video camera.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 06:09 AM
T-60 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 06:15 AM
T-55 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 06:19 AM
T-50 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 06:24 AM
T-45 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 06:29 AM
T-40 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 06:32 AM
Here come the promos!
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 06:34 AM
T-35 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 06:40 AM
T-30 minutes. The gantries have been retracted.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: William Graham on 04/28/2015 06:40 AM
I have just counted and it looks like this is the 150th Progress mission. Is that correct?

It depends on how you count them. There have been:
147 numbered Progress resupply missions (including 1 failure)
1 unnumbered Progress resupply mission (Kosmos 1669)
2 Progress-derived tugs (Progress M-SO1 and M-MIM2)
1 Progress-derived scientific satellite (Gamma)

If you don't count Gamma then yes, it is the 150th mission.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 06:41 AM
Gantries retracted.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Prober on 04/28/2015 06:42 AM
loaded
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 06:44 AM
T-25 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Mark McCombs on 04/28/2015 06:45 AM
NASA TV coverage starting.

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 06:47 AM
NASA has started their coverage.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 06:49 AM
T-20 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 06:54 AM
T-15 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Prober on 04/28/2015 06:56 AM
T-15
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 06:57 AM
Event times. I think the NASA coverage is a little behind.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 06:59 AM
T-10 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:00 AM
T-9 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:01 AM
T-8 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:02 AM
T-7 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:03 AM
T-6 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Prober on 04/28/2015 07:03 AM
control
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:04 AM
T-5 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:05 AM
T-4 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:06 AM
T-3 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:07 AM
T-3 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:08 AM
T-2 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:09 AM
T-1 minute. Soyuz is on internal power.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:11 AM
Liftoff!
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Prober on 04/28/2015 07:11 AM
launch
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 07:11 AM
LAUNCH!
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:11 AM
T+1 minute.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 07:11 AM
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 07:12 AM
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 07:13 AM
Staging!
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:13 AM
T+2 minutes. First stage separation confirmed.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:13 AM
T+3 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:14 AM
T+4 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 07:15 AM
Staging. 2-3.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:16 AM
T+5 minutes. Second stage separation confirmed.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Prober on 04/28/2015 07:16 AM
2nd stage confirmed...now into the 3rd stage
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:16 AM
T+6 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:17 AM
T+7 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:18 AM
T+8 minutes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Prober on 04/28/2015 07:20 AM
3rd stage sep, on her way....
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:20 AM
T+9 minutes. Spacecraft separation.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 07:20 AM
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:21 AM
Standing by for telemetry acquisition.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 07:24 AM
And there's the telemetry, with just KURS info outstanding.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:24 AM
Confirmation of spacecraft separation and solar array deploy. Waiting on antenna deploy confirmation.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:26 AM
Commands being issued from sea-based telemetry ships.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 07:27 AM
NASA TV cut off the coverage? Oh it was a mistake. We're back....
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:27 AM
NASA coverage has ended. Still don't know if the antenna deployed.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:28 AM
OK, we're back.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 07:34 AM
There's a MCC-M controller doing some serious pacing at the front.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:36 AM
Had confirmation that other antennas deployed, but still waiting on Kurs antenna deployed.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 07:37 AM
Six hour RNDZ off. Now two days.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:37 AM
ISS crew informed that a 34 orbit 2 day backup rendezvous is going to be used, due to Kurs antenna deploy issue.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:44 AM
The issue is that Moscow has not yet been able to confirm that the Kurs antennas have deployed, due to intermittent telemetry. Deployment should have been done a few seconds after spacecraft separation. The two day rendezvous will allow them time to obtain confirmation and troubleshoot any problems if there are any.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Svetoslav on 04/28/2015 07:45 AM
According to Interfax (Source) http://www.interfax.ru/russia/438942:

Lack of telemetry from Progress. Some quick google translate:

"The ship is in sight, but the telemetry information from it does not arrive. Experts find out why," - said the agency source in the space industry.

At the same time, experts Mission Control Center "Interfax" that the spacecraft did not open exchange antenna.

"Solar opened normally, but did not open exchange antenna. Because of this, most likely, the Earth is not received telemetry," - said the official.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Mark McCombs on 04/28/2015 07:46 AM
Well congrats to team Soyuz anyway.   8)  A beautiful launch. 


I certainly hope the Progress team can get their Kurs antenna issue sussed.

Edit:  I see now that there is much more going on.  I hope the vehicle does not die before the chance to correct the problem(s).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/28/2015 07:46 AM
Letting the ISS crew know that they are going to replan for the delay in docking.

Congratulations to Roscosmos for the successful launch! Fingers crossed the telemetry and Kurs issues can be successfully resolved.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 07:50 AM
Now they are saying they didn't deploy.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 07:53 AM
Can they dock it without KURS? Switch to TORU and dock it manually?

(Apparently, is the answer).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 08:00 AM
Waiting to pass over ground stations in 30 mins or so to have a better assessment. Someone keep an eye on that....I've got to go to work ;)

Now they are saying they "may" have deployed.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: chewi on 04/28/2015 08:08 AM
Launch video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28jJ3sANL1o
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/28/2015 08:15 AM
Hmm....this Russian report (http://www.interfax.ru/russia/438956) claims that the intermittent telemetry isn't due to anything wrong with the Progress, but with the Soyuz rocket - which put it 30 km too high! (presumably referring to the apogee)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/28/2015 08:29 AM
Progress should be re-entering Russian ground stations' range around this time...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Svetoslav on 04/28/2015 08:33 AM
Latest information from Interfax:

http://www.interfax.ru/russia/438968

Only two of five antennas Kurs have been deployed.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/28/2015 08:35 AM
Hmm....this Russian report (http://www.interfax.ru/russia/438956) claims that the intermittent telemetry isn't due to anything wrong with the Progress, but with the Soyuz rocket - which put it 30 km too high! (presumably referring to the apogee)

Looks like this theory may be gaining some traction after NORAD just released orbit elements....

40619/2015-024A: 127 x 251 km x 51.57 deg.
40620/2015-024B: 123 x 306 km x 51.67 deg.

(nominal plan is 193+-2 x 238+-5 km x 51.67+-0.03 deg.)

If so........controllers must get control of the ship quick before it is too late.  :-X
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/28/2015 08:44 AM
OK they are getting telemetry from the Progress. Quick, steer into manual control before it fell into the atmosphere!  :o
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/28/2015 08:49 AM
Now showing the screen from Kurs so it seems its normal...  ::)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/28/2015 09:05 AM
Hmm....someone reminded me that NORAD's orbit of object B (which is much higher than that of A) seems to corresponds to what Progress should end up after making its first burn automatically at 07:52 UTC (the epoch is at 08:28 UTC). If so, maybe it has already done the 2nd one (at 08:29 UTC) as well which would probably put it to safety for now.  :-\
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/28/2015 09:09 AM
Hmm....someone reminded me that NORAD's orbit of object B (which is much higher than that of A) seems to corresponds to what Progress should end up after making its first burn automatically at 07:52 UTC (the epoch is at 08:28 UTC). If so, maybe it has already done the 2nd one (at 08:29 UTC) as well which would probably put it to safety for now.  :-\
Not quite. The perigee is still low, just barely above the NASA definition of Entry Interface (400k ft, 121.920 km).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 09:10 AM
Hmm....someone reminded me that NORAD's orbit of object B (which is much higher than that of A) seems to corresponds to what Progress should end up after making its first burn automatically at 07:52 UTC (the epoch is at 08:28 UTC). If so, maybe it has already done the 2nd one (at 08:29 UTC) as well which would probably put it to safety for now.  :-\
That's my thinking too. The question is if NORAD's orbit is before that second burn or after it (in latter case launch obviously went rather wrong).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/28/2015 09:11 AM
Hmm....someone reminded me that NORAD's orbit of object B (which is much higher than that of A) seems to corresponds to what Progress should end up after making its first burn automatically at 07:52 UTC (the epoch is at 08:28 UTC). If so, maybe it has already done the 2nd one (at 08:29 UTC) as well which would probably put it to safety for now.  :-\
Not quite. The perigee is still low, just barely above the NASA definition of Entry Interface (400k ft, 121.920 km).

What I said assumes that the planned 2nd burn was performed which would change its orbit from the reported value above - it should be at the original apogee so if nothing else the perigee should raise by a bit even if the orbit's off.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: speedevil on 04/28/2015 09:15 AM
NASA TV is still talking about issues with KURS - and mentioning the orbit only as if it was nominal.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 09:21 AM
As for KURS issue - as far as I understand, this Progress is to use new KURS antennae (which are to be used on Progress-MS), so issues with them are not totally unexpected.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/28/2015 09:23 AM
As for KURS issue - as far as I understand, this Progress is to use new KURS antennae (which are to be used on Progress-MS), so issues with them are not totally unexpected.
The antennas themselves might be new but what about their deployment mechanisms? Are those new or are they the same as old Kurs antennas?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Liss on 04/28/2015 09:26 AM
I don't like AoP values for A and B orbit at all. To have perigee near ascending node, you'd have a significant pitch angle at insertion. Well, and the B orbit 123x305 km is distorted against the planned 193x238 km.
Don't know if the very first perigee in this orbit is survivable (not in the sense of immediate reentry -- but going to safe mode in this situatuion means essentially the same).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/28/2015 09:32 AM
This news piece http://ria.ru/space/20150428/1061356235.html (http://ria.ru/space/20150428/1061356235.html) reports that controllers have now resumed communication with Progress in both directions.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Svetoslav on 04/28/2015 09:39 AM
According to this : http://www.interfax.ru/russia/438990

... a loss of the spacecraft is possible if they aren't able to achieve stable radio link and don't correct the orbit soon. The perigee is very low  - 120-130 km.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 09:41 AM
According to this : http://www.interfax.ru/russia/438990

... a loss of the spacecraft is possible if they aren't able to achieve stable radio link and don't correct the orbit soon. The perigee is very low  - 120-130 km.
This is kinda obvious to everyone here.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 09:49 AM
According to NASA TV, next comm pass is at 6am EDT.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: owais.usmani on 04/28/2015 09:50 AM
According to this : http://www.interfax.ru/russia/438990

... a loss of the spacecraft is possible if they aren't able to achieve stable radio link and don't correct the orbit soon. The perigee is very low  - 120-130 km.

I was thinking what would have been their action plan had this happened to a manned Soyuz. (I hope landing in the middle of an ocean would not be an option)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 09:52 AM
According to mms://193.233.61.171/live current orbit is 193.7x278.7 km which is rather weird to me (maybe it's planned orbit?).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Svetoslav on 04/28/2015 09:59 AM
http://ria.ru/space/20150428/1061360638.html

According to this very latest Ria Novosti, written entirely in capital letters:

К ВЫВОДУ "ПРОГРЕССА" НА НЕРАСЧЕТНУЮ ОРБИТУ МОГЛА ПРИВЕСТИ НЕСИНХРОНИЗИРОВАННАЯ РАБОТА ДВИГАТЕЛЯ III СТУПЕНИ РАКЕТЫ-НОСИТЕЛЯ — ЦИКЛОГРАММА ПОЛЕТА

Google translates it as: To the conclusion of "progress" an unplanned orbit could lead unsynchronized ENGINE III stage rocket - cyclogram FLIGHT
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Svetoslav on 04/28/2015 10:01 AM
Update: The capital letters have been corrected. Now it says that unsynchronous work of the engine of the third stage is the reason for orbital anomaly.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 10:02 AM
I was told on NK that live MCC-M feed (mms://193.233.61.171/live) indicates an actual orbit according to GS measurements. In this case there is no immediate danger to the spacecraft. There are issues with TM though.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Satori on 04/28/2015 10:07 AM
So, we have two problems: no deployment of the KURS and the problem with the launcher 3rd stage?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 10:08 AM
The Progress is supposed to enter into comms range right about now.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 10:08 AM
So, we have two problems: no deployment of the KURS and the problem with the launcher 3rd stage?
The former is not certain at the moment - there is no TM which would indicate one way or another.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Svetoslav on 04/28/2015 10:22 AM
So, we have two problems: no deployment of the KURS and the problem with the launcher 3rd stage?

I am really trying to help you with providing all possible information.

Unfortunately, Russian press is often contradictory.

Let's take for example this one:

http://tass.ru/kosmos/1936397

According to this, Mission Control Center doesn't confirm that there are problems with antennas. "We don't have such information", says the representative.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 10:26 AM
According to this, Mission Control Center doesn't confirm that there are problems with antennas. "We don't have such information", says the representative.
Which is correct - lack of confirmation of deployment doesn't mean they are not deployed.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/28/2015 10:26 AM
So, we have two problems: no deployment of the KURS and the problem with the launcher 3rd stage?

I am really trying to help you with providing all possible information.

Unfortunately, Russian press is often contradictory.

Let's take for example this one:

http://tass.ru/kosmos/1936397

According to this, Mission Control Center doesn't confirm that there are problems with antennas. "We don't have such information", says the representative.
Well, that has been the statement ever since the  launch, they can't tell whether or not that the Kurs antennas did deploy.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Satori on 04/28/2015 10:28 AM
Ok, guys, thank you for the clarification.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/28/2015 10:33 AM
Commands being issued from sea-based telemetry ships.

Can anyone elaborate on these sea-based telemetry ships?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Liss on 04/28/2015 10:34 AM
Commands being issued from sea-based telemetry ships.

Can anyone elaborate on these sea-based telemetry ships?

Non-existent with the exception of Patsayev which is moored at Kaliningrad/Koenigsberg.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Svetoslav on 04/28/2015 10:37 AM
Latest (13:29):

http://ria.ru/space/20150428/1061371243.html

Progress went into zone of visibility. No telemetry.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Artyom. on 04/28/2015 10:38 AM
Launch photos...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/28/2015 10:39 AM
Latest (13:29):

http://ria.ru/space/20150428/1061371243.html

Progress went into zone of visibility. No telemetry.
I wonder if this lack of telemetry is an indication of a dead spacecraft?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Svetoslav on 04/28/2015 10:46 AM
I think it's still too early to make such drastic conclusions, I'm just following news sites :) and remain hopeful that they could still resolve comm problems.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/28/2015 10:47 AM
Latest (13:29):

http://ria.ru/space/20150428/1061371243.html

Progress went into zone of visibility. No telemetry.
I wonder if this lack of telemetry is an indication of a dead spacecraft?

Or maybe it's a loss of attitude due to the loss of altitude? The antenna can be pointed in the wrong direction if the spacecraft is deployed in the wrong attitude (which could also affect the orbit if the attitude is wrong anywhere before engine cutoff).

Unfortunately more data is needed to know what's going on - including the orbit. NORAD has yet to issue a new TLE....
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/28/2015 10:48 AM
Latest (13:29):

http://ria.ru/space/20150428/1061371243.html

Progress went into zone of visibility. No telemetry.

Also reported on NASA TV right now.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: RotoSequence on 04/28/2015 11:09 AM
NASA posted an update here: https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2015/04/28/progress-cargo-craft-to-dock-with-space-station-thursday/

Quote
...Russian flight controllers initially could not confirm the health of the spacecraft’s systems and deployment of Kurs rendezvous and other navigational antennas. They selected the backup rendezvous plan with a targeted arrival Thursday for the cargo ship and its supplies for the  space station crew. The Progress spacecraft is in a safe preliminary orbit.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Svetoslav on 04/28/2015 11:10 AM
Latest, 13:59:

http://ria.ru/space/20150428/1061380357.html

Russian Progress spacecraft completes third turn around the Earth. There is no telemetry. There is going to be a meeting about what to do next.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: satwatcher on 04/28/2015 11:23 AM
Space-Track website is back online. No new orbital data on Progress M-27M.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 11:25 AM
Latest, 13:59:

http://ria.ru/space/20150428/1061380357.html

Russian Progress spacecraft completes third turn around the Earth. There is no telemetry. There is going to be a meeting about what to do next.
On a bright side - that means that TLEs provided were most certainly incorrect - otherwise the spacecraft would've likely reentered by now.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: John44 on 04/28/2015 11:41 AM
Expedition 43 - Progress M-27/M59 Launch
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9388
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/28/2015 11:51 AM
Looks like the Russians just got video from the Progress spacecraft - it seems to be rapidly rotating on the long axis....  :o
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/28/2015 11:51 AM
I think we just got some TLM! Video downlink showed spacecraft in wild spin!
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/28/2015 11:53 AM
I think the conclusion right now is complete loss of attitude control, especially if has been spinning ever since launch!
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/28/2015 11:55 AM
Looks like the Russians just got video from the Progress spacecraft - it seems to be rapidly rotating on the long axis....  :o

My rudimentary count shows that it is tumbling with an angular speed of 60 degrees per second (6 seconds per revolution).  :-X
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/28/2015 11:56 AM
Looks like the Russians just got video from the Progress spacecraft - it seems to be rapidly rotating on the long axis....  :o

My rudimentary count shows that it is tumbling with an angular speed of 60 degrees per second (6 seconds per revolution).  :-X
I got the same rate by counting the seconds between each appearance of atmospheric limb in the video.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: lucspace on 04/28/2015 11:58 AM
Is that video available anywhere?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: RotoSequence on 04/28/2015 12:01 PM
Is that video available anywhere?

I caught a glimpse of it on NASA TV when they were displaying the video in the upper right at Russian mission control.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: satwatcher on 04/28/2015 12:02 PM
Ground track map as shown on NASA TV shows it late with respect to the 123 to 127km perigee orbits published by space-track, suggesting it did boost its orbit.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: RotoSequence on 04/28/2015 12:04 PM
NASA TV reports that rotation dampening commands were sent to the Progress spacecraft towards the tail end of the ground station pass. They'll have to wait ~an hour and 14 minutes to find out if the commands went through and/or were successful.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/28/2015 12:07 PM
I wonder if this a bit of shades of Gemini VIII here? Stuck thruster? That could explain the high rotational rate and why it was only in one axis.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Liss on 04/28/2015 12:10 PM
Ground track map as shown on NASA TV shows it late with respect to the 123 to 127km perigee orbits published by space-track, suggesting it did boost its orbit.
... suggesting that these orbits were erroneous.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/28/2015 12:10 PM
I wonder if this a bit of shades of Gemini VIII here? Stuck thruster? That could explain the high rotational rate and why it was only in one axis.

What was Gemini VIII's angular velocity at its worst?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Satori on 04/28/2015 12:11 PM
I wonder if this a bit of shades of Gemini VIII here? Stuck thruster? That could explain the high rotational rate and why it was only in one axis.

Or it can be related with the previously reported problems with the Blok-I.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Artyom. on 04/28/2015 12:13 PM
Launch video from Roscosmos (HD)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJhSabDSohI&feature=youtu.be&a
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: satwatcher on 04/28/2015 12:14 PM
Ground track map as shown on NASA TV shows it late with respect to the 123 to 127km perigee orbits published by space-track, suggesting it did boost its orbit.
... suggesting that these orbits were erroneous.
That is probably the most likely explanation.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/28/2015 12:15 PM
I wonder if this a bit of shades of Gemini VIII here? Stuck thruster? That could explain the high rotational rate and why it was only in one axis.

What was Gemini VIII's angular velocity at its worst?
From what I can find, at least 1 revolution per second or 60 RPM.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Jester on 04/28/2015 12:23 PM
This seems new on M-27M, anybody ?

Speculation: did it make contact during sep. ? (therefor inducing a spin ?)

EDIT:
should have been more clear, it was a two part question, first anybody know what that new antenna (?) it is not on 26M, and second, contact anywhere in general during sep, or upper stage issue (BBQ roll etc.)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Targeteer on 04/28/2015 12:28 PM
Per CAPCOM to ISS.  Not planning for a Progress docking on Thursday.  Waiting for more info from Moscow.  Terry asked to call Houston on the IP phone.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/28/2015 12:30 PM
This seems new on M-27M, anybody ?

Speculation: did it make contact during sep. ? (therefor inducing a spin ?)

I don't see how it could seeing as it's mounted on the front while the stage is on the aft.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: robertross on 04/28/2015 12:32 PM
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: robertross on 04/28/2015 12:33 PM
a picture doesn't do this justice!

wow, wild spin!
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Jester on 04/28/2015 12:34 PM
This seems new on M-27M, anybody ?

Speculation: did it make contact during sep. ? (therefor inducing a spin ?)

I don't see how it could seeing as it's mounted on the front while the stage is on the aft.

should have been more clear, it was a two part question, first anybody know what that new antenna (?) is, its not on 26M, and second, contact anywhere in general during sep, or upper stage issue (BBQ roll etc.)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: robertross on 04/28/2015 12:34 PM
They have ceased planning for a Thursday docking
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Targeteer on 04/28/2015 12:34 PM
Interesting from the NASA TV update.  Houston stopped planning for a Thursday docking and informed Moscow of the same...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: robertross on 04/28/2015 12:35 PM
The next step by the Russian team is still under discussion
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: robertross on 04/28/2015 12:37 PM
Another update via NASA TV will be at the top of the hour, 8am Central, 9am Eastern
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: davey142 on 04/28/2015 12:52 PM
NASA giving a more in-depth analysis.

https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2015/04/28/progress-cargo-craft-to-dock-with-space-station-thursday/

Quote
UPDATE (8:15 a.m. EDT): Russian flight controllers are continuing to troubleshoot issues with the ISS Progress 59 cargo craft. The spacecraft made another pass over Russian ground stations and continued to experience telemetry problems regarding the deployment of navigational antennas and the pressurization of the manifolds in the propulsion system. Flight controllers also confirmed that the vehicle had entered into a slow spin and have issued commands to attempt to control it.
....
As Progress passed over Russian ground stations, the Russian flight control team issued commands through the telemetry system onboard the spacecraft in an attempt to receive confirmation that navigation and rendezvous systems had deployed. But, due to sporadic telemetry  from Progress 59, inconclusive data, and trouble uplinking commands to the spacecraft, controllers were unable to confirm the status of the systems.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: mtakala24 on 04/28/2015 12:56 PM
Interesting from the NASA TV update.  Houston stopped planning for a Thursday docking and informed Moscow of the same...

Might this be because the Progress has now spent too much time on the lower orbit and has gotten too close in regard to ISS to get to a docking on Thursday? Remember that lower orbit will "catch" a higher orbiting object. I remember a rule of thumb of x altitude difference will get a 10x distance in the track.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: John44 on 04/28/2015 12:59 PM
Expedition 43 - Progress M-27/M59 Update
http://www.space-multimedia.nl.eu.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9389
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Prober on 04/28/2015 12:59 PM
NASA Drama time  :D
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Targeteer on 04/28/2015 01:01 PM
Interesting from the NASA TV update.  Houston stopped planning for a Thursday docking and informed Moscow of the same...

Might this be because the Progress has now spent too much time on the lower orbit and has gotten too close in regard to ISS to get to a docking on Thursday? Remember that lower orbit will "catch" a higher orbiting object. I remember a rule of thumb of x altitude difference will get a 10x distance in the track.

My point was that Houston decided the US Segment would not participate in any Progress related activities on Thursday and did not wait to hear from Moscow what the Russian plan was.  There was none of the usual discussion and cooperation between the two control centers.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Prober on 04/28/2015 01:04 PM
Hope someone is grabbing that spin video .....wow
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: AJA on 04/28/2015 01:06 PM
I don't know if it's my stream or if people've swamped NASA TV... but I managed to catch Rob saying that MCC-M have disabled dynamic attitude adjustment and are currently not attempting to stop the spin.


Anyone else catch that?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: lucspace on 04/28/2015 01:07 PM
Judging by the time code, it looks like a 15 rpm spin...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jcm on 04/28/2015 01:08 PM
I don't know if it's my stream or if people've swamped NASA TV... but I managed to catch Rob saying that MCC-M have disabled dynamic attitude adjustment and are currently not attempting to stop the spin.


Anyone else catch that?

Yes, I think they are probably worried about depleting thruster propellant?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/28/2015 01:08 PM
I don't know if it's my stream or if people've swamped NASA TV... but I managed to catch Rob saying that MCC-M have disabled dynamic attitude adjustment and are currently not attempting to stop the spin.


Anyone else catch that?
Yes. I think the thinking behind that is that this might be a failure in the Motion Control System (MCS) and it is confusing the Progress as to its true attitude. This could explain the multiple Rate Sensor failure messages obtained during the last telemetry downlink.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Artyom. on 04/28/2015 01:10 PM
My GIF-animation:
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/28/2015 01:10 PM
Hope someone is grabbing that spin video .....wow
Here you go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMiNjHjpunU
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: robertross on 04/28/2015 01:15 PM
2 min away from next ground station pass
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: AJA on 04/28/2015 01:15 PM
Yes, I think they are probably worried about depleting thruster propellant?

Yes. I think the thinking behind that is that this might be a failure in the Motion Control System (MCS) and it is confusing the Progress as to its true attitude. This could explain the multiple Rate Sensor failure messages obtained during the last telemetry downlink.

(Emphasis mine)

Both make sense.

Also, @DaveS: They broke down TLM data? Where?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: robertross on 04/28/2015 01:19 PM
ISS heading for a pass just north of London.

Get out and wave Chris!  :)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: AJA on 04/28/2015 01:19 PM
Currently attempting a telecommand uplink (don't know with what instructions).

Anyway, how many issues are we dealing with?

1. Off nominal orbit
2. Spacecraft in a spin
3. Sporadic telemetry (probably due to 2, but also because KURS didn't deploy?)
4. Re-pressurisation of manifolds failed.

It's apparently over London right now. CHRIS! DO SOMETHING :D
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Targeteer on 04/28/2015 01:19 PM
From the ground track display, Moscow only has one more, very short, ground station opportunity after this one to work with today.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/28/2015 01:21 PM
Yes, I think they are probably worried about depleting thruster propellant?

Yes. I think the thinking behind that is that this might be a failure in the Motion Control System (MCS) and it is confusing the Progress as to its true attitude. This could explain the multiple Rate Sensor failure messages obtained during the last telemetry downlink.

(Emphasis mine)

Both make sense.

Also, @DaveS: They broke down TLM data? Where?
That was reported on NASA TV earlier that they had obtained telemetry and subsequent analysis showed multiple Rate Sensor error messages.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 01:21 PM

Yes, I think they are probably worried about depleting thruster propellant?
I doubt that - all Progress engines can use all propellant that is onboard (including a portion that it's supposed to deliver to ISS for refueling), so it's very unlikely there is a danger of depleting it anytime soon (the engine has to fire for hour or so to burn through all propellant).
The reason is probably has to do with not making a problem worse as at such spin rate mechanical damage is possible.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 01:21 PM
1. Off nominal orbit
Orbit is nominal - TLEs provided were incorrect.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Targeteer on 04/28/2015 01:22 PM
In an ironic note, the planned docking location hasn't been removed from the NASA ground track display.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 01:23 PM
Well I didn't expect to come back to this news. Thanks for the coverage.

Any way out of Loss Of Vehicle here?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/28/2015 01:24 PM
Something that concerns me is the battery state of health. With this spin the solar arrays can't provide a stable recharge to the batteries.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: robertross on 04/28/2015 01:25 PM
Well I didn't expect to come back to this news. Thanks for the coverage.

Any way out of Loss Of Vehicle here?

Cross your fingers?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevinof on 04/28/2015 01:26 PM
Doesn't look good. no telemetry received on last pass.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 01:26 PM
Any way out of Loss Of Vehicle here?
The vehicle will stay in orbit at least few days, got tons of propellant (probably enough to get to the Moon), so I'd say they will keep trying to do something at least for next while. The battery might actually be a limiting factor here as such spin may prevent proper recharging.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: mtakala24 on 04/28/2015 01:26 PM
Rob on NASA TV: No luck on getting telemetry on this pass yet.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Lee Jay on 04/28/2015 01:26 PM
At that rate of spin, the ends of the spacecraft could be experiencing almost 1g if I did the math right.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Space Pete on 04/28/2015 01:28 PM
I suspect this Progress is lost. :(

Any critical cargo aboard?

This is now not good at all - ATV gone, Cygnus grounded, and I suspect a Progress grounding while an investigation is performed. Luckily we have an HTV this year, else Dragon would have to shoulder it all.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Lee Jay on 04/28/2015 01:29 PM
I suspect this Progress is lost. :(

Any critical cargo aboard?

This is now not good at all - ATV gone, Cygnus grounded, and I suspect a Progress grounding while an investigation is performed. Luckily we have an HTV this year, else Dragon would have to shoulder it all.

Nothing but Progress can replenish ISS propellent, is that correct?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: mtakala24 on 04/28/2015 01:29 PM
End of pass, no luck.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Baranquilla on 04/28/2015 01:30 PM
I can imagine this is going on right now..

Bolden: How soon can you have CRS 7 ready?
Musk: 3 weeks if you let us reuse the dragon.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: orbitaldebris on 04/28/2015 01:30 PM
1. Off nominal orbit
Orbit is nominal - TLEs provided were incorrect.
I wonder how long the spacecraft can survive in this nominal orbit before it decays. A week at most?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: robertross on 04/28/2015 01:32 PM
No further commanding to the Progress today as no other passes planned.

Waiting on word from Russian controllers on the way forward, but no luck in sending or receiving commands
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Space Pete on 04/28/2015 01:33 PM
Nothing but Progress can replenish ISS propellent, is that correct?

That is correct - ATV used to be able to do it too, but that's gone now.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 01:35 PM
I wonder how long the spacecraft can survive in this nominal orbit before it decays. A week at most?
From what I've heard so far - at least 3 days up to about 2 weeks depending on atmosphere conditions and attitude. But if they won't recover attitude control this all is moot anyway - no way it will get anywhere with such spin, so regaining attitude control seems to be a top priority.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ras391 on 04/28/2015 01:35 PM
Why can we not use US assets to communicate with the Progress? Surely this is not a new idea after all these years.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: wxmeddler on 04/28/2015 01:36 PM
So, in case we do have a loss of vehicle here. I'm assuming an uncontrolled re-entry then? Is there anything structural that would be able to make it to the ground?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: robertross on 04/28/2015 01:37 PM
Russian ground station specialists have been released for the day.

Nothing further to update today then, as per Rob Navias

NASA TV signing off for today
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: AJA on 04/28/2015 01:37 PM
This is now not good at all - ATV gone, Cygnus grounded, and I suspect a Progress grounding while an investigation is performed. Luckily we have an HTV this year, else Dragon would have to shoulder it all.

I know you're talking only about the cargo ferries, but wouldn't they shelve new scientific payloads, and maybe change the manifest on the coming Soyuz, to increase the supplies: science ratio? Soyuz can do a re-boost too, IIRC.

I doubt that - all Progress engines can use all propellant that is onboard (including a portion that it's supposed to deliver to ISS for refueling), so it's very unlikely there is a danger of depleting it anytime soon (the engine has to fire for hour or so to burn through all propellant).
The reason is probably has to do with not making a problem worse as at such spin rate mechanical damage is possible.

All Progress engines can use all propellant aboard? Same tanks for RCS as well as the main engine?

1. Off nominal orbit
Orbit is nominal - TLEs provided were incorrect.

Ah. Thanks. I'd already jumped ahead to wondering whether a truant RCS jet, stayed on longer/harded than its counterpart... and had altered the orbit, in addition to messing up the attitude.

And this spin happened right before I was about to playfully suggest that they should put the Progress in a spin, to aid the KURS in deploying due to centrifugal force. Oh, the irony.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Darga on 04/28/2015 01:37 PM
What does a potential loss do to ISS supplies? At the last CRS meeting didn't they say they had a 4 mo stockpile?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 01:39 PM
All Progress engines can use all propellant aboard? Same tanks for RCS as well as the main engine?
Yes, all Soyuz/Progress engines (main engine and all RCS thrusters - except for DM thrusters which are only used during reentry) use same propellant from same tanks. Infact RCS is a designated backup propulsion system in case of main engine failure.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Jester on 04/28/2015 01:39 PM
I suspect this Progress is lost. :(

Any critical cargo aboard?

This is now not good at all - ATV gone, Cygnus grounded, and I suspect a Progress grounding while an investigation is performed. Luckily we have an HTV this year, else Dragon would have to shoulder it all.

http://www.tsenki.com/en/launch_services/help_information/launch/2015/?EID=120974#tab-Cargo-link
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/28/2015 01:44 PM
Latest NASA blog (https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2015/04/28/progress-59-cargo-craft-updates/) update:

Quote
UPDATE (9:35 a.m. EDT): Russian flight controllers have continued to try and recover command capability with the ISS Progress 59 cargo craft this morning. The most recent ground pass started at 9:20 a.m. EDT and flight controllers reported no change in the issues with receiving telemetry data from the unmanned craft. The Russian flight control team attempted to command the vehicle over four orbits flying over Russian ground sites with no success. The next series of ground station passes is expected to resume late Tuesday evening. Teams are standing down on the Thursday docking attempt while Russian teams continue to analyze data and develop a troubleshooting plan going forward.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/28/2015 01:46 PM

All Progress engines can use all propellant aboard? Same tanks for RCS as well as the main engine?


Progress-M and MM have a unified propellant system, which means that all thrusters are duplicated, with an entire redundant prop manifold, which can draw prop from the mid section prop tanks and the PAO prop tanks.

The main engine can only draw prop from the PAO tanks, and there is no longer a redundant main engine, except that the entire RCS system can serve as a backup.

However, none of this is really relevant now, what is the issue is that the Progress is not responding to commands from TsUP.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: robertross on 04/28/2015 01:49 PM
Any critical cargo aboard?

Sanitation and hygiene equipment (waste management system spares, solid waste containers, filters, etc.)

I'd say that's critical  ;)

(as per Jester's link)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevinof on 04/28/2015 01:51 PM
You hit the nail on the head. If you can't communicate with the craft then all the redundancy in the world is of little use.


All Progress engines can use all propellant aboard? Same tanks for RCS as well as the main engine?


...
However, none of this is really relevant now, what is the issue is that the Progress is not responding to commands from TsUP.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/28/2015 01:59 PM
The Russians have the capability of launching a replacement Progress within 45 days. For that reason, ISS always maintains a 45 day "skip cycle" reserve in case of Progress failure.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 02:00 PM
The Russians have the capability of launching a replacement Progress within 45 days. For that reason, ISS always maintains a 45 day "skip cycle" reserve in case of Progress failure.


Very interesting. Although they need some root cause and assurance of no repeat.

I appreciate it's only hours since this one went wrong.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Lee Jay on 04/28/2015 02:07 PM
According to the Russian plan thread, these are the next planned Progress missions:

2015
August 6 – Progress M-28M (No. 428) – Soyuz-U – Baikonur, 1/5 - 15:08
October 22 – Progress MS (No. 431) – Soyuz-2-1A – Baikonur - 08:33
2016
February 10 – Progress MS-2 (No. 432) – Soyuz-U – Baikonur, 1/5
April 29 – Progress M-29M (n.Ί 429) – Soyuz-2-1A – Baikonur, 1/5

Assuming they can drive this problem to ground, would the 45 day launch thing just move these all up in time (Aug 6 -> 45 days, Oct 22 -> Aug 6, Feb 10 -> Oct 22, etc.) or would they have to stretch those out more towards the original plan?  In other words, would a 45 day relaunch be a net zero sum game or would there still be a net loss of one Progress over this one year period?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Space Pete on 04/28/2015 02:13 PM
Some brief analysis:

I doubt the loss of this Progress will really be of big impact to the ISS, since Progress carries comparatively little cargo compared to other vehicles, and ISS always has reserves of essential crew supplies. Additionally, an HTV is due to visit the ISS this year, which they could always cram full of crew supplies if need be, obviously at the loss of some science. If they can get Progress flying again within a few months, and with Cygnus hopefully returning to flight this year, things should be OK.

However, what this issue highlights is the vulnerability of ISS resupply even when it has multiple different launch methods in service. People always said that getting rid of ATV was a bad idea, because it leaves ISS vulnerable to the failure of another launcher/vehicle. Well, now we're in a situation where ATV is gone, Cygnus is stood down, and Progress may be grounded for however long it takes for an investigation to be performed (which, with the Russians, usually isn't long).

All it takes now is for Dragon or Falcon 9 to fail, and I suspect precautionary plans for a de-crew will start to be formulated within NASA.

Another issue this highlights is that ISS really does need an additional form of reboost or propellant replenishment. Having commercial crew vehicles which can do that will be a big benefit.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/28/2015 02:18 PM
When does the Progress 'lap' ISS and pass beneath it for possible dramatic crew visual observation?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Liss on 04/28/2015 02:19 PM
USSTRATCOM issued second elset for object B at 119x314 km.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: PahTo on 04/28/2015 02:31 PM

Speaking of vulnerability and the lack of options...
I take it there was a malfunction with the 3rd stage main engine--is this confirmed?
Does this version of Soyuz employ the RD-0110 or the RD-0124 for 3rd stage propulsion?  Implications for the manned version are obvious if gear is common.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Graham on 04/28/2015 02:42 PM

Does this version of Soyuz employ the RD-0110 or the RD-0124 for 3rd stage propulsion?  Implications for the manned version are obvious if gear is common.

RD- 0124 I believe. Of course, even if the problem wasn't with the third stage, the Soyuz still employs the same KURS system as Progress as well as other similarities across the board. I would therefore guess that there will be repercussions with the Soyuz as well.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: AJA on 04/28/2015 02:43 PM
All Progress engines can use all propellant aboard? Same tanks for RCS as well as the main engine?
...
However, none of this is really relevant now, what is the issue is that the Progress is not responding to commands from TsUP.

Which makes it all the more surprising (to me) that one of the last commands they issued was one to disable attitude stabilisation. I don't fully know how the flight control system works, but if there's anything like a TORU type manual control mode where controllers could've flown it from the ground - then why wouldn't it have been prudent to give it an impulse in the opposite direction? Flying using dead reckoning?

I know people have said that they may've disabled the automatic system to safeguard the spacecraft from damaging itself by basing it's thrusting on spurious sensor readings... but the manual control wouldn't be affected by that, surely? Not if they were using dead-reckoning, calculating an RCS burn time, based on the rotation rate seen in the video.

Even if it didn't completely stabilise the craft, they could surely slow the spin rate vastly, and get longer communication passes? (Assuming the spin rate's the limiting factor?)

So, I'm guessing that the only reason they didn't do something like the above is because
a) The propulsion system's not in a nominal state (something to do with that repressurisation failure)? or
b) Progress isn't currently configured to respond to such an instruction, even if it were to receive it (in case, for example, they were to use the TORU protocol, hooked up to more powerful terrestrial transmitters...)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 02:46 PM
RD- 0124 I believe. Of course, even if the problem wasn't with the third stage, the Soyuz still employs the same KURS system as Progress as well as other similarities across the board. I would therefore guess that there will be repercussions with the Soyuz as well.
RD-0124 is only used by Soyuz-2.1b configuration. 2.1a used in this launch uses good old RD-0110.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Graham on 04/28/2015 02:47 PM
All Progress engines can use all propellant aboard? Same tanks for RCS as well as the main engine?
...
However, none of this is really relevant now, what is the issue is that the Progress is not responding to commands from TsUP.

Which makes it all the more surprising (to me) that one of the last commands they issued was one to disable attitude stabilisation. I don't fully know how the flight control system works, but if there's anything like a TORU type manual control mode where controllers could've flown it from the ground - then why wouldn't it have been prudent to give it an impulse in the opposite direction? Flying using dead reckoning?

I know people have said that they may've disabled the automatic system to safeguard the spacecraft from damaging itself by basing it's thrusting on spurious sensor readings... but the manual control wouldn't be affected by that, surely? Not if they were using dead-reckoning, calculating an RCS burn time, based on the rotation rate seen in the video.

Even if it didn't completely stabilise the craft, they could surely slow the spin rate vastly, and get longer communication passes? (Assuming the spin rate's the limiting factor?)

So, I'm guessing that the only reason they didn't do something like the above is because
a) The propulsion system's not in a nominal state (something to do with that repressurisation failure)? or
b) Progress isn't currently configured to respond to such an instruction, even if it were to receive it (in case, for example, they were to use the TORU protocol, hooked up to more powerful terrestrial transmitters...)

My first thought was that it couldn't be controlled from the ground due to the spin, meaning that they couldn't get a steady enough signal to do that and in order to protect the vehicle for the long term they shut off the attitude system, essentially placing it into a type of safe mode until there is another ground pass.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jcm on 04/28/2015 02:47 PM
New TLE for object B, epoch 1253 UTC, also has the 120 km perigee, highlighting the discrepancy between
what Space-Track is showing and what others are saying.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 02:48 PM
When does the Progress 'lap' ISS and pass beneath it for possible dramatic crew visual observation?
The difference of orbital speeds between 220 km circ and 400 km circ orbits is about 100 m/s. Now we need to find out what the distance was at the time of orbital insertion to find out when Progress overtakes ISS.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: SWGlassPit on 04/28/2015 02:53 PM
Maybe someone here knows this -- are GNC functions on the Progress/Soyuz stack handled by the spacecraft or the launch vehicle during boost phase?  If the launch vehicle has its own GNC platform, with spacecraft GNC functions not taking over until after separation, it seems plausible that this could be an issue similar to what doomed the Proton vehicle a couple years ago, with misconfigured rate gyros providing bad data leading to a loss of control.

The odd TLEs coming from SpaceTrack seem to suggest against this possibility though.

With no hardware able to be recovered, diagnosing this one will be difficult.  I do not envy the ones who will be tasked with finding the root cause.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 02:58 PM
Maybe someone here knows this -- are GNC functions on the Progress/Soyuz stack handled by the spacecraft or the launch vehicle during boost phase?  If the launch vehicle has its own GNC platform, with spacecraft GNC functions not taking over until after separation, it seems plausible that this could be an issue similar to what doomed the Proton vehicle a couple years ago, with misconfigured rate gyros providing bad data leading to a loss of control.
Progress is passive during ascent - like pretty much any other payload. This is where all that NASA talk of "time-tagged commands" comes into play - spacecraft activation is timed off separation time (KO - "separation contact") because launch vehicle control system is only concerned with delivering preset deltaV and executing attitude plan.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/28/2015 03:05 PM
Is the time displayed on the Progress video UT + 3 hrs?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/28/2015 03:07 PM
https://twitter.com/chronsciguy/status/593063894295269377 (https://twitter.com/chronsciguy/status/593063894295269377)

Quote
Eric Berger ‏@chronsciguy 19m19 minutes ago

In regard to Progress vehicle issue, am told even if there's a problem with the next SpaceX launch ISS crew has ample consumable reserves.

So no need for the crew to start packing their bags yet!
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/28/2015 03:08 PM
Is the time displayed on the Progress video UT + 3 hrs?

Yup. Moscow Standard Time.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/28/2015 03:14 PM
Using MCC-H rule of thumb "10:1 rule", two satellites with 'H' diff in average altitude will have position shift of 10xH per rev.

Conclusion -- Progress has probably already underflown ISS and will lap it every day and a half or so.

Was crew asked to look?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Graham on 04/28/2015 03:17 PM
Does anybody know how far under the station it was? I would think it would be pretty hard to see...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 03:17 PM
https://twitter.com/chronsciguy/status/593063894295269377 (https://twitter.com/chronsciguy/status/593063894295269377)

Quote
Eric Berger ‏@chronsciguy 19m19 minutes ago

In regard to Progress vehicle issue, am told even if there's a problem with the next SpaceX launch ISS crew has ample consumable reserves.

So no need for the crew to start packing their bags yet!

That's clearly not the point that was made. If there's a problem with the next Dragon, then Dragon is stood down. That's the problem....not the vehicle failing to arrive, but the vehicle being stuck on the ground for a lengthy period of time before being able to launch again.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Targeteer on 04/28/2015 03:18 PM
NASA commentator said a short time ago the Progress was 4000km ahead of the ISS.  Next Russian ground station pass is at 8:50 PM Houston time tonight.  Any bets on whether the Progress will still have power at that time?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/28/2015 03:24 PM

Does this version of Soyuz employ the RD-0110 or the RD-0124 for 3rd stage propulsion?  Implications for the manned version are obvious if gear is common.

RD- 0124 I believe. Of course, even if the problem wasn't with the third stage, the Soyuz still employs the same KURS system as Progress as well as other similarities across the board. I would therefore guess that there will be repercussions with the Soyuz as well.
no that engine is on 2.1b and ST-B only this flight flew on 2.1a.
Spin rate was induced around sep after engine cutoff. Separation system would have started it and Progress deployments accelerated it is a good theory based on the data to date.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/28/2015 03:28 PM
NASA commentator said a short time ago the Progress was 4000km ahead of the ISS.  Next Russian ground station pass is at 8:50 PM Houston time tonight.  Any bets on whether the Progress will still have power at that time?
less than 50% likely unless they power stuff down. The progress is not solartracking yet because its in a multi axis spin.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Prober on 04/28/2015 03:34 PM
https://twitter.com/chronsciguy/status/593063894295269377 (https://twitter.com/chronsciguy/status/593063894295269377)

Quote
Eric Berger ‏@chronsciguy 19m19 minutes ago

In regard to Progress vehicle issue, am told even if there's a problem with the next SpaceX launch ISS crew has ample consumable reserves.

So no need for the crew to start packing their bags yet!

That's clearly not the point that was made. If there's a problem with the next Dragon, then Dragon is stood down. That's the problem....not the vehicle failing to arrive, but the vehicle being stuck on the ground for a lengthy period of time before being able to launch again.

The first question I would ask: are the employees being paid?    If employees are worried about their bills at home etc. they can't focus on their jobs and mistakes happen.   It's a fair question no?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: eeergo on 04/28/2015 03:43 PM
This seems new on M-27M, anybody ?

Speculation: did it make contact during sep. ? (therefor inducing a spin ?)

EDIT:
should have been more clear, it was a two part question, first anybody know what that new antenna (?) it is not on 26M, and second, contact anywhere in general during sep, or upper stage issue (BBQ roll etc.)

Looks like a modified version (new white insulation, slightly different shape) for Kurs-NA's AO-753A antenna that was flown in M-21M (*this may instead be the Otrazhenye experiment as reported by Nicolas!). This Progress also appears to have the 2AO-VKA (the small, retractable antenna that needed to be EVA-removed in M-58) from Kurs-A as a backup. See attached images for clarity.

PS: Let's remember M-21M's automatic approach with the Kurs-NA was aborted at 53 m and Kotov TORU'd it home. Previously, the first version of Kurs-NA had been tested for the undocking-redocking approach during M-15M's mission and that had been successful.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Space Pete on 04/28/2015 03:46 PM
That's clearly not the point that was made. If there's a problem with the next Dragon, then Dragon is stood down. That's the problem....not the vehicle failing to arrive, but the vehicle being stuck on the ground for a lengthy period of time before being able to launch again.

Exactly - the crew is fine now, and would be for a good few months even in the event of a Dragon failure, but if Dragon/F9 failed and had to be stood down for a number of months, and Cygnus RTF got delayed (which I suspect it will - since when does anything go to schedule in this business), then that will leave only one HTV to resupply ISS for rest of year. Even with Progress flying, that would make things tight.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that ISS is now zero fault tolerant to another resupply craft failure - with ATV gone, Cygnus' failure last year, today's Progress failure, and only one HTV this year, a Dragon failure would essentially cut ISS' regular supply line to Earth. If they couldn't get it back quickly, that would be the issue.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: RonM on 04/28/2015 04:03 PM
https://twitter.com/chronsciguy/status/593063894295269377 (https://twitter.com/chronsciguy/status/593063894295269377)

Quote
Eric Berger ‏@chronsciguy 19m19 minutes ago

In regard to Progress vehicle issue, am told even if there's a problem with the next SpaceX launch ISS crew has ample consumable reserves.

So no need for the crew to start packing their bags yet!

That's clearly not the point that was made. If there's a problem with the next Dragon, then Dragon is stood down. That's the problem....not the vehicle failing to arrive, but the vehicle being stuck on the ground for a lengthy period of time before being able to launch again.

The first question I would ask: are the employees being paid?    If employees are worried about their bills at home etc. they can't focus on their jobs and mistakes happen.   It's a fair question no?

Yes, that is a fair question. As you pointed out, if the employees can't focus on their jobs then mistakes can happen.

Of course, that is just another point of speculation that can be added to the list of possible causes such as faulty parts, damage during launch, etc.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Patchouli on 04/28/2015 04:09 PM

The first question I would ask: are the employees being paid?    If employees are worried about their bills at home etc. they can't focus on their jobs and mistakes happen.   It's a fair question no?


Good question another issue could be their working hours be too long because they're trying to make do with fewer workers to cut costs or too many have been diverted to other projects.
Try to get too much from too few workers by having them put in 70 and 80 hour weeks for too long will drive up mistakes.

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 04:22 PM
I wouldn't get too hung up on that. We need to find out what's gone wrong.....and that's likely no sooner than tomorrow (due to passes over Russian Ground Stations).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: PahTo on 04/28/2015 04:24 PM
Spin rate was induced around sep after engine cutoff. Separation system would have started it and Progress deployments accelerated it is a good theory based on the data to date.

Thanks for this, and parsing the available data--I concur with your assessment that the spin was induced after s/c sep (despite report of anomalous 3rd stage performance).  Could be the sep event, or the thrusters on the Progress service module.  Again, both of which I believe are common components across the entire Soyuz family.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: rds100 on 04/28/2015 04:24 PM
Didn't they have Luch satellites to be able to communicate with the spacecrafts from above?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/28/2015 04:31 PM
Didn't they have Luch satellites to be able to communicate with the spacecrafts from above?

Capability only select Progress M-M vehicles for testing and this feature will only be operational AFAIK on Progress MS and Soyuz MS starting with Progress MS's first flight this October 2015 barring schedule change.

EDIT: Corrected my spelling
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 04/28/2015 04:34 PM
This seems new on M-27M, anybody ?

Speculation: did it make contact during sep. ? (therefor inducing a spin ?)

EDIT:
should have been more clear, it was a two part question, first anybody know what that new antenna (?) it is not on 26M, and second, contact anywhere in general during sep, or upper stage issue (BBQ roll etc.)

This is Otrazhenye experiment. No relation with the current problems.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 04:35 PM
Garrett Reisman
‏@astro_g_dogg Garrett Reisman retweeted Chris B - NSF
This looks bad. Could be a GNC, Prop, Avionics, or Software problem. Hopefully will find out exactly what happened. 
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Rebel44 on 04/28/2015 04:45 PM
If they are unable to get sufficient data for root cause analysys, how long would this vehicle be grounded?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: AnalogMan on 04/28/2015 04:48 PM
That's clearly not the point that was made. If there's a problem with the next Dragon, then Dragon is stood down. That's the problem....not the vehicle failing to arrive, but the vehicle being stuck on the ground for a lengthy period of time before being able to launch again.

Exactly - the crew is fine now, and would be for a good few months even in the event of a Dragon failure, but if Dragon/F9 failed and had to be stood down for a number of months, and Cygnus RTF got delayed (which I suspect it will - since when does anything go to schedule in this business), then that will leave only one HTV to resupply ISS for rest of year. Even with Progress flying, that would make things tight.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that ISS is now zero fault tolerant to another resupply craft failure - with ATV gone, Cygnus' failure last year, today's Progress failure, and only one HTV this year, a Dragon failure would essentially cut ISS' regular supply line to Earth. If they couldn't get it back quickly, that would be the issue.

Just to confirm current ISS consumables status (columns 3 & 4 now that SpX-6 has arrived).

[KTO = Russian Solid Waste Container]
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 04:53 PM
If they are unable to get sufficient data for root cause analysys, how long would this vehicle be grounded?
They will probably just launch another one and see what happens :D
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: satwatcher on 04/28/2015 04:54 PM
Analysis by Ted Molczan suggests that the current JSpOC orbits for objects A and B will reenter during the first half of tomorrow (April 29th UT). http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-2015/0246.html (http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-2015/0246.html)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: WindnWar on 04/28/2015 05:13 PM
So barring a major failure of atmospheric systems, all the other consumables last at least till September 2015. I suspect we will see a change in manifest for the next Dragon based on what is needed. As if SpaceX needed anymore pressure to deliver though. Probably changes in what HTV brings up as well. Any chance either of the two will be moved forward?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Patchouli on 04/28/2015 05:13 PM
Analysis by Ted Molczan suggests that the current JSpOC orbits for objects A and B will reenter during the first half of tomorrow (April 29th UT). http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-2015/0246.html (http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-2015/0246.html)

Not much time to sort things out or at least get some more telemetry.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ClaytonBirchenough on 04/28/2015 05:15 PM
Spin rate was induced around sep after engine cutoff. Separation system would have started it and Progress deployments accelerated it is a good theory based on the data to date.

Thanks for this, and parsing the available data--I concur with your assessment that the spin was induced after s/c sep (despite report of anomalous 3rd stage performance).  Could be the sep event, or the thrusters on the Progress service module.  Again, both of which I believe are common components across the entire Soyuz family.

Hmm. Wouldn't Progress deployments decelerate the spin? Like in sounding rockets or other spacecraft? I.E. yo-yo despin? Or can it be used to accelerate spin too?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ChrisC on 04/28/2015 05:15 PM
Analysis by Ted Molczan suggests that the current JSpOC orbits for objects A and B will reenter during the first half of tomorrow (April 29th UT). http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-2015/0246.html (http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-2015/0246.html)

Just to flesh that out, quoting a bit more from that link:
Quote
Normally the "A" object is the payload and "B" is the rocket body, but the identities assigned to initial TLEs are not always correct; therefore, I have propagated both orbits to decay, using the above Progress ballistic co-efficient.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 05:17 PM
It turns out that using TORU from the ground is not only possible, but actually is a standard test prior to docking.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/28/2015 05:23 PM
I haven't looked into this, but is it possible for Progress to suffer full gyro lock like Briz-M?? if yes , what consequences and implications exist for the current situation??
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Patchouli on 04/28/2015 05:25 PM

Hmm. Wouldn't Progress deployments decelerate the spin? Like in sounding rockets or other spacecraft? I.E. yo-yo despin? Or can it be used to accelerate spin too?

I was thinking the same thing though if the solar arrays didn't deploy at the same time they could turn a spin into a tumble but the total rate should be lower due to conservation of momentum.
Analysis by Ted Molczan suggests that the current JSpOC orbits for objects A and B will reenter during the first half of tomorrow (April 29th UT). http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-2015/0246.html (http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-2015/0246.html)

Just to flesh that out, quoting a bit more from that link:
Quote
Normally the "A" object is the payload and "B" is the rocket body, but the identities assigned to initial TLEs are not always correct; therefore, I have propagated both orbits to decay, using the above Progress ballistic co-efficient.

I figured Progress would have a lot higher ballistic coefficient then an empty rocket body.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Razvan on 04/28/2015 05:27 PM
Exactly same thing can happen with crew capsule. This is a strong warning for Congress and NASA to work diligently toward getting American crew to ISS via US spacecrafts.
No effort - money or man - should be spared to get it done ASAP
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Lar on 04/28/2015 05:27 PM
For reference and to get folks caught up, here's a link to Chris's article on the current state of play
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/04/progress-m-27m-soyuz-2-1a/
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/28/2015 05:35 PM
I remember the Russians used Wallops to communicate with Mir.
(Is my recollection correct?)

I know (from up-thread) that they can't use their Luch satellites yet to communicate with this craft.

Why can't they use NASA or ESA or JAXA ground stations to communicate with Progress?

Thanks in advance,
Zubenelgenubi
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Phillip Clark on 04/28/2015 05:37 PM
Exactly same thing can happen with crew capsule. This is a strong warning for Congress and NASA to work diligently toward getting American crew to ISS via US spacecrafts.
No effort - money or man - should be spared to get it done ASAP

Let's be brutal about this.   How many people have died on US piloted missions? - 14 (1986 & 2003).

How man people have died on Soviet/Russian spacecraft? - 4 (1967 & 1971).

This suggests that the Russian route is safer!

Also, this is only the second Progress failure in a programme that started in January 1978.   Let's see the Americans match that.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: sailor.dm on 04/28/2015 05:37 PM
Exactly same thing can happen with crew capsule.
A manned spacecraft will be less prone to issues as simple as this, the crew would just de-spin the spacecraft manually. The onboard computer isn't smart enough to deal with situation like this.
This is a strong warning for Congress and NASA to work diligently toward getting American crew to ISS via US spacecrafts.
This is space. It can happen to any spacecraft any given friday, especially to a less proven one.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/28/2015 05:42 PM
There's all old saying...you can lead a horse to water...


I hate to say it but it seems to me that increasingly SpaceX has the right idea....and the rest of the industry doesn't (except for ULA).

Going to be very interested in failure analysis on what caused this.

Seems like the vehicle is totally a lost cause though, there is no control-ability and barely any coms, so unless between now and entry interface the problem corrects itself, its a failure.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/28/2015 05:46 PM
I haven't looked into this, but is it possible for Progress to suffer full gyro lock like Briz-M?? if yes , what consequences and implications exist for the current situation??
It would spin out of control and possibly start falling apart due to axial loads from the spinning. Quite possible this is what happened here, but if that was the case the progress onboard thrusters would probably be able to combat this and eventually stabilize the vehicle. This has not happened so that would suggest it was a problem onboard progress itself, or some sort of damage occurred to progress somewhere in the staging.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Orbiter on 04/28/2015 05:49 PM
For 2015-024A / 40619, GMAT 2014a propagates the epoch 15118.31986774 TLE to decay on 2015 Apr 29 near 08:47 UTC.

For 2015-024B / 40620, GMAT 2014a propagates the epoch 15118.53743509 TLE to decay on 2015 Apr 29 near 07:05 UTC.

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-2015/0246.html
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 04/28/2015 05:52 PM
Also, this is only the second Progress failure in a programme that started in January 1978.

It is not yet a failure !
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Razvan on 04/28/2015 05:54 PM
Exactly same thing can happen with crew capsule. This is a strong warning for Congress and NASA to work diligently toward getting American crew to ISS via US spacecrafts.
No effort - money or man - should be spared to get it done ASAP

Let's be brutal about this.   How many people have died on US piloted missions? - 14 (1986 & 2003).

How man people have died on Soviet/Russian spacecraft? - 4 (1967 & 1971).

This suggests that the Russian route is safer!

Also, this is only the second Progress failure in a programme that started in January 1978.   Let's see the Americans match that.

I apologize if I might have looked offensive, but I meant the liability - in its entirety...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Patchouli on 04/28/2015 05:57 PM
Exactly same thing can happen with crew capsule. This is a strong warning for Congress and NASA to work diligently toward getting American crew to ISS via US spacecrafts.
No effort - money or man - should be spared to get it done ASAP

Let's be brutal about this.   How many people have died on US piloted missions? - 14 (1986 & 2003).

How man people have died on Soviet/Russian spacecraft? - 4 (1967 & 1971).

This suggests that the Russian route is safer!

Also, this is only the second Progress failure in a programme that started in January 1978.   Let's see the Americans match that.

The shuttle carries more people so when a failure does happen  the number of fatalities is more.
Both STS and Soyuz had the same number of LOC events two each.

It should be noted Soyuz had a few of close calls such as Soyuz 5,Soyuz 18a,Soyuz 23, and TMA-11.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 05:58 PM
NASA:

Russian Resupply Ship Experiencing Difficulties; International Space Station, Crew are Fine

The six crew members of the International Space Station (ISS) are safe and continuing regular operations with sufficient supplies as Russian flight controllers plan for another attempt to communicate with a cargo resupply spacecraft bound for the station. The next attempt to link with the spacecraft comes at 8:50 p.m. EDT Tuesday.

The ISS Progress 59 cargo spacecraft launched successfully from the Baikonur Cosmodrome at 3:09 a.m. (1:09 p.m. in Kazakhstan) Tuesday on a Soyuz rocket bound for the space station. Right after it separated from the Soyuz booster’s third stage, an unspecified problem prevented Russian flight controllers from determining whether navigational antennas had deployed and whether fuel system manifolds had pressurized as planned.

When flight controllers initially could not confirm deployment of the antennas in the minutes following its launch, they selected the backup rendezvous plan of two days and 34 orbits instead of the planned four-orbit, six-hour rendezvous.

During the spacecraft’s first four Earth orbits, the Russian flight control team made several unsuccessful attempts to confirm the status of the spacecraft’s systems but were unable to receive telemetry from some spacecraft systems. As a result, ISS flight controllers informed the crew a docking attempt to the station has been postponed.

The spacecraft was not carrying any supplies critical for the United States Operating Segment (USOS) of the station. Both the Russian and USOS segments of the station continue to operate normally and are adequately supplied well beyond the next planned resupply flight. The next mission scheduled to deliver cargo to the station is the seventh SpaceX commercial resupply services mission targeted for launch no earlier than June 19. It will carry about 5,000 pounds of science investigations and supplies.

The cargo of Progress 59 includes more than three tons of food, fuel, and supplies for the space station crew, including 1,940 pounds of propellant, 110 pounds of oxygen, 926 pounds of water, and 3,128 pounds of spare parts, supplies and scientific experiment hardware. Among the U.S. supplies on board are spare parts for the station’s environmental control and life support system, backup spacewalk hardware, and crew clothing, all of which are replaceable.

As teams continue to monitor the spacecraft, additional updates and more information about the International Space Station will be available online at:

http://www.nasa.gov/station
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevind on 04/28/2015 06:06 PM
Exactly same thing can happen with crew capsule. This is a strong warning for Congress and NASA to work diligently toward getting American crew to ISS via US spacecrafts.
No effort - money or man - should be spared to get it done ASAP

Let's be brutal about this.   How many people have died on US piloted missions? - 14 (1986 & 2003).

How man people have died on Soviet/Russian spacecraft? - 4 (1967 & 1971).

This suggests that the Russian route is safer!

Also, this is only the second Progress failure in a programme that started in January 1978.   Let's see the Americans match that.

This does not suggest to me the Russian route is safer.  This is only a head count relating to the crew.  Both have had the same number of fatal flights -2.  If you count the aborted launches of Soyuz 18-A (the April 5th Anomoly) and the Soyuz T-10 pad abort prior to launch you could argue that Russian launches have had more accidents, and are thus less safe.  You can sometimes twist numbers around all different ways.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 04/28/2015 06:07 PM
It should be noted Soyuz had a few of close calls such as Soyuz 5,Soyuz 23, and TMA-11.

No "close call" on Soyuz TMA-11. The spaceship experienced a minor anomaly which resulted in switching to backup reentry mode.

I suggest we don't use this thread to make a competition over which country has the best technology. Russians are currently experiencing a major anomaly. US, in the past, did also experienced such situations. In the future, it will happen again, in Russia and in US. I really don't understand the need to blame a country and it's technology as a whole each time they have a problem. Even if some statistical proofs could point out that US technology is far more better than Russian technology, I see no interest in this information.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Razvan on 04/28/2015 06:09 PM
NASA:

....
The spacecraft was not carrying any supplies critical for the United States Operating Segment (USOS) of the station. Both the Russian and USOS segments of the station continue to operate normally and are adequately supplied well beyond the next planned resupply flight. The next mission scheduled to deliver cargo to the station is the seventh SpaceX commercial resupply services mission targeted for launch no earlier than June 19. It will carry about 5,000 pounds of science investigations and supplies.

The cargo of Progress 59 includes more than three tons of food, fuel, and supplies for the space station crew, including 1,940 pounds of propellant, 110 pounds of oxygen, 926 pounds of water, and 3,128 pounds of spare parts, supplies and scientific experiment hardware. Among the U.S. supplies on board are spare parts for the station’s environmental control and life support system, backup spacewalk hardware, and crew clothing, all of which are replaceable.

As teams continue to monitor the spacecraft, additional updates and more information about the International Space Station will be available online at:

http://www.nasa.gov/station

That is certainly comfortable to find out. However, I would see well justified should NASA accelerated its process of designing the liner/container for SpaceX to ship water and even fuel to ISS.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Bubbinski on 04/28/2015 06:16 PM
Can the ISS communications antennae/equipment be rigged to try to link up with Progress and try to get some telemetry from it, or to try to command it?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Rebel44 on 04/28/2015 06:17 PM
That is certainly comfortable to find out. However, I would see well justified should NASA accelerated its process of designing the liner/container for SpaceX to ship water and even fuel to ISS.

IIRC, Dragon can already carry water - it was mentioned in briefing for last SpX resupply mission.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Xspace_engineerX on 04/28/2015 06:20 PM
Exactly same thing can happen with crew capsule. This is a strong warning for Congress and NASA to work diligently toward getting American crew to ISS via US spacecrafts.
No effort - money or man - should be spared to get it done ASAP

Let's be brutal about this.   How many people have died on US piloted missions? - 14 (1986 & 2003).

How man people have died on Soviet/Russian spacecraft? - 4 (1967 & 1971).

This suggests that the Russian route is safer!

Also, this is only the second Progress failure in a programme that started in January 1978.   Let's see the Americans match that.

The shuttle carries more people so when a failure does happen  the number of fatalities is more.
Both STS and Soyuz had the same number of LOC events two each.

It should be noted Soyuz had a few of close calls such as Soyuz 5,Soyuz 18a,Soyuz 23, and TMA-11.

Shuttle also had close calls.  STS-19, STS-27, and STS-61B.

Ultimately the Soyuz is a very, very safe vehicle. Space is hard and the Soyuz's low failure rate is astounding.
125 missions, 2 LOC events.

Arguably the first LOC event with the soyuz was political rather than technological. They were not ready.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: MattMason on 04/28/2015 06:22 PM
Exactly same thing can happen with crew capsule. This is a strong warning for Congress and NASA to work diligently toward getting American crew to ISS via US spacecrafts.
No effort - money or man - should be spared to get it done ASAP

Let's be brutal about this.   How many people have died on US piloted missions? - 14 (1986 & 2003).

How man people have died on Soviet/Russian spacecraft? - 4 (1967 & 1971).

This suggests that the Russian route is safer!

Also, this is only the second Progress failure in a programme that started in January 1978.   Let's see the Americans match that.

To reinforce this:

The Progress spacecraft, in its two major incarnations, has flown 98 missions, if Wikipedia is to be believed.

Info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_(spacecraft) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_(spacecraft))

With only 1 (maybe two) failures, that's a pretty awesome record.

Bringing up SpaceX into this is a logical conclusion, but I'd steer away from the fan-cheering about this. I'm happy that NASA and Roscosmos have a backup to their backups, but as others said, we're already in "backup" mode since ORB-3. And Progress provides fuel and boost-up that no other vehicle can do right now.

It's not over, but with Progress doing wheelies in space, the fat lady is warming up. Here's to Russian ingenuity pulling this out as they have before, as well (or better) than Americans.

For someone who asked: Gemini 8 got as fast as 1 revolution per second.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_8#Emergency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_8#Emergency)

And that's my one "congrats" post in what is still, I think, an update thread.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/28/2015 06:25 PM
I haven't looked into this, but is it possible for Progress to suffer full gyro lock like Briz-M?? if yes , what consequences and implications exist for the current situation??
It would spin out of control and possibly start falling apart due to axial loads from the spinning. Quite possible this is what happened here, but if that was the case the progress onboard thrusters would probably be able to combat this and eventually stabilize the vehicle. This has not happened so that would suggest it was a problem onboard progress itself, or some sort of damage occurred to progress somewhere in the staging.
Not possible at this time since the propulsion system has yet to be confirmed as pressuring the tanks and lines when it separated prior to loss of nominal communications with the SC. also the SC did not stabilize and perform the two preloaded burns which are done without operations and commanding from the ground.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Razvan on 04/28/2015 06:28 PM
That is certainly comfortable to find out. However, I would see well justified should NASA accelerated its process of designing the liner/container for SpaceX to ship water and even fuel to ISS.

IIRC, Dragon can already carry water - it was mentioned in briefing for last SpX resupply mission.
I know the Dragon is able to do it. I did not know NASA has already finished the design for the envelope to contain it, inside the Dragon. It's great if it's already done...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/28/2015 06:34 PM
I haven't looked into this, but is it possible for Progress to suffer full gyro lock like Briz-M?? if yes , what consequences and implications exist for the current situation??
It would spin out of control and possibly start falling apart due to axial loads from the spinning. Quite possible this is what happened here, but if that was the case the progress onboard thrusters would probably be able to combat this and eventually stabilize the vehicle. This has not happened so that would suggest it was a problem onboard progress itself, or some sort of damage occurred to progress somewhere in the staging.
Not possible at this time since the propulsion system has yet to be confirmed as pressuring the tanks and lines when it separated prior to loss of nominal communications with the SC. also the SC did not stabilize and performed the two preloaded burns which are done without operations and commanding from the ground.

Forgot about this you are correct, but this does again point to the problems all having been on-board Progress not a result of the third stage, given the fact that Progress would not and will not respond to commands and did not automatically pressurize these systems (meaning no thrusters).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 04/28/2015 06:37 PM
Exactly same thing can happen with crew capsule. This is a strong warning for Congress and NASA to work diligently toward getting American crew to ISS via US spacecrafts.
No effort - money or man - should be spared to get it done ASAP

Let's be brutal about this.   How many people have died on US piloted missions? - 14 (1986 & 2003).

How man people have died on Soviet/Russian spacecraft? - 4 (1967 & 1971).

This suggests that the Russian route is safer!

Also, this is only the second Progress failure in a programme that started in January 1978.   Let's see the Americans match that.

This does not suggest to me the Russian route is safer.  This is only a head count relating to the crew.  Both have had the same number of fatal flights -2.  If you count the aborted launches of Soyuz 18-A (the April 5th Anomoly) and the Soyuz T-10 pad abort prior to launch you could argue that Russian launches have had more accidents, and are thus less safe.  You can sometimes twist numbers around all different ways.

As others have said lets not argue over which country has the better space tech. Russia has suffered failures with their spacecraft and the U.S. has suffered failures. It happens.

That said I agree with Razvan that this highlights the importance of having multiple crew and cargo systems servicing the ISS. Any one of these systems can fail and without backups it puts the station and crew at risk. Luckily we have a Dragon and an HTV coming up in a few months as well as a Cygnus in November so the station should be able to weather the storm until the Russians figure out what went wrong.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Xspace_engineerX on 04/28/2015 06:41 PM
Exactly same thing can happen with crew capsule. This is a strong warning for Congress and NASA to work diligently toward getting American crew to ISS via US spacecrafts.
No effort - money or man - should be spared to get it done ASAP

Let's be brutal about this.   How many people have died on US piloted missions? - 14 (1986 & 2003).

How man people have died on Soviet/Russian spacecraft? - 4 (1967 & 1971).

This suggests that the Russian route is safer!

Also, this is only the second Progress failure in a programme that started in January 1978.   Let's see the Americans match that.

This does not suggest to me the Russian route is safer.  This is only a head count relating to the crew.  Both have had the same number of fatal flights -2.  If you count the aborted launches of Soyuz 18-A (the April 5th Anomoly) and the Soyuz T-10 pad abort prior to launch you could argue that Russian launches have had more accidents, and are thus less safe.  You can sometimes twist numbers around all different ways.

As others have said lets not argue over which country has the better space tech. Russia has suffered failures with their spacecraft and the U.S. has suffered failures. It happens.

That said I agree with Razvan that this highlights the importance of having multiple crew and cargo systems servicing the ISS. Any one of these systems can fail and without backups it puts the station and crew at risk. Luckily we have a Dragon and an HTV coming up in a few months as well as a Cygnus in November so the station should be able to weather the storm until the Russians figure out what went wrong.

Anyone have knowledge of the odds of this affecting soyuz capsules due to commonality?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/28/2015 06:47 PM
Exactly same thing can happen with crew capsule. This is a strong warning for Congress and NASA to work diligently toward getting American crew to ISS via US spacecrafts.
No effort - money or man - should be spared to get it done ASAP

Let's be brutal about this.   How many people have died on US piloted missions? - 14 (1986 & 2003).

How man people have died on Soviet/Russian spacecraft? - 4 (1967 & 1971).

This suggests that the Russian route is safer!

Also, this is only the second Progress failure in a programme that started in January 1978.   Let's see the Americans match that.

This does not suggest to me the Russian route is safer.  This is only a head count relating to the crew.  Both have had the same number of fatal flights -2.  If you count the aborted launches of Soyuz 18-A (the April 5th Anomoly) and the Soyuz T-10 pad abort prior to launch you could argue that Russian launches have had more accidents, and are thus less safe.  You can sometimes twist numbers around all different ways.
Of course the Russian route is "safer", because right now there is no U.S. route!

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: LostInSpace on 04/28/2015 06:56 PM


Anyone have knowledge of the odds of this affecting soyuz capsules due to commonality?
[/quote]
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: speedevil on 04/28/2015 07:02 PM
Pure speculation.
A gyro was wired backwards.
After jettison, it started to rapidly spin up the craft, until it hit the gyros hardware limit, at which it stopped reporting data, and the software went into a confused untested state.

I have been listening to NASA TV, and have heard no mention whatsoever of underperformance of stage 3, or indeed mention that the orbit is incorrect.
Perhaps I missed this, but it would seem to me that this is the absolute first headline bit of news, if it was actually occurring.

Also, progress should be _really_ visible for passes now, with a rather distinctive strobe.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Lar on 04/28/2015 07:07 PM
I will echo other comments. Let's stick to facts, and failure analysis that's technical in nature. SpaceX is not relevant to this thread and fannish comments are not helpful. Let's also remember to be excellent to each other. Thank you.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Jester on 04/28/2015 07:11 PM
any confirmation that Progress M-27M is NORAD ID 40619 ?? (this is my assumption but no update from space-track yet)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Appable on 04/28/2015 07:16 PM
Exactly same thing can happen with crew capsule. This is a strong warning for Congress and NASA to work diligently toward getting American crew to ISS via US spacecrafts.
No effort - money or man - should be spared to get it done ASAP

Let's be brutal about this.   How many people have died on US piloted missions? - 14 (1986 & 2003).

How man people have died on Soviet/Russian spacecraft? - 4 (1967 & 1971).

This suggests that the Russian route is safer!

Also, this is only the second Progress failure in a programme that started in January 1978.   Let's see the Americans match that.

This does not suggest to me the Russian route is safer.  This is only a head count relating to the crew.  Both have had the same number of fatal flights -2.  If you count the aborted launches of Soyuz 18-A (the April 5th Anomoly) and the Soyuz T-10 pad abort prior to launch you could argue that Russian launches have had more accidents, and are thus less safe.  You can sometimes twist numbers around all different ways.

As others have said lets not argue over which country has the better space tech. Russia has suffered failures with their spacecraft and the U.S. has suffered failures. It happens.

That said I agree with Razvan that this highlights the importance of having multiple crew and cargo systems servicing the ISS. Any one of these systems can fail and without backups it puts the station and crew at risk. Luckily we have a Dragon and an HTV coming up in a few months as well as a Cygnus in November so the station should be able to weather the storm until the Russians figure out what went wrong.

Anyone have knowledge of the odds of this affecting soyuz capsules due to commonality?

That would depend a lot on what the failure was. Failures such as propulsion are much more likely to have issues leading to LOV than a failure due to guidance/avionics. If it was a guidance failure it could have been corrected with telemetry (except that that wasn't working correctly). The Soyuz has humans inside, so if the issue is a guidance system they could manually disable the automated control. Humans in the capsule are much more reliable than humans on the ground trying to connect to an unmanned capsule.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kdhilliard on 04/28/2015 07:18 PM
That is certainly comfortable to find out. However, I would see well justified should NASA accelerated its process of designing the liner/container for SpaceX to ship water and even fuel to ISS.
IIRC, Dragon can already carry water - it was mentioned in briefing for last SpX resupply mission.
I know the Dragon is able to do it. I did not know NASA has already finished the design for the envelope to contain it, inside the Dragon. It's great if it's already done...

From SpaceX Falcon 9 CRS-6 Pre Launch News Conference (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izVIRDyGc4I) [YouTube]
Dan Hartman, Deputy ISS Program Manager, in response to questions at @18:30 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izVIRDyGc4I&t=18m30s):
Quote
On this particular one we're flying about a month's worth of food, so it's not the one which pushes us over the edge.  That is going to be HTV-5, where we've got kind of a new thing we're doing.  We're flying 30 rather large bags of water, that will get our water consumables significantly improved, as well as a lot of food.  I don't have the specific numbers for you.  And then ORB-4, which will follow in November, will most likely carry some water for us and a significant amount of food as well.

The Dragon missions we try to use for some of the dedicated science that really needs the capability to bring powered late-load research hardware up, as well as return, and so we're a little bit picky of making sure we give that to the researcher community first, and then we will pick up some of the slack on consumables with the other vehicles.  That's kind of been our plan.
and @25:20 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izVIRDyGc4I&t=25m30s):
Quote
We have some bags, kind of big bags, that typically fit in the shuttle mid-deck lockers, of the past, that's kind of what we sized them for and flew them, actually, sometimes on those to protect them.  We couldn't find, we were looking for nooks and crannies within the SpaceX Dragon and still trying to protect the resupply cold stowage for the research folks, and so we didn't want to impact that.  So what we had to do was redesign, slightly, tweak our bag design a little bit, and we have since performed that and are able to carry water on SpaceX.  We've elected not to do that so far, but we put that capability in place in case we needed it.  And so its just a design feature that we have to carry water on Dragon.  SpaceX really didn't have to make any modifications to their vehicle to accommodate that.  It was on our side.

~Kirk
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 07:27 PM
On actual update side: from NK it seems that the plan is to use TORU from the ground to attempt stopping spin on the next comms pass.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/28/2015 07:39 PM
Could the tracked orbit be a result of an out-of-control Progress firing its thrusters in uncontrolled directions?

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/28/2015 07:44 PM
any confirmation that Progress M-27M is NORAD ID 40619 ?? (this is my assumption but no update from space-track yet)
yes, if orbit Apogee and Perigee match 120.5 by 316.4 kilometers as reported earlier by NORAD.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/28/2015 07:46 PM
On actual update side: from NK it seems that the plan is to use TORU from the ground to attempt stopping spin on the next comms pass.
Well if it spins up when fired in the opposite direction fired, but slows down in the when fired in the direction of Spin then we may verify the state and orientation of the navigation computers info.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 07:53 PM
I will echo other comments. Let's stick to facts, and failure analysis that's technical in nature. SpaceX is not relevant to this thread and fannish comments are not helpful. Let's also remember to be excellent to each other. Thank you.

I concur and I don't think we need separate threads for this.

Updates only from this point would be dull as there's no updates of real note until NASA release them. Roscosmos sure aren't going to be giving running commentary. Relevant posts about impacts and such are very useful for people seeing how this goes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Rebel44 on 04/28/2015 07:59 PM
Were those reports of incorrect orbit officially confirmed, or refuted?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Jester on 04/28/2015 08:24 PM
Interfax quoting third stage problem

http://www.interfax.ru/russia/439134
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: dsell88 on 04/28/2015 08:31 PM
Anybody with CAD skills interested in modeling M-27M's tumble? It would make a spectacular video :P
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 08:32 PM
Well if it spins up when fired in the opposite direction fired, but slows down in the when fired in the direction of Spin then we may verify the state and orientation of the navigation computers info.
I'm sure flight controllers are brainstorming all kinds of crazy things to try out when the spacecraft gets into comms range.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/28/2015 08:35 PM
What I am concerned is the conflicting orbit info from various sources - in fact the Progress may have maneuvered after launch and the only information we have cannot exclude this possibility, with just one TLE data point for one object (minutes after launch) and two for the other (13:00 UTC).

Anyone have seen them just yet? I can't find a visual report till now....
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Jester on 04/28/2015 08:39 PM
What I am concerned is the conflicting orbit info from various sources - in fact the Progress may have maneuvered after launch and the only information we have cannot exclude this possibility, with just one TLE data point for one object (minutes after launch) and two for the other (13:00 UTC).

Anyone have seen them just yet? I can't find a visual report till now....

All I have, from space-track.org and/or celestrak.com and i'm hitting refresh every 5 minutes :)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Mark McCombs on 04/28/2015 09:06 PM
Interfax quoting third stage problem

http://www.interfax.ru/russia/439134

Quote
According to him, it was an unintended separation of the third stage and the ship could cause accelerated rotation.

I am wondering if there was indeed a bad sep, could there have been damage to Progress (antennae) as well.  Could the two vehicles have collided after sep?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: WindnWar on 04/28/2015 09:09 PM
Is it also possible that a fuel line ruptured when it was commanded to pressurize the tanks, and the ruptured line induced the spin? It wouldn't be the first time they have suffered from fuel line issues.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/28/2015 09:15 PM
New orbit parameters!

40619/2015-024A: 188 x 260 km x 51.65 deg. (epoch 20:49:49 UTC)
40620/2015-024B: 176 x 187 km x 51.65 deg. (epoch 20:11:58 UTC)

So the Russians were correct and the early data are erroneous.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Razer on 04/28/2015 09:30 PM
This is an update from the NORAD ?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/28/2015 09:31 PM
This is an update from the NORAD ?

Correct. The Russians were measuring 193 x 278 km from their own data, so it looks they are in agreement.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 09:31 PM
New orbit parameters!
It still is not "nominal" since apparently the tolerance for Soyuz-2 is only ±5 km, but certainly nowhere as bad as it was originally suggested.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Rebel44 on 04/28/2015 09:39 PM
How long, would it take for the Soyuz, to enter atmosphere from this orbit, if it cannot be fixed?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/28/2015 09:40 PM
New orbit parameters!
It still is not "nominal" since apparently the tolerance for Soyuz-2 is only ±5 km, but certainly nowhere as bad as it was originally suggested.
what was the target parameters?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 04/28/2015 09:41 PM
Ted Molczan has withdrawn his decay prediction for tomorrow, given the new, accurate orbital elements.
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-2015/0251.html (http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-2015/0251.html)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/28/2015 09:46 PM
For 2015-024A / 40619, GMAT 2014a propagates the epoch 15118.31986774 TLE to decay on 2015 Apr 29 near 08:47 UTC.

For 2015-024B / 40620, GMAT 2014a propagates the epoch 15118.53743509 TLE to decay on 2015 Apr 29 near 07:05 UTC.

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-2015/0246.html
From: Ted Molczan via Seesat-l <seesat-l_at_satobs.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:37:59 -0400
USSTRATCOM has issued updated orbital elements that reveal both orbits to have far greater perigee heights than those of
the initial elements; therefore, Progress 59 will not decay on Apr 29 UTC, as I estimated earlier.

Ted Molczan

http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-2015/0251.html
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: CosmicDebris on 04/28/2015 09:49 PM
If enough is known about the orbital data, perhaps someone with more knowledge than myself could run the numbers through an orbital prediction program, to find out  the times and locations that the spacecraft would be visible. I would love to see it fly over after sunset or before sunrise,  before it takes a swan dive into oblivion. Cameras at the ready! CosmicDebris.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Remes on 04/28/2015 09:50 PM
Quote
According to him, it was an unintended separation of the third stage and the ship could cause accelerated rotation.

I am wondering if there was indeed a bad sep, could there have been damage to Progress (antennae) as well.  Could the two vehicles have collided after sep?
My guess (rather then the demolition of the antenna) would be, that the separation occurred too early and the guidance computer on the Progress was not prepared. So it didn't get the command to start, or it was not ready to start or it entered safe state based on unpredicted angular velocities. Most likely it is in a safe state now. This would also explain, why the propulsion system didn't pressurize.

Which would also mean, that there is a chance to activate the guidance computer, trigger all necessary sequences, stabilize and safe it. I believe that, as they were able to transmit a few seconds of tv-information, they should be able to upload a few commands.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/28/2015 09:56 PM
Anybody with CAD skills interested in modeling M-27M's tumble? It would make a spectacular video :P
Not CAD, but my crude impression of the head over heels spin as a gif.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 04/28/2015 10:09 PM
New orbit parameters!
It still is not "nominal" since apparently the tolerance for Soyuz-2 is only ±5 km, but certainly nowhere as bad as it was originally suggested.

You can not conclude like this, because NORAD and TsUP use different models of the Earth. Consequently, orbit parameters of EVERY orbiting object are different in NORAD and TsUP.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: satwatcher on 04/28/2015 10:13 PM
If enough is known about the orbital data, perhaps someone with more knowledge than myself could run the numbers through an orbital prediction program, to find out  the times and locations that the spacecraft would be visible. I would love to see it fly over after sunset or before sunrise,  before it takes a swan dive into oblivion. Cameras at the ready! CosmicDebris.

It is visible from latitudes around 10 deg North in the evening and 30 deg South in the morning.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: The man in the can on 04/28/2015 10:26 PM
New orbit parameters!
It still is not "nominal" since apparently the tolerance for Soyuz-2 is only ±5 km, but certainly nowhere as bad as it was originally suggested.
what was the target parameters?
According to Anatoly Zak the Progress M-27M was expected to enter a 193 by 238-kilometer orbit
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Liss on 04/28/2015 10:28 PM
New orbit parameters!
It still is not "nominal" since apparently the tolerance for Soyuz-2 is only ±5 km, but certainly nowhere as bad as it was originally suggested.

You can not conclude like this, because NORAD and TsUP use different models of the Earth. Consequently, orbit parameters of EVERY orbiting object are different in NORAD and TsUP.
It is just a matter of using the releavant model.
Planned orbit for PM-27M was 193x239 km above the Earth ellipsoid.
Actual orbit rumored for PM-27M was 193x279 km above the Earth ellipsoid.
U.S. measured orbit for PM-27M was 193x277 km above the Earth ellipsoid.
We see rather good fit between the two, even if these differ from the planned one.

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/28/2015 10:54 PM
You can not conclude like this, because NORAD and TsUP use different models of the Earth. Consequently, orbit parameters of EVERY orbiting object are different in NORAD and TsUP.
I did not conclude anything out of these numbers, but rather repeated a statement posted on NK forum. I'm sorry for not making it clear enough from my post.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: StarGeezer on 04/28/2015 10:58 PM
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?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/28/2015 11:05 PM
I have been thinking a bit and based on everything we know at this time, it's a series of events that fits the available data:

The launch occurs as planned at 0709 UTC and everything goes well until the third stage of the Soyuz 2-1A goes into operation. For some reason it burns longer than planned (this explains the nominal perigee but higher apogee).

As all events are time-tagged this throws Progress/LV sep off as the stage is still under thrust or in the process of ceasing thrust which causes the third stage to essentially ram into the now free-flying Progress. The forces are great enough cause the rate sensors to go into a lock-up, thus causing the rate sensor failure messages and cause the deployment motors of the Kurs antennas to stall. As the solar arrays are heavier and require more powerful motors to deploy, they do have the power to overcome the spin-induced forces and actually deploy and lock into place.

As the rate sensors went into lock up before the GNC system had time to initialize this explains why the Progress hasn't been able to kill the rotation, it is confused and can't properly determine the actual rates and its attitude.

I think this covers the events up until now. It's just a theory that I have come up with that fits everything.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: robertross on 04/28/2015 11:07 PM
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?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35789.msg1365583#msg1365583

There was a GIF made from the images, and there is a YouTube video posted afterward that post.

It's quite obvious from the camera angle that the craft is spinning just like Ed's GIF
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/28/2015 11:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/28/2015 11:21 PM
New orbit parameters!
It still is not "nominal" since apparently the tolerance for Soyuz-2 is only ±5 km, but certainly nowhere as bad as it was originally suggested.

You can not conclude like this, because NORAD and TsUP use different models of the Earth. Consequently, orbit parameters of EVERY orbiting object are different in NORAD and TsUP.
It is just a matter of using the releavant model.
Planned orbit for PM-27M was 193x239 km above the Earth ellipsoid.
Actual orbit rumored for PM-27M was 193x279 km above the Earth ellipsoid.
U.S. measured orbit for PM-27M was 193x277 km above the Earth ellipsoid.
We see rather good fit between the two, even if these differ from the planned one.


So can we assume Blok-I burned to/near depletion. BTW what are typical Blok-I reserves on the 2.1a variant??
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/28/2015 11:47 PM
So we're coming up on this attempt of communicating with the spacecraft.

About an hour away I believe.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/28/2015 11:53 PM
I have been thinking a bit and based on everything we know at this time, it's a series of events that fits the available data:

The launch occurs as planned at 0709 UTC and everything goes well until the third stage of the Soyuz 2-1A goes into operation. For some reason it burns longer than planned (this explains the nominal perigee but higher apogee).

As all events are time-tagged this throws Progress/LV sep off as the stage is still under thrust or in the process of ceasing thrust which causes the third stage to essentially ram into the now free-flying Progress. The forces are great enough cause the rate sensors to go into a lock-up, thus causing the rate sensor failure messages and cause the deployment motors of the Kurs antennas to stall. As the solar arrays are heavier and require more powerful motors to deploy, they do have the power to overcome the spin-induced forces and actually deploy and lock into place.

As the rate sensors went into lock up before the GNC system had time to initialize this explains why the Progress hasn't been able to kill the rotation, it is confused and can't properly determine the actual rates and its attitude.

I think this covers the events up until now. It's just a theory that I have come up with that fits everything.
After thinking some more, I'm nearly convinced that object with the higher apogee (OBJECT A) is the rocket body (Soyuz 2-1A third stage) as it fits into my theory that the stage continued to thrust and therefore increase the apogee altitude while the rammed Progress M-27M remained in the lower orbit it was left in when it was separated from the third stage. A good analogy is a bus ramming into the corner of a parked car while at speed. The bus continues on but the car gets pushed out of the way.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/28/2015 11:54 PM
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.

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/28/2015 11:55 PM
So we're coming up on this attempt of communicating with the spacecraft.

About an hour away I believe.
Yes, 8:50 pm CDT (9:50 pm EDT, 0130 UTC April 29).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: BowShock on 04/29/2015 12:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: mlindner on 04/29/2015 12:15 AM
I have been thinking a bit and based on everything we know at this time, it's a series of events that fits the available data:

The launch occurs as planned at 0709 UTC and everything goes well until the third stage of the Soyuz 2-1A goes into operation. For some reason it burns longer than planned (this explains the nominal perigee but higher apogee).

As all events are time-tagged this throws Progress/LV sep off as the stage is still under thrust or in the process of ceasing thrust which causes the third stage to essentially ram into the now free-flying Progress. The forces are great enough cause the rate sensors to go into a lock-up, thus causing the rate sensor failure messages and cause the deployment motors of the Kurs antennas to stall. As the solar arrays are heavier and require more powerful motors to deploy, they do have the power to overcome the spin-induced forces and actually deploy and lock into place.

As the rate sensors went into lock up before the GNC system had time to initialize this explains why the Progress hasn't been able to kill the rotation, it is confused and can't properly determine the actual rates and its attitude.

I think this covers the events up until now. It's just a theory that I have come up with that fits everything.
After thinking some more, I'm nearly convinced that object with the higher apogee (OBJECT A) is the rocket body (Soyuz 2-1A third stage) as it fits into my theory that the stage continued to thrust and therefore increase the apogee altitude while the rammed Progress M-27M remained in the lower orbit it was left in when it was separated from the third stage. A good analogy is a bus ramming into the corner of a parked car while at speed. The bus continues on but the car gets pushed out of the way.

It's much to early to do any kind of this kind of speculation. There has been zero indication of an early separation or an improper re-start of the third stage. This kind of speculation is not helpful right now. Stick to the facts.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: RotoSequence on 04/29/2015 12:16 AM
Well, if all recovery efforts fail, at least they can afford to lose this one, and won't be forced to re-enact a certain docking scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhlU3ikw8sA) in real life...  :P
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: StarGeezer on 04/29/2015 12:38 AM
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.

IANARE - so as I envision the problem we have Chris Wilson's idea that the rotation is about some 'fixed' vector in 3d space or as BowShock explains the vector (of rotation) is not fixed, but wobbles?? Either situation sounds rather precarious. How does one go about correcting this situation, either from ground station and/or using onboard electronics? If onboard why hasn't it 'self'  fixed yet? Can ground correct by eye as perhaps a human pilot would? Do we need some sort of reference (gyro?)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/29/2015 12:44 AM
So we're coming up on this attempt of communicating with the spacecraft.

About an hour away I believe.
Here is this from my friend on RussianSpaceWeb.com:
An interpretation of info screens transmitted by cameras onboard Progress M-27M right after reaching orbit (top) and during its 3rd orbit (bottom) provides clues about possible failure of the attitude control system and massive consumption of onboard propellant.

LINK:http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/29/2015 12:50 AM
30 units of Prop apparently is where computer GNC and flight safeties tripped because flight computer was not operating in deorbit mode.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Bubbinski on 04/29/2015 12:54 AM
How many units of prop do they need to make it to the ISS if they can stabilize the craft?

The time for the ground pass is now upon us but I didn't see anything about it on NASA TV, they were talking about new wing designs for planes.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/29/2015 12:56 AM
How many units of prop do they need to make it to the ISS if the can stabilize the craft?

The time for the ground pass is now upon us but I didn't see anything about it on NASA TV, they were talking about new wing designs for planes.
The passes begin at 9:50 pm EDT, some 55 minutes from now. And there will be no live NASA TV coverage. Most likely any updates will be posted on NASA.gov or reported during tomorrow's Space Station Live at 11 am EDT.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/29/2015 12:58 AM
How many units of prop do they need to make it to the ISS if the can stabilize the craft?

The time for the ground pass is now upon us but I didn't see anything about it on NASA TV, they were talking about new wing designs for planes.
The system selected is not ISS refill Prop so they could use that. No clue on what is required to get to ISS.

Edit this link has table of m/s required to get from nominal parking orbit to ISS DC1
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Bubbinski on 04/29/2015 12:59 AM
Ah 9:50 - I thought it was 8:50 pm EDT.  Thanks for clarifying.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/29/2015 01:03 AM
How many units of prop do they need to make it to the ISS if the can stabilize the craft?

The time for the ground pass is now upon us but I didn't see anything about it on NASA TV, they were talking about new wing designs for planes.
The system selected is not ISS refill Prop so they could use that. No clue on what is required to get to ISS.
Progress M-25M which also used a Soyuz 2-1A had 195.0 units of prop when it showed up at a range of 690 m: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28784.msg1278924#msg1278924
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/29/2015 01:12 AM
How many units of prop do they need to make it to the ISS if the can stabilize the craft?

The time for the ground pass is now upon us but I didn't see anything about it on NASA TV, they were talking about new wing designs for planes.
The system selected is not ISS refill Prop so they could use that. No clue on what is required to get to ISS.
Progress M-25M which also used a Soyuz 2-1A had 195.0 units of prop when it showed up at a range of 690 m: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28784.msg1278924#msg1278924
I did some research, 250 is common first orbit number on Progress M-M flights.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/29/2015 01:28 AM
That's clearly not the point that was made. If there's a problem with the next Dragon, then Dragon is stood down. That's the problem....not the vehicle failing to arrive, but the vehicle being stuck on the ground for a lengthy period of time before being able to launch again.

Exactly - the crew is fine now, and would be for a good few months even in the event of a Dragon failure, but if Dragon/F9 failed and had to be stood down for a number of months, and Cygnus RTF got delayed (which I suspect it will - since when does anything go to schedule in this business), then that will leave only one HTV to resupply ISS for rest of year. Even with Progress flying, that would make things tight.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that ISS is now zero fault tolerant to another resupply craft failure - with ATV gone, Cygnus' failure last year, today's Progress failure, and only one HTV this year, a Dragon failure would essentially cut ISS' regular supply line to Earth. If they couldn't get it back quickly, that would be the issue.
A case perhaps for Dream Chaser Cargo...?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: rickl on 04/29/2015 01:42 AM
30 units of Prop apparently is where computer GNC and flight safeties tripped because flight computer was not operating in deorbit mode.


Does the "P" number indicate the amount of propellant remaining?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/29/2015 01:42 AM
30 units of Prop apparently is where computer GNC and flight safeties tripped because flight computer was not operating in deorbit mode.


Does the "P" number indicate the amount of propellant remaining?
yes in Progress Propulsion Module not ISS Refill Tanks
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Graham on 04/29/2015 02:02 AM
Any word if contact has been established yet?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/29/2015 02:09 AM
Any word if contact has been established yet?

No sir.

Last thing out of NASA was a tweet with the rather untimely...

"NASA ‏@NASA  2h2 hours ago
Everything we do at NASA comes back to Earth."

It's also very early morning in Russia, so our Russian friends won't be up yet.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/29/2015 02:10 AM
Ah damn!

Anatoly Zak ‏@RussianSpaceWeb  7m7 minutes ago
Sources: Another attempt to talk to a stranded #ProgressM27M cargo ship bears no fruit tonight.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: rickl on 04/29/2015 02:14 AM
I refreshed Anatoly Zak's site, and saw this:

Quote
Events of April 29
Another attempt to communicate with Progress M-27M was apparently made during the mission's 13th orbit, in the early hours Moscow Time, however it was also fruitless.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 04/29/2015 02:15 AM
Ah damn!

Anatoly Zak ‏@RussianSpaceWeb  7m7 minutes ago
Sources: Another attempt to talk to a stranded #ProgressM27M cargo ship bears no fruit tonight.
Yep - there is a guy on NK forum who apparently works this flight just posted that they've got no good news to report.
He also mentioned that on Progress flight first orbit correction burns are not pre-programmed (as I thought), but are commanded during comm session immediately after s/c sep, and in this case no such commanding happened as they were working on figuring out what is going on with TM system.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Prober on 04/29/2015 02:24 AM
Ah damn!

Anatoly Zak ‏@RussianSpaceWeb  7m7 minutes ago
Sources: Another attempt to talk to a stranded #ProgressM27M cargo ship bears no fruit tonight.

this reminds me of Phobos grunt ::)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/29/2015 02:26 AM
Ah damn!

Anatoly Zak ‏@RussianSpaceWeb  7m7 minutes ago
Sources: Another attempt to talk to a stranded #ProgressM27M cargo ship bears no fruit tonight.

this reminds me of Phobos grunt ::)
noy related, but Yes
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/29/2015 02:29 AM
well off to sleep have to work mid day/night split shift.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 02:48 AM
Let me suggest a bright spot here  - in the event that contact is re-established with Progress, and it has not blown through all of its prop, the docking could be accomplished, even if it takes a week for recovery. The vehicle could be commanded to fly higher than the ISS orbit, and then dwell for several weeks in that higher orbit to "catch up" to ISS, This may require using all prop designated for transfer to ISS, but at least the docking with ISS could be accomplished.

However, it now appears that the Progress motion control system has failed, so recovery may not be possible.

If this failure occurred on Soyuz, the crew could command the recovery.

For those thinking this is a Gemini type situation, ie a stuck thruster, Progress has redundant manifolds and thrusters, so it would just be a matter of switching thruster systems - a crew could accomplish that, but a Progress with a failed motion control system could not.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: CosmicDebris on 04/29/2015 02:54 AM
If enough is known about the orbital data, perhaps someone with more knowledge than myself could run the numbers through an orbital prediction program, to find out  the times and locations that the spacecraft would be visible. I would love to see it fly over after sunset or before sunrise,  before it takes a swan dive into oblivion. Cameras at the ready! CosmicDebris.

It is visible from latitudes around 10 deg North in the evening and 30 deg South in the morning.

I was thinking more in terms of Keplerian element numbers. The folks over at www.satobs.org are already predicting initiation of orbital decay sometime tomorrow, so I might have to skip watching a flyover. It would have been interesting to see if the spinning produced visible changes in brightness, like some of the other satellites display. I hope someone will post the estimated re-entry time and coordinates; all that re-entry mass should put on a good show, but since the de-orbit will probably be uncontrolled, lets hope it does not impact on a populated area. 
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: martin_nv on 04/29/2015 03:22 AM
Can the propellant that is allocated for transfer to the ISS be used for Progress maneuvers?

The lack of communications on the most recent comm pass has me concerned though, it does not look hopeful.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: RotoSequence on 04/29/2015 03:28 AM
If Russian Ground Control isn't able to establish control of Progress 59, when is the spacecraft projected to re-enter?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ChrisC on 04/29/2015 03:32 AM
Quote
The folks over at www.satobs.org are already predicting initiation of orbital decay sometime tomorrow

not true anymore (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35789.msg1365905#msg1365905)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2015 03:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/29/2015 04:03 AM
If Russian Ground Control isn't able to establish control of the spacecraft, when is Progress 59 projected to re-enter?

Can't be specific yet, but think of where Soyuz third stage boosters usually reenter after two or three days of decay -- usually near the perigee point which is near the northern sweep of the ground track. WHICH perigee pass? Can't even guess.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/29/2015 04:09 AM
Does the "P" number indicate the amount of propellant remaining?

That's the letter 'R', and I'd like to know what it represents also.

For OMS/RCS on shuttle [my console for STS-1 and -2, we tracked Q for quantity in percent, and also tank pressure and temperature so we could use Boyle's law to compute volume of pressurant gas, and hence volume of fluid. 

I'm not familiar with the units for Soyuz/Progress tank capacity.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 04:10 AM
Can the propellant that is allocated for transfer to the ISS be used for Progress maneuvers?


Yes, but only by the RCS, not the main engine. The RCS can maintain or raise orbital altitude even without the main engine.

The other issue is power supply.  It is difficult to estimate power consumption when we don't know what systems are operational. If all required systems were activated after separation, it is likely that the batteries have been depleted by now.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 04:15 AM


I'm not familiar with the units for Soyuz/Progress tank capacity.

The usual quote is in kilograms.

100 kg to achieve ISS orbital altitude

275 kg for docking, including reserves for 3 total attempts.

100 kg for de-orbit

250 kg from Progress prop tanks for ISS.

Another varying amount from the prop tanks as cargo.

There is plenty of prop for Progress to achieve docking, even after several days, if Progress is not dead, and it responds to commands from TsUP.

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2015 04:21 AM
That's clearly not the point that was made. If there's a problem with the next Dragon, then Dragon is stood down. That's the problem....not the vehicle failing to arrive, but the vehicle being stuck on the ground for a lengthy period of time before being able to launch again.

Exactly - the crew is fine now, and would be for a good few months even in the event of a Dragon failure, but if Dragon/F9 failed and had to be stood down for a number of months, and Cygnus RTF got delayed (which I suspect it will - since when does anything go to schedule in this business), then that will leave only one HTV to resupply ISS for rest of year. Even with Progress flying, that would make things tight.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that ISS is now zero fault tolerant to another resupply craft failure - with ATV gone, Cygnus' failure last year, today's Progress failure, and only one HTV this year, a Dragon failure would essentially cut ISS' regular supply line to Earth. If they couldn't get it back quickly, that would be the issue.
A case perhaps for Dream Chaser Cargo...?

I think this worry is overblown.  Lets say Dragon does fail.  No big deal, just keep flying Dragon and/or Progress anyway, while the investigation is continuing.  You wouldn't want to do that with crew, but they're carrying bulk supplies to ISS, so even before you've found and fixed the root cause of the failure, just keep flying.  There will be a higher risk, but that's OK.  Both Dragon and Progress have successfully completed a number of missions, so they don't have some fundamental design flaw that makes them very likely to fail.  The failures might have been one-off things, or some design flaw that gives a low chance of failure on each flight.  No problem.  The less likely case is there was some recent change that makes all subsequent flights fail.  Keep flying both Dragon and Progress and it's unlikely both will have a string of failures.  And if they do, just figure out what changed recently and revert that change.  That's much faster than having to be very certain of a root cause, as one would have to do before flying a crew again after a failure.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: guckyfan on 04/29/2015 04:34 AM
I think this worry is overblown.  Lets say Dragon does fail.  No big deal, just keep flying Dragon and/or Progress anyway, while the investigation is continuing.  You wouldn't want to do that with crew, but they're carrying bulk supplies to ISS, so even before you've found and fixed the root cause of the failure, just keep flying.  There will be a higher risk, but that's OK.  Both Dragon and Progress have successfully completed a number of missions, so they don't have some fundamental design flaw that makes them very likely to fail.  The failures might have been one-off things, or some design flaw that gives a low chance of failure on each flight.  No problem.  The less likely case is there was some recent change that makes all subsequent flights fail.  Keep flying both Dragon and Progress and it's unlikely both will have a string of failures.  And if they do, just figure out what changed recently and revert that change.  That's much faster than having to be very certain of a root cause, as one would have to do before flying a crew again after a failure.

Seems the way to go for me too. But I am waiting, what others may have to say about it.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 04:45 AM
Concerning the speculation on when a replacement Progress would be flown, consider this: just as spacecraft have flight rules which are not changed simply because something bad happens, programs also have the equivalent. It was not unexpected that Progress would be lost, and the mission rules dictate a reflight in 45 days. You can imagine that Progress M-28M will have all of its cabling double checked and the flight computer tested thoroughly, but it should be ready to go in mid-June.



Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: iamlucky13 on 04/29/2015 05:20 AM
Let me suggest a bright spot here  - in the event that contact is re-established with Progress, and it has not blown through all of its prop, the docking could be accomplished, even if it takes a week for recovery. The vehicle could be commanded to fly higher than the ISS orbit, and then dwell for several weeks in that higher orbit to "catch up" to ISS, This may require using all prop designated for transfer to ISS, but at least the docking with ISS could be accomplished.

However, it now appears that the Progress motion control system has failed, so recovery may not be possible.

If it is recovered, but concerns about the control system remain, it seems to me a rendezvous might be ruled out to ensure a repeat of the Progress M-34 collision with Mir doesn't recur.

And if they do, just figure out what changed recently and revert that change.

I agree with your conclusion that the likelihood of systematic problems with both Progress and Dragon is remote, but keep in mind that neither of them can support the station long term alone. It's an undesirable position to be in.

Furthermore, reverting a change assumes there was an intentional documented change, not a loss of process control or other difficult to identify systematic issue.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2015 05:36 AM
Let me suggest a bright spot here  - in the event that contact is re-established with Progress, and it has not blown through all of its prop, the docking could be accomplished, even if it takes a week for recovery. The vehicle could be commanded to fly higher than the ISS orbit, and then dwell for several weeks in that higher orbit to "catch up" to ISS, This may require using all prop designated for transfer to ISS, but at least the docking with ISS could be accomplished.

However, it now appears that the Progress motion control system has failed, so recovery may not be possible.

If it is recovered, but concerns about the control system remain, it seems to me a rendezvous might be ruled out to ensure a repeat of the Progress M-34 collision with Mir doesn't recur.

And if they do, just figure out what changed recently and revert that change.

I agree with your conclusion that the likelihood of systematic problems with both Progress and Dragon is remote, but keep in mind that neither of them can support the station long term alone. It's an undesirable position to be in.

Furthermore, reverting a change assumes there was an intentional documented change, not a loss of process control or other difficult to identify systematic issue.

I completely agree with all your points.  There could be some unintentional change, or a change by a sub-contractor that wasn't communicated.  It just seems less likely, and if it did happen it would still be something that might be found and changed back in less time than it would take to complete a full investigation and be certain the unintended change was really the root cause.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: chewi on 04/29/2015 05:56 AM
TsUP may decide to de-orbit (today?) Progress if they fail to take control of the cargoship.
http://www.interfax.ru/russia/439173
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2015 05:59 AM
TsUP may decide to de-orbit (today?) Progress if they fail to take control of the cargoship.
http://www.interfax.ru/russia/439173

How can they de-orbit if they can't get its attitude under control?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: chewi on 04/29/2015 06:02 AM
TsUP may decide to de-orbit (today?) Progress if they fail to take control of the cargoship.
http://www.interfax.ru/russia/439173

How can they de-orbit if they can't get its attitude under control?
Good question. At least they can try.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: NovaSilisko on 04/29/2015 06:02 AM
Maybe they mean just give up and allow it to decay? I don't see how either.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/29/2015 07:44 AM
Apparently another contact attempt has already gone by without hearing anything. Still it's early days....

In the meantime, the Trampoline Man (TM) has spoken:

Dmitry Rogozin ‏@DRogozin
Dmitry Rogozin retweeted Интерфакс
We're all worrying about our cargo spacecraft.Despite my talks in China I'm in permanent contact w/ Roscosmos's head
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Rebel44 on 04/29/2015 08:23 AM
Since its tumbling likely results in low power from solar panels, is it possible, that Soyuz already run out of battery power?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/29/2015 08:29 AM
That's clearly not the point that was made. If there's a problem with the next Dragon, then Dragon is stood down. That's the problem....not the vehicle failing to arrive, but the vehicle being stuck on the ground for a lengthy period of time before being able to launch again.

Exactly - the crew is fine now, and would be for a good few months even in the event of a Dragon failure, but if Dragon/F9 failed and had to be stood down for a number of months, and Cygnus RTF got delayed (which I suspect it will - since when does anything go to schedule in this business), then that will leave only one HTV to resupply ISS for rest of year. Even with Progress flying, that would make things tight.

Essentially, what I'm saying is that ISS is now zero fault tolerant to another resupply craft failure - with ATV gone, Cygnus' failure last year, today's Progress failure, and only one HTV this year, a Dragon failure would essentially cut ISS' regular supply line to Earth. If they couldn't get it back quickly, that would be the issue.
A case perhaps for Dream Chaser Cargo...?

I think this worry is overblown.  Lets say Dragon does fail.  No big deal, just keep flying Dragon and/or Progress anyway, while the investigation is continuing.  You wouldn't want to do that with crew, but they're carrying bulk supplies to ISS, so even before you've found and fixed the root cause of the failure, just keep flying.  There will be a higher risk, but that's OK.  Both Dragon and Progress have successfully completed a number of missions, so they don't have some fundamental design flaw that makes them very likely to fail.  The failures might have been one-off things, or some design flaw that gives a low chance of failure on each flight.  No problem.  The less likely case is there was some recent change that makes all subsequent flights fail.  Keep flying both Dragon and Progress and it's unlikely both will have a string of failures.  And if they do, just figure out what changed recently and revert that change.  That's much faster than having to be very certain of a root cause, as one would have to do before flying a crew again after a failure.
My comment was not intended to be a slight against Dragon or Progress but only a change in mindset for the upcoming CRS2 contract. With all its brilliant accomplishments NASA has in the past suffered from a “failure of imagination” in seeing potential "big picture" setbacks...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Liss on 04/29/2015 08:49 AM
TsUP may decide to de-orbit (today?) Progress if they fail to take control of the cargoship.
http://www.interfax.ru/russia/439173

How can they de-orbit if they can't get its attitude under control?
Good question. At least they can try.
It's just less risky than trying to rendezvous and dock. So there is a room for spacecraft status where docking is prohibited but a deorbit attempt is possible.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: litton4 on 04/29/2015 09:04 AM
TsUP may decide to de-orbit (today?) Progress if they fail to take control of the cargoship.
http://www.interfax.ru/russia/439173

How can they de-orbit if they can't get its attitude under control?
Good question. At least they can try.
It's just less risky than trying to rendezvous and dock. So there is a room for spacecraft status where docking is prohibited but a deorbit attempt is possible.

Plus they can have some measure of control on where it comes down, rather than having the chance of it hitting a populated area.

Also, with regard to "just refly", this assumes that the fault was a random failure.
If it has been caused by a manufacturing defect, who is to say that the next one off the production line won't have the same defect (eg FOD contamination, or a batch of out of spec components)?
If M-27M makes an uncontrolled re-entry into an unpopulated area, who can say if the next one will do the same?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: woods170 on 04/29/2015 09:04 AM
However, what this issue highlights is the vulnerability of ISS resupply even when it has multiple different launch methods in service. People always said that getting rid of ATV was a bad idea, because it leaves ISS vulnerable to the failure of another launcher/vehicle.

Unfortunately for you, NASA never agreed with your analysis. Nine years ago (2006) NASA was informed that ATV would stop after ATV-5. NASA never even bothered to ask ESA for an extension. Reality didn't begin to set in until six years later. It was 2012 when NASA began negotiations with JAXA for additional HTV's.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2015 09:19 AM
TsUP may decide to de-orbit (today?) Progress if they fail to take control of the cargoship.
http://www.interfax.ru/russia/439173

How can they de-orbit if they can't get its attitude under control?
Good question. At least they can try.
It's just less risky than trying to rendezvous and dock. So there is a room for spacecraft status where docking is prohibited but a deorbit attempt is possible.

Plus they can have some measure of control on where it comes down, rather than having the chance of it hitting a populated area.

How much control do they have if they can't get it to stop uncontrolled rotation?  Fire up the main engine and hope it spirals in as they hope?

Also, with regard to "just refly", this assumes that the fault was a random failure.
If it has been caused by a manufacturing defect, who is to say that the next one off the production line won't have the same defect (eg FOD contamination, or a batch of out of spec components)?
If M-27M makes an uncontrolled re-entry into an unpopulated area, who can say if the next one will do the same?

"Just refly" for the the hypothetical case where Dragon also had a failure in the near term.  I don't think anyone is suggesting reflying before an investigation is complete as long as there is an alternative.  But if all the alternatives have had accidents, continuing to fly one or more of them while the investigation is ongoing might be an acceptable alternative to having to abandon ISS.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 10:11 AM
Since its tumbling likely results in low power from solar panels, is it possible, that Soyuz already run out of battery power?

Not only possible, but probable. If Progress has not run out of power, it would be because some key systems never turned on,
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 10:13 AM


Also, with regard to "just refly", this assumes that the fault was a random failure.
If it has been caused by a manufacturing defect, who is to say that the next one off the production line won't have the same defect (eg FOD contamination, or a batch of out of spec components)?
If M-27M makes an uncontrolled re-entry into an unpopulated area, who can say if the next one will do the same?

That's why a program has rules as a spacecraft has flight rules.

The people who planned ISS decided a long time ago that the risk of a 45 day turnaround for Progress was lesser than the risk of flying ISS without the next Progress flying.

Now, if the Russians don't have the resources to perform the 45 day turnaround, that is another story.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 10:15 AM
If TsUP has the ability to command a de-orbit burn, then that same capability could be used to salvage the Progress. In either case, the vehicle needs to be stabilized.

I suspect that the quote about commanding a de-orbit was intended to create the impression that a natural decay was actually a plan. Or, a translation error.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/29/2015 10:16 AM
Has an updated likely decay date/time reached the public sphere, either from private or Roscosmos sources?

FWIW, this looks like an LOV situation, primarily because of the battery recharge issue. They only have so much time to correct the fault before that window closes and I suspect that it already has.

To me, the lesson is that having only uplink/downlink for these missions when in range of Russian ground and sea stations is not a sustainable policy. An option to use TDRSS and ISS alliance ground stations should be available so that continual attempts to regain contact can be made in these scenarios. An LOV for the ISS program, no matter how non-critical, due to pride or politics is just simply not an acceptable state of affairs.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ronpur50 on 04/29/2015 10:20 AM
Even if control is established and the Progress can make it to ISS, what would all of the rotation have done to the cargo?  Is the rotation rate severe enough to damage anything on board?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/29/2015 10:20 AM
According to to this Interfax report ( http://www.interfax.ru/russia/439251 ), decay window is between May 7 and May 11.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/29/2015 10:24 AM
Now this is an interesting report, again from Interfax: http://www.interfax.ru/world/439233

I'll post the most interesting bit translated: "Earlier, the US Air Force Space Command based on "Vandenberg" in California gave the 44 fragments in orbit near the cargo ship "Progress M-27M" and the third-stage rocket "Soyuz-2.1a"

However, the space center on the basis of "Vandenberg" can not yet confirm whether the fragments belong to the "progress" and the third stage of the rocket."
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: chewi on 04/29/2015 10:29 AM
Now this is an interesting report, again from Interfax: http://www.interfax.ru/world/439233

I'll post the most interesting bit translated: "Earlier, the US Air Force Space Command based on "Vandenberg" in California gave the 44 fragments in orbit near the cargo ship "Progress M-27M" and the third-stage rocket "Soyuz-2.1a"

However, the space center on the basis of "Vandenberg" can not yet confirm whether the fragments belong to the "progress" and the third stage of the rocket."

Also here in english: http://www.satnews.com/story.php?number=1840676647
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/29/2015 10:38 AM
I'm pretty sure that the Russian mission controllers are most angry about the loss of telemetry. As Dave S's post above shows, the post-LOV investigation is going to have to rely an awful lot on ambiguous remote sensing results and educated guesswork by people familiar with the engineering of the vehicles in question.

The objective will be, of course, to ensure that probability of this failure is minimised. Unfortunately, that is always made more difficult for space engineers by the fact that there is too often no clear physical evidence to investigate.

FWIW, if Space Command's report is verified, the probability is high that either the Soyuz U/S or the Progress suffered some kind of catastrophic rupture. My guess, based purely on this thread, is that it was probably of the Progress's propellent tanks during pressurisation. 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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Jarnis on 04/29/2015 10:42 AM
Now this is an interesting report, again from Interfax: http://www.interfax.ru/world/439233

I'll post the most interesting bit translated: "Earlier, the US Air Force Space Command based on "Vandenberg" in California gave the 44 fragments in orbit near the cargo ship "Progress M-27M" and the third-stage rocket "Soyuz-2.1a"


Well that's not good. So either a collision resulting in debris, or something going kaboom onboard one of the vehicles and distributing debris. At this point I'd say the fat lady is singing and this Progress is almost certainly a goner.

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: rds100 on 04/29/2015 10:43 AM
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?

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Mapperuo on 04/29/2015 10:48 AM
Question I have, It is guessed they cannot get a telemetry lock due to the rotation, but when we got onboard video, it was a pretty good signal as it rotated? Different antenna I guess.

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: saliva_sweet on 04/29/2015 10:54 AM
I'm pretty sure that the Russian mission controllers are most angry about the loss of telemetry.

I believe they have full telemetry of the critical events: the 3rd stage shutdown and separation. Most probably there was a collision between progress and the still thrusting stage. I think this was basically a launch failure.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 10:58 AM
Someone asked earlier about the radio capabilities at Wallops that serve ISS, wondering whether they could be used in rescuing this Progress.  Unfortunately, the Wallops systems are for voice only.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 10:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: woods170 on 04/29/2015 11:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: deruch on 04/29/2015 11:26 AM
Article also provided spin rate: 1 full rotation every 5 seconds or 12 rpm.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: deruch on 04/29/2015 11:29 AM
Assuming no recovery of the Progress, any likelihood that the IDA-1 could get bumped from the Dragon CRS-7 trunk?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Jarnis on 04/29/2015 11:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Beittil on 04/29/2015 11:44 AM
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...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Bubbinski on 04/29/2015 11:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: EgorBotts on 04/29/2015 11:57 AM
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". 
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: CarlG on 04/29/2015 11:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/29/2015 12:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ugordan on 04/29/2015 12:03 PM
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?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 12:05 PM

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.

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Star One on 04/29/2015 12:05 PM
You can get live tracking here. Please note it is classified under NASA numbering.

http://www.n2yo.com/?s=40619
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ugordan on 04/29/2015 12:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/29/2015 12:11 PM
TASS has some new interesting details, but no signs of any hope.
http://tass.ru/en/non-political/792406
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: SkipMorrow on 04/29/2015 12:11 PM
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?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ugordan on 04/29/2015 12:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevinof on 04/29/2015 12:16 PM
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.

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/29/2015 12:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: baldusi on 04/29/2015 12:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: saliva_sweet on 04/29/2015 12:24 PM
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.

A botched shutdown and separation sequence followed by collision explains everything. Other explanations don't address the high orbit.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/29/2015 12:26 PM
FYI, there is one member on NK (who probably has access to LV telemetry) that reports that they did not see any problem with the rocket attitude or other issues up till S/C separation, except for the slightly high apogee (out of planned range for the Soyuz-2.1a, but within those for the legacy Soyuz-U). Here's an excerpt translated on RussianSpaceWeb:

Quote
However, NORAD data indicated much more severe deviation (120.5 by 316.4 kilometers) or 70 kilometers up and down, which many Russian observers believed to be erroneous. By the time the flow of telemetry from the Progress was interrupted few seconds before the separation of the spacecraft from the rocket, its orbit was around 38 or 39 kilometers off the mark at its apogee, even though the rocket should've been capable of delivering its cargo within five kilometers from a prescribed altitude.

Also I have yet to find a non-Russian source reporting on the 44 debris objects (the quote was attributed to USAF JSpOC's chief Lt. Gen. Jay Raymond, but I have been unable to find the source), so take it with a grain of salt until new reports/TLEs come in.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Star One on 04/29/2015 12:27 PM

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.

A botched shutdown and separation sequence followed by collision explains everything. Other explanations don't address the high orbit.

Did the 3rd stage actually shunt into Progress then like one car shoving another along?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/29/2015 12:31 PM
FYI, there is one member on NK (who probably has access to LV telemetry) that reports that they did not see any problem with the rocket attitude or other issues up till S/C separation, except for the slightly high apogee (out of planned range for the Soyuz-2.1a, but within those for the legacy Soyuz-U). Here's an excerpt translated on RussianSpaceWeb:

Quote
However, NORAD data indicated much more severe deviation (120.5 by 316.4 kilometers) or 70 kilometers up and down, which many Russian observers believed to be erroneous. By the time the flow of telemetry from the Progress was interrupted few seconds before the separation of the spacecraft from the rocket, its orbit was around 38 or 39 kilometers off the mark at its apogee, even though the rocket should've been capable of delivering its cargo within five kilometers from a prescribed altitude.

Also I have yet to find a non-Russian source reporting on the 44 debris objects (the quote was attributed to USAF JSpOC's chief Lt. Gen. Jay Raymond, but I have been unable to find the source), so take it with a grain of salt until new reports/TLEs come in.

Aha: http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123446527 (http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123446527)

Joint Space Operations Center tracking Progress anomaly

Posted 4/28/2015   Updated 4/28/2015

JFCC Space Public Affairs


4/28/2015 - VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- Joint Functional Component Command for Space's Joint Space Operations Center made an initial observation of an anomaly with an International Space Station Progress resupply cargo craft at 12:04 a.m. (3:04 a.m. EDT), today.

The JSpOC immediately began tracking the event and initiated the appropriate reporting procedures.

Currently, the JSpOC can confirm that the resupply vehicle is rotating at a rate of 360 degrees every five seconds.

Additionally, the JSpOC has observed 44 pieces of debris in the vicinity of the resupply vehicle and its upper stage rocket body, however, it cannot confirm at this time if the debris is from the rocket body or vehicle itself.

"Human spaceflight safety is our chief concern," said Lt. Gen. Jay Raymond, JFCC Space and 14th Air Force (Air Forces Strategic) Commander. "We will continue to monitor the situation and work with our government, international and industry partners to ensure the safety of the astronauts onboard the ISS and provide for the long-term safety, sustainability, security and stability of the space domain."

The JSpOC will continuously track the cargo craft and debris, performing conjunction analysis and warning of any potential collisions in order to ensure spaceflight safety for all.

Questions regarding the ISS should be directed to NASA and questions about the cargo craft and the ongoing attempts to command it should be directed to Russian flight controllers.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: speedevil on 04/29/2015 12:32 PM
Assuming the unlikely case (as it seems) that progress is got under some degree of control, sufficient to get it to near ISS orbit.

There would of course remain concerns about its reliability unless the failure was completely understood to a level that may only be achievable with a teardown on the ground.

In principle, how much manoevering capability does ISS have?

Given - say - a progress parked at 10km from ISS, with the engines off to everyones satisfaction, and not spinning faster than once every several hours say, is it in principle possible for ISS to rendevous over the course of a week or three, grab the craft, and get it docked in some manner?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/29/2015 12:34 PM
There's some interesting discussion on NK right now - apparently the analysis of the craft using up most of the fuel from the camera data (the "R" parameter on the upper-left side) is incorrect - the number actually refers the nominal limit for propellant consumption for the currently planned maneuver, and does not relate to the actual propellant reserve on board.

So, maybe it did not use any fuel at all.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/29/2015 12:36 PM
I'm wondering if we might have two completely separate failures here - some unknown event that caused the Soyuz-2-1A's third stage engine to not respond to the IU's shut-down command and a wholly separate failure in the prop system pressurisation sequence on Progress-59. Alternately, the possibility that a runaway third stage re-contacted Progress and caused a catastrophic over-pressurisation of the fuel system leading to a tank or line rupture is another viable theory

I guess we'll have to wait and see what Roscosmos and the manufacturers come up with after they've crunched the numbers.

In principle, how much manoevering capability does ISS have?

Very limited to the point of being near-zero. It can rotate around its centre of gravity thanks to the Control Moment Gyros and can probably very slightly alter its altitude thanks to the thrusters on the Russian Segment but not by very much.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: EgorBotts on 04/29/2015 12:41 PM
I'm wondering if we might have two completely separate failures here - some unknown event that caused the Soyuz-2-1A's third stage engine to not respond to the IU's shut-down command and a wholly separate failure in the prop system pressurisation sequence on Progress-59. Alternately, the possibility that a runaway third stage re-contacted Progress and caused a catastrophic over-pressurisation of the fuel system leading to a tank or line rupture is another viable theory

I guess we'll have to wait and see what Roscosmos and the manufacturers come up with after they've crunched the numbers.

In principle, how much manoevering capability does ISS have?

Very limited to the point of being near-zero. It can rotate around its centre of gravity thanks to the Control Moment Gyros and can probably very slightly alter its altitude thanks to the thrusters on the Russian Segment but not by very much.

Well don't forget there is still one Progress (M-26M) currently docked to ISS. We can safely assume that since this one is only 2 month old  (came late february) there is still a significant portion of fuel to maneuver the station in case of emergency.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Martin FL on 04/29/2015 12:42 PM
What are the addition risk of an uncontrolled re-entry? No parts will survive regardless? No threat to people if it happens over land?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Beittil on 04/29/2015 12:44 PM
The biggest risk is indeed surviving parts of the spacecraft. In particular stuff like fuel tanks have been known to 'make it through' in previous incidents.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 12:44 PM

In principle, how much manoevering capability does ISS have?

Given - say - a progress parked at 10km from ISS, with the engines off to everyones satisfaction, and not spinning faster than once every several hours say, is it in principle possible for ISS to rendevous over the course of a week or three, grab the craft, and get it docked in some manner?

Just about any capability by TsUP to change the Progress orbit would also provide the capability of stopping the spinning.

The spinning is a symptom, not the problem, except that the spinning prohibits the spacecraft from receiving a clear signal from TsUP; in any event, the spacecraft should be to resolve the problem itself, if it were operating correctly.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 12:47 PM
Progress M-12M more or less went through re-entry during its aborted launch, and some pieces reportedly hit the ground, but not much.

Much of Progress is made from aluminum/magnesium.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/29/2015 12:48 PM
Can someone translate this piece of Russian on NK? Seems to be something about losing telemetry from the Soyuz 3rd stage in the final 3 seconds of ascent?  :o

Quote from: http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum10/topic14472/message1368577/
1. На конец выведения ракетная ТЛМ и ВТИ получены?

Quote from: http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum10/topic14472/message1368597/
пропала за 3 сек до ГК-3

Quote from: http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum10/topic14472/message1368611/
Кто-то здесь из Самары уже говорил, что подтверждение ГК3 было получено. Как оно было получено, если ТМ дала сбой?

Quote from: http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum10/topic14472/message1368649/
Вот, а это уже информация, спасибо.
Предположу, что было АВД на этапе работы 3-й ступени.
Ну там ТМИ по параметрам посмотрят и будет ясно

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 12:49 PM
I'm wondering if we might have two completely separate failures here - some unknown event that caused the Soyuz-2-1A's third stage engine to not respond to the IU's shut-down command and a wholly separate failure in the prop system pressurisation sequence on Progress-59. Alternately, the possibility that a runaway third stage re-contacted Progress and caused a catastrophic over-pressurisation of the fuel system leading to a tank or line rupture is another viable theory



Remember that Progress has two distinct prop manifolds and thruster systems; failure in one does not cause failure in the redundant system unless there is an explosive event.

If there an explosive event sufficient to take out both prop systems, it is unlikely that the spacecraft would have transmitted anything to TsUP, since the buffer batteries are back in the PAO, IIRC.




Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/29/2015 12:55 PM
Can someone translate this piece of Russian on NK? Seems to be something about losing telemetry from the Soyuz 3rd stage in the final 3 seconds of ascent?  :o

Okay, I'll give it a shot, thanks to Google Translate:

First Quote
"At the end of the missile launch TDM and VTI received?"

Second Quote
"I lost 3 seconds to GK-3"

Third Quote
"Someone here from Samara have already said that the confirmation has been received GK3. As it has been received, if TM has malfunctioned?"

Fourth Quote
from, and this is information, thanks.
I suppose it AED working step 3rd step.
Well, there parameters look at TMI will be clear

I don't know what the jargon means but, yes, it seems that one poster says that telemetry was lost three second prior to S3CO but others are replying that shut-down confirmation was received and that the fault is more likely to have been in Progress.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/29/2015 12:55 PM
I'm pretty sure that the Russian mission controllers are most angry about the loss of telemetry. As Dave S's post above shows, the post-LOV investigation is going to have to rely an awful lot on ambiguous remote sensing results and educated guesswork by people familiar with the engineering of the vehicles in question.

The objective will be, of course, to ensure that probability of this failure is minimised. Unfortunately, that is always made more difficult for space engineers by the fact that there is too often no clear physical evidence to investigate.

FWIW, if Space Command's report is verified, the probability is high that either the Soyuz U/S or the Progress suffered some kind of catastrophic rupture. My guess, based purely on this thread, is that it was probably of the Progress's propellent tanks during pressurisation. 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.

Gonna go with either a recontact here or an explosive rupture of a pressure vessel on progress. From what I have seen and heard regarding what little telemetry they did get early on, seemed to suggest that at least, early on, no propellant had been used mean unlikely there was a rupture.

However, quite possibly merely as a result of sustained axial loads from that high rate of spin, something may have since come apart or ruptured and there would be no way to tell propellant tank wise given the lack of telemetry.

My guess is that: Either the third stage failed and progress never actually "separated" but instead was thrown free, the third stage re contacted the vehicle, very hard, and ruptured it, or progress failed during or after separation and/or a rupture occurred later on, or as a result of an on-board failure (prop system pressurization leads to failure/explosion?). Likewise a less serious but no less serious wrt LOV failure could have occurred in one of progress's guidance systems right after separation resulting in non-activation of many of the critical systems that were needed for stability (like the propellant system).

The lack of telemetry is really frustrating here, the best alternative might be to have a spy satellite in GTO take pictures of the vehicle as it passes under it and use those to help determine the degree of damage. 

I am still not 100% convinced that this issue was either entirely on the third stage or that it occurred as a result of third stage recontact but the answer on this will have to wait until the investigation. The hope is, at least for me, that the issue can be shown to have been entirely progress. If not, this is going to have serious implications for Soyuz. Manned US crew launch is still at least two years away, so I would really hope that after this incident Congress or the next POTUS seriously considers additional funding to reduce this timeline.

All these repeated incidents with vehicles is proving to me is that we need to get US crew launch back as soon as possible, between that and the geopolitical crises going on it seems paramount now. Also the sooner we can get the new Antares flying the better.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Lee Jay on 04/29/2015 12:57 PM
Heavens above is now providing pass predictions for this vehicle, if anyone would like to go out and see it.  No visible passes in my area for the next two weeks, I'm afraid.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/29/2015 01:04 PM
Now this is an interesting report, again from Interfax: http://www.interfax.ru/world/439233

I'll post the most interesting bit translated: "Earlier, the US Air Force Space Command based on "Vandenberg" in California gave the 44 fragments in orbit near the cargo ship "Progress M-27M" and the third-stage rocket "Soyuz-2.1a"


Well that's not good. So either a collision resulting in debris, or something going kaboom onboard one of the vehicles and distributing debris. At this point I'd say the fat lady is singing and this Progress is almost certainly a goner.


Now this is an interesting report, again from Interfax: http://www.interfax.ru/world/439233

I'll post the most interesting bit translated: "Earlier, the US Air Force Space Command based on "Vandenberg" in California gave the 44 fragments in orbit near the cargo ship "Progress M-27M" and the third-stage rocket "Soyuz-2.1a"

However, the space center on the basis of "Vandenberg" can not yet confirm whether the fragments belong to the "progress" and the third stage of the rocket."
Well that info leaves three paths to follow:
1) collided with Blok-I because stage burned to depletion and did not perform CCAM
2) Progress Prop system over pressurized and exploded
3) Progress is spinning so fast that the angular momentum shed debris from the SC.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Prober on 04/29/2015 01:06 PM
Heavens above is now providing pass predictions for this vehicle, if anyone would like to go out and see it.  No visible passes in my area for the next two weeks, I'm afraid.

yes, highly recommend

http://www.n2yo.com/?s=40619
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: nSpace on 04/29/2015 01:07 PM
New article on Tass.
http://tass.ru/en/non-political/792434
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/29/2015 01:14 PM
New article on Tass.
http://tass.ru/en/non-political/792434

Interesting. Chemical Automatics Design Bureau, the manufacturer of the RD-0110 used on the Soyuz-2-1A third stage, are blaming the Soyuz' control system. They added that their own analysis is that the engine was running at higher-than-nominal power throughout the flight. The latter may explain the greater than expected apogee.

That CADB felt that they had to make this statement suggests that, behind the scenes, the finger is beginning to point at the Soyuz third stage as the primary cause. This makes a re-contact with Progress as being the cause of the debris field more likely.

Basically, the blame game has begun.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/29/2015 01:15 PM
What are the addition risk of an uncontrolled re-entry? No parts will survive regardless? No threat to people if it happens over land?

The risks are non-zero, or Russia would dump them over its own territory instead of the south Pacific, but for a single event probably no more than the risks of random booster third stage reentries, which occur frequently, have never hurt anybody, and mostly just cause UFO reports.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/29/2015 01:20 PM
Progress M-12M more or less went through re-entry during its aborted launch, and some pieces reportedly hit the ground, but not much.

I'd be cautious in generalizing this since the impact zone was mountainous [recall the photos?] and probably less than 1% of the ground was actually searched.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 01:25 PM

Well that info leaves three paths to follow:
1) collided with Blok-I because stage burned to depletion and did not perform CCAM
2) Progress Prop system over pressurized and exploded
3) Progress is spinning so fast that the angular momentum shed debris from the SC.

I am not familiar with Blok-I having the capability of a CCAM.

I have always been told that separation of Progress from Blok-I was a fairly simple event after Blok-I shuts down.

One possibility would be an off-nominal explosive bolt event - if one of the bolts required for separation did not operate correctly, bad things could happen.

On another topic who is the designer and manufacturer of the Blok-I control system?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 01:27 PM
Progress M-12M more or less went through re-entry during its aborted launch, and some pieces reportedly hit the ground, but not much.

I'd be cautious in generalizing this since the impact zone was mountainous [recall the photos?] and probably less than 1% of the ground was actually searched.

Let me remind everyone that Progress were routinely de-orbited over land back in the days of the Raduga capsule.


And ... Soyuz spacecraft re-enter over land, and only the descent module makes a controlled landing. Everything else burns up over the ground track - after over 100 missions there is no record of any part of a Soyuz PAO making it to the ground intact.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: woods170 on 04/29/2015 01:37 PM
Just got word from my sources at NLR, thru their contacts at ESA-ISS, that Roscosmos has declared Progress M-27M a total loss. There will be no furter attempts to regain control. No updates on cause of this failure.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jcm on 04/29/2015 01:40 PM

Tweaked translation

First Quote
"At the end of insertion, were rocket TLM (telemetry)and VTI received?"

Second Quote
"Dropped out  3 seconds before GK-3"

Third Quote
"Someone here in Samara already said that  confirmation of GK3 was received. How could it have been received, if TM malfunctioned?"

Fourth Quote
Well, but this is still the information (?) 
I guess it was due to the AVD  (Engine emergency shutdown system) during the 3rd stage burn
A look at the telemetry parameters and it will become clear.


Can someone translate this piece of Russian on NK? Seems to be something about losing telemetry from the Soyuz 3rd stage in the final 3 seconds of ascent?  :o

Okay, I'll give it a shot, thanks to Google Translate:
 
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jcm on 04/29/2015 01:42 PM
No TLEs, at least so far, for the 44 debris objects tracked by JSPOC.
That's not uncommon - for debris found in low orbit just after launch that reenters almost right away they sometimes don't bother cataloging, or catalog it retrospectively some time later without any actual TLE orbit data, just decay dates.

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/29/2015 01:43 PM
Just got word from my sources at NLR, thru their contacts at ESA-ISS, that Roscosmos has declared Progress M-27M a total loss. There will be no furter attempts to regain control. No updates on cause of this failure.

This was reported by Russian sources a few hours ago, but it seems to have been refuted just now.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/29/2015 01:45 PM
NASA not in a LOM stance yet, but they won't be leading on such declarations for this. Obviously this is where it's all heading.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/29/2015 01:45 PM

Tweaked translation

First Quote
"At the end of insertion, were rocket TLM (telemetry)and VTI received?"

Second Quote
"Dropped out  3 seconds before GK-3"

Third Quote
"Someone here in Samara already said that  confirmation of GK3 was received. How could it have been received, if TM malfunctioned?"

Fourth Quote
Well, but this is still the information (?) 
I guess it was due to the AVD  (Engine emergency shutdown system) during the 3rd stage burn
A look at the telemetry parameters and it will become clear.


Can someone translate this piece of Russian on NK? Seems to be something about losing telemetry from the Soyuz 3rd stage in the final 3 seconds of ascent?  :o

Okay, I'll give it a shot, thanks to Google Translate:
 

So my interpretation is correct - GK-3 apparently refers to the 3rd stage shutdown command.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Oersted on 04/29/2015 01:48 PM
Tvanks for the info woods. With this latest failure the Soviet legacy hardware systems are looking less reliable than they were just a few years ago, and lets face it, reliability was the main thing they had going for them.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: woods170 on 04/29/2015 01:49 PM
Just got word from my sources at NLR, thru their contacts at ESA-ISS, that Roscosmos has declared Progress M-27M a total loss. There will be no furter attempts to regain control. No updates on cause of this failure.

This was reported by Russian sources a few hours ago, but it seems to have been refuted just now.
Possibly, but I only report what I hear from contacts within the industry. I try to avoid the general Russian news media. When concerning Russian spaceflight the official news from Roscosmos usually takes many hours to percolate down to sub-contractor levels. So, what was just told to me by NLR is information that is likely multiple hours old. If anything changed in between that period, then I will here that from my contacts later.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/29/2015 02:09 PM
According to N2YO, Progress-59 will overfly Cape Canaveral in a few minutes. Are there any assets there that could help assess the situation?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/29/2015 02:09 PM
Progress M-12M more or less went through re-entry during its aborted launch, and some pieces reportedly hit the ground, but not much.

I'd be cautious in generalizing this since the impact zone was mountainous [recall the photos?] and probably less than 1% of the ground was actually searched.

Let me remind everyone that Progress were routinely de-orbited over land back in the days of the Raduga capsule.


And ... Soyuz spacecraft re-enter over land, and only the descent module makes a controlled landing. Everything else burns up over the ground track - after over 100 missions there is no record of any part of a Soyuz PAO making it to the ground intact.


Excellent points.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/29/2015 02:20 PM

Well that info leaves three paths to follow:
1) collided with Blok-I because stage burned to depletion and did not perform CCAM
2) Progress Prop system over pressurized and exploded
3) Progress is spinning so fast that the angular momentum shed debris from the SC.

I am not familiar with Blok-I having the capability of a CCAM.

I have always been told that separation of Progress from Blok-I was a fairly simple event after Blok-I shuts down.

One possibility would be an off-nominal explosive bolt event - if one of the bolts required for separation did not operate correctly, bad things could happen.

On another topic who is the designer and manufacturer of the Blok-I control system?

CCAM is done via pryo valves in Ozidizer tank (in location mast umbilicals are connected and filled and drained) followed by pressure blow down on all remaining tanks. operation is similar to Ariane 5 first stage at sep.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/29/2015 02:22 PM
Anybody got any idea where this thing is going to impact?

The estimated orbital decay window is still days long so, potentially, any point of Earth inside the orbital inclination is a potential impact spot. We'll probably know with a little more assurance towards the end of next week.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/29/2015 02:38 PM
Roscosmos is having a press briefing right now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t_sqUsO2CM
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/29/2015 02:40 PM
Apparently in that press briefing Roscosmos chief Komarov reported that the (main?) engine of Progress had depressurized (!), and that telemetry from the spacecraft ceased 1.5 seconds before S/C separation from rocket third stage. He said that because of that docking to ISS is impossible and controlled de-orbit is under consideration.

Damn!  :-X

Source: http://tass.ru/kosmos/1941163
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 02:46 PM
Apparently in that press briefing Roscosmos chief Komarov reported that the (main?) engine of Progress had depressurized (!), and that telemetry from the spacecraft ceased 1.5 seconds before S/C separation from rocket third stage. He said that because of that docking to ISS is impossible and controlled de-orbit is under consideration.

Damn!  :-X

Source: http://tass.ru/kosmos/1941163

How exactly did TsUP get the solar panel deployed signal if telemetry ceased before spacecraft separation?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 02:48 PM
CCAM is done via pryo valves in Ozidizer tank (in location mast umbilicals are connected and filled and drained) followed by pressure blow down on all remaining tanks. operation is similar to Ariane 5 first stage at sep.

Actually, that is a description of safing the upper stage, rather than a CCAM.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Jim on 04/29/2015 02:50 PM
According to N2YO, Progress-59 will overfly Cape Canaveral in a few minutes. Are there any assets there that could help assess the situation?

None
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Star One on 04/29/2015 02:50 PM

Apparently in that press briefing Roscosmos chief Komarov reported that the (main?) engine of Progress had depressurized (!), and that telemetry from the spacecraft ceased 1.5 seconds before S/C separation from rocket third stage. He said that because of that docking to ISS is impossible and controlled de-orbit is under consideration.

Damn!  :-X

Source: http://tass.ru/kosmos/1941163

How are they going to do a controlled de-orbit if they can't communicate with it?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: orbitaldebris on 04/29/2015 02:52 PM
How are they going to do a controlled de-orbit if they can't communicate with it?
And how are they going to do a controlled de-orbit with a depressurized main engine? Thrusters?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: king1999 on 04/29/2015 02:55 PM
Total loss declared as expected in interview with Scott Kelly this morning:

http://www.sunherald.com/2015/04/29/6200800/space-station-crew-russias-spinning.html
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: AJA on 04/29/2015 02:56 PM

Well, this sucks. Was rooting (as was everybody I think) for a dramatic rescue. Anyway...

1. If the reports of 44 pieces of debris are accurate

a) why must it imply an INTERNAL energetic event (internal to the 3rd stage + PROGRESS system)? Why couldn't it have been an impact with a SINGLE piece of pre-existing space debris? Something either small enough, or large and made of some material transparent to the space radar frequency. This is pretty plausible, given that the same parking orbit is extensively used. The culprit could've been something discarded from a previous Soyuz/Progress mission. It could've been one piece impacting, and then creating 44 additional pieces of shrapnel?

b) Regardless of whether it's a 3rd stage or Progress failure, and regardless of whether there is any commonality of failure modes between this and the Soyuz - doesn't the debris cloud (those 44 tracked elements) ITSELF warrant either a postponement of the coming Soyuz launch (until they decay), or perhaps a launch to a slightly different orbit (inclination, apogee, perigee etc.) to ensure NO chances of conjunction? The latter's very doable, isn't it? Or is the debris expected to decay really fast?

2. This is a hypothetical exercise.. but would having launched this mission at a different time of year - and during a different Beta Angle - have given us any additional time to resolve the issue? I'm asking from the "Even a spinning spacecraft's solar arrays are sun-aligned, twice every two tumbles" (I realise this isn't necessarily always true, but I'm going to guess that it holds more often than not). So while it wouldn't have had constant solar illumination on its arrays, it would still have been power positive, for a fraction of each tumble. Is there anything in the hardware/software of the battery charging circuitry, or battery charging physics/chemistry itself which prevents the system from harnessing a swiftly changing photo-current?

3. This is probably a generic question... but can anyone well versed with telemetry protocol explain if any delay tolerant networking principles are used for telecommand/flight-control? In the context of this incident, I'm assuming telecommand was ineffective, because there was never a stable enough signal to transmit a complete instruction packet - properly formatted and all. I was wondering if a communication protocol, which - for example, recorded all received instructions - and then processed it, using all permutations/formats/error correction/re-ordering of packets etc. would've been more robust, and if it would've enabled "delayed execution" of ground instructions.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/29/2015 02:57 PM
How exactly did TsUP get the solar panel deployed signal if telemetry ceased before spacecraft separation?

I remember a Taurus-XL launch when the PAO was reading off the 'expected events' list and it wasn't realised until shortly afterwards that the event (PLF separation) hadn't occurred. It's possible that what they meant to say is that the solar arrays should have deployed and, as there was no indication of any fault except loss of comms, TsUP was assuming that they had been.

That said, a failure of telemetry on Progress before S/C sep is highly unlikely given that videos from the KURS camera have been received since  then. I think that they meant a loss of telemetry from the Soyuz third stage. At least I hope that this is what they meant as it sounds more plausible. I do hope that they aren't going to start down the 'those videos and those telemetry don't exist; they never existed' route.

How are they going to do a controlled de-orbit if they can't communicate with it?

And how are they going to do a controlled de-orbit with a depressurized main engine? Thrusters?

I don't think that they're seriously planning (or planning at all) to make the attempt. This is telling the people that 'we have everything under control'. They may even try to spin the spacecraft's eventual orbital decay as a 'controlled re-entry'.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: MarekCyzio on 04/29/2015 03:02 PM
Apparently in that press briefing Roscosmos chief Komarov reported that the (main?) engine of Progress had depressurized (!),

The article seems to state that the third stage engine had depressurized (not Progress engine) and telemetry from the third stage was lost.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: schaban on 04/29/2015 03:03 PM
Can someone translate this piece of Russian on NK? Seems to be something about losing telemetry from the Soyuz 3rd stage in the final 3 seconds of ascent?  :o

Quote from: http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum10/topic14472/message1368649/
Вот, а это уже информация, спасибо.
just to clarify 1st line of 4th quote

"Oh, this is a piece of information, thank you"

Everything else was already translated properly.


Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 03:04 PM


That said, a failure of telemetry on Progress before S/C sep is highly unlikely given that videos from the KURS camera have been received since  then. I think that they meant a loss of telemetry from the Soyuz third stage. At least I hope that this is what they meant as it sounds more plausible. I do hope that they aren't going to start down the 'those videos and those telemetry don't exist; they never existed' route.


There are no "Kurs cameras"; instead the existing camera system is called "Klest" or "Klyost" depending on who is doing the spelling. I believe the system is up for replacement.

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: orbitaldebris on 04/29/2015 03:04 PM
why must it imply an INTERNAL energetic event (internal to the 3rd stage + PROGRESS system)? Why couldn't it have been an impact with a SINGLE piece of pre-existing space debris? Something either small enough, or large and made of some material transparent to the space radar frequency. This is pretty plausible, given that the same parking orbit is extensively used. The culprit could've been something discarded from a previous Soyuz/Progress mission. It could've been one piece impacting, and then creating 44 additional pieces of shrapnel?
Debris from a previous mission wouldn't survive at that altitude for more than a few days. And the odds of Progress hitting any piece of debris during launch must be astronomically low.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/29/2015 03:17 PM
First NORAD TLEs of the "debris" from this incident has just come in - 14 of them. Catalog number #40621-40634/2015-024C-R.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: woods170 on 04/29/2015 03:32 PM
Note from the TASS report: the State Committee investigating this failure is expected to issue a (preliminary) report no later then May 13th.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/29/2015 03:35 PM
First NORAD TLEs of the "debris" from this incident has just come in - 14 of them. Catalog number #40621-40634/2015-024C-R.

Any debris boosted into a higher orbit, indicative of an energetic event!
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: hrissan on 04/29/2015 03:43 PM
Very interesting points from video.

Quote
The third stage flight went fully nominal. But 1.5 seconds before spacecraft separation the telemetry was lost from BOTH 3d stage and spacecraft.
We used a backup channel to regain some telemetry from spacecraft (no more telemetry from 3d stage). Many spacecraft systems function off-nominaly. We have lost pressure in fuel lines leading to main engine.

Regarding 40 (14?) debris objects: at least some of them (possibly all) are separation devices covers/shafts, not debris.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/29/2015 03:50 PM
Regarding 40 (14?) debris objects: at least some of them (possibly all) are separation devices covers/shafts, not debris.

Well, NORAD never tracked such things from previous launches (usually only 2 objects would appear), so.....  :-X
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/29/2015 04:01 PM
LOM/LOV Verified by Roscosmos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dQ2mUIieQQ


Well this is a shame! Hope any experiments on board can be reflown.

More:
From Roscosmos Control
Quote
We believe a problem occurred during third stage separation. We have opened an emergency and investigative team to determine what occurred and fix it. We are planning to press ahead with another launch on May 26th, but this launch will use a different rocket (soyuz 2)

Raw link if your browser is not showing the embed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dQ2mUIieQQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dQ2mUIieQQ)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/29/2015 04:12 PM
Revisit the hazard of uncontrolled reentry --

This reentry will be different, the Progress will have tanks practically full of propellant and water, which over the next few days can be expected to freeze. That ought to significantly enhance survivability through boil-off cooling at high temperatures, allowing large quantities of hypergolic propellants to reach the surface in a localized area.

Is this a USA-183-type event headed our way?

...and you may quote me.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: hrissan on 04/29/2015 04:12 PM
Regarding 40 (14?) debris objects: at least some of them (possibly all) are separation devices covers/shafts, not debris.

Well, NORAD never tracked such things from previous launches (usually only 2 objects would appear), so.....  :-X
Well, debris are no suprise after the event that knocked telemetry on both stage and spacecraft and ruptured fuel lines. :) I just quoted what officials said on the video, do not throw stones at me.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/29/2015 04:13 PM
Revisit the hazard of uncontrolled reentry --

This reentry will be different, the Progress will have tanks practically full of propellant and water, which over the next few days can be expected to freeze. That ought to significantly enhance survivability through boil-off cooling at high temperatures, allowing large quantities of hypergolic propellants to reach the surface in a localized area.

Is this a USA-183-type event headed our way?

...and you may quote me.
According to the latest update, they are going to try and do a semi controlled de orbit burn and deal with it that way as soon as they can send any kind of telemetry.

Barring that, it will freeze up and then it will fall wherever it falls.

Edit:

As far as what makes it through EI?
I would imagine that depends on how much prop actually ends up left over for one, also will depend on angle of attack. And both of these only matter if they do manage to initiate a de orbit burn instead of natural decay. Otherwise yes, I would imagine some large parts of this might make it through. And we won't know exactly where they will fall, not necessarily good.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/29/2015 04:17 PM
Revisit the hazard of uncontrolled reentry --

This reentry will be different, the Progress will have tanks practically full of propellant and water, which over the next few days can be expected to freeze. That ought to significantly enhance survivability through boil-off cooling at high temperatures, allowing large quantities of hypergolic propellants to reach the surface in a localized area.

Is this a USA-183-type event headed our way?

...and you may quote me.
Can we get assets in place for an intercept?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/29/2015 04:19 PM
Revisit the hazard of uncontrolled reentry --

This reentry will be different, the Progress will have tanks practically full of propellant and water, which over the next few days can be expected to freeze. That ought to significantly enhance survivability through boil-off cooling at high temperatures, allowing large quantities of hypergolic propellants to reach the surface in a localized area.

Is this a USA-183-type event headed our way?

...and you may quote me.
Can we get assets in place for an intercept?
Like shooting it down?

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/29/2015 04:22 PM
Can we get assets in place for an intercept?

Like shooting it down?

Not 'shoot down' but 'disintegrate' so that there is nothing large and dense enough to likely survive passage through the upper and middle atmosphere.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: SkipMorrow on 04/29/2015 04:22 PM
I was wondering how they could do a controlled re-entry if the vehicle is spinning. Are they going to time the firing to just when the vehicle is pointing the right way every six seconds? Or is it spinning right along the axis of the engines, in which case I guess a retro burn wouldn't really care if the vehicle is spinning.

Also, how could this affect the next manned launch in September? I guess they would need to be sure whatever the problem turns out to be can't be repeated for that launch?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/29/2015 04:26 PM
CCAM is done via pryo valves in Ozidizer tank (in location mast umbilicals are connected and filled and drained) followed by pressure blow down on all remaining tanks. operation is similar to Ariane 5 first stage at sep.

Actually, that is a description of safing the upper stage, rather than a CCAM.

it pushes the vehicle off course immediately after sep. Arianespace lists the event as a CCAM
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/29/2015 04:27 PM
Can we get assets in place for an intercept?

Like shooting it down?

Not 'shoot down' but 'disintegrate' so that there is nothing large and dense enough to likely survive passage through the upper and middle atmosphere.

Both the ballistic missile interceptor force in Alaska and/or the U.S. Navy could potentially do this. Capability was demonstrated by the U.S. Navy in the shoot-down of a CIA spy satellite a few years ago. A modified tactical strike missile fired from an AEGIS capable ship or a modified interceptor missile are probably capable. Attach a high explosive warhead and you are good to go. There would still be large pieces however, just smaller ones and more of them. This might give a better chance for the pieces burning up though.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/20/satellite.shootdown/ (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/20/satellite.shootdown/)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/29/2015 04:29 PM
I was wondering how they could do a controlled re-entry if the vehicle is spinning.

I suspect that this is a 'CYA' white lie. They are going to 'study' it and then announce that it is impossible due to loss of com and possibly battery exhaustion on the Progress. However, as long as they can claim that they've made the attempt, they can claim that they didn't just abandon a large spacecraft to fall wherever physics directs.

Politics...! ::)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Elvis in Space on 04/29/2015 04:30 PM
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?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/29/2015 04:30 PM
Can we get assets in place for an intercept?

Like shooting it down?

Not 'shoot down' but 'disintegrate' so that there is nothing large and dense enough to likely survive passage through the upper and middle atmosphere.

Both the ballistic missile interceptor force in Alaska and/or the U.S. Navy could potentially do this. Capability was demonstrated by the U.S. Navy in the shoot-down of a CIA spy satellite a few years ago. A modified tactical strike missile fired from an AEGIS capable ship or a modified interceptor missile are probably capable. Attach a high explosive warhead and you are good to go. There would still be large pieces however, just smaller ones and more of them. This might give a better chance for the pieces burning up though.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/20/satellite.shootdown/ (http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/20/satellite.shootdown/)
We could, but Russia may not like that... Politics... Pride etc...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/29/2015 04:30 PM
LOM/LOV Verified by Roscosmos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dQ2mUIieQQ


Well this is a shame! Hope any experiments on board can be reflown.

More:
From Roscosmos Control
Quote
We believe a problem occurred during third stage separation. We have opened an emergency and investigative team to determine what occurred and fix it. We are planning to press ahead with another launch on May 26th, but this launch will use a different rocket (soyuz 2)


From that video at 15:40: "As for the current monitoring, I just talked to the Flight Control Center, today at 3'o clock, the Flight Control Center established contact with the spacecraft, so it is monitoring the systems onboard the spacecraft so it is not true that the spacecraft is totally uncontrolled. We are going to continue the monitoring for as long as we can."

Emphasis mine.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/29/2015 04:31 PM
I was wondering how they could do a controlled re-entry if the vehicle is spinning. Are they going to time the firing to just when the vehicle is pointing the right way every six seconds? Or is it spinning right along the axis of the engines, in which case I guess a retro burn wouldn't really care if the vehicle is spinning.

Also, how could this affect the next manned launch in September? I guess they would need to be sure whatever the problem turns out to be can't be repeated for that launch?

Well apparently they do not feel very safe about the third stage that was used on this vehicle. They seemed to think the issue occurred there. As far as we know, no it is not spinning about the axis of the engine its spinning about its other axis, at some sort of wild angle as well. So really even if you did get the engine to fire up, I have no idea what would happen, it would like just fly apart there would be absolutely no control whatsoever because the RCS is entirely out on the vehicle.

So I think honestly this is just wishful thinking. To be quite honest the safe bet might actually be to shoot it down. But I doubt this will happen. If it did, the Russians would likely opt to do it I doubt they would want the US Navy doing it. As far as I know, they do posses missile systems capable of this task, though unlike the U.S. and China I am not sure they have ever tried it, recently anyway.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Lars-J on 04/29/2015 04:32 PM
How are they going to do a controlled de-orbit if they can't communicate with it?
And how are they going to do a controlled de-orbit with a depressurized main engine? Thrusters?

They can't. But they are scrambling to make *appear* that they still have some control over the situtaion.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 04/29/2015 04:32 PM
Can we remain focused. Do not post unless you're adding something to the discussion.

People are here for updates and discussion of the updates. Not wild speculation. I've trimmed that, but it shouldn't be here in the first place.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/29/2015 04:33 PM
LOM/LOV Verified by Roscosmos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dQ2mUIieQQ


Well this is a shame! Hope any experiments on board can be reflown.

More:
From Roscosmos Control
Quote
We believe a problem occurred during third stage separation. We have opened an emergency and investigative team to determine what occurred and fix it. We are planning to press ahead with another launch on May 26th, but this launch will use a different rocket (soyuz 2)


From that video at 15:40: "As for the current monitoring, I just talked to the Flight Control Center, today at 3'o clock, the Flight Control Center established contact with the spacecraft, so it is monitoring the systems onboard the spacecraft so it is not true that the spacecraft is totally uncontrolled. We are going to continue the monitoring for as long as we can."

Emphasis mine.

Yea I saw that as well, they had momentary contact. Not sure how they plan to do a controlled de orbit unless they can stop that spin. Maybe they are able to send the command to get the RCS up?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 04:34 PM

From that video at 15:40: "As for the current monitoring, I just talked to the Flight Control Center, today at 3'o clock, the Flight Control Center established contact with the spacecraft, so it is monitoring the systems onboard the spacecraft so it is not true that the spacecraft is totally uncontrolled. We are going to continue the monitoring for as long as we can."

Emphasis mine.

At this juncture, I am inclined to dismiss any factoid that is not confirmed by a second source.

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Lars-J on 04/29/2015 04:36 PM
To be quite honest the safe bet might actually be to shoot it down. But I doubt this will happen. If it did, the Russians would likely opt to do it I doubt they would want the US Navy doing it. As far as I know, they do posses missile systems capable of this task, though unlike the U.S. and China I am not sure they have ever tried it, recently anyway.

Why would you "shoot it down"?. I doubt that would improve the situation. It will burn up soon enough - and the the pieces that survive will fall down and most likely cause no damage. If you attempt to shoot it down you simply add more unpredictability.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: gwiz on 04/29/2015 04:38 PM
Revisit the hazard of uncontrolled reentry --

This reentry will be different, the Progress will have tanks practically full of propellant and water, which over the next few days can be expected to freeze. That ought to significantly enhance survivability through boil-off cooling at high temperatures, allowing large quantities of hypergolic propellants to reach the surface in a localized area.

Is this a USA-183-type event headed our way?

...and you may quote me.
Why are the tanks expected to freeze?  Progress is designed for a long orbital life, mostly attached to another spacecraft and unable to control its attitude.  I would have thought the thermal design of the thing would be aimed at keeping fluids fluid, regardless of attitude.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/29/2015 04:39 PM

From that video at 15:40: "As for the current monitoring, I just talked to the Flight Control Center, today at 3'o clock, the Flight Control Center established contact with the spacecraft, so it is monitoring the systems onboard the spacecraft so it is not true that the spacecraft is totally uncontrolled. We are going to continue the monitoring for as long as we can."

Emphasis mine.

At this juncture, I am inclined to dismiss any factoid that is not confirmed by a second source.

I mean it seems possible and they said they did it. But I doubt it actually means anything, because on what they ALSO said in this conference they got nothing useful out of this IE couldn't get RCS up couldn't stabilize the vehicle ect. So honestly I really don't think it matters much beyond possibility's of controlled de-orbit. Bottom line is they have declared the mission a loss the vehicle is going to come down one way or another.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/29/2015 04:40 PM
Revisit the hazard of uncontrolled reentry --

This reentry will be different, the Progress will have tanks practically full of propellant and water, which over the next few days can be expected to freeze. That ought to significantly enhance survivability through boil-off cooling at high temperatures, allowing large quantities of hypergolic propellants to reach the surface in a localized area.

Is this a USA-183-type event headed our way?

...and you may quote me.
Why are the tanks expected to freeze?  Progress is designed for a long orbital life, mostly attached to another spacecraft and unable to control its attitude.  I would have thought the thermal design of the thing would be aimed at keeping fluids fluid, regardless of attitude.
This depends partly on having full electrical power. We don't know right now how much electrical capability is left on-board.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: rds100 on 04/29/2015 04:43 PM
I guess if they can somehow comand the thrusters to fire until fuel depletion could be good, even if not able to control the spin. Less nasty stuff would have a chance to hit the ground.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Liss on 04/29/2015 04:43 PM
Actually, Komarov/Ivanov/Solovyov have said that:

(1) TM from 3rd stage was lost some 1.5 sec before scheduled ejection of SC;
(2) SC separated more or less on time;
(3) SC was found to rotate with the period of 4 seconds;
(4) today, manifolds of SC were found to be depressurized which led to cancellation of the mission.

No most possible cause was named but they would check issues at the moment of separation.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: gwiz on 04/29/2015 04:46 PM
Revisit the hazard of uncontrolled reentry --

This reentry will be different, the Progress will have tanks practically full of propellant and water, which over the next few days can be expected to freeze. That ought to significantly enhance survivability through boil-off cooling at high temperatures, allowing large quantities of hypergolic propellants to reach the surface in a localized area.

Is this a USA-183-type event headed our way?

...and you may quote me.
Why are the tanks expected to freeze?  Progress is designed for a long orbital life, mostly attached to another spacecraft and unable to control its attitude.  I would have thought the thermal design of the thing would be aimed at keeping fluids fluid, regardless of attitude.
This depends partly on having full electrical power. We don't know right now how much electrical capability is left on-board.
Does it always have full power when docked to ISS?  I'd think the nadir ports would leave it in the shade for much of the time.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/29/2015 04:47 PM
Revisit the hazard of uncontrolled reentry --

This reentry will be different, the Progress will have tanks practically full of propellant and water, which over the next few days can be expected to freeze. That ought to significantly enhance survivability through boil-off cooling at high temperatures, allowing large quantities of hypergolic propellants to reach the surface in a localized area.

Is this a USA-183-type event headed our way?

...and you may quote me.
Why are the tanks expected to freeze?  Progress is designed for a long orbital life, mostly attached to another spacecraft and unable to control its attitude.  I would have thought the thermal design of the thing would be aimed at keeping fluids fluid, regardless of attitude.
This depends partly on having full electrical power. We don't know right now how much electrical capability is left on-board.
Does it always have full power when docked to ISS?  I'd think the nadir ports would leave it in the shade for much of the time.
Both Soyuz and Progress are placed on station-supplied power shortly after docking.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/29/2015 04:52 PM
Actually, Komarov/Ivanov/Solovyov have said that:

(1) TM from 3rd stage was lost some 1.5 sec before scheduled ejection of SC;
(2) SC separated more or less on time;
(3) SC was found to rotate with the period of 4 seconds;
(4) today, manifolds of SC were found to be depressurized which led to cancellation of the mission.

No most possible cause was named but they would check issues at the moment of separation.
Ouch. So that would mean things depressurized. Not good.

Still, seems like contrary to what I thought earlier that the problem was with the 3rd stage after all.

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Lars-J on 04/29/2015 04:57 PM
Actually, Komarov/Ivanov/Solovyov have said that:

(1) TM from 3rd stage was lost some 1.5 sec before scheduled ejection of SC;
(2) SC separated more or less on time;
(3) SC was found to rotate with the period of 4 seconds;
(4) today, manifolds of SC were found to be depressurized which led to cancellation of the mission.

No most possible cause was named but they would check issues at the moment of separation.
Ouch. So that would mean things depressurized. Not good.

Still, seems like contrary to what I thought earlier that the problem was with the 3rd stage after all.

No, there doesn't have to be a contradiction. Obviously there is something very wrong with the Progress spacecraft. But the root cause of that *could* still have been the 3rd stage damaging it.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JasonAW3 on 04/29/2015 05:06 PM
I guess if they can somehow comand the thrusters to fire until fuel depletion could be good, even if not able to control the spin. Less nasty stuff would have a chance to hit the ground.

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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/29/2015 05:07 PM
I guess if they can somehow comand the thrusters to fire until fuel depletion could be good, even if not able to control the spin. Less nasty stuff would have a chance to hit the ground.

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.
I don't see how they will do this if the SC manifolds are depressurized.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JasonAW3 on 04/29/2015 05:11 PM
Can we get assets in place for an intercept?

Like shooting it down?

Not 'shoot down' but 'disintegrate' so that there is nothing large and dense enough to likely survive passage through the upper and middle atmosphere.

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.

Too bad we don't have a few ships equipped with railguns, as those would blow it apart in one shot.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JasonAW3 on 04/29/2015 05:16 PM
I guess if they can somehow comand the thrusters to fire until fuel depletion could be good, even if not able to control the spin. Less nasty stuff would have a chance to hit the ground.

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.

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.

That is, if it doesn't have attitude control wheels like the Hubble.  (I doubt that it does as this is usually used for space telescopes and rarely for other craft, as far as I know).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/29/2015 05:17 PM
Can we get assets in place for an intercept?

Like shooting it down?

Not 'shoot down' but 'disintegrate' so that there is nothing large and dense enough to likely survive passage through the upper and middle atmosphere.

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.

Too bad we don't have a few ships equipped with railguns, as those would blow it apart in one shot.
We don't have any yet :) Its only a few years away now though that program has made alot of progress.

That being said, again, I doubt that politically speaking, the US would be involved in this. If it is to be shot at it will probably be the Russian's who would do it. But I doubt they will.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/29/2015 05:18 PM
Can we get assets in place for an intercept?

Like shooting it down?

Not 'shoot down' but 'disintegrate' so that there is nothing large and dense enough to likely survive passage through the upper and middle atmosphere.

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.

Too bad we don't have a few ships equipped with railguns, as those would blow it apart in one shot.

Any "intercept" would scatter debris into higher orbits at the same inclination and same plane as ISS. It would endanger ISS.

Besides USA-193 took months to plan and position assets, only weeks exist before reentry.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/29/2015 05:36 PM

(4) today, manifolds of SC were found to be depressurized which led to cancellation of the mission.



The implication here is that prop has been lost to space, if the manifolds are depressurized.

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jcm on 04/29/2015 05:39 PM

(4) today, manifolds of SC were found to be depressurized which led to cancellation of the mission.



The implication here is that prop has been lost to space, if the manifolds are depressurized.



I'm unclear on the terminology here - is "manifold" synonymous with "propellant tank" ("bak" in Russian I think) in this usage?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/29/2015 05:43 PM

Any "intercept" would scatter debris into higher orbits at the same inclination and same plane as ISS. It would endanger ISS.

Besides USA-193 took months to plan and position assets, only weeks exist before reentry.

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?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jcm on 04/29/2015 05:45 PM


  How much do we think is on board? What's the amount at insertion?

Total propellant (fuel+oxidizer) 1373 kg
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/29/2015 05:48 PM
I'm unclear on the terminology here - is "manifold" synonymous with "propellant tank" ("bak" in Russian I think) in this usage? 

A manifold is the complex of lines and valves leading from the bipropellants to the thrusters. They can be isolated, cross-strapped, even zig-zagged as line breaks or thruster leaks require. The shuttle OMS/RCS system had five manifolds, ganged into groups. Buran much the same.

The manifolds architecture of Salyut-7 allowed cross-strapping through two external fill ports that took several EVAs, but to prop operators like me back in the 80's, it was eye-popping mission-control-porn. Probably the most impressive on-orbit repair i've ever learned of.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/29/2015 05:49 PM
Total propellant (fuel+oxidizer) 1373 kg

Thanks. Mass ratio the traditional 1.6 : 1  ??
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: nSpace on 04/29/2015 05:54 PM
Tass reports that it will be deorbited May 5-7.
http://tass.ru/en/non-political/792523
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/29/2015 05:54 PM
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
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: the_other_Doug on 04/29/2015 05:55 PM

(4) today, manifolds of SC were found to be depressurized which led to cancellation of the mission.



The implication here is that prop has been lost to space, if the manifolds are depressurized.

Not necessarily, though the result of a depressurized propellant manifold system is much the same.

Two points:

First, anything that violently depressurizes a manifold of that type could possible close the valves that feed gasses/fluids into the manifold.  Large shocks, especially pressure shocks, have been known to cause such valves to close from the mechanical stress of sudden pressure spikes.  So, it's possible that the Progress still has a decent fuel load, but with no way to get it to the prop manifolds and hence to the actual engines.

Second, the Soyuz/Progress propellant systems have redundant manifold systems, i.e., there are two prop manifold units that can be isolated from one another via valves in the plumbing from the prop tanks and to the engines.  The fact seems to be that both manifolds depressurized simultaneously (or at least lost the ability to be pressurized -- it depends on whether or not the manifolds were pressurized already at the time of spacecraft separation from the 3rd stage).  That argues, most forcefully, that something explosive and destructive happened, in, or very close outside of, the manifolds.

I can see two equally likely scenarios -- the 3rd stage exploded at cutoff, damaging the Progress equipment module and holing the prop manifolds, or one/both of the manifolds exploded as they were pressurized in preparation for the first orbital maneuvers, destroying themselves and damaging the 3rd stage such that it lost TM capability.

I recall reading up-thread that the Progress maneuvering systems are safed during boost and only activated at or just before SC sep.  So, the question that needs answering to be able to discriminate between these two scenarios is when, exactly, were the Progress prop manifolds supposed to be pressurized?  If that process was underway at the time TM was lost from both the 3rd stage and the SC, I'd think it makes the second scenario more likely.  If the prop manifold pressurization was at a static state at the time TM was lost -- either not yet begun their pressurization event, or already pressurized for a significant amount of time -- then the first scenario may be more likely.

Just my own armchair analysis, here...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/29/2015 06:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: BabaORileyUSA on 04/29/2015 06:06 PM
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).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: gospacex on 04/29/2015 06:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/29/2015 06:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/29/2015 06:22 PM
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! :)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/29/2015 06:25 PM
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!
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2015 06:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Elvis in Space on 04/29/2015 06:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2015 06:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2015 06:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/29/2015 06:49 PM
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!
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Space Pete on 04/29/2015 06:51 PM
Apparently the heavy docking mechanism usually survives re-entry. Don't want that landing on your head!
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Jim on 04/29/2015 06:52 PM

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
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Jim on 04/29/2015 06:53 PM

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
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Prober on 04/29/2015 07:07 PM
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.



Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Kaputnik on 04/29/2015 07:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 04/29/2015 07:15 PM
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
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: MattMason on 04/29/2015 07:22 PM
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_%28spacecraft%29#Design)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 04/29/2015 07:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Lars-J on 04/29/2015 07:41 PM

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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/29/2015 07:47 PM
Apparently the heavy docking mechanism usually survives re-entry. Don't want that landing on your head!

The hazard items in this case are the hypergolic propellant tanks, with a chance of reaching the ground and heavily poisoning a small area. That was the issue with USA-193 [the true issue, as I'm one of the few people to insist -- well, reality is not democracy-driven]. Balanced against destruction would be hazards from some debris in higher orbit, but differential nodal regression would take such debris out of plane with the ISS within hours.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/29/2015 07:50 PM
I'm not seeing any evidence the propellant has gone anywhere. It just doesn't flow out -- it has to be pressure fed from hi-pressure N2 tanks [or He?], through commanded valves. If it wasn't burned off on a mad thruster joust, it's all still there. And getting colder.

The mass ratio should be about 1.65/1.0  ox/fuel, that is nitrogen teroxide to heptyl/hydrazine.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: sghill on 04/29/2015 07:52 PM
"Most likely it is some sort of unforeseen situation related to the separation of the ship from the carrier," Alexander Ivanov, deputy chief of the Roscosmos state agency, told reporters.  "It is impossible to say now who is guilty and of what."

http://news.yahoo.com/unmanned-russian-spacecraft-plunging-earth-111817180.html

Don't you just love the difference in tone between Russian- and Western-style  investigations?  They ain't searching for "lessons to be learned"!
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2015 08:01 PM

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.

If the fire was in a car and the car was driving full speed toward a school, the grenade might be the best option.

I'm not saying I think hitting this Progress with a missile is the right choice, just that it's a trade-off.  It adds some risk to the ISS and reduces some risk of people being hurt or property damaged on the ground.  I think to really know the better decision would require running actual numbers.  Plus, there's a subjective value judgement about risk to ISS versus risk to bystanders on the ground -- some might argue that it's better to risk the lives of those on the ISS who have volunteered for the program than innocent people on the ground.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/29/2015 08:05 PM
FYI, I haven't seen this discussed before, but back in 2012 Orbital Debris Quarterly News had a series titled: On the Probability of Random Debris Reentry Occurring on Land or Water.

In a nutshell Progress has a 72% chance of reentering over water, but since the debris will most likely be spread out, it has a 38% chance of debris being found on land.
 
January 2012: http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/newsletter/pdfs/ODQNv16i2.pdf
April 2012 correction: http://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/newsletter/pdfs/ODQNv16i1.pdf
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/29/2015 08:07 PM

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.

I tend to stand with this thinking. While shooting it down would likely greatly reduce risk to the ground, the amount of small pieces and other debris you would propel into higher orbits would make this counter productive. There is already way too much space debris the last thing you want to be doing is adding lots of random high energy fragments to the mix.

That being said, without a shoot-down its very likely large pieces may survive re entry, particularly since entry interface is unlikely to be controlled and the possibility of any burn being conducted prior to entry interface is very slim. So I would hope that ultimately it enters over water or a rural landmass, since otherwise it could cause some problems.

Sir Isaac Newton is in the driver seat at the moment so really it's going to fall wherever it falls.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: mlindner on 04/29/2015 08:35 PM
Can we get assets in place for an intercept?

Like shooting it down?

Not 'shoot down' but 'disintegrate' so that there is nothing large and dense enough to likely survive passage through the upper and middle atmosphere.

US Air Force shooting down a Russian Satellite seems like a really really bad idea even if both sides agree.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kneecaps on 04/29/2015 09:00 PM
It's already been said. ASAT weapons are designed for achieving a satellite 'mission kills'. Meaning that the objective is to simply prevent the satellite from performing its function. It just so happens that it isn't going to take a lot of physical destruction to do that. That is what ASAT weapons are for.

As has been already said they are not designed for debris removal.

Right now the situation has some thousands of variable...hitting it with an ASAT turns that into millions of variables.

Things have been reentering the atmosphere in unexpected ways since the start of the space age, apart from being more newsworthy for all the wrong reasons this will be nothing to get excited about.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: robertross on 04/29/2015 09:03 PM
Question: would there be a difference in a tumbling spacecraft reentering versus a directed path? I doubt there would be anything resembling a 'bounce' off the atmosphere, but I'm thinking it could make it more difficult to ascertain the exact (expected) point of impact?

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: John-H on 04/29/2015 09:07 PM
Actually, Komarov/Ivanov/Solovyov have said that:

(1) TM from 3rd stage was lost some 1.5 sec before scheduled ejection of SC;
(2) SC separated more or less on time;
(3) SC was found to rotate with the period of 4 seconds;
(4) today, manifolds of SC were found to be depressurized which led to cancellation of the mission.

No most possible cause was named but they would check issues at the moment of separation.
Ouch. So that would mean things depressurized. Not good.

Still, seems like contrary to what I thought earlier that the problem was with the 3rd stage after all.

Does the fuel manifold pressurize before or after separation?  It still looks as if something popped during the pressurization event.

John
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Graham on 04/29/2015 09:11 PM
Question: would there be a difference in a tumbling spacecraft reentering versus a directed path? I doubt there would be anything resembling a 'bounce' off the atmosphere, but I'm thinking it could make it more difficult to ascertain the exact (expected) point of impact?
When Mir was deorbited it was put into a spin to help it break up completely. So if anything the tumbling will make less (if any) debris reach the ground. I'm not sure if the tumbling would make predicting the reentry location more or less difficult. If I had to guess I'd say it wouldn't matter, but I'm nothing close to an expert.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/29/2015 09:35 PM
There are so many variables on satellite decay that it is next to impossible to get an accurate reentry prediction time with large error bars less than 24hrs in advance, and an estimated reentry location with large error bars less than a couple of orbits in advances.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2015 09:51 PM
It's already been said. ASAT weapons are designed for achieving a satellite 'mission kills'. Meaning that the objective is to simply prevent the satellite from performing its function. It just so happens that it isn't going to take a lot of physical destruction to do that. That is what ASAT weapons are for.

What they were designed for doesn't really matter.  All that matters is the effect they would have in this case.  And, in this case, it is likely they would break Progress apart -- the frozen mass of propellant in particular -- and decrease the risk to people on the ground.

As has been already said they are not designed for debris removal.

This is *not* an issue of debris removal.  Why do people keep talking as if an ASAT system would be used for debris removal?

This is a case of debris that is already going to be removed naturally.  The only question is whether or not to turn it from one big piece of debris into lots of little pieces of debris right as it starts to really enter the atmosphere.

Some of the little pieces might temporarily go higher for a few orbits, but it's simply not possible to create long-lasting debris from an ASAT hit like this.  It's simple orbital mechanics.  Since the ASAT hit would be so low in the atmosphere there there is significant drag there, all debris created would have a perigee no higher than that altitude.  It might have a high apogee initially, but with a perigee so low, the orbit would quickly decay.

Right now the situation has some thousands of variable...hitting it with an ASAT turns that into millions of variables.

Number of variables is irrelevant.  The choice with more variables might be harder to model but we can still be confident that the expected number of deaths is lower.

Things have been reentering the atmosphere in unexpected ways since the start of the space age, apart from being more newsworthy for all the wrong reasons this will be nothing to get excited about.

That's no reason not to do something about it if we can and if we determine it makes sense.

Again, as I said in another post, I'm not claiming that an ASAT hit would be the best choice.  What I am claiming is that it's a trade-off, and one must run detailed numeric calculations to decide which is better.  Anyone claiming the answer can be determined without running the numbers is wrong, in my opinion.

Of course, as others have said, there are political and legal issues as well.  Obviously, the U.S. doesn't have the right to make the decision.  Russia has the right to make the decision.  But that doesn't stop us from considering what the right decision would be for Russia to make.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: IanH84 on 04/29/2015 09:57 PM
There are so many variables on satellite decay that it is next to impossible to get an accurate reentry prediction time with large error bars less than 24hrs in advance, and an estimated reentry location with large error bars less than a couple of orbits in advances.
Even much closer to it's tough. I remember watching the UARS end of mission webcast and even with live telemetry data in the hours before reentry the guesses were only as precise as "probably in the next two or three orbits."
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: MattMason on 04/29/2015 09:58 PM
I would ask that further discussion on removing Progress from orbit using means other than normal orbital decay should be either redirected into a new article or dropped--especially the remarkably silly idea of using military applications to remove it.

There are thousands of objects in space, many are satellites, pieces of them, junk from their launch vehicles, or stages themselves. Some are as heavy or heavier than Progress, and some have denser qualities where survival of some pieces from destructive re-entry is likely. Does anyone remember Skylab's more or less uncontrolled reentry in 1979? And that was at least 20 many times larger.

Yet we only hear of a land impact of any of these pieces very rarely. Progress is designed to destroy itself by reentry. The only thing that's different now is that it likely won't enjoy a controlled deorbit over the ocean, but this is no less different from long-deactivated satellites or other space junk. Earth's atmosphere is a great protector; even iron meteoroids don't get through without a fight. Progress will fare no worse than its siblings.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/29/2015 10:01 PM
.... Things have been reentering the atmosphere in unexpected ways since the start of the space age, apart from being more newsworthy for all the wrong reasons this will be nothing to get excited about. 

Uh, no. Objects of this size and larger [especially those with large quantities of toxic chemicals] have for decades usually been actively, deliberately steered into South Pacific impact zones, BECAUSE of the unacceptably large risk of random fall. See  http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/down-in-flames
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/29/2015 10:05 PM
Back to the mission itself. I've been mulling it over and just cannot imagine any energetic event at payload insertion that would result in an accidental asymmetric force on the Progress sufficient to induce such a fast tumble rate -- except a LONG thruster burn. That would itself take up lots of propellant, even more if other thrusters were commanded on to attempt to counteract it.

What are the alternative sources of sufficient rotational force on the Progress?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2015 10:09 PM
Back to the mission itself. I've been mulling it over and just cannot imagine any energetic event at payload insertion that would result in an accidental asymmetric force on the Progress sufficient to induce such a fast tumble rate -- except a LONG thruster burn. That would itself take up lots of propellant, even more if other thrusters were commanded on to attempt to counteract it.

What are the alternative sources of sufficient rotational force on the Progress?

One possibility is a rupture of a prop tank on Progress, either because of something internal or because of strain from a hit from the upper stage after separation.

Another possibility is that Progress separated, moved some distance away, then was hit by the upper stage after it had moved off the axis of the stage but before it was entirely clear of its path.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 04/29/2015 10:11 PM
And another possibility is that the spin was caused by incorrect firing of Progress's thrusters.  If the sensors were feeding bad data to the computer, it might have fired the thrusters when it shouldn't have.

Or, the thrusters might have been wired up wrong.  When the computer thought it was firing one thruster, it actually fired a different one, then kept firing it to try to correct the error.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Space Pete on 04/29/2015 10:13 PM
What about the possibility that perhaps Progress didn't separate from the third stage at all initially, and the third stage then did it's standard post-launch prop purge/spin maneuver with the Progress still attached, following which Progress separated due to G forces and subsequently exhausted all it's propellant trying to null out the spin rate.

In other words, the whole issue is a stage sep failure. Plausible?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/29/2015 10:26 PM
Back to the mission itself. I've been mulling it over and just cannot imagine any energetic event at payload insertion that would result in an accidental asymmetric force on the Progress sufficient to induce such a fast tumble rate -- except a LONG thruster burn. That would itself take up lots of propellant, even more if other thrusters were commanded on to attempt to counteract it.

What are the alternative sources of sufficient rotational force on the Progress?

The Russians said that the Soyuz third stage 'depressurised'.

I'm thinking that the propellent valves re-opened (likely due to an ongoing IU malfunction) before the combustion chamber cooled sufficiently causing a brief 'burp' of thrust as the chamber was hot enough to cause the propellent to combine. This caused a collision with the nearby Progress, compressing its hull, causing a propellent system over-pressure and rupturing both fuel systems, disabling its engines. Either the impact or the release of pressurised propellent from one side of the spacecraft generated the tumble.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Targeteer on 04/29/2015 10:27 PM
The ISS ground track graphic shows the Progress about to lap the ISS.  I didn't hear any mention on the feed of the crew trying to catch a glimpse but their sleep period is about to begin.  http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/29/2015 10:36 PM
Back to the mission itself. I've been mulling it over and just cannot imagine any energetic event at payload insertion that would result in an accidental asymmetric force on the Progress sufficient to induce such a fast tumble rate -- except a LONG thruster burn. That would itself take up lots of propellant, even more if other thrusters were commanded on to attempt to counteract it.

What are the alternative sources of sufficient rotational force on the Progress?

One possibility is a rupture of a prop tank on Progress, either because of something internal or because of strain from a hit from the upper stage after separation.

Another possibility is that Progress separated, moved some distance away, then was hit by the upper stage after it had moved off the axis of the stage but before it was entirely clear of its path.

I've run some numbers on both these scenarios and fail to come within orders of magnitude of the energy transfer required to put the Progress into a 20 rpm tumble. Spewing propellant doesn't have the thrust, and physical impact -- especially at the back end less than 2 meters off centerline -- requires impactor velocity and mass so large that there's no energy short of booster engine firing from a range of 10s of meters to impart the needed impulse [and if it were still firing the Progress would never have gotten that far away]. I can't create a scenario that an impact results in the observable final conditions.

Except by thruster.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/29/2015 10:37 PM
The ISS ground track graphic shows the Progress about to lap the ISS.  I didn't hear any mention on the feed of the crew trying to catch a glimpse but their sleep period is about to begin.  http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-iss-stream

Aren't there some external cameras watching in the right direction all the time?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Targeteer on 04/29/2015 10:42 PM
Yes, but there isn't always video down even when the ISS is clearly in TDRS coverage like it has been for the past ten minutes which is why the ground track display is up.  Both vehicles are also in the earths shadow as well right now.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: sghill on 04/29/2015 10:50 PM
What about the possibility that perhaps Progress didn't separate from the third stage at all initially, and the third stage then did it's standard post-launch prop purge/spin maneuver with the Progress still attached, following which Progress separated due to G forces and subsequently exhausted all it's propellant trying to null out the spin rate.

In other words, the whole issue is a stage sep failure. Plausible?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35789.msg1366427#msg1366427
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: the_other_Doug on 04/29/2015 11:41 PM
Back to the mission itself. I've been mulling it over and just cannot imagine any energetic event at payload insertion that would result in an accidental asymmetric force on the Progress sufficient to induce such a fast tumble rate -- except a LONG thruster burn. That would itself take up lots of propellant, even more if other thrusters were commanded on to attempt to counteract it.

What are the alternative sources of sufficient rotational force on the Progress?

One possibility is a rupture of a prop tank on Progress, either because of something internal or because of strain from a hit from the upper stage after separation.

Another possibility is that Progress separated, moved some distance away, then was hit by the upper stage after it had moved off the axis of the stage but before it was entirely clear of its path.

I've run some numbers on both these scenarios and fail to come within orders of magnitude of the energy transfer required to put the Progress into a 20 rpm tumble. Spewing propellant doesn't have the thrust, and physical impact -- especially at the back end less than 2 meters off centerline -- requires impactor velocity and mass so large that there's no energy short of booster engine firing from a range of 10s of meters to impart the needed impulse [and if it were still firing the Progress would never have gotten that far away]. I can't create a scenario that an impact results in the observable final conditions.

Except by thruster.

I dunno -- a leak in a high-pressure line or tank, when pointed pretty much in a single direction, acts an awful lot like a thruster.

The salient data you'd need to know in order to evaluate the possibilities are the pressurization level, the amount of propellant available in the system when depressurization began, and the length of time it took to depressurize the manifolds.  That would give you an error range around the min and max amount of thrust you would get out of a prop leak, as opposed to the prop being used in the engines for which it was meant.

My only problem with the concept of a stuck thruster or a flight control system that kept thrusters firing until the system depressurized is that (as explained up-thread) safety interlocks would have stopped the thrusting when the prop quantity reached a certain point, and that simply firing a thruster for a long time would not, in itself, result in both prop manifolds becoming fully depressurized.

I just don't think the base issue, here, was a bad FCS causing thruster firing to fuel depletion.  Something else much more violent happened, I think -- especially when you factor the large number of pieces of debris being tracked into account.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: meekGee on 04/29/2015 11:58 PM
Back to the mission itself. I've been mulling it over and just cannot imagine any energetic event at payload insertion that would result in an accidental asymmetric force on the Progress sufficient to induce such a fast tumble rate -- except a LONG thruster burn. That would itself take up lots of propellant, even more if other thrusters were commanded on to attempt to counteract it.

What are the alternative sources of sufficient rotational force on the Progress?

One possibility is a rupture of a prop tank on Progress, either because of something internal or because of strain from a hit from the upper stage after separation.

Another possibility is that Progress separated, moved some distance away, then was hit by the upper stage after it had moved off the axis of the stage but before it was entirely clear of its path.

I've run some numbers on both these scenarios and fail to come within orders of magnitude of the energy transfer required to put the Progress into a 20 rpm tumble. Spewing propellant doesn't have the thrust, and physical impact -- especially at the back end less than 2 meters off centerline -- requires impactor velocity and mass so large that there's no energy short of booster engine firing from a range of 10s of meters to impart the needed impulse [and if it were still firing the Progress would never have gotten that far away]. I can't create a scenario that an impact results in the observable final conditions.

Except by thruster.

Which can point at either a thruster failure, a control system failure, or a sensor failure.  Since we (think we) know that the attitude readings were fixed while the vehicle was spinning, a sensor or control system failure will explain all.  That's not a root cause though.

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: iamlucky13 on 04/30/2015 12:28 AM
Back to the mission itself. I've been mulling it over and just cannot imagine any energetic event at payload insertion that would result in an accidental asymmetric force on the Progress sufficient to induce such a fast tumble rate -- except a LONG thruster burn. That would itself take up lots of propellant, even more if other thrusters were commanded on to attempt to counteract it.

What are the alternative sources of sufficient rotational force on the Progress?

I haven't followed the details closely, but just skimming the updates I was leaning in the direction of a thruster malfunction, too.

An unbalanced thruster firing produces both torque (which could explain the rotation), and translation (which could explain the high perigee). Centripetal force from the rotation could potentially cause other parts to separate to account for the extra pieces of debris being tracked. I'm thinking about items like the solar panels that are stowed for launch and not necessarily designed to react significant loads when deployed.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: iamlucky13 on 04/30/2015 12:37 AM
I've run some numbers on both these scenarios and fail to come within orders of magnitude of the energy transfer required to put the Progress into a 20 rpm tumble. Spewing propellant doesn't have the thrust

Is it possible for either UDMH or nitrogen tetroxide alone to react spontaneously, as in, like a monopropellant?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Prober on 04/30/2015 01:25 AM
What about the possibility that perhaps Progress didn't separate from the third stage at all initially, and the third stage then did it's standard post-launch prop purge/spin maneuver with the Progress still attached, following which Progress separated due to G forces and subsequently exhausted all it's propellant trying to null out the spin rate.

In other words, the whole issue is a stage sep failure. Plausible?

or let's try this wild idea..... the solar panels spread out making contact with the 3rd stage creating a spin.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/30/2015 02:08 AM
What about the possibility that perhaps Progress didn't separate from the third stage at all initially, and the third stage then did it's standard post-launch prop purge/spin maneuver with the Progress still attached, following which Progress separated due to G forces and subsequently exhausted all it's propellant trying to null out the spin rate.

In other words, the whole issue is a stage sep failure. Plausible?
I'm leaning toward something wrong at separation.  There was mention of the upper stage providing a bit more velocity than planned.  There was mention of telemetry dropping out 1.5 seconds before the planned spacecraft separation.  I have read flight reports for old launch vehicles that ran into weird timing problems at payload separation when the stage did not behave perfectly on the way up.  Sometimes an upper stage ignited before the separation.  Other times unexpected tip off forces resulted.  Occasionally separation did not occur at all.  I don't have a good feel for what may have happened here, but it seems possible that the upper stage could be a culprit. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/30/2015 05:07 AM
Back to the mission itself. I've been mulling it over and just cannot imagine any energetic event at payload insertion that would result in an accidental asymmetric force on the Progress sufficient to induce such a fast tumble rate -- except a LONG thruster burn. That would itself take up lots of propellant, even more if other thrusters were commanded on to attempt to counteract it.

What are the alternative sources of sufficient rotational force on the Progress?

The Russians said that the Soyuz third stage 'depressurised'.

IIRC, this was not declared - only the main engine on Progress. But the 3rd stage did lose telemetry link 1.5 seconds before scheduled spacecraft separation.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/30/2015 05:15 AM
Back to the mission itself. I've been mulling it over and just cannot imagine any energetic event at payload insertion that would result in an accidental asymmetric force on the Progress sufficient to induce such a fast tumble rate -- except a LONG thruster burn. That would itself take up lots of propellant, even more if other thrusters were commanded on to attempt to counteract it.

What are the alternative sources of sufficient rotational force on the Progress?

Alternatives?

An explosion in the SC or the third stage throwing progress free and inducing the tumble and sufficiently damaging onboard systems to a degree that the computers went into a safe state, pressurization either never occurred or the propellant system was damaged to such a degree it could not occur, no RCS/ACS results in endless uncontrolled tumbling and eventual compound system failure of remaining non-faulted systems.

Whatever induced that tumble was likely either A: Sudden and violent or B: The rotation built up overtime due to a less violent failure, but as a result of the failure nothing could be done to dampen it so it just worsened and worsened.

Will be interesting to see which way things lean toward in the post accident investigation.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FinalFrontier on 04/30/2015 05:22 AM
What about the possibility that perhaps Progress didn't separate from the third stage at all initially, and the third stage then did it's standard post-launch prop purge/spin maneuver with the Progress still attached, following which Progress separated due to G forces and subsequently exhausted all it's propellant trying to null out the spin rate.

In other words, the whole issue is a stage sep failure. Plausible?

or let's try this wild idea..... the solar panels spread out making contact with the 3rd stage creating a spin.

Not nearly enough energy. Panels would be destroyed before inducing this much of a spin.

My final thoughts are this:
This was either:
A. An explosion of some kind just prior to or during stage separation. Telemetry loss would tend to suggest just prior to. This could also have been induced by a failed separation and crash between stage 3 and the SC.
B. Stuck thruster as a result of staging failure, or post staging which resulted in spin build up and ultimately pieces flying off the vehicle and systems failing due to axial loads.

Neither of these bodes well for progress but I don't really see any other options (and based on numbers other posters ran) that have the energy necessary for this.

I suppose the hope is that whatever caused it can be easily fixed, and this doesn't become an unknown gremlin that takes months to chase down, or is never fully resolved (like the AJ26 failures on the test stand prior to the explosion).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 04/30/2015 06:41 AM
A stuck thruster cannot be a root cause for Progress failure, or even a symptom of a collision, unless the control system is likewise damaged. Progress is double fault tolerant against a stuck thruster - command the thruster to stop firing, if that fails, blow a pyro valve for the thruster, if that fails, shut down the manifold.

The rumor that the third stage lost telemetry just before separation, if true, tells us that there was probably an off-nominal separation, either the third stage kept firing after separation, if only for a second, or the explosive bolts all failed to operate, or the stage itself had a bad day and somehow damaged the Progress.


Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: woods170 on 04/30/2015 08:15 AM
A stuck thruster cannot be a root cause for Progress failure, or even a symptom of a collision, unless the control system is likewise damaged. Progress is double fault tolerant against a stuck thruster - command the thruster to stop firing, if that fails, blow a pyro valve for the thruster, if that fails, shut down the manifold.

The rumor that the third stage lost telemetry just before separation, if true, tells us that there was probably an off-nominal separation, either the third stage kept firing after separation, if only for a second, or the explosive bolts all failed to operate, or the stage itself had a bad day and somehow damaged the Progress.



What Danderman said.

Also, remember Gemini 8? A stuck thruster on Progress would actually result in a much higher rotation rate than now observed, but only when not counteracted by the control system, which, as Danderman just pointed out, is extremely unlikely on a normally functioning spacecraft.
IMO the observed rate of rotation (not nearly fast enough to cause physical disintegration of Progress due to centrifugal forces), and the other known bits of information (limited telemetry downlink, no two-way comms, no respond to ground-commanding, rate-sensor errors in telemetry, loss of telemetry BEFORE third stage separation, etc.) all point to multiple system-failures.
You don't generally have those on a well-developed and multiple-fault-tolerant spacecraft such as Progress unless something very drastic went wrong.
The key indicator is not so much the observed rotation on Progress, but the simultaneous loss of telemetry on both the Soyuz third stage AND Progress before vehicle separation was to take place.
Another key indicator is reports that the third stage propulsion system was over-performing.
A third key indicator is the observation of a good number of radar-trackable debris near the third stage and Progress.
This all points to an energetic event and not a stuck thruster.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Jester on 04/30/2015 08:24 AM
Per L2, Crew was instructed to try to take photos of 59P as it passes underneath ISS
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: rds100 on 04/30/2015 08:29 AM
Obviously the distance from the ISS to the Progress would be smaller than the distance from Progress to the ground, but wouldn't it be better to try to take pictures from the ground? I mean with telescopes, etc. Surely there is better imaging equipment available on the ground.


Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: satwatcher on 04/30/2015 08:46 AM
Obviously the distance from the ISS to the Progress would be smaller than the distance from Progress to the ground, but wouldn't it be better to try to take pictures from the ground? I mean with telescopes, etc. Surely there is better imaging equipment available on the ground.
In order to image the Progress from the ground it needs to be in sunlight, while for the observer the sun is below the horizon. Because of the very low orbit of the Progress that window of visibility is very small and currently limited to latitudes between 0 and 15 degrees North at sunset, and 15 to 30 degrees South at sunrise. Observing it from ISS is much easier.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/30/2015 08:57 AM
Here's some data for you. These are screenshots of what happened in MCC-M during separation that I took from the video below.

Video     Relative
Time (s)  Time (s)  Event
------------------------------------------------------------
  555        0      Third stage shutdown and separation
  562        7      Main screen switches to Soyuz
  648       93      Main screen switches to orbital plots
  749      194      Telemetry data shown in top right screen
  763      208      Last second of telemetry data


Thus, it looks like that about 14 seconds of data was obtained. If you toggle between the last two images, you can see part of the screen changing. Unfortunately, the resolution is too low to read what this says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dzVYOwTKJGg
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/30/2015 12:29 PM
Obviously the distance from the ISS to the Progress would be smaller than the distance from Progress to the ground, but wouldn't it be better to try to take pictures from the ground? I mean with telescopes, etc. Surely there is better imaging equipment available on the ground.

That would be AMOS (owned by the US Air Force) and Altai Optical Laser Center (Russia). There are a limited number of telescopes that are configured do it at a resolution that would be useful. It is a small object that would stretch the resolution limits of most amateur systems.
 
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Targeteer on 04/30/2015 12:53 PM
Per L2, Crew was instructed to try to take photos of 59P as it passes underneath ISS

Watching the ISS orbital track graphic last night it looked like the Progress may have passed under ISS during darkness
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 04/30/2015 01:02 PM
Per L2, Crew was instructed to try to take photos of 59P as it passes underneath ISS

Watching the ISS orbital track graphic last night it looked like the Progress may have passed under ISS during darkness
According to the latest TLEs, the pass was at 0023UTC and it was daylight.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 04/30/2015 01:15 PM
I'm quoted in an uncharacteristically non-alarmist tone in this morning news story:

Air Force Watching Falling Russian Satellite
‘Progress’ supply craft with toxic fuel to reenter in 10 days
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/air-force-watching-falling-russian-satellite/

For context behind my extreme skepticism towards Moscow assurances of 'complete safety', here are some precedents:

Coverup of Mars-96 impact on Bolivia
http://www.jamesoberg.com/plutonium.html
 
Fobos-Grunt probe fall 11 tons of rocket propellants]
http://www.jamesoberg.com/so_where_did_it_crash.pdf

kosmos-954 false assurances
http://www.jamesoberg.com/usd-rorsat.pdf

and also

NBC News background advisory on falling UARS sat
http://www.jamesoberg.com/advisory_on_falling_satellite.pdf


Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevin-rf on 04/30/2015 01:41 PM
     Back on subject; Any one hear if they have a predicted reentry point yet?
They have a predicted reentry date of May 9th, give or take a few days. It is still to early.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/30/2015 04:47 PM
Are there any detailed description of the Soyuz rocket payload separation mechanism for Progress/Soyuz spacecraft? I guess it's just standard explosion bolts and/or springs?

Also from Russian sources I read, it seems that only the fuel lines on "side A" of the Progress propulsion system was damaged; "side B" (which usually is only used for de-orbiting) is fine, hence the talk of using it for controlled de-orbit. Of course, the spin needs to be stopped first....  :P
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: SWGlassPit on 04/30/2015 05:05 PM
A controlled deorbit would also require the ability to successfully command the spacecraft.  It sounds like they don't even have that.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/30/2015 05:12 PM
Are there any detailed description of the Soyuz rocket payload separation mechanism for Progress/Soyuz spacecraft? I guess it's just standard explosion bolts and/or springs?

Also from Russian sources I read, it seems that only the fuel lines on "side A" of the Progress propulsion system was damaged; "side B" (which usually is only used for de-orbiting) is fine, hence the talk of using it for controlled de-orbit. Of course, the spin needs to be stopped first....  :P
bolts attach Progress to transfer compartment and springs and bolts are I believe are mounted Progress side and when bolts are broken springs pop out of the bolt holes. When Poisk launched springs were visible. I haven't found visual confirmation yet that Progress M-M series employs springs in same location as Poisk did. Only 300 series seems to have visible springs.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 04/30/2015 06:37 PM
Are there any detailed description of the Soyuz rocket payload separation mechanism for Progress/Soyuz spacecraft? I guess it's just standard explosion bolts and/or springs?

Also from Russian sources I read, it seems that only the fuel lines on "side A" of the Progress propulsion system was damaged; "side B" (which usually is only used for de-orbiting) is fine, hence the talk of using it for controlled de-orbit. Of course, the spin needs to be stopped first....  :P
From RussianSpaceWeb.com:
Quote
According to NASA, during the day, the mission control in Korolev also asked the current ISS crew, to try to photograph the stricken ship as it passes 170 kilometers below the station around 8:30 p.m. EDT. NASA also said that the previous night, Russian ground controllers had been able to establish communications with the vehicle and review telemetry. Russian controllers configured the refueling system to feed the thrusters (editor's note: in the remaining manifold) and made two unsuccessful attempts to command the thrusters to stabilize the vehicle’s angular rotation, NASA said.

This includes all stored data as well as current TLM data.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Zed_Noir on 04/30/2015 07:42 PM
What is the chance that the upper stage & Progress stack got unlucky encounter with some small orbital debris around spacecraft separation event? Would such a collision explain the state of the upper stage & the Progress plus the Progress's axial rotation?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Lars-J on 04/30/2015 08:03 PM

What is the chance that the upper stage & Progress stack got unlucky encounter with some small orbital debris around spacecraft separation event? Would such a collision explain the state of the upper stage & the Progress plus the Progress's axial rotation?

Very very slim. And any impact with orbital debris would likely cause a lot more damage. Also there is not that much orbital debris at that low altitude, since it would reenter fairly quickly.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 05/01/2015 01:10 AM
     Back on subject; Any one hear if they have a predicted reentry point yet?
They have a predicted reentry date of May 9th, give or take a few days. It is still to early.

That depends on knowing the mass of the object, and THAT depends on how much propellant remains, and THAT is anybody's guess. Working backwards, an earlier than predicted reentry would suggest a lighter than full tank vehicle.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 05/01/2015 01:25 AM
Interesting quote from Rogozin today:

"So far, no one has any theories as to what happened," he added. "I am meeting with designers today. The situation is so unusual that specialists have so far been unable to determine any causes," Rogozin said
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/01/2015 01:54 AM
Jim, Don't forget solar activity plays a big factor in upper atmosphere density, and it is currently low. So maybe a little bit longer.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 05/01/2015 02:57 AM
Are there any detailed description of the Soyuz rocket payload separation mechanism for Progress/Soyuz spacecraft? I guess it's just standard explosion bolts and/or springs?

Also from Russian sources I read, it seems that only the fuel lines on "side A" of the Progress propulsion system was damaged; "side B" (which usually is only used for de-orbiting) is fine, hence the talk of using it for controlled de-orbit. Of course, the spin needs to be stopped first....  :P
bolts attach Progress to transfer compartment and springs and bolts are I believe are mounted Progress side and when bolts are broken springs pop out of the bolt holes. When Poisk launched springs were visible. I haven't found visual confirmation yet that Progress M-M series employs springs in same location as Poisk did. Only 300 series seems to have visible springs.

Poisk used a more or less standard PAO from Progress; since the separation system is in the PAO, I would suspect that the separation systems are similar, bolts and springs,
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 05/01/2015 02:59 AM
Now TsUP is claimed to be "in control" of Progress, and one of the two manifolds is supposedly working. This implies that Progress has power, somehow, despite the rotation.

Under those conditions, there would be no reason for a controlled de-orbit, or any de-orbit at all.

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 05/01/2015 03:40 AM
Now TsUP is claimed to be "in control" of Progress, and one of the two manifolds is supposedly working. This implies that Progress has power, somehow, despite the rotation.

Under those conditions, there would be no reason for a controlled de-orbit, or any de-orbit at all.



Is TsUP claiming that, or is NASA claiming TsUP is claiming that?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 05/01/2015 08:19 AM
Now TsUP is claimed to be "in control" of Progress, and one of the two manifolds is supposedly working. This implies that Progress has power, somehow, despite the rotation.

Under those conditions, there would be no reason for a controlled de-orbit, or any de-orbit at all.



Is TsUP claiming that, or is NASA claiming TsUP is claiming that?

http://russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html

Quote
According to NASA, during the day, the mission control in Korolev also asked the current ISS crew, to try to photograph the stricken ship as it passes 170 kilometers below the station around 8:30 p.m. EDT. NASA also said that a previous night, Russian ground controllers had been able to establish communications with the vehicle and review telemetry. Russian controllers configured the refueling system to feed the thrusters (editor's note: in the remaining manifold) and made two unsuccessful attempts to command the thrusters to stabilize the vehicle’s angular rotation, NASA said.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/01/2015 09:37 AM
So, it appears that Progress-59 still has electrical power and the computers are mostly operational. However, that does not necessarily mean that the propulsion systems can be used.

If the RCS is unusable but the OMS is operational, does the computer have the right level of fine control to pulse-fire the OMS engine every time it is pointed in the right direction? If so, then it may be possible to control the de-orbit and ensure the vehicle re-enters over a safe spot.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: woods170 on 05/01/2015 09:48 AM
Coverup of Mars-96 impact on Bolivia
http://www.jamesoberg.com/plutonium.html

I find fault with this piece of text of the above linked article:

Quote from: James Oberg
Since Mars-96 carried four probes designed to enter the Martian atmosphere, they would almost certainly have survived entry into Earth's atmosphere.

The amounts of energy unleashed on a spacecraft on reentry from the Mars 96 final orbit are up to five times larger than those unleashed on a spacecraft on direct entry into the Martian atmosphere after interplanetary flight. Reason: Earths much denser atmosphere.
Suggesting that the probes survived Earth entry because they were designed for Mars entry is a shaky statement at best.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: speedevil on 05/01/2015 12:15 PM
The amounts of energy unleashed on a spacecraft on reentry from the Mars 96 final orbit are up to five times larger than those unleashed on a spacecraft on direct entry into the Martian atmosphere after interplanetary flight. Reason: Earths much denser atmosphere.
Suggesting that the probes survived Earth entry because they were designed for Mars entry is a shaky statement at best.

'Earths denser atmosphere' is at best a shortcut.

If you take two earths, one with 1% atmosphere of the first, then the reentry - up until the point at which it impacts - is identical.

Mars and the earths atmosphere differs by scale height - mars is about 10km, earth about 6.
What this means is that due to the higher gravity (counteracted somewhat by CO2 being heavy) - the earths atmosphere profile is squashed compared to a martian atmosphere a little under twice.

For any given initial trajectory, the density ramps up about twice as fast, meaning decelleration will be about twice as fast, and heating will be about twice.

But, exact trajectory can make much more difference than this, as can if the trajectory is purely ballistic, or is an aerodynamically lifted one.
Then there is the obvious issue that a RV designed to reenter when prepared may not do so well if still bolted to its carrier.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Prober on 05/01/2015 01:01 PM
Getting back on topic.  How are we doing with the orbital decay?

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/01/2015 01:02 PM
Getting back on topic.  How are we doing with the orbital decay?
The Laws of Physics are working on it... ;D
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: AncientU on 05/01/2015 02:28 PM
Interesting quote from Rogozin today:

"So far, no one has any theories as to what happened," he added. "I am meeting with designers today. The situation is so unusual that specialists have so far been unable to determine any causes," Rogozin said

If this is true (ahem... consider the source), then making the argument that the next crew launch is good-to-go is impossible.  Too many common systems that could be at fault.  Continuing with a few Progress launches to increase confidence that this was a one-off failure would help, but still might not be sufficient.

Who makes this call?  I'd assume NASA for NASA astros.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: A12 on 05/01/2015 03:33 PM

 http://russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html  (http://russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html)

Quote

Failure investigation

From the beginning, the investigation into the Progress M-27M failure focused solely on three final seconds in the operation of the Soyuz-2-1a launch vehicle and the separation of the spacecraft. It looked like a delayed command to cutoff the engine of the rocket's third stage held the key to the mystery. The following timeline of those critical moments had emerged by May 1:

Milestone
Actual
Nominal (planned)
Note
Spacecraft separation readiness command
526.26 seconds
?
-
Stage III engine cutoff command, GK-3
526.32 seconds
524.97 seconds
1.35 seconds late
Stage III engine cutoff begins
526.51 seconds
?
-
Loss of telemetry system No. 1
526.67 seconds
N/A
-
Loss of telemetry system No. 2
526.73 seconds
N/A
-
Spacecraft separation
?
528.27 seconds
-
Source: Novosti Kosmonavtiki

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 05/01/2015 03:34 PM
Interesting quote from Rogozin today:

"So far, no one has any theories as to what happened," he added. "I am meeting with designers today. The situation is so unusual that specialists have so far been unable to determine any causes," Rogozin said

If this is true (ahem... consider the source), then making the argument that the next crew launch is good-to-go is impossible.  Too many common systems that could be at fault.  Continuing with a few Progress launches to increase confidence that this was a one-off failure would help, but still might not be sufficient.

Who makes this call?  I'd assume NASA for NASA astros.


I'm on the same page with you.

officials are saying they really haven't come up with ANY theories about what went wrong.

no clue about what could have caused it.

But they still intend to press ahead with launches that share commonality with this one.

in my books that's criminal negligence.

but you guys know I've always hypered myself into frenzies over this sort of thing!
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 05/01/2015 03:52 PM
Well, it has been only three days and two of them was spent trying to salvage the mission.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 05/01/2015 04:12 PM

 http://russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html  (http://russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html)

Quote

Failure investigation

From the beginning, the investigation into the Progress M-27M failure focused solely on three final seconds in the operation of the Soyuz-2-1a launch vehicle and the separation of the spacecraft. It looked like a delayed command to cutoff the engine of the rocket's third stage held the key to the mystery. The following timeline of those critical moments had emerged by May 1:

Milestone
Actual
Nominal (planned)
Note
Spacecraft separation readiness command
526.26 seconds
?
-
Stage III engine cutoff command, GK-3
526.32 seconds
524.97 seconds
1.35 seconds late
Stage III engine cutoff begins
526.51 seconds
?
-
Loss of telemetry system No. 1
526.67 seconds
N/A
-
Loss of telemetry system No. 2
526.73 seconds
N/A
-
Spacecraft separation
?
528.27 seconds
-
Source: Novosti Kosmonavtiki


Well, well this is suggestive - how does the Soyuz-2 determine the time of shut down? I presume this is velocity dependent like every other launcher out there?

Also strange is that telemetry was lost at the moment of engine shutdown, within half a second of it. Must be something violent at shutdown to take out comms from the 3rd stage AND the spacecraft, no?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Jester on 05/01/2015 04:25 PM
T.S. Kelso ‏@TSKelso:

6 more pieces of debris from PROGRESS launch. JSpOC has identified all debris as from the rocket body. 13 pieces have reentered, so far.

  Latest decay estimate on Space Track for PROGRESS-M 27M shows May 9 at 17:33:00 UTC +/-10 hours.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/01/2015 04:32 PM
Could RD-0110 have run to propellant starvation and suffered a bad shutdown as a result?

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/01/2015 04:59 PM
Article on state of play. I avoided some of the things mentioned in here, as there's a thin line between speculation and fact and mainly used what we know and some L2 info and images:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/stricken-progress-m-27m-spotted-iss-entry-evaluation/

Lots of experts on here, so if any of the above could use a refinement, fire a PM at me.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 05/01/2015 05:40 PM
Could RD-0110 have run to propellant starvation and suffered a bad shutdown as a result?

 - Ed Kyle

Were there similar accidents that happened before (at least on the "Western launchers" where details are more clear)?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Stan Black on 05/01/2015 05:57 PM
Could RD-0110 have run to propellant starvation and suffered a bad shutdown as a result?

 - Ed Kyle

Were there similar accidents that happened before (at least on the "Western launchers" where details are more clear)?

Salyut-2?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: mn on 05/01/2015 08:13 PM
Could RD-0110 have run to propellant starvation and suffered a bad shutdown as a result?

 - Ed Kyle

Wouldn't that suggest that under nominal conditions the upper stage has only 1.5 seconds of fuel margin. Is that 'nominal'? (not trying to imply anything, just asking because I have no idea one way or another)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Thomas Dorman on 05/01/2015 08:18 PM
Just want to know what is thoughts about the possibility that the upper stage may have rear ended or bumped the Progress space just after separation? Looking at diagrams of the Progress spacecraft several different components of the propulsion system, thruster, tanks, etc. are located in the very rear of the spacecraft which would have been facing the upper stage. If here had been a bump of the rocket body against these components seems it could explain why the propulsion systems was unable to pressurize.
In addition could such a bump or collision account for the communication failures that took place that such impact could have inflicted shock stresses on parts of the communication and electrical systems? There is a least one antenna that is located on the rear of the spacecraft.
Also could some one comment on what they think that my have caused the debris field (44 fragments observed by Space Command) near the spacecraft.
Regards
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: saliva_sweet on 05/01/2015 09:13 PM
Could RD-0110 have run to propellant starvation and suffered a bad shutdown as a result?

 - Ed Kyle

Wouldn't that suggest that under nominal conditions the upper stage has only 1.5 seconds of fuel margin. Is that 'nominal'? (not trying to imply anything, just asking because I have no idea one way or another)

There were some reports the engine may have been going at abnormally high power through the flight. Combine that with delayed shutdown and a hard shutdown appears plausible.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 05/01/2015 09:23 PM
Could RD-0110 have run to propellant starvation and suffered a bad shutdown as a result?

This is the nightmare scenario for any bi-prop system, where one prop stops feeding [several causes] while the other continues. It's why you have low-level sensors for the SSMEs. Ox-rich burn can be 'energetic' very rapidly.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: baldusi on 05/02/2015 12:19 AM
Could RD-0110 have run to propellant starvation and suffered a bad shutdown as a result?

This is the nightmare scenario for any bi-prop system, where one prop stops feeding [several causes] while the other continues. It's why you have low-level sensors for the SSMEs. Ox-rich burn can be 'energetic' very rapidly.
RD-0110 is a gas generator with just 1000psi of Pc. It would be less energetic than the Falcon 9/CRS-1 anomaly. Besides, it could have staved the oxidizer rather than the fuel, which would actually starve the ignition. The KbKhA did stated that the engine was run over spec. I'm suspecting an excess of oxidizer could have caused that, by increasing the O/F and thus running closed to stoicometric.
It still doesn't explains why the Progress ended up the way it did. I just haven't been able to get any speculation that covers the whole set of data that we have.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: gonucelar on 05/02/2015 03:32 AM
Here is some info (in Russian) (http://alex-moskalenko.livejournal.com/486247.html) from a guy who apparently worked at the mission control. Here is my translation:

Plain facts about the Progress M-27M spacecraft

1. Telemetry both from the launch vehicle and from the Progress spacecraft stopped 3 seconds before the spacecraft separation.

2. According to ground observations, Progress did separate from the the launch vehicle.

3. According to the sporadic telemetry received, two antennas didn't deploy and the onboard computer crashed. A decision to switch from the 4-orbit approach and docking maneuver to the traditional 2-day scheme was made.

4. According to "radio monitoring" of the orbit, the apogee was 40km higher than planned.

5. Launch vehicle experts from the Samara plant [which produces Soyuz rockets] reported to the investigative body that the orbital insertion was nominal and that the radio equipment used to determine the orbit parameters was faulty.

6. After the 2nd orbit, these launch vehicle experts admitted that they couldn't confirm the spacecraft separation due to the lack of telemetry, and the orbital data they reported earlier were based on the planned insertion orbit and not on actual spacecraft data.

7. After switching on the TV transmitter, it was determined that the Progress rotates at about 1 revolution per 3 seconds. This explains the sporadic telemetry reception.

8. NORAD detected a cloud of 44 fragments between the 3rd stage and the spacecraft.

9. The next day, an attempt was made to stop the spacecraft rotation. It wasn't successful - despite the fact that spacecraft thrusters did work. Experts came to the conclusion that fuel lines were damaged. [working thrusters with damaged fuel lines looks like a contradiction to me, but this is what the text says]

10. Switching the spacecraft to manual control was deemed pointless.

11. Another attempt to stop the rotation using  "another collector" [a backup set of thrusters?]  was unsuccessful.

12. The spacecraft is officially considered uncontrollable. The orbit is being monitored.

13. An uncontrolled reentry is expected between May 5 and 8.

14. That's the whole facts for now.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 05/02/2015 06:39 AM
Here is some info (in Russian) (http://alex-moskalenko.livejournal.com/486247.html) from a guy who apparently worked at the mission control.
Correction - he works there, not worked - head of TORU group and MCC-M ISS control room coordinator (according to his profile). He seems to be certain that 3rd stage is to blame for the event - either it exploded, or collided with the spacecraft, or both. Nothing was wrong with the spacecraft itself (except now it looks more like Swiss cheese after collision with/explosion of 3rd stage).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Remes on 05/02/2015 08:01 AM
11. Another attempt to stop the rotation using  "another collector" [a backup set of thrusters?]  was unsuccessful.
I guess this is the redundant second manifold he is talking about.

I just haven't been able to get any speculation that covers the whole set of data that we have.
How about this scenario:
- Malfunction in RD-0110 leads to higher power output than planned
- 3 seconds before staging overpowered RD-0110 leads to RUD
- RUD cuts of telemetry
- RUD leads to venting and/or explosion, which leads to a rotation of 3rd stage and Progress (there must have been some force for quite a while to create that angular momentum)
- staging occurs, 3rd stage hits Progress. Or staging can't fire all bolts and staging tears apart parts of Progress
- while staging/collision: demolition of Progress propulsion section, pressure vessels, ...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: hrissan on 05/02/2015 09:48 AM
Here is some info (in Russian) (http://alex-moskalenko.livejournal.com/486247.html) from a guy who apparently worked at the mission control. Here is my translation:

Plain facts about the Progress M-27M spacecraft

1. Telemetry both from the launch vehicle and from the Progress spacecraft stopped 3 seconds before the spacecraft separation.

2. According to ground observations, Progress did separate from the the launch vehicle.

3. According to the sporadic telemetry received, two antennas didn't deploy and the onboard computer crashed. A decision to switch from the 4-orbit approach and docking maneuver to the traditional 2-day scheme was made.

4. According to "radio monitoring" of the orbit, the apogee was 40km higher than planned.

5. Launch vehicle experts from the Samara plant [which produces Soyuz rockets] reported to the investigative body that the orbital insertion was nominal and that the radio equipment used to determine the orbit parameters was faulty.

6. After the 2nd orbit, these launch vehicle experts admitted that they couldn't confirm the spacecraft separation due to the lack of telemetry, and the orbital data they reported earlier were based on the planned insertion orbit and not on actual spacecraft data.

7. After switching on the TV transmitter, it was determined that the Progress rotates at about 1 revolution per 3 seconds. This explains the sporadic telemetry reception.

8. NORAD detected a cloud of 44 fragments between the 3rd stage and the spacecraft.

9. The next day, an attempt was made to stop the spacecraft rotation. It wasn't successful - despite the fact that spacecraft thrusters did work. Experts came to the conclusion that fuel lines were damaged. [working thrusters with damaged fuel lines looks like a contradiction to me, but this is what the text says]

10. Switching the spacecraft to manual control was deemed pointless.

11. Another attempt to stop the rotation using  "another collector" [a backup set of thrusters?]  was unsuccessful.

12. The spacecraft is officially considered uncontrollable. The orbit is being monitored.

13. An uncontrolled reentry is expected between May 5 and 8.

14. That's the whole facts for now.
This guy leads TORU operation group in Baikonur, exams cosmonauts on manual spacecraft control :). He refers to the spacecraft as "we, ours" and launcher guys as "they".

And if you read his further comments:

Quote
Most likely 3rd stage exploded, "kicked ass" of the progress, punctured various systems with fragments.

We are tired to lose the spacecraft because someone did not do their job. It it the second time when 3d stage destroys the spacecraft.

"Every error has a family name", I'd start giving prison terms already.
Yeah he feels that sorry. :)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 05/02/2015 11:45 AM
Here is some info (in Russian) (http://alex-moskalenko.livejournal.com/486247.html) from a guy who apparently worked at the mission control. Here is my translation:

...

14. That's the whole facts for now.


Important and intriguing news, thank you.

It does leave unresolved the question of how much propellant remains on board. In this scenario, it seems most of it would have been unused, but how would much of it escape? Remember that fluid flow in these systems is pressure fed, punching a crack or hole in a tank is a very slow seepage process.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/02/2015 12:00 PM
Could RD-0110 have run to propellant starvation and suffered a bad shutdown as a result?

This is the nightmare scenario for any bi-prop system, where one prop stops feeding [several causes] while the other continues. It's why you have low-level sensors for the SSMEs. Ox-rich burn can be 'energetic' very rapidly.
Energetic as in RUD...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: cscott on 05/02/2015 02:34 PM
Here is some info (in Russian) (http://alex-moskalenko.livejournal.com/486247.html) from a guy who apparently worked at the mission control. Here is my translation:

Plain facts about the Progress M-27M spacecraft

1. Telemetry both from the launch vehicle and from the Progress spacecraft stopped 3 seconds before the spacecraft separation.

2. According to ground observations, Progress did separate from the the launch vehicle.

3. According to the sporadic telemetry received, two antennas didn't deploy and the onboard computer crashed. A decision to switch from the 4-orbit approach and docking maneuver to the traditional 2-day scheme was made.

4. According to "radio monitoring" of the orbit, the apogee was 40km higher than planned.

5. Launch vehicle experts from the Samara plant [which produces Soyuz rockets] reported to the investigative body that the orbital insertion was nominal and that the radio equipment used to determine the orbit parameters was faulty.

6. After the 2nd orbit, these launch vehicle experts admitted that they couldn't confirm the spacecraft separation due to the lack of telemetry, and the orbital data they reported earlier were based on the planned insertion orbit and not on actual spacecraft data.

7. After switching on the TV transmitter, it was determined that the Progress rotates at about 1 revolution per 3 seconds. This explains the sporadic telemetry reception.

8. NORAD detected a cloud of 44 fragments between the 3rd stage and the spacecraft.

9. The next day, an attempt was made to stop the spacecraft rotation. It wasn't successful - despite the fact that spacecraft thrusters did work. Experts came to the conclusion that fuel lines were damaged. [working thrusters with damaged fuel lines looks like a contradiction to me, but this is what the text says]

10. Switching the spacecraft to manual control was deemed pointless.

11. Another attempt to stop the rotation using  "another collector" [a backup set of thrusters?]  was unsuccessful.

12. The spacecraft is officially considered uncontrollable. The orbit is being monitored.

13. An uncontrolled reentry is expected between May 5 and 8.

14. That's the whole facts for now.
This guy leads TORU operation group in Baikonur, exams cosmonauts on manual spacecraft control :). He refers to the spacecraft as "we, ours" and launcher guys as "they".

And if you read his further comments:

Quote
Most likely 3rd stage exploded, "kicked ass" of the progress, punctured various systems with fragments.

We are tired to lose the spacecraft because someone did not do their job. It it the second time when 3d stage destroys the spacecraft.

"Every error has a family name", I'd start giving prison terms already.
Yeah he feels that sorry. :)
Can someone remind me what happened the first time the "3rd stage destroyed the spacecraft"?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 05/02/2015 02:39 PM
Can someone remind me what happened the first time the "3rd stage destroyed the spacecraft"?

Progress M-12M in August 2011 - didn't even reach orbit because the 3rd stage engine failed.  ;)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/02/2015 04:57 PM
Progress M-12M in August 2011 - didn't even reach orbit because the 3rd stage engine failed.  ;)

Original thread is http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25702.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25702.0)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: baldusi on 05/02/2015 05:28 PM
11. Another attempt to stop the rotation using  "another collector" [a backup set of thrusters?]  was unsuccessful.
I guess this is the redundant second manifold he is talking about.

I just haven't been able to get any speculation that covers the whole set of data that we have.
How about this scenario:
- Malfunction in RD-0110 leads to higher power output than planned
- 3 seconds before staging overpowered RD-0110 leads to RUD
- RUD cuts of telemetry
- RUD leads to venting and/or explosion, which leads to a rotation of 3rd stage and Progress (there must have been some force for quite a while to create that angular momentum)
- staging occurs, 3rd stage hits Progress. Or staging can't fire all bolts and staging tears apart parts of Progress
- while staging/collision: demolition of Progress propulsion section, pressure vessels, ...
Gas Generator's RUD is not that bad, and they would have had the whole Block-I tanks between the RD-0110 and the Progress. I could rather see something on the Soyzu-2.1a control system. If they had over run the engines a bit, the vibration could have generated a pipe dislocation. I rather see that the transient to engine shutdown was longer and might have generated a re contact. But is not quite a good fit, either.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Carlos Bella on 05/02/2015 07:28 PM
This night, using the cameras of the Brazilian Meteor Observers Network (BRAMON) we successful record the passage of the Progress M-27M in the skies of the country's midwest. In all three cameras were used, one pointed to West (ID: MAD) and one to North (ID: MAD2). In this way we can capture the entire trajectory.

The average magnitude displayed was 0.5 but the flashes was the notable, with a period of 3.2 seconds. Existe a secondary maximum between two main maxima, this may indicate that the ship has its rotation axis almost parallel to the Earth's surface.

(in the second imagem the lower trace is an airplane)

Regards
Carlos
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 05/02/2015 08:24 PM

Gas Generator's RUD is not that bad, and they would have had the whole Block-I tanks between the RD-0110 and the Progress. I could rather see something on the Soyzu-2.1a control system. If they had over run the engines a bit, the vibration could have generated a pipe dislocation. I rather see that the transient to engine shutdown was longer and might have generated a re contact. But is not quite a good fit, either.

The fact that something went wrong with the third stage just before separation indicates that the Progress problems were probably caused by the performance of the third stage, and were not caused by a system within Progress.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 05/02/2015 08:29 PM
And now for something completely different:

The next issue is going to be whether the Soyuz booster is safe for a crewed launch.

My first answer is: sure, because Soyuz is designed so that if the PAO propulsion system fails at separation, the Soyuz descent module will re-enter very quickly.

However, a new failure mode seems to have emerged, where the third stage overperforms and then kills the PAO. In that case, as we are seeing, the spacecraft does not decay in two or three days, but rather 10 days, and the Soyuz life support system cannot maintain a 3 person crew for that long.

My recommendation would be to delay the next Soyuz crew launch, until another unmanned Soyuz launch is conducted, even if it means a 3 person crew at ISS for a month or two.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 05/02/2015 08:42 PM
And now for something completely different:

The next issue is going to be whether the Soyuz booster is safe for a crewed launch.

My first answer is: sure, because Soyuz is designed so that if the PAO propulsion system fails at separation, the Soyuz descent module will re-enter very quickly.

However, a new failure mode seems to have emerged, where the third stage overperforms and then kills the PAO. In that case, as we are seeing, the spacecraft does not decay in two or three days, but rather 10 days, and the Soyuz life support system cannot maintain a 3 person crew for that long.

My recommendation would be to delay the next Soyuz crew launch, until another unmanned Soyuz launch is conducted, even if it means a 3 person crew at ISS for a month or two.

From what I understand the next crew is launching on a Soyuz FG, a different variant of the Soyuz rocket family. That said both Soyuz 2 and Soyuz FG share an RD-0110 engine in the upper stage so if the fault does lie with the engine manned launches may have to be suspended.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 05/02/2015 08:42 PM
My recommendation would be to delay the next Soyuz crew launch, until another unmanned Soyuz launch is conducted, even if it means a 3 person crew at ISS for a month or two.
There is a Soyuz 2-1A launch with a Kobalt M satellite on May 15, two days after the investigate commission is due to issue their preliminary report. I think it's safe to say that one will be delayed.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: baldusi on 05/02/2015 09:27 PM
And now for something completely different:

The next issue is going to be whether the Soyuz booster is safe for a crewed launch.

My first answer is: sure, because Soyuz is designed so that if the PAO propulsion system fails at separation, the Soyuz descent module will re-enter very quickly.

However, a new failure mode seems to have emerged, where the third stage overperforms and then kills the PAO. In that case, as we are seeing, the spacecraft does not decay in two or three days, but rather 10 days, and the Soyuz life support system cannot maintain a 3 person crew for that long.

My recommendation would be to delay the next Soyuz crew launch, until another unmanned Soyuz launch is conducted, even if it means a 3 person crew at ISS for a month or two.

From what I understand the next crew is launching on a Soyuz FG, a different variant of the Soyuz rocket family. That said both Soyuz 2 and Soyuz FG share an RD-0110 engine in the upper stage so if the fault does lie with the engine manned launches may have to be suspended.
KBKhA has stated that the engine was run over specification. If they released that statement they must have the telemetry for that. First, it sound a lot more an avionics problem than an engine problem. And avionics is one of the differences between Soyuz-FG and Soyuz-2.1a. Let's remember that RD-01110 has 1,692 missions under its belt. The 2.1a avionics just 22.
I wouldn't launch a crew until I understand the issue at hand. It is a very rare occurrence what happened here. It's not that strange, since this were some 280 missions between Progress and Soyuz, and thus very strange failures tend to crop up when you do a lot of missions.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/03/2015 12:57 PM
My recommendation would be to delay the next Soyuz crew launch, until another unmanned Soyuz launch is conducted, even if it means a 3 person crew at ISS for a month or two.

There is a Soyuz 2-1A launch with a Kobalt M satellite on May 15, two days after the investigate commission is due to issue their preliminary report. I think it's safe to say that one will be delayed.

Not necessarily. It depends on how political it gets. The launcher may be 'deemed safe' for prestige reasons 'as the report's recommendations have already been applied in full'. Then it's anyone's guess if the satellite is properly delivered or just shredded.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/03/2015 03:03 PM
"Allowing the propagation to continue until decay, results in impact (10 km altitude) on 2015 May 09 near 07:40 UTC. The uncertainty is 30 h, based on the rule of thumb of 20 percent of the estimated time remaining to decay, measured from the epoch of the latter of the two TLEs."

-- Ted Molczan via Seesat-l
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: smoliarm on 05/03/2015 03:10 PM
I'd like to ask some questions about orbit decay and re-entry position prediction - on the example of Progress M-27M:

Currently, Progress' orbit has perihelion at ~ 47° North
-- is it fair to say that re-entry occurs most likely at perihelion ?

During orbital decay, could perihelion drift significantly?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: sunbingfa on 05/03/2015 03:40 PM
Maybe someone has asked this: If this Progress was a crew launch of Soyuz (same upstage?), and same thing happened, what could the crew do differently to save themselves?
That may be crucial to determine whether the crew launch should be delayed.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Joffan on 05/03/2015 03:42 PM
I'd like to ask some questions about orbit decay and re-entry position prediction - on the example of Progress M-27M:

Currently, Progress' orbit has perihelion at ~ 47° North
-- is it fair to say that re-entry occurs most likely at perihelion ?

During orbital decay, could perihelion drift significantly?

Actually "perigee", since the body being orbited is the Earth. But yes, the perigee will move as drag operates to advance the perigee around the orbit.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 05/03/2015 03:49 PM
Maybe someone has asked this: If this Progress was a crew launch of Soyuz (same upstage?), and same thing happened, what could the crew do differently to save themselves?
That may be crucial to determine whether the crew launch should be delayed.
Considering that it seems like based on the recent reports that all the propellant is gone, there is nothing they could have done as you need propellant to operate the thrusters and arrest the spin. Another factor is the actual rate of the spin. I believe it's high enough to induce G-LOC even in the best fit and trained fighter pilots.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: RonM on 05/03/2015 04:00 PM
Maybe someone has asked this: If this Progress was a crew launch of Soyuz (same upstage?), and same thing happened, what could the crew do differently to save themselves?
That may be crucial to determine whether the crew launch should be delayed.
Considering that it seems like based on the recent reports that all the propellant is gone, there is nothing they could have done as you need propellant to operate the thrusters and arrest the spin. Another factor is the actual rate of the spin. I believe it's high enough to induce G-LOC even in the best fit and trained fighter pilots.

Gemini 8 spun up to one revolution per second and Armstrong was still able to regain control of the ship. At that rotation the crew was in danger of losing consciousness. Progress is not spinning that fast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_8#Emergency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_8#Emergency)

Gemini had two sets of thrusters with separate fuel supplies. Does Soyuz have a backup system?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 05/03/2015 04:04 PM
Maybe someone has asked this: If this Progress was a crew launch of Soyuz (same upstage?), and same thing happened, what could the crew do differently to save themselves?
That may be crucial to determine whether the crew launch should be delayed.
Considering that it seems like based on the recent reports that all the propellant is gone, there is nothing they could have done as you need propellant to operate the thrusters and arrest the spin. Another factor is the actual rate of the spin. I believe it's high enough to induce G-LOC even in the best fit and trained fighter pilots.

Gemini 8 spun up to one revolution per second and Armstrong was still able to regain control of the ship. At that rotation the crew was in danger of losing consciousness. Progress is not spinning that fast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_8#Emergency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemini_8#Emergency)

Gemini had two sets of thrusters with separate fuel supplies. Does Soyuz have a backup system?

Other than the rather weak and limited orientation thrusters on the Descent Module, no.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: fgonella on 05/03/2015 04:27 PM
If it were a manned Soyuz, could there have been a LON of sorts (one Soyuz with one pilot) to dock with the damaged craft and rescue the crew? Maybe, if no Soyuz were ready to launch, to send one of those docked at the ISS?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: TR1 on 05/03/2015 04:27 PM
What is the separation mechanism between the Soyuz 3rd stage and Progress?

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 05/03/2015 04:29 PM
I wonder if a structural failure of the upper kerosene tank of the rocket's 3rd stage have enough power to damage both the spacecraft and the 3rd stage itself, as well as causing the slightly higher orbit (12 m/s overspeed as calculated by others) and the debris field? It would explain all the known facts so far if such a blast is powerful enough, as various members on the NK forum pointed out today.

Keep in mind that the upper kerosene tank on the Soyuz-2's block I (both the 1a and 1b variants) was redesigned from a spherical shape to a tapered cone for more propellant, and it only flew less than 50 times - who knows if this design is prone to metal fatigue. There's of course also the possibility of bad welds and stringer problems.....
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ellindsey on 05/03/2015 04:41 PM
If it were a manned Soyuz, could there have been a LON of sorts (one Soyuz with one pilot) to dock with the damaged craft and rescue the crew? Maybe, if no Soyuz were ready to launch, to send one of those docked at the ISS?

The docking port on the Soyuz isn't androgynous.  Soyuz and Progress have probe-type ports, and the ISS has the drogue side.  You can't dock two unmodified Soyuz to each other, and modifying a Soyuz to have a drogue port wouldn't be quick.

Maybe you could bring one near the other and then have the stranded crew spacewalk across, similar to the shuttle rescue idea that was developed after Columbia was lost.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 05/03/2015 04:42 PM
The Soyuz spacecraft has redundant prop manifolds, same as Progress.

In the event that both manifolds fail after separation, the spacecraft would normally decay after two or three days. However, if the third stage over-performs and the Soyuz manifolds both fail at separation, that would be a problem.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: baldusi on 05/03/2015 06:12 PM
The Soyuz spacecraft has redundant prop manifolds, same as Progress.

In the event that both manifolds fail after separation, the spacecraft would normally decay after two or three days. However, if the third stage over-performs and the Soyuz manifolds both fail at separation, that would be a problem.
On the other hand, humans could do try a few things. Can they separate the orbital module? That should take quite a bit of momentum. Or separate the return capsule, which must have some RCS by itself, right?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 05/03/2015 06:27 PM
Or separate the return capsule, which must have some RCS by itself, right?

Only for orientation control during reentry. The Descent Compartment, if alone, couldn't reenter before natural decay.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 05/03/2015 06:32 PM
Let's remember that RD-01110 has 1,692 missions under its belt. The 2.1a avionics just 22.

RD-0110 flew 280 times on Molnia-M, 31 times on Soyuz, 3 times on Soyuz-L, 8 times on Soyuz-M, 782 times on Soyuz-U, 71 times on Soyuz-U2, 51 times on Soyuz-FG, 19 times on Soyuz-2.1a, and 3 times on Soyuz-ST-A.

Total number of flights (including Progress M-27M) : 1248.

EDIT : 51 flight for Soyuz-FG, not 50 ! Thank you baldusi.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/03/2015 06:37 PM
If it were a manned Soyuz, could there have been a LON of sorts (one Soyuz with one pilot) to dock with the damaged craft and rescue the crew? Maybe, if no Soyuz were ready to launch, to send one of those docked at the ISS?

No. The Soyuz (assuming one with a 'female' docking interface was available) can only carry three crew. It is too small to squeeze in one more, unlike Apollo that could, at an extreme, carry five.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 05/03/2015 06:46 PM
If it were a manned Soyuz, could there have been a LON of sorts (one Soyuz with one pilot) to dock with the damaged craft and rescue the crew? Maybe, if no Soyuz were ready to launch, to send one of those docked at the ISS?

No. The Soyuz (assuming one with a 'female' docking interface was available) can only carry three crew. It is too small to squeeze in one more, unlike Apollo that could, at an extreme, carry five.

And it would need a female docking port, PLUS a passive Kurs rendez-vous system. And even with all of this, docking would be possible only with a more or less stable Soyuz, which would be impossible in case of total propellant depletion. And I think it would take several weeks to Energya's teams to refit an existing Soyuz TMA-M with the female hardwares, even on a 24/7 shift.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Stan Black on 05/03/2015 08:45 PM
Maybe someone has asked this: If this Progress was a crew launch of Soyuz (same upstage?), and same thing happened, what could the crew do differently to save themselves?
That may be crucial to determine whether the crew launch should be delayed.
Considering that it seems like based on the recent reports that all the propellant is gone, there is nothing they could have done as you need propellant to operate the thrusters and arrest the spin. Another factor is the actual rate of the spin. I believe it's high enough to induce G-LOC even in the best fit and trained fighter pilots.
Would a crewed launch have gone that far? At what point would it abort?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kch on 05/03/2015 09:11 PM
Maybe someone has asked this: If this Progress was a crew launch of Soyuz (same upstage?), and same thing happened, what could the crew do differently to save themselves?
That may be crucial to determine whether the crew launch should be delayed.

Considering that it seems like based on the recent reports that all the propellant is gone, there is nothing they could have done as you need propellant to operate the thrusters and arrest the spin. Another factor is the actual rate of the spin. I believe it's high enough to induce G-LOC even in the best fit and trained fighter pilots.

Would a crewed launch have gone that far? At what point would it abort?

If I'm not mistaken, everything looked fine until upper stage shutdown.  If the same thing happened on a crewed launch, why would it abort?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 05/03/2015 09:28 PM
Probe and Cone is androgynous, in the sense that the male and female adapters are easy to switch out. There is generally an extra female adapter hanging around ISS, so mounting it on a Soyuz would be easy. Of course, once that Soyuz leaves ISS, it's not going to be able to dock with ISS or any other vehicle again.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 05/03/2015 09:47 PM
Can they separate the orbital module? That should take quite a bit of momentum. Or separate the return capsule, which must have some RCS by itself, right?

Separating the orbital module might generate a fraction of a meter per second, if performed perfectly, but the resulting stack would decay more slowly, due to higher density.

The descent module has ACS, but no RCS.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 05/03/2015 10:40 PM
Can they separate the orbital module? That should take quite a bit of momentum. Or separate the return capsule, which must have some RCS by itself, right?

Separating the orbital module might generate a fraction of a meter per second, if performed perfectly, but the resulting stack would decay more slowly, due to higher density.

The descent module has ACS, but no RCS.

In 'Gravity' they used the cute [but of course unworkable] idea to get delta-V into the Soyuz by fooling the descent radar into firing the terminal braking engines. Of course it can't be done, but I was impressed with the effort at a superficially plausible trick.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 05/04/2015 12:23 AM
In 'Gravity' they used the cute [but of course unworkable] idea to get delta-V into the Soyuz by fooling the descent radar into firing the terminal braking engines. Of course it can't be done, but I was impressed with the effort at a superficially plausible trick.
You'd need to dump heatshield as soft-landing engines are covered by it. This will surely seal the fate of crew.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 05/04/2015 02:39 AM
There is  a pretty good likelihood that the midsection prop tanks were neither vented to space, or leaked out, or even were damaged at separation. Since to access these tanks requires positive action, these will probably be filled when Progress re-enters.

I can't figure out why the mid section thrusters cannot be used with this prop to control Progress, unless my assumption is wrong, and even the mid section was impacted by the separation event.

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: darkenfast on 05/04/2015 02:56 AM
Maybe I've missed it, but have there been any attempts to image the third stage or ascertain if it is tumbling too?  Not sure how that would help, I'm just curious.  Or does it start tumbling after separation, anyway?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Jim on 05/04/2015 03:08 AM

I can't figure out why the mid section thrusters cannot be used with this prop to control Progress, unless my assumption is wrong, and even the mid section was impacted by the separation event.


They are for translation control and not rotation control
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: the_other_Doug on 05/04/2015 03:34 AM
Maybe I've missed it, but have there been any attempts to image the third stage or ascertain if it is tumbling too?  Not sure how that would help, I'm just curious.  Or does it start tumbling after separation, anyway?

My understanding is that the third stage is in a bunch of pieces -- more than 40, if the skin tracking is accurate.  And has been since orbital insertion.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: darkenfast on 05/04/2015 03:39 AM
Maybe I've missed it, but have there been any attempts to image the third stage or ascertain if it is tumbling too?  Not sure how that would help, I'm just curious.  Or does it start tumbling after separation, anyway?

My understanding is that the third stage is in a bunch of pieces -- more than 40, if the skin tracking is accurate.  And has been since orbital insertion.

I knew about the pieces, but I thought it was pieces that were associated with the third stage, not pieces that were all that was left of the third stage.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: gwiz on 05/04/2015 09:39 AM
The third stage re-entered a day after launch, some of the fragments were longer-lived.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Prober on 05/04/2015 11:44 AM
Maybe I've missed it, but have there been any attempts to image the third stage or ascertain if it is tumbling too?  Not sure how that would help, I'm just curious.  Or does it start tumbling after separation, anyway?

My understanding is that the third stage is in a bunch of pieces -- more than 40, if the skin tracking is accurate.  And has been since orbital insertion.

not sure If its just the 3rd stage parts and maybe some Progress parts in there.

ok, let's focus on this then; do we know how large these 40 pieces are?  We might then be able get an idea where were these parts were located.

Anyway we go, this has been its very educational, and interesting.

Edit; poorly written

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 05/04/2015 11:59 AM
The third stage re-entered a day after launch, some of the fragments were longer-lived.

If the third stage overperformed, why would it re-enter as quickly as third stages that perform nominally?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: meekGee on 05/04/2015 12:16 PM
The third stage re-entered a day after launch, some of the fragments were longer-lived.
If that's true, then something made it reenter early. 

Either there's an automatic action like propellant vent that happens on a timer, or this is a good hint there was some sort of explosion.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jcm on 05/04/2015 01:37 PM
The third stage re-entered a day after launch, some of the fragments were longer-lived.
If that's true, then something made it reenter early. 

Either there's an automatic action like propellant vent that happens on a timer, or this is a good hint there was some sort of explosion.

1 day is actually quite normal for the third stage. However, I do note that space-track tags the radar cross section
of object B as 'small', while the third stage would normally be 'large', so it's just possible B is not actually the main part of the third stage. These RCS categories aren't very reliable though.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/04/2015 01:40 PM
Re.: Radar-cross section. Is there any kind of thermal lining to the LOX tanks that would make debris fragments from the tanks look larger on radar (due to very high RF reflection) than they actually are? I'm thinking about how shiny the Merlin-1d-VAC's expansion nozzle looks at infra-red-frequencies, far more than at optical.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 05/04/2015 01:45 PM


1 day is actually quite normal for the third stage. However, I do note that space-track tags the radar cross section
of object B as 'small', while the third stage would normally be 'large', so it's just possible B is not actually the main part of the third stage. These RCS categories aren't very reliable though.

Just to be clear, my point was that the initial reports were that the third stage overperformed, and generated 12 m/s extra velocity; if that were the case, why would the third stage orbit for this flight decay as quickly as any other Soyuz third stage?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 05/04/2015 01:48 PM
From discussion on NK forum, it seems that LV TM has confirmed nominal RD-0110 engine shutdown - drop of fuel pressure at combustion chamber valves has been confirmed which all but prevents engine from running.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: meekGee on 05/04/2015 01:53 PM
The third stage re-entered a day after launch, some of the fragments were longer-lived.
If that's true, then something made it reenter early. 

Either there's an automatic action like propellant vent that happens on a timer, or this is a good hint there was some sort of explosion.

1 day is actually quite normal for the third stage. However, I do note that space-track tags the radar cross section
of object B as 'small', while the third stage would normally be 'large', so it's just possible B is not actually the main part of the third stage. These RCS categories aren't very reliable though.
Sure.  I don't know what's normal, but the stage and fragments should have had similar starting trajectories.  The stage contains large masses, but also an empty tank.  fragments can be anything, depending on what generated them.  In my mind, it is more likely that they'll be lightweight.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/04/2015 01:54 PM
1 day is actually quite normal for the third stage. However, I do note that space-track tags the radar cross section
of object B as 'small', while the third stage would normally be 'large', so it's just possible B is not actually the main part of the third stage. These RCS categories aren't very reliable though.
Or maybe the largest fragment of what was left of the third stage...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: hrissan on 05/04/2015 04:10 PM
More comments by alex moskalenko http://alex-moskalenko.livejournal.com/486247.html#comments

Quote
We have descent quality telemetry

We are sure it was not spacecraft malfunction

Spacecraft tank pressurization starts at the separation signal, takes ~30 seconds

Computer did not turn on engines (thrusters?) because of spacecraft condition

We tried to use thrusters in an attempt to null the angular speed, but the momentum from fuel leaking out from the lines with 12 atm pressure was stronger!

We had 1400kg fuel initially, how much left is now irrelevant
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Star One on 05/04/2015 06:04 PM
Progress re-entry prediction.

http://www.aerospace.org/cords/reentry-predictions/upcoming-reentries-2-2/2015-024a/
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/04/2015 06:19 PM
Progress re-entry prediction.

http://www.aerospace.org/cords/reentry-predictions/upcoming-reentries-2-2/2015-024a/

That's not as easy as I thought it would be to interpret. Is the pink bar the 'median' point at the centre of the re-entry uncertainty field?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jgoldader on 05/04/2015 06:24 PM
Progress re-entry prediction.

http://www.aerospace.org/cords/reentry-predictions/upcoming-reentries-2-2/2015-024a/

That's not as easy as I thought it would be to interpret. Is the pink bar the 'median' point at the centre of the re-entry uncertainty field?

The way I read it, the width of the bar is the "diameter" of the visibility region.  The important take-away is that with the uncertainty of +/- 31 hours, it could hit basically anywhere between the north and south limits.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/04/2015 07:00 PM
Looks like the USS Lake Erie is out of action for a shoot down. The boat just got in trouble over it's mascot. http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/04/30/navy-cruiser-lake-erie-goat-san-diego/26568241/
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 05/04/2015 08:13 PM
The later the decay, the more massive the object. This drift in predicted decay is trying to tell us something about how much propellant is still on board?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: catdlr on 05/04/2015 09:42 PM
HDEV Video: Progress 59 From the ISS

UrtheCast

Published on May 4, 2015
HDEV video of Progress 59. Courtesy of NASA and UrtheCast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nya0BaXqi1I
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/04/2015 10:24 PM
I wonder if there's any way to enhance that for a closer view? I think - in full screen and full res - you can see reflections from the spin.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: catdlr on 05/05/2015 03:14 AM
I wonder if there's any way to enhance that for a closer view? I think - in full screen and full res - you can see reflections from the spin.

This is the best I can do.  The original was 720P (which I find funny that they would only provide that instead of 1080P).

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/05/2015 06:36 AM
Latest info from Anatoly Zak http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html#investigation (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html#investigation):

Quote
According to sources at RKTs Progress, telemetry from the spacecraft stopped coming slightly earlier than from the rocket. At the same time, the evidence was increasingly pointing toward an explosion onboard the rocket, which damaged the spacecraft, while some considerable force still propelled both vehicles to different orbits. At the same time, the spacecraft reportedly never fired its engines and all its propellant had remained intact, according to available telemetry. In addition, it takes 30 seconds for the propulsion system onboard the Progress to be pressurized -- clearly not enough to make it operational at the time of the accident. Moreover, an apparent failure of the main computer onboard Progress M-27M blocked dynamic operations onboard the spacecraft.

Investigators also concluded that after the pressurization, the propellant under pressure of around 12 atmospheres was venting from lines punctured by a nearby explosion of the third stage, causing the tumbling of the spacecraft, a source at the mission control in Korolev said.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/05/2015 08:49 AM
It's definitely becoming clearer that this was a failure in the launch vehicle. The question now is whether the failure was in the propulsion hardware or somewhere in the control system. The combination of over-thrust throughout the burn and an explosion towards the end makes me think that the engine is at fault but I'll defer to those with more knowledge.

I have no doubt that the engine manufacturers and control system manufacturers are currently competing over who can denounce the other's shoddy workmanship loudest.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 05/05/2015 11:07 AM
It's definitely becoming clearer that this was a failure in the launch vehicle. The question now is whether the failure was in the propulsion hardware or somewhere in the control system. The combination of over-thrust throughout the burn and an explosion towards the end makes me think that the engine is at fault but I'll defer to those with more knowledge.

I have no doubt that the engine manufacturers and control system manufacturers are currently competing over who can denounce the other's shoddy workmanship loudest.

There's another possibility that I think is more likely - mis-firing of the spacecraft separation pyrotechnic bolts. IIRC there were similar cases that caused serious damage to satellites (though probably not as dramatic as this one with the spacecraft still attached to the rocket stage).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/05/2015 01:13 PM
I wonder if there's any way to enhance that for a closer view? I think - in full screen and full res - you can see reflections from the spin.

This is the best I can do.  The original was 720P (which I find funny that they would only provide that instead of 1080P).



Thanks for the effort. Yeah - hard to see....but worth a go!
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/05/2015 01:27 PM
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/May-2015/0042.html

"Allowing the propagation to continue until decay, results in impact (10 km altitude) on 2015 May 08 near 21:03 UTC. The uncertainty is 19 h, based on the rule of thumb of 20 percent of the estimated time remaining to decay, measured from the epoch of the latter of the two TLEs.

The estimated time to decay has been trending earlier each day, mainly due to an increase in the 10.7 cm solar flux."

Posted by Ted Molczan at SeeSat-L.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/05/2015 02:02 PM
Today's two M1 solar flares won't help. An active sun means earlier decays.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 05/05/2015 02:28 PM
I wonder if there's any way to enhance that for a closer view? I think - in full screen and full res - you can see reflections from the spin.

This is the best I can do.  The original was 720P (which I find funny that they would only provide that instead of 1080P).


I think it is because the HDEV channel on UStream is limited to 720p, so it is not full HD.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/05/2015 05:29 PM
T.S. Kelso ‏@TSKelso  5m5 minutes ago
Latest Space Track decay prediction is May 8 at 1217 UTC +/-48 hours. That puts prediction time over NE Africa:
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 05/05/2015 05:49 PM
T.S. Kelso ‏@TSKelso  5m5 minutes ago
Latest Space Track decay prediction is May 8 at 1217 UTC +/-48 hours. That puts prediction time over NE Africa:
This statement doesn't make sense to me - ±48 hrs is ~64 orbits - which means it can be anywhere.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: speedevil on 05/05/2015 06:03 PM
Somewhat of a generic question, but I guess particular to this craft.

Over the last several orbits, the difference in period of orbits becomes negligible.
Even if it drops 5km, it's not going to materially change the ground track for the next several orbits.

Going back in time several days, the period can change enough due to drag variance that the whole earth under the inclination is at risk.

How many days out do certain parts of the earth become 'safe', and how does this change with time?
This is a slightly different question from 'where will it hit' which is clearly a much tougher question.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/05/2015 06:30 PM
Maybe 24 hours before. The sun has been having a hissy fit today, that should increase drag and bring it down sooner... But how soon and how much has the atmosphere puffed up is a good question.

Edit: Since I wrote that the sun has let loose a massive X2.7 flare that should be really pumping up the atmosphere. I think old sol has it in for poor M-27M.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: IanH84 on 05/05/2015 11:38 PM
I forget if I posted it in this thread or elsewhere, but I remember watching the UARS reentry and even with live telemetry and conditions it was hard to pin down exactly when it would reenter. Phil Plait was either live tweeting or blogging it and his call of reentry on the next descending node was 4 or 5 orbits early.

Hopefully the rumors that it's completely out of fuel are true and nothing hazardous makes it to the surface. It would be nice to get a light show as the entire spacecraft burns up on reentry, though.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/06/2015 09:03 AM
T.S. Kelso ‏@TSKelso  5m5 minutes ago
Latest Space Track decay prediction is May 8 at 1217 UTC +/-48 hours. That puts prediction time over NE Africa:

This statement doesn't make sense to me - ±48 hrs is ~64 orbits - which means it can be anywhere.

I think that what the contributor is saying is that the error = 0 mark is over NE Africa.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: MaxBioHazard on 05/06/2015 09:05 PM
It is often written that attempts to establish radio contact with the Progress was only when it flew within sight of Russian ground stations. But why ground stations of other countries could not make this, such as the US stations?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 05/06/2015 09:10 PM
Latest guesses and guess-based safety assurances:

Debris of defunct Russian cargo spacecraft pose no threat to populated areas — expert

http://tass.ru/en/non-political/793206


Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Remes on 05/06/2015 10:24 PM
Latest guesses and guess-based safety assurances:

Debris of defunct Russian cargo spacecraft pose no threat to populated areas — expert

http://tass.ru/en/non-political/793206

It is not guess based. From the article:

Quote
"The amount of debris will be too insignificant to feel any fear. The risk they may crash upon a residential area is microscopically small.
Very basic statistics. Ratio between populated area and non populated area. Very common thought throughout all nations. Shuttle disintegrating over US didn't injure anyone. The risks are very small.

Quote
The probability of suffering a road accident on the streets of Moscow is far greater," he said.
That's unfair. This shadows nearly everything. :D
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: russianhalo117 on 05/06/2015 10:28 PM
T.S. Kelso ‏@TSKelso  5m5 minutes ago
Latest Space Track decay prediction is May 8 at 1217 UTC +/-48 hours. That puts prediction time over NE Africa:
This statement doesn't make sense to me - ±48 hrs is ~64 orbits - which means it can be anywhere.
Its perigee on each orbit will limit to some degree where reentry can occur
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 05/07/2015 12:50 AM
It is often written that attempts to establish radio contact with the Progress was only when it flew within sight of Russian ground stations. But why ground stations of other countries could not make this, such as the US stations?

Russian ground stations have radio systems and antennas optimized for communication with Progress.

Other ground stations can listen, but cannot communicate with Progress.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jcm on 05/07/2015 01:17 AM
T.S. Kelso ‏@TSKelso  5m5 minutes ago
Latest Space Track decay prediction is May 8 at 1217 UTC +/-48 hours. That puts prediction time over NE Africa:
This statement doesn't make sense to me - ±48 hrs is ~64 orbits - which means it can be anywhere.
Its perigee on each orbit will limit to some degree where reentry can occur

But drag circularizes the orbit.  Apogee is coming down twice as fast as perigee - latest orbit is 158 x 184 km.
So on the last orbit there may not be a well defined perigee location
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: input~2 on 05/07/2015 08:20 AM
Latest Space Track decay prediction (dated May 7 at 0310 UTC) is May 8 at 0332 UTC with a "window" of 1080 minutes (18 hours).
AFAIU this means a decay possible from May 7 at 1832 UTC to May 8 at 1210 UTC
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/07/2015 09:35 AM
Latest Space Track decay prediction (dated May 7 at 0310 UTC) is May 8 at 0332 UTC with a "window" of 1080 minutes (18 hours).
AFAIU this means a decay possible from May 7 at 1832 UTC to May 8 at 1210 UTC

So we all need to keep a close eye on this now, with the window of return beginning in just eight hours.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/07/2015 09:36 AM
Latest Space Track decay prediction (dated May 7 at 0310 UTC) is May 8 at 0332 UTC with a "window" of 1080 minutes (18 hours).
AFAIU this means a decay possible from May 7 at 1832 UTC to May 8 at 1210 UTC

That's still an immense uncertainty window for a prediction only 24 hours in advance. It just shows the sheer complexity of trying to calculate things like this. When a more accurate prediction can be made, I'm assuming that a NTM will be issued?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: litton4 on 05/07/2015 09:41 AM
A couple of predictions here

http://www.satflare.com/track.asp?q=40619,25544#TOP

range from 21:34 UTC on the 7th to 06:10 UTC on 8th (both +- 6 hours)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Jester on 05/07/2015 09:47 AM
http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2015/05/07/update-on-progress-m-27m-reentry/

As of Thursday morning, 7 May, we are forecasting an uncontrolled reentry by Progress M-27M any time between later in the evening today through to mid-day tomorrow, 8 May.

The current large uncertainty is due to the unpredictability of the drag forces working on the vessel, and is a standard feature of such predictions. Any reports claiming precise re-entry times and locations at this stage are speculative.

Note that the data do appear to indicate that the Progress vessel is experiencing a very fast rotation rate of around one revolution every 1.8 seconds.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/07/2015 09:51 AM
Question: Could the spacecraft literally 'somersault' along the top of the atmosphere, massively off-CoG contacts between the upper atmosphere with the ends of the vehicle accelerating the tumble?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: RotoSequence on 05/07/2015 10:08 AM
Note that the data do appear to indicate that the Progress vessel is experiencing a very fast rotation rate of around one revolution every 1.8 seconds.

The spin of the Progress spacecraft has been accelerating?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/07/2015 10:12 AM
Note that the data do appear to indicate that the Progress vessel is experiencing a very fast rotation rate of around one revolution every 1.8 seconds.

The spin of the Progress spacecraft has been accelerating?

Please see my post above for my amateur best-guess as to why this could be.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: speedevil on 05/07/2015 10:22 AM
Note that the data do appear to indicate that the Progress vessel is experiencing a very fast rotation rate of around one revolution every 1.8 seconds.

The spin of the Progress spacecraft has been accelerating?

It's more likely that some observers are simply seeing - due to geometry - more than one flash per rotation.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: mcgyver on 05/07/2015 10:44 AM
Realtime location:
http://www.heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=40619 (http://www.heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=40619)
http://www.n2yo.com/progress-cargo-reentry.php
http://www.satview.org/spacejunk.php
http://www.satflare.com/track.asp?q=40619#TOP

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Jester on 05/07/2015 12:55 PM
http://blogs.esa.int/rocketscience/2015/05/07/update-on-progress-m-27m-reentry/

UPDATED 11:30 GMT

ESA Space Debris team reentry predictions now show the reentry window has shrunk to include just the night of Thursday/Friday, 7/8 May; we can exclude any time after early Friday morning. There are some first indications that the likelihood for a reentry over North America or Europe has dropped significantly.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Jester on 05/07/2015 12:57 PM
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/May-2015/0065.html (http://www.satobs.org/seesat/May-2015/0065.html)

"Using the numerical integrator in GMAT 2014a, I found that Cd=2.2 and A/m=0.0037 m^2/kg are sufficient to account for
the decay over the span of USSTRATCOM's TLEs of epoch 15126.77762021 and 15127.44781874.

"Allowing the propagation to continue until decay, results in impact (10 km altitude) on 2015 May 07 near 23:33 UTC. The
uncertainty is 3 h, based on the rule of thumb of 20 percent of the estimated time remaining to decay, measured from the
epoch of the latter of the two TLEs. For both the calibration of A/m and propagation to impact, I used a rough average
of observed and forecast space weather.

I converted the epoch 15126.77762021 TLE for propagation by GMAT using TLE Analyzer 2.12. I configured GMAT to use its
Dormand-Prince 78 numerical integrator, with the EGM-96 gravity model (degree 90, order 90), and the MSISE90 atmosphere
model"
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/07/2015 01:58 PM
Will write an article for this event. Reminder to all we need to return to updates for this one again. If we need a discussion thread, I'll set it up shortly.

Here's the discussion thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37522.0

Please note, it's not a party thread. There's nothing to party about with this event.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: input~2 on 05/07/2015 02:20 PM
More precise decay prediction from Space Track (NORAD) dated May 7 at 1304 UTC:Decay expected  May 8 at 0136 UTC +/- 60 minutes (so May 8 from 0036 UTC to 0236 UTC)




Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/07/2015 02:21 PM
More precise decay prediction from Space Track (NORAD) dated May 7 at 1304 UTC:Decay expected  May 8 at 0136 UTC +/- 60 minutes (so May 8 from 0036 UTC to 0236 UTC)

That's within one orbit. Did the prediction include median point co-ordinates?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: input~2 on 05/07/2015 02:53 PM
More precise decay prediction from Space Track (NORAD) dated May 7 at 1304 UTC:Decay expected  May 8 at 0136 UTC +/- 60 minutes (so May 8 from 0036 UTC to 0236 UTC)

That's within one orbit. Did the prediction include median point co-ordinates?
Yes, median point coordinates: 46.3°N 85.7°E (North West China)
Here is the corresponding ground track of the potential decay location in the specified window according to latest TLE
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 05/07/2015 02:58 PM
Latest Space Track decay prediction (dated May 7 at 0310 UTC) is May 8 at 0332 UTC with a "window" of 1080 minutes (18 hours).
AFAIU this means a decay possible from May 7 at 1832 UTC to May 8 at 1210 UTC

Interfax may07/1011gmt quotes a Russian source: "The spacecraft will cease to exist approximately between 0:45 a.m. and 6:36 a.m. on May 8... Roscosmos will update the information on the time and the expected area of the fall of the Progress M-27M fragments after 5:00 p.m. Moscow time today." 
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/07/2015 03:01 PM
DutchSpacePaul ‏@DutchSpace  14m14 minutes ago
NORAD has updated the re-entry timeline for #ProgressM27M now expected  May 8 at 01:36 UTC +/- 60 minutes
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: input~2 on 05/07/2015 03:05 PM
Roskosmos update
Quote

ROSCOSMOS: improve the forecasting of TGK "Progress M-27M" ON 7 MAY 2015 16:30   07/05/2015 17:26   According to specialists Roscosmos, transport cargo ship "Progress M-27M", the launch of which was made April 28, 2015, will cease to exist 8 May 2015 with approximately 01.13 to 04.51 MSK.
  The ship is completely burn up in the atmosphere of the Earth, and only a few small pieces of structural elements could reach the planet's surface - its nature and size similar to the case of regular de-orbiting TGK "Progress M".
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 05/07/2015 03:06 PM
Interfax May07/1105 gmt: Russian space industry source on delay of Plesetsk military launch: "Before the causes of the failed launch of an analogous vehicle from Baikonur on April 28 have been found out, it has been decided to suspend preparations for launching a Soyuz-2.1a from the northern space pad..."

Interfax May07/1150 gmt: Russian space industry source: "Specialists investigating the causes of the cargo spacecraft's failed launch on April 28 consider it necessary to postpone the next launch of a manned spacecraft to a later date from May 26 to ensure its security. The delay may amount to 1.5-2 months. In this time, another Progress cargo spacecraft should be sent to the ISS....   It has also been proposed that the landing of a Soyuz spacecraft set for May 14 should be postponed as well. This is being done so as not to significantly redo the ISS flight program and ensure the receipt of cargo spacecraft."

Interfax May07/1335 gmt: Russian space industry source: "The incident affecting the third stage occurred five or six seconds before the cargo spacecraft's separation from it, after which telemetry transmission was stopped...  Despite the loss of telemetry, the video surveillance channel remained in operation... It made it possible to see that the spacecraft started spinning with a rotational velocity higher than the acceptable one by an order of magnitude, which immediately destroyed the Progress control system..."

No indication of any propellant usage or leakage by the Progress. It all could still be on board.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: input~2 on 05/07/2015 03:07 PM
01.13 to 04.51 MSK corresponds to May 7 2213 UTC to May 8 0151 UTC
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: input~2 on 05/07/2015 03:11 PM
So the overlap between Roskosmos and NORAD predictions is
May 8 0036 - 0151 UTC
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 05/07/2015 03:37 PM
Some (unofficial) info on next launches (from NK (http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum10/topic14820/message1373139/#message1373139)):
Progress launch - June 30
Soyuz launch July 20ish
Soyuz landing is delayed to June.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ChrisC on 05/07/2015 04:49 PM
Realtime location:
http://www.heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=40619 (http://www.heavens-above.com/orbit.aspx?satid=40619)
http://www.n2yo.com/progress-cargo-reentry.php
http://www.satview.org/spacejunk.php
http://www.satflare.com/track.asp?q=40619#TOP

Great collection, thanks mcgyver!  Giving it a bump in case anyone missed it.  The N2YO and SatView links are particularly good.  I'll be sharing one of those with my friends via social media in a couple hours as this tightens up.

EDIT:  jgoldader, PahTo, over here!  *waves arms*  :)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/07/2015 04:59 PM
Some (unofficial) info on next launches (from NK (http://novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/messages/forum10/topic14820/message1373139/#message1373139)):
Progress launch - June 30
Soyuz launch July 20ish
Soyuz landing is delayed to June.

Yeah, we have similar in L2, which is going into the article I'm writing. As you note, not official.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jgoldader on 05/07/2015 05:19 PM
Does somebody have the software to propagate the orbit to get an idea of the ground track of the final orbit?  Would love to see such a map, thanks!
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: mcgyver on 05/07/2015 06:04 PM

Does somebody have the software to propagate the orbit to get an idea of the ground track of the final orbit?  Would love to see such a map, thanks!


Look at post 726 above.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Jester on 05/07/2015 06:12 PM
to keep in mind:

From space-track.org

The latitude and longitude predictions in Tracking and Impact Prediction (TIP) messages identify the location where a reentering object will cross the predicted atmospheric interface location. The latitude and longitude do not predict the location of ground impact."
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/07/2015 06:33 PM
Here's an article for the upcoming demise of Progress M-27M and the evaluations into the near-term schedule.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/progress-m-27m-demise-russia-schedule/

Once the changes are confirmed (or we have a better idea of what the plan is), Mr. ISS will do his thing with an article :)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: input~2 on 05/07/2015 07:15 PM
The Aerospace Corp. is now predicting reentry at 0108 UTC +/- 2 hours
Predicted ground tracks at:
http://www.aerospace.org/cords/reentry-predictions/upcoming-reentries-2-2/2015-024a/
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: input~2 on 05/07/2015 07:36 PM
Another view of predicted ground track during reentry window derived from latest TLE (epoch 1635 UTC)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: PahTo on 05/07/2015 07:38 PM

Forgive me if this has been covered, but has a "compare and contrast" been done between Soyuz 2-1A and Soyuz U?  I suppose more importantly, with Soyuz FG?  In short, what differences are there with the 3rd stage of the 2-1A and U/FG?  Software?  Obviously the engine is the same.  Thanks for the summary article--good stuff.  Oh, and I saw an earlier ground track indicating EI over South America.  With this new "around 01:00 UTC"--where does that put it on the ground track?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Pheogh on 05/07/2015 07:47 PM
Here's an article for the upcoming demise of Progress M-27M and the evaluations into the near-term schedule.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/progress-m-27m-demise-russia-schedule/

Once the changes are confirmed (or we have a better idea of what the plan is), Mr. ISS will do his thing with an article :)

Will there be any information on what would have happened if this had been a crewed Soyuz?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: PahTo on 05/07/2015 07:52 PM

Whups, posting at the same time--thanks input.
Here's a composite estimated ground track(s)

http://www.n2yo.com/progress-cargo-reentry.php
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: litton4 on 05/07/2015 08:17 PM
Here's an article for the upcoming demise of Progress M-27M and the evaluations into the near-term schedule.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/progress-m-27m-demise-russia-schedule/

Once the changes are confirmed (or we have a better idea of what the plan is), Mr. ISS will do his thing with an article :)

Will there be any information on what would have happened if this had been a crewed Soyuz?

If it damaged the service module to the extent that they couldn't control the spin and perform a re-entry burn, then not a good outcome.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: input~2 on 05/07/2015 08:23 PM
A new prediction from NORAD at 1922 UTC
Reentry predicted for May 8 at 0147 UTC +/- 2h30min
Central point over 46.4°N 151.3°E
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kirovoleg on 05/07/2015 10:39 PM
I`ve just watched it pass overhead on Buenos Aires, at first it was quite dim but then it got quite bright for a moment, then dim again and bright. I guess it is still tumbling and that is why it changed intensity.

Predictions so far put reentry between 1 and 2 am UTC
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/07/2015 10:41 PM
I`ve just watched it pass overhead on Buenos Aires, at first it was quite dim but then it got quite bright for a moment, then dim again and bright. I guess it is still tumbling and that is why it changed intensity.

Predictions so far put reentry between 1 and 2 am UTC

Poor Progress. Probably on its last few orbits now.

Thanks for reporting and welcome to the site's forum! :)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jfgout on 05/07/2015 11:04 PM
Buenos Aires, Argentina

Source (http://tormentasargentinas.com.ar/fotografia-progress-m-27m-sobre-el-cielo-de-buenos-aires)

This looks like Jupiter with its moons....
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/07/2015 11:07 PM
Yeah, lots of South American reports that can't be verified.

http://mais.uol.com.br/view/1575mnadmj5c/suposta-nave-russa-e-vista-de-sao-jose-do-rio-preto-04024D98366AD8A15326?types=A&


But most seem to be saying they saw the ISS and Progress, so not mistaking the two.

Daniel Fischer ‏@cosmos4u with the find.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jfgout on 05/07/2015 11:20 PM
After checking on Stellarium, I'm now 99.9% sure that this is actually a picture of Jupiter...
I guess a useful report would include more information like: precise location of where the picture was taken, precise time of when it was taken, ...

jf
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/07/2015 11:44 PM
After checking on Stellarium, I'm now 99.9% sure that this is actually a picture of Jupiter...
I guess a useful report would include more information like: precise location of where the picture was taken, precise time of when it was taken, ...

jf


Good to have people to debunk, as I'm guessing we'll be getting a number of these "is it Progress?" reports over the next hour to so!
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jfgout on 05/07/2015 11:47 PM
Yep, the star on the left side in the picture is Asellus Australis. Position of Galilean moons matches what we see in the full size image, same for a couple of stars visible in the filed of view (62Cnc, 63Cnc, HIP 43957, ...). No doubt possible. Now let's see where this thing will enter the atmosphere!

jf
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Satori on 05/08/2015 12:13 AM
New prediction from NORAD at 2336 UTC
Reentry predicted for May 8 at 0152 UTC
Central point over 37.4°N 169.1°E
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/08/2015 12:31 AM
Can someone put those coordinates into a map and post it as an attachment?

Unless this is correct?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Spacedoc on 05/08/2015 12:32 AM
This is in the middle of the north Pacific Ocean. I hope it's correct.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Satori on 05/08/2015 12:35 AM

Unless this is correct?

Yeap, that's it.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: drzerg on 05/08/2015 12:39 AM
is it possible to catch it from ISS? they are very close now.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/08/2015 12:53 AM
is it possible to catch it from ISS? they are very close now.

Will have to be from the external cameras as the crew are all tucked up in bed.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/08/2015 01:46 AM
Progress now passing over north of Japan, into the NORAD prediction region shortly!

Will it hold on to life or plunge.....let's see if one of the official sources is willing to update.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jcm on 05/08/2015 01:46 AM
This is in the middle of the north Pacific Ocean. I hope it's correct.

Yeah, but remember the uncertainty window is still large. The median point really doesn't mean much.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kirovoleg on 05/08/2015 01:54 AM
Just found this video someone from my city filmed, not sure if its real or not so take it with a grain of salt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_gRj93Y1aU

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kirovoleg on 05/08/2015 02:03 AM
Seems Aerospace updated the reentry projections:

08 May 2015 02:41 UTC ± 2 hours
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/08/2015 02:19 AM
Remember, M-27M may have already been lost by now. Absolutely no information from official sources, so we just don't know.

If still fighting, M-27M will be passing almost directly over the Falkland Islands soon!
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: speedevil on 05/08/2015 02:42 AM
Posted video has a tumbling object with the right apparent speed, and it appeared to pass Venus at vaguely the right angle. Not sure of timing of video. And no debris/breakup.

It's a pity standard video cameras can't pick up stars.
That could make - with the position known - a really precise orbit determination.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/08/2015 02:45 AM
2:04 UTC for the demise of Progress M-27M - very close to the center of the NORAD prediction window. Over the South Pacific.

http://www.federalspace.ru/21474/

Farewell Progress M-27M.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 05/08/2015 02:47 AM
2:04 UTC for the demise of Progress M-27M - very close to the center of the NORAD prediction window. Over the South Pacific.

http://www.federalspace.ru/21474/

Farewell Progress M-27M.

I don't think the Russians have real time tracking data to confirm this since it would be out of ground station range & it's only half an orbit since then. Maybe that's only the "nominal" decay time...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/08/2015 02:52 AM
2:04 UTC for the demise of Progress M-27M - very close to the center of the NORAD prediction window. Over the South Pacific.

http://www.federalspace.ru/21474/

Farewell Progress M-27M.

I don't think the Russians have real time tracking data to confirm this since it would be out of ground station range & it's only half an orbit since then. Maybe that's only the "nominal" decay time...

Good note. Added that caveat to the updated article.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jcm on 05/08/2015 02:57 AM
2:04 UTC for the demise of Progress M-27M - very close to the center of the NORAD prediction window. Over the South Pacific.

http://www.federalspace.ru/21474/

Farewell Progress M-27M.

I don't think the Russians have real time tracking data to confirm this since it would be out of ground station range & it's only half an orbit since then. Maybe that's only the "nominal" decay time...

Good note. Added that caveat to the updated article.

Yes. I can't remember chapter and verse but I have a memory that previous uncontrolled reentries of Russian
spacecraft have involved Roscosmos quoting predicted reentry times without error bars as if they were observed data.
So I am suspicious. I'm not generally in the camp of "I don't believe it until the Americans say it" but in this specific case I'd like to see a NORAD decay messagen and a TIP message with a 1 minute error window, which I expect we'll get tomorrow sometime.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/08/2015 03:00 AM
Much appreciated Jonathan - and doubly useful because the article links to this update thread, so these threads are extensions of the articles.

So let's all keep an eye on the follow up information from these official sources.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: HarrisPeters on 05/08/2015 03:05 AM
But they report that reentry was over the Pacific Ocean, so what was filmed over Buenos Aires?

That was the previous orbit.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 05/08/2015 03:12 AM
2:04 UTC for the demise of Progress M-27M - very close to the center of the NORAD prediction window. Over the South Pacific.

I concur with penguin. 

Keep in mind that Russia has no space tracking capability in that region, in the past they have announced calculated 'cessation of existence' based purely on last predicted track. AND the point they give is only the beginning of the post-entry breakup scatter that can drop pieces 1000 - 1500 kilometers further down track.

I have yet to see any Russian initial claim of reentry that was worth the photons it was screen-displayed on.

Wherever it comes in, I have recently become satisfied that the tank structure and likely temperature of the remaining propellants are consistent with a good expectation of total fragmentation and dispersal.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 05/08/2015 04:13 AM
I have yet to see any Russian initial claim of reentry that was worth the photons it was screen-displayed on.
How about...you know... 148 Progresses that went down before? It's ironic that the spacecraft went down in the region where it was meant to go at the end of the mission.
It's also interesting that onboard batteries were still alive all the way to the end (according to Alex Moskalenko (http://alex-moskalenko.livejournal.com/486247.html?thread=4719975#t4719975)).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 05/08/2015 04:26 AM
NORAD has just issued a new decay prediction at 03:52 UTC, giving the decay time as 02:20 UTC +-1 min at 51° S 87° W, about 1000 km west of the southern tip of South America.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 05/08/2015 04:27 AM
Will there be any information on what would have happened if this had been a crewed Soyuz?
If the crew wouldn't be able to regain control of the spacecraft, they would likely be dead. Onboard consumables will last for 5.2 days (according to info here (http://alex-moskalenko.livejournal.com/486247.html?thread=4714343#t4714343)), while this spacecraft flew for 11 days.
I wonder if this accident will lead to increasing amount of onboard consumables for Soyuz missions (even if it would reduce payload capacity - better safe than sorry).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jcm on 05/08/2015 04:34 AM
NORAD has just issued a new decay prediction at 03:52 UTC, giving the decay time as 02:20 UTC +-1 min at 51° S 87° W, about 1000 km west of the southern tip of South America.

Many of us suspect that these +-1 min TIP messages, which only come for some satellites, are based on high altitude infrared early warning sat data. In any case I think this report is reliable

And now we got the decay message too.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: input~2 on 05/08/2015 04:41 AM
NORAD has just issued a new decay prediction at 03:52 UTC, giving the decay time as 02:20 UTC +-1 min at 51° S 87° W, about 1000 km west of the southern tip of South America.
That's not a prediction but an estimate since the message was published after the reentry epoch.
The decay time was 0220UTC +/- 30 seconds
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Targeteer on 05/08/2015 04:47 AM
NORAD has just issued a new decay prediction at 03:52 UTC, giving the decay time as 02:20 UTC +-1 min at 51° S 87° W, about 1000 km west of the southern tip of South America.

Many of us suspect that these +-1 min TIP messages, which only come for some satellites, are based on high altitude infrared early warning sat data. In any case I think this report is reliable

And now we got the decay message too.

You mean the satellites being discussed and depicted here ?  :) https://www.facebook.com/BuckleyAirForceBase/videos/902097593144423/  Downloaded and linked in case you can't see it. 

http://www.buckley.af.mil/units/460thspacewing.asp 

"The mission of the 460th Space Wing is to deliver global infrared surveillance, tracking and missile warning for theater and homeland defense and provide combatant commanders with expeditionary warrior Airmen.

The 460th Operations Group provides missile warning, missile defense, technical intelligence, satellite command and control, battlespace characterization and robust communications. The group's team of space professionals operates the Defense Support Program satellite, which provides continuous global surveillance, tracking and targeting."
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: input~2 on 05/08/2015 04:50 AM
IMHO the NORAD prediction "window"has to be divided by 2 to get the uncertainty around the central decay time; for example the prediction at 2326UTC indicated a decay time of 0152UTC with a window of 180 minutes, it can't be 0152 UTC +/-180 minutes (which would include the time of prediction), it has to be 0152 UTC +/- 90 minutes
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jcm on 05/08/2015 04:54 AM
IMHO the NORAD prediction "window"has to be divided by 2 to get the uncertainty around the central decay time; for example the prediction at 2326UTC indicated a decay time of 0152UTC with a window of 180 minutes, it can't be 0152 UTC +/-180 minutes (which would include the time of prediction), it has to be 0152 UTC +/- 90 minutes

I questioned space-track admins a few months ago about this exact point and they disagree, stating that it's +/- window, not +/-  0.5*window
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jcm on 05/08/2015 04:57 AM
Spooky that so many reentries are over the S Pacific.  Progress reentered within 1 degree in lat and lon of
the third stage reentry a week ago. Clearly satellites passing over that particular point of the deep ocean are liable
to hear the call of Cthulhu and be dragged down by eldritch tentacles of force.

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: AirmanPika on 05/08/2015 06:26 AM
Spooky that so many reentries are over the S Pacific.  Progress reentered within 1 degree in lat and lon of
the third stage reentry a week ago. Clearly satellites passing over that particular point of the deep ocean are liable
to hear the call of Cthulhu and be dragged down by eldritch tentacles of force.

If you are gonna go that route then I have to defend Progress 27 and counter with this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh8mNjeuyV4 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sh8mNjeuyV4)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/08/2015 09:18 AM
So, has vehicle re-entry been confirmed yet?

I'm quite prepared to wait until the next com pass over Russia for confirmation as it is quite possibly that this is the first time that Roscosmos will be able to confirm that the vehicle is no longer in its orbit.

The Pacific and Indian Oceans are vast and it is quite possible that a vehicle re-entry over those areas would never be recorded or confirmed. Ditto with the sparsely-inhabited interiors of Asia and South America.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Bob Shaw on 05/08/2015 09:26 AM
Spooky that so many reentries are over the S Pacific.  Progress reentered within 1 degree in lat and lon of
the third stage reentry a week ago. Clearly satellites passing over that particular point of the deep ocean are liable
to hear the call of Cthulhu and be dragged down by eldritch tentacles of force.



This makes perfect sense.

I, for one, wish to be among the first to welcome the return of our old masters.


Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: hrissan on 05/08/2015 09:27 AM
Will there be any information on what would have happened if this had been a crewed Soyuz?
If the crew wouldn't be able to regain control of the spacecraft, they would likely be dead. Onboard consumables will last for 5.2 days (according to info here (http://alex-moskalenko.livejournal.com/486247.html?thread=4714343#t4714343)), while this spacecraft flew for 11 days.
I wonder if this accident will lead to increasing amount of onboard consumables for Soyuz missions (even if it would reduce payload capacity - better safe than sorry).
Rather intricate failure mechanism indeed! Stage overperforms (!) drags spacecraft with it up increasing natural decay time, then kills spacecraft maneuvering system stranding it in orbit...

Time to add kevlar shielding to the Soyuz bottom? :) (Dragon's metal plate in the trunk might have the protective function?)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 05/08/2015 12:00 PM
Mostly splashes, but add in the normal downrange scatter for denser, heavier fragments and there ought to have been a few 'thunks' as well -- on Tierra del Fuego.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/08/2015 12:12 PM
Spooky that so many reentries are over the S Pacific.  Progress reentered within 1 degree in lat and lon of
the third stage reentry a week ago. Clearly satellites passing over that particular point of the deep ocean are liable

Perhaps not as surprising as you think. The South Pacific is nearly a full hemisphere of totally unbroken ocean. A spacecraft flying by Earth from a certain angle with the South Pacific turned towards them in daylight might think that Sol-III is a water planet. Statistically, there is just more chance of something (especially something on an ISS-inclination orbit to hit ocean and the South Pacific in particular.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: input~2 on 05/08/2015 02:10 PM
Joint Space Operations Center tracks Progress' reentry into the atmosphere
http://www.vandenberg.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123447520
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: speedevil on 05/08/2015 02:28 PM
Will there be any information on what would have happened if this had been a crewed Soyuz?
If the crew wouldn't be able to regain control of the spacecraft, they would likely be dead.

I can't find any sources on design of the control systems for progress vs soyuz.

If indeed there was no significant damage to progress, and the tumble was due to either recontact, or off-nominal deployment in some manner - it's perhaps not unreasonable that the control system was unable to handle the rotation rate, leading to it being unable to stop the tumble as it couldn't sense it due to all of the rate sensors being pinned.

If there were humans inside, and there is some way for them to reconfigure the computer to ignore the sensors, or to directly command the thrusters, in principle they could have stopped the spin (it was certainly not incapacitiating) and then the rest of the mission could have gone nominally.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ChrisC on 05/08/2015 03:58 PM
Does anybody know what is the likelihood (statistical percentage) that it would have ended up in the Pacific anyway?

Same question but for ANY ocean?

I know that the Pacific accounts for 30.5% of the Earth's surface, and that ALL oceans account for 65.7% (and another 5% for other water features).  But that's against the entire Earth's surface, whereas ISS and missions to it only cover to +/- 51.6 degrees latitude.  Anybody know what the stats are for that band?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: BabaORileyUSA on 05/08/2015 04:11 PM
First, TIP predictions aren't issued by NORAD anymore, they're issued by the JSpOC.  Second, TIP messages are only issued for objects of "significant' radar cross section (RCS), and I'm pretty sure they use measured values rather than the qualifiers 'LARGE' and 'SMALL' to determine what has a 'significant' RCS!  It would be a computing nightmare to have to issue TIPs on ALL re-entering objects!
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: RonM on 05/08/2015 04:29 PM
Will there be any information on what would have happened if this had been a crewed Soyuz?
If the crew wouldn't be able to regain control of the spacecraft, they would likely be dead.

I can't find any sources on design of the control systems for progress vs soyuz.

If indeed there was no significant damage to progress, and the tumble was due to either recontact, or off-nominal deployment in some manner - it's perhaps not unreasonable that the control system was unable to handle the rotation rate, leading to it being unable to stop the tumble as it couldn't sense it due to all of the rate sensors being pinned.

If there were humans inside, and there is some way for them to reconfigure the computer to ignore the sensors, or to directly command the thrusters, in principle they could have stopped the spin (it was certainly not incapacitiating) and then the rest of the mission could have gone nominally.

If the issue was the thrusters, I would assume cosmonauts could turn the automated system off and manually control the thrusters.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/08/2015 05:34 PM
Does anybody know what is the likelihood (statistical percentage) that it would have ended up in the Pacific anyway?

Same question but for ANY ocean?

I know that the Pacific accounts for 30.5% of the Earth's surface, and that ALL oceans account for 65.7% (and another 5% for other water features).  But that's against the entire Earth's surface, whereas ISS and missions to it only cover to +/- 51.6 degrees latitude.  Anybody know what the stats are for that band?

It was posted up thread that JSC debris quarterly had a few articles on those percentages. I think it was the jan or april 2012 issue. On cell, so my going up thread is limited.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: the_other_Doug on 05/08/2015 06:33 PM
Will there be any information on what would have happened if this had been a crewed Soyuz?
If the crew wouldn't be able to regain control of the spacecraft, they would likely be dead.

I can't find any sources on design of the control systems for progress vs soyuz.

If indeed there was no significant damage to progress, and the tumble was due to either recontact, or off-nominal deployment in some manner - it's perhaps not unreasonable that the control system was unable to handle the rotation rate, leading to it being unable to stop the tumble as it couldn't sense it due to all of the rate sensors being pinned.

If there were humans inside, and there is some way for them to reconfigure the computer to ignore the sensors, or to directly command the thrusters, in principle they could have stopped the spin (it was certainly not incapacitiating) and then the rest of the mission could have gone nominally.

If the issue was the thrusters, I would assume cosmonauts could turn the automated system off and manually control the thrusters.

But, but, but...  it's my understanding that Russian ground controllers (as well as ISS crew) have the same capability, by taking over remote control of the Progress.  And in this case, they said that while they were able to command the system, they were unable to make the thrusters work.

I don't think we have a really good idea of the actual status of the Progress after the accident.  It seems like a lot of the early commentary, especially in terms of the manifolds not pressurizing and indications of loss of propellant, are in the process of being ret-conned by others in the Russian program.  They all want us to believe that nothing happened to the Progress except for some kind of recontact putting it into a spin that it couldn't get out of, and that doesn't completely jibe with a lot of self-consistent reports we heard at the time of the accident.

I think it will take some time for the actual facts of the accident, and the status of the Progress from insertion until entry, to come out.  And if there is someone in the Russian hierarchy who will lose his job over this, he is likely trying cover his ass with great, energetic armwaving right now.  So, I just don't believe the latest reports that the Progress was completely unscathed, just got into a spin it couldn't recover from.  Sounds like CYA to me, not reliable info.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: RonM on 05/08/2015 07:02 PM
Will there be any information on what would have happened if this had been a crewed Soyuz?
If the crew wouldn't be able to regain control of the spacecraft, they would likely be dead.

I can't find any sources on design of the control systems for progress vs soyuz.

If indeed there was no significant damage to progress, and the tumble was due to either recontact, or off-nominal deployment in some manner - it's perhaps not unreasonable that the control system was unable to handle the rotation rate, leading to it being unable to stop the tumble as it couldn't sense it due to all of the rate sensors being pinned.

If there were humans inside, and there is some way for them to reconfigure the computer to ignore the sensors, or to directly command the thrusters, in principle they could have stopped the spin (it was certainly not incapacitiating) and then the rest of the mission could have gone nominally.

If the issue was the thrusters, I would assume cosmonauts could turn the automated system off and manually control the thrusters.

But, but, but...  it's my understanding that Russian ground controllers (as well as ISS crew) have the same capability, by taking over remote control of the Progress.  And in this case, they said that while they were able to command the system, they were unable to make the thrusters work.

I don't think we have a really good idea of the actual status of the Progress after the accident.  It seems like a lot of the early commentary, especially in terms of the manifolds not pressurizing and indications of loss of propellant, are in the process of being ret-conned by others in the Russian program.  They all want us to believe that nothing happened to the Progress except for some kind of recontact putting it into a spin that it couldn't get out of, and that doesn't completely jibe with a lot of self-consistent reports we heard at the time of the accident.

I think it will take some time for the actual facts of the accident, and the status of the Progress from insertion until entry, to come out.  And if there is someone in the Russian hierarchy who will lose his job over this, he is likely trying cover his ass with great, energetic armwaving right now.  So, I just don't believe the latest reports that the Progress was completely unscathed, just got into a spin it couldn't recover from.  Sounds like CYA to me, not reliable info.

Two points:

1) If the issue was the thrusters, cosmonauts on the scene could react in seconds. By the time ground controllers realize something is wrong and establish communications, the fuel tanks are empty.

2) I wrote IF the issue was the thrusters. I was responding to speedevil who also used if in the questions. If the tanks were ruptured by a collision with the third stage, then nothing could be done.

Reports just after the accident can be inaccurate. Later reports could also be inaccurate because of CYA. It will take a detailed investigation to figure out what happened, assuming there is enough data to figure it out.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ChrisC on 05/08/2015 09:53 PM
Does anybody know what is the likelihood (statistical percentage) that it would have ended up in the Pacific anyway?

Same question but for ANY ocean?

I know that the Pacific accounts for 30.5% of the Earth's surface, and that ALL oceans account for 65.7% (and another 5% for other water features).  But that's against the entire Earth's surface, whereas ISS and missions to it only cover to +/- 51.6 degrees latitude.  Anybody know what the stats are for that band?

It was posted up thread that JSC debris quarterly had a few articles on those percentages. I think it was the jan or april 2012 issue. On cell, so my going up thread is limited.

Yes!  Thank you!

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35789.msg1366437;topicseen#msg1366437
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 05/08/2015 10:21 PM
I have come to the conclusion that much of the "data" we have received is either inaccurate, or just made up, so it is not too useful to try to guess what really happened to the Progress.

What we have is internally inconsistent, and does not make sense, based on known technical parameters of Progress.

I believe that Progress was spinning after separation from the launch vehicle, and that ground controllers had limited ability to control the spacecraft. That's about all I believe at this point.


Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Prober on 05/08/2015 10:26 PM
I have come to the conclusion that much of the "data" we have received is either inaccurate, or just made up, so it is not too useful to try to guess what really happened to the Progress.

What we have is internally inconsistent, and does not make sense, based on known technical parameters of Progress.

I believe that Progress was spinning after separation from the launch vehicle, and that ground controllers had limited ability to control the spacecraft. That's about all I believe at this point.

we may never know.....best guess human error IMHO this thread can't be dismissed as a factor. 

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36201.0
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/08/2015 10:40 PM
So do we have any update on what the re-entry time was, or is it still 02:20 UTC?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 05/09/2015 02:51 AM
Can somebody check wxsat imagery over Terra del Fuego to see the cloud cover, so as to anticipate ground witness accounts of a fireball?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Jester on 05/09/2015 11:40 AM
Mostly splashes, but add in the normal downrange scatter for denser, heavier fragments and there ought to have been a few 'thunks' as well -- on Tierra del Fuego.

Revenge for Top Gear... *


* kidding of course, hope nobody got hurt


wx
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: AncientU on 05/10/2015 02:05 PM
I have come to the conclusion that much of the "data" we have received is either inaccurate, or just made up, so it is not too useful to try to guess what really happened to the Progress.

What we have is internally inconsistent, and does not make sense, based on known technical parameters of Progress.

I believe that Progress was spinning after separation from the launch vehicle, and that ground controllers had limited ability to control the spacecraft. That's about all I believe at this point.

we may never know.....best guess human error IMHO this thread can't be dismissed as a factor. 

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36201.0

So, this being the case, will NASA get access to telemetry, etc. to inform their decision to proceed with crew flights?  Seem that 'trust us' will be a technically unsound basis for the decision to fly.  How will the decision be made?  (Is there going to be a run on trampolines?)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: baldusi on 05/10/2015 03:59 PM
Too early to decide if this was a LV failure?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/10/2015 04:16 PM
Too early to decide if this was a LV failure?
I think we may hear something from the investigation this week.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 05/10/2015 04:19 PM
Too early to decide if this was a LV failure?
I guess so as they haven't rescheduled the Soyuz 2.1A with Kobalt M. That would be an indication of which way this investigation is moving. A reschedule to sometime late this month would be a indication that the LV might not be to blame.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/12/2015 03:45 PM
Third stage issues and a bad S/C Sep:

http://www.federalspace.ru/21481/

ROSCOSMOS: it identifies the main causes of accidents TGK "Progress M-27M"

12/05/2015 18:14

May 12, 2015, the State Commission chaired by the Deputy head of Roscosmos, Alexander Ivanov presented the preliminary findings on the situation of TGK "Progress M-27M", the launch of which was made April 28, 2015 from the Baikonur Cosmodrome.

In general, start-up and separation of THC «Progress M-27M" took place in normal mode until the separation of THC third stage "Soyuz 2.1a."  On the second flight was 526.716 unintended separation of the third stage of the launch and the THC, resulting in the ship was in orbit with an apogee of 40 km upstream, and third stage of the launch - in an orbit with an apogee of 20 km below the calculated trajectory excretion.

Having studied all the materials, the members of the State Commission came to the preliminary conclusion that objectively confirmed version abnormal division, including two consecutive events associated with depressurization (opening after turning off the main engine third stage rocket) first oxidizer tank, and then - and the fuel tank 3 th stage of the launch.

The work of the State Commission continues.  For the final classification of the nature of the causes that led to the end of the emergency starter requires in-depth computational and theoretical studies, additional modeling and a number of experimental works that will be done.

On 13 May 2015 the committee members begin to work at the enterprises producing rocket and space technology to identify and eliminate all possible causes of the accident.

ROSCOSMOS in cooperation with partners in the ISS flight program corrects:

 - The beginning of June: the return of the ISS to Earth;

 - The beginning of July: launching another cargo ship to the ISS;

 - The end of July: the launch of the next manned spacecraft to the ISS.

The final conclusions of the State Commission is expected May 22, 2015.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 05/12/2015 03:52 PM
Third stage issues and a bad S/C Sep:

http://www.federalspace.ru/21481/

Nothing new really - they are still looking at what caused the blowing up at the spacecraft separation plane.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: saliva_sweet on 05/12/2015 04:58 PM
Nothing new really - they are still looking at what caused the blowing up at the spacecraft separation plane.

Doesn't this count as an official confirmation that it was in fact a launch failure? I personally count 3rd stage shutdown and s/c sep as parts of launch. I'm just looking at the "2015 in spaceflight" wikipedia page which I believe you are curating and it lists the launch as success and notes s/c failure.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: PerW on 05/12/2015 06:07 PM
Twet from:
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust  37m37 minutes ago
Roscosmos statement says the return of 3 ISS crewmembers scheduled for Wed night now planned for early June: http://bit.ly/1E415qE
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: swlee on 05/12/2015 07:06 PM
Here's the NASA press release confirming the schedule changes posted earlier from Roscosmos:
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/international-space-station-partners-adjust-spacecraft-schedule (http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/international-space-station-partners-adjust-spacecraft-schedule)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: saliva_sweet on 05/12/2015 08:36 PM
Quote from: Peter King ‏@PeterKingCBS
russian space agency says 3d stage launch vehicle fuel leak caused progress mishap. Need to be fixed before Expedition 44 crew launch.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 05/12/2015 08:46 PM
Nothing new really - they are still looking at what caused the blowing up at the spacecraft separation plane.

Doesn't this count as an official confirmation that it was in fact a launch failure? I personally count 3rd stage shutdown and s/c sep as parts of launch. I'm just looking at the "2015 in spaceflight" wikipedia page which I believe you are curating and it lists the launch as success and notes s/c failure.

Well seeing as I'm the main user who edits that page....I would say that I would wait for the final conclusion before making that statement.  ;)

(which made me think - what other launch had the rocket stage conclusively caused its main payload to be damaged beyond salvageable state in spaceflight history? I don't think the latest plausible case - Eutelsat W3B - was conclusively proven)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: cscott on 05/12/2015 09:04 PM
It's a wiki: you can change it now to reflect what RSA is currently saying, and if the final report says something different, change it again.
Electrons are cheap.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ZachS09 on 05/12/2015 09:06 PM
Twet from:
Jeff Foust ‏@jeff_foust  37m37 minutes ago
Roscosmos statement says the return of 3 ISS crewmembers scheduled for Wed night now planned for early June: http://bit.ly/1E415qE

It seems that the return of TMA-15M was delayed by about a month because of the Progress failure. Let's hope Virts and his crew members make it home safely then.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: mtakala24 on 05/12/2015 09:36 PM
And also the postponement of the landing is because they do not want to go to 3-man crew for an extended period of time. They will want to launch a Progress first, and then a manned vehicle, which would only happen if Progress is a success and at the end of July at the earliest. Nothing to do with safety of a Soyuz landing, but the safety of launches.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: PahTo on 05/12/2015 09:44 PM
Quote from: Peter King ‏@PeterKingCBS
russian space agency says 3d stage launch vehicle fuel leak caused progress mishap. Need to be fixed before Expedition 44 crew launch.

From the LIVE section:

Forgive me if this has been covered, but has a "compare and contrast" been done between Soyuz 2-1A and Soyuz U?  I suppose more importantly, with Soyuz FG?  In short, what differences are there with the 3rd stage of the 2-1A and U/FG?  Software?  Obviously the engine is the same.  So how did this "fuel leak" come to pass (in any way related to 2-1A)?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/12/2015 09:46 PM
Quote from: Peter King ‏@PeterKingCBS
russian space agency says 3d stage launch vehicle fuel leak caused progress mishap. Need to be fixed before Expedition 44 crew launch.

How in the heck does a fuel leak lead to an over performance?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: mtakala24 on 05/12/2015 10:11 PM
How in the heck does a fuel leak lead to an over performance?

Leaner mixture -> higher thrust, but hotter than nominal operating point?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 05/12/2015 10:35 PM
Quote from: Peter King ‏@PeterKingCBS
russian space agency says 3d stage launch vehicle fuel leak caused progress mishap. Need to be fixed before Expedition 44 crew launch.

Given how many times we have been burned by hasty Russian statements, or translation errors, I would suggest that this "fuel leak" is nothing but a rumor at the moment.

Especially as no one has suggested that the third stage burned any less than for the nominal period.

How in the heck does a fuel leak lead to an over performance?

Leaner mixture -> higher thrust, but hotter than nominal operating point?

Just because there was a leak does not mean that the avionics would sense a leak and command a different propellant ratio.  The result of a leak would be that the engine would burn until the leaking propellant ran out, and then the engine would stop burning some time prior to the nominal burnout time.

Same as your car. If your gas tank springs a leak, you don't travel the same distance because your car computer adjusts the air/gasoline mix, you just run out of gas and your engine stops working.


Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Chris Bergin on 05/12/2015 10:37 PM
Bit of an article to keep the coverage of this going - and yes, we did note the schedule changes last week.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/soyuz-2-1a-third-stage-progress-m-27m-iss-changes/

And no, I don't have any information on a "fuel leak" so I'm not reporting that.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: ddunham on 05/12/2015 11:39 PM
How in the heck does a fuel leak lead to an over performance?

Depends on where the leak is.  If the leak is into the engine or fuel path, you can burn more than you think you are.  Wasn't there a shuttle flight where some injector caps came off during launch and led to more burn than planned?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: GClark on 05/13/2015 12:05 AM
(which made me think - what other launch had the rocket stage conclusively caused its main payload to be damaged beyond salvageable state in spaceflight history? I don't think the latest plausible case - Eutelsat W3B - was conclusively proven)

2MV-2 #1 and Cosmos 96 come to mind...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/13/2015 12:52 AM
I read the Roscosmos release as indicating that the stage shutdown later than expected, as we've known.  It isn't clear to me if the tank depressurization events were associated with the normal post-shutdown purge, but timed incorrectly (Progress still attached), or something else.  I'm also suspicious of the translation phrase "separation", which I wonder might actually mean "shutdown".

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: saliva_sweet on 05/13/2015 07:29 AM
Given how many times we have been burned by hasty Russian statements, or translation errors, I would suggest that this "fuel leak" is nothing but a rumor at the moment.

Yes, Peter King doesn't clarify his source and nothing official about a fuel leak has come from Roscosmos and no one else has reported anything similar. This is very much a rumor.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Lee Jay on 05/13/2015 01:25 PM
What if the avionics didn't shut down the engine at the proper insertion time and just allowed the engine to run to depletion of one or the other of the commodities?  Running an engine dry usually results in a RUD, right?  And maybe a depress of one of the tanks too by sucking it dry followed by RUD followed by opening it to space because of the RUD?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: rsnellenberger on 05/13/2015 01:36 PM
(which made me think - what other launch had the rocket stage conclusively caused its main payload to be damaged beyond salvageable state in spaceflight history? I don't think the latest plausible case - Eutelsat W3B - was conclusively proven)

2MV-2 #1 and Cosmos 96 come to mind...


SpaceX Falcon-1 Flight 3 was a lot more recent...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: baldusi on 05/13/2015 02:15 PM
(which made me think - what other launch had the rocket stage conclusively caused its main payload to be damaged beyond salvageable state in spaceflight history? I don't think the latest plausible case - Eutelsat W3B - was conclusively proven)

2MV-2 #1 and Cosmos 96 come to mind...


SpaceX Falcon-1 Flight 3 was a lot more recent...
The recontact was between first and second stage. They were nowhere to orbital. There was the talks about the SeaLaunch and Intelsat 19, I think?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: notsorandom on 05/13/2015 02:24 PM
(which made me think - what other launch had the rocket stage conclusively caused its main payload to be damaged beyond salvageable state in spaceflight history? I don't think the latest plausible case - Eutelsat W3B - was conclusively proven)

2MV-2 #1 and Cosmos 96 come to mind...
Salyut 2, the upper stage exploded after three days. There was an impact between the station and a part of the upper stage ten days after that rendering the station useless. Both solar panels were lost and the station depressurized.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/13/2015 02:51 PM
The recontact was between first and second stage. They were nowhere to orbital. There was the talks about the SeaLaunch and Intelsat 19, I think?
Intelsat 19 was due to a manufacturing defect in the solar panels. The defect bit three Space Systems Loral Satellites (Estrela do Sul/Telstar 14, Estrela do Sul-2/Telstar 14R, Intelsat IS-19).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: mn on 05/15/2015 12:51 AM
The recontact was between first and second stage. They were nowhere to orbital. There was the talks about the SeaLaunch and Intelsat 19, I think?
Intelsat 19 was due to a manufacturing defect in the solar panels. The defect bit three Space Systems Loral Satellites (Estrela do Sul/Telstar 14, Estrela do Sul-2/Telstar 14R, Intelsat IS-19).
Failed to deploy. Cable clip.

According to this the fault was not the clip that was just a symptom after the initial failure http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/01/obscure-solar-array-failure-du/
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/16/2015 01:28 AM
The recontact was between first and second stage. They were nowhere to orbital. There was the talks about the SeaLaunch and Intelsat 19, I think?
Intelsat 19 was due to a manufacturing defect in the solar panels. The defect bit three Space Systems Loral Satellites (Estrela do Sul/Telstar 14, Estrela do Sul-2/Telstar 14R, Intelsat IS-19).
Failed to deploy. Cable clip.

According to this the fault was not the clip that was just a symptom after the initial failure http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/01/obscure-solar-array-failure-du/

(http://www.spaceflight101.com/uploads/6/4/0/6/6406961/1809605_orig.jpg)
Quote
"It found that it was inadvertent solar array pressurisation and exposive decompression that was the underlying cause."

"... during the launch phase, the satellites’ solar arrays had actually become pressurized relative to their ambient environment as the launch vehicle rose in altitude ... led to an explosive event which damaged the array’s deployment mechanism ... manufacturing defect that was found to be the root cause ... susceptible to explosive depressurization."

"Although the exact cause remained a mystery, evidence that an explosive event had been detected by onboard sound sensors hinted that the launch vehicle was in some way at fault. "
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: mn on 05/17/2015 02:41 AM
The recontact was between first and second stage. They were nowhere to orbital. There was the talks about the SeaLaunch and Intelsat 19, I think?
Intelsat 19 was due to a manufacturing defect in the solar panels. The defect bit three Space Systems Loral Satellites (Estrela do Sul/Telstar 14, Estrela do Sul-2/Telstar 14R, Intelsat IS-19).
Failed to deploy. Cable clip.

According to this the fault was not the clip that was just a symptom after the initial failure http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/01/obscure-solar-array-failure-du/

(http://www.spaceflight101.com/uploads/6/4/0/6/6406961/1809605_orig.jpg)
Quote
"It found that it was inadvertent solar array pressurisation and exposive decompression that was the underlying cause."

"... during the launch phase, the satellites’ solar arrays had actually become pressurized relative to their ambient environment as the launch vehicle rose in altitude ... led to an explosive event which damaged the array’s deployment mechanism ... manufacturing defect that was found to be the root cause ... susceptible to explosive depressurization."

"Although the exact cause remained a mystery, evidence that an explosive event had been detected by onboard sound sensors hinted that the launch vehicle was in some way at fault. "

your third quote from the article is describing the suspicion at the time of the first failure and NOT the conclusion of the investigation. I'm working mobile and I can't really quote but I suggest you read the final paragraph of the linked article.

And my apologies to everyone as I realize this is way off topic
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Silmfeanor on 05/17/2015 09:00 AM
Article does not clarify source of "pressure event" but by implication the third stage DM-SLB is suggested. Like perhaps tank pressurization prior to shroud separation.

Where do you read that? Are we talking about the same article?
( http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/01/obscure-solar-array-failure-du/ )
The source of the pressure event is made very clearly in the article; pressure from the solar arrays explosively escaping due to a manufacturing/design error in the SC.

Quote
Specifically, during the launch phase, the satellites’ solar arrays had actually become pressurised relative to their ambient environment as the launch vehicle rose in altititude.  This eventually led to an explosive event which damaged the array’s deployment mechanism and structure. It was a manufacturing defect that was found to be the root cause including overly pinching the ends of the panels which would not let gasses vent from the honeycomb structure, and having insufficent bonding of the layers of the panel making it more susceptible to explosive depressurisation.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevin-rf on 05/17/2015 11:35 AM
It has been well documented the three failures where due to crimping the end of the solar panels and poor bonding of the panel honeycomb.

See this article, it makes it fairly clear
http://spacenews.com/33046spate-of-solar-array-failures-on-ssl-satellites-traced-to/

http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/aerospace-engineering/spacecraft-design/space-systemsloral-case-study-ineffective-incident-investigation/

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 05/25/2015 07:45 AM
Whoa, that would be.....um, stupid if this turn out to be the cause of the accident! (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html#turn) Why would a "blackbox" system be used with the rocket and spacecraft not syncing the separation actions?  ???

Or does every other rocket out there do that?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/25/2015 11:47 AM
This investigation is starting to hit on some serious conceptual faults in the Soyuz and Progress vehicle designs as well as in their integration into their launch vehicles. This could easily snowball into a serious and maybe even existential crisis for Russian human spaceflight.

Additionally, if a third stage LOX tank failure is, in engineering terms, a remote probability, they are going to have to find another cause for the catastrophic fuel and oxidiser tank de-pressurisation.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Prober on 05/27/2015 10:48 PM
Looks like the folks at CBS are getting impatient for answers for this failure.

 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/unanswered-questions-leave-iss-crews-in-holding-pattern/

turns into a sum up article on the ISS etc.

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Jim on 05/28/2015 01:13 AM
Whoa, that would be.....um, stupid if this turn out to be the cause of the accident! (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html#turn) Why would a "blackbox" system be used with the rocket and spacecraft not syncing the separation actions?  ???

Or does every other rocket out there do that?

Not unusual.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 06/01/2015 02:14 PM
Looks like Roscosmos has just reported the cause of the accident: http://www.federalspace.ru/21513/ (http://www.federalspace.ru/21513/)

If I am reading the Internet translations correctly (can someone check the translations?), it looks like the spacecraft was damaged during separation from the third stage due to (pogo?) resonance problems at the connection interface, which was not taken into account during mission analysis for the Soyuz-2.1a rocket.

Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: MattMason on 06/01/2015 02:43 PM
Looks like Roscosmos has just reported the cause of the accident: http://www.federalspace.ru/21513/ (http://www.federalspace.ru/21513/)

If I am reading the Internet translations correctly (can someone check the translations?), it looks like the spacecraft was damaged during separation from the third stage due to (pogo?) resonance problems at the connection interface, which was not taken into account during mission analysis for the Soyuz-2.1a rocket.

That's how I read it.

However, I read something more conflicting since this rocket and the Soyuz share similar/identical third stage motors. I can't find that specific source, but I believe another report indicated a specific turbopump design flaw as well as quality control issues as the cause of that failure. I found one link on a blog that summarizes things differently. Clarification is needed.

http://english.tachyonbeam.com/2015/05/31/the-proton-m-mishap-on-may-16-was-caused-by-a-design-flaw/ (http://english.tachyonbeam.com/2015/05/31/the-proton-m-mishap-on-may-16-was-caused-by-a-design-flaw/)
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Prober on 06/01/2015 02:52 PM
Looks like Roscosmos has just reported the cause of the accident: http://www.federalspace.ru/21513/ (http://www.federalspace.ru/21513/)

If I am reading the Internet translations correctly (can someone check the translations?), it looks like the spacecraft was damaged during separation from the third stage due to (pogo?) resonance problems at the connection interface, which was not taken into account during mission analysis for the Soyuz-2.1a rocket.

this line opens up many more questions. 

"June 9, 2015 ROSCOSMOS determine the adjusted schedule of manned launches program for 2015 (including - and transport cargo ships)."

Schedule changes?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: kevin-rf on 06/01/2015 03:00 PM

However, I read something more conflicting since this rocket and the Soyuz share similar/identical third stage motors. I can't find that specific source, but I believe another report indicated a specific turbopump design flaw as well as quality control issues as the cause of that failure. I found one link on a blog that summarizes things differently. Clarification is needed.

http://english.tachyonbeam.com/2015/05/31/the-proton-m-mishap-on-may-16-was-caused-by-a-design-flaw/ (http://english.tachyonbeam.com/2015/05/31/the-proton-m-mishap-on-may-16-was-caused-by-a-design-flaw/)


Your confusing the Proton failure on May 16th with this Soyuz failure on April 28th. Different launch failures...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ewoker on 06/01/2015 04:46 PM
Progress M-25M flew on Soyuz 2.1a rocket also. Was it just good luck this didn't happen then?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: MattMason on 06/01/2015 04:47 PM

However, I read something more conflicting since this rocket and the Soyuz share similar/identical third stage motors. I can't find that specific source, but I believe another report indicated a specific turbopump design flaw as well as quality control issues as the cause of that failure. I found one link on a blog that summarizes things differently. Clarification is needed.

http://english.tachyonbeam.com/2015/05/31/the-proton-m-mishap-on-may-16-was-caused-by-a-design-flaw/ (http://english.tachyonbeam.com/2015/05/31/the-proton-m-mishap-on-may-16-was-caused-by-a-design-flaw/)


Your confusing the Proton failure on May 16th with this Soyuz failure on April 28th. Different launch failures...

Right, but same third stage design or engine type?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: DaveS on 06/01/2015 04:56 PM

However, I read something more conflicting since this rocket and the Soyuz share similar/identical third stage motors. I can't find that specific source, but I believe another report indicated a specific turbopump design flaw as well as quality control issues as the cause of that failure. I found one link on a blog that summarizes things differently. Clarification is needed.

http://english.tachyonbeam.com/2015/05/31/the-proton-m-mishap-on-may-16-was-caused-by-a-design-flaw/ (http://english.tachyonbeam.com/2015/05/31/the-proton-m-mishap-on-may-16-was-caused-by-a-design-flaw/)


Your confusing the Proton failure on May 16th with this Soyuz failure on April 28th. Different launch failures...

Right, but same third stage design or engine type?
No and no. Completely separate.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: NovaSilisko on 06/01/2015 04:57 PM
Right, but same third stage design or engine type?

No. Proton's third stage is unique to it.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: JimO on 06/01/2015 07:42 PM
I'm not sure the resonance referred to is engine associated ['pogo'], and may be structural of the two bodies. Any help from Russia?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: A12 on 06/01/2015 07:48 PM
Some update as found on spaceflight101 (http://www.spaceflight101.com/progress-m-27m-mission-updates.html) (bold mine):

Quote
In the Roscosmos statement issued on Monday, the agency announced that the likely culprit in the Progress M-27M failure lies within a design flaw in the spacecraft separation system and associated frequency-dynamic characteristics.
According to the State Commission, these properties were not fully studied as part of the design work that went into the accommodation of Soyuz and Progress spacecraft atop the Soyuz 2-1A rocket.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: A12 on 06/02/2015 07:11 AM
Another translation available on russianspaceweb (http://russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/02/2015 09:49 AM
Some update as found on spaceflight101 (http://www.spaceflight101.com/progress-m-27m-mission-updates.html) (bold mine):

Quote
In the Roscosmos statement issued on Monday, the agency announced that the likely culprit in the Progress M-27M failure lies within a design flaw in the spacecraft separation system and associated frequency-dynamic characteristics.
According to the State Commission, these properties were not fully studied as part of the design work that went into the accommodation of Soyuz and Progress spacecraft atop the Soyuz 2-1A rocket.

I think that it is interesting that both this and the recent Proton-M failure have now been attributed to long-running and previously-unsuspected design faults. For all we know about high-stress engineering, stuff still takes us by surprise every now and then.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: owais.usmani on 06/02/2015 01:14 PM
Roskosmos declares Progress investigation over

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html#conclusion (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html#conclusion)

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.

Currently, Roskosmos is developing an action plan for conducting further flight tests of this space complex.

On June 9, Roskosmos will finalize the new flight manifest for human missions in 2015, including launches of cargo ships.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Prober on 06/02/2015 01:17 PM
Another translation available on russianspaceweb (http://russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html).

Yes, and my date question became clearer..."On June 9, Roskosmos will finalize the new flight manifest for human missions in 2015, including launches of cargo ships."

Reading that tells me the current dates are not even "net" dates yet or am I wrong?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/02/2015 01:33 PM
Reading that tells me the current dates are not even "net" dates yet or am I wrong?

I would say that the entire Soyuz and Proton manifests are now completely up in the air.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: cscott on 06/02/2015 01:49 PM
@Ben: The proton-m failure was a long-hidden design fault.  This failure is not: it appears to be specific to the (new) Soyuz 2-1A rocket.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: PahTo on 06/02/2015 01:49 PM
Roskosmos declares Progress investigation over

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html#conclusion (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html#conclusion)

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.

Currently, Roskosmos is developing an action plan for conducting further flight tests of this space complex.

On June 9, Roskosmos will finalize the new flight manifest for human missions in 2015, including launches of cargo ships.

Thanks for posting this.  Sounds like the Soyuz FG and Soyuz U will be the LVs of choice for TMA and Progress launches for the "near term" (years?)...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: baldusi on 06/02/2015 02:44 PM
@Ben: The proton-m failure was a long-hidden design fault.  This failure is not: it appears to be specific to the (new) Soyuz 2-1A rocket.
It's actually an interface design fault. And more specifically would point to a coupled loads analysis failure. Which is very worrisome since it has to be done for every payload.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: the_other_Doug on 06/02/2015 03:48 PM
So -- is the thinking that there was longitudinal motion along the X-axis of the stack that caused recontact after separation (or damaged the separation mechanism)?  A la a POGO effect?  Or are we talking about movement along the Y and Z axes, like a diving board vibrating up and down?

I know the current report doesn't specify the direction and amplitude of movement.  Just wondering what all of you engineers think is the most likely result of what sounds like poor balancing between the spacecraft and third stage.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Star One on 06/02/2015 04:13 PM

Roskosmos declares Progress investigation over

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html#conclusion (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html#conclusion)

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.

Currently, Roskosmos is developing an action plan for conducting further flight tests of this space complex.

On June 9, Roskosmos will finalize the new flight manifest for human missions in 2015, including launches of cargo ships.

Thanks for posting this.  Sounds like the Soyuz FG and Soyuz U will be the LVs of choice for TMA and Progress launches for the "near term" (years?)...

Not possible with the U version I would have thought as long out of production.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: PahTo on 06/04/2015 07:10 PM


Thanks for posting this.  Sounds like the Soyuz FG and Soyuz U will be the LVs of choice for TMA and Progress launches for the "near term" (years?)...

Not possible with the U version I would have thought as long out of production.

As you know per comments in the thread, and to tie in with this one:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37750.msg1384826#new

There are available Soyuz U, but how many is a question.  Another couple of questions (as you touched on in that thread) is what about Soyuz FG (both for future production, and for use with Progress)?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: baldusi on 06/07/2015 12:19 PM
I'm interested on how would the guys who actually keep launch stats would classify this launch. Gunter call it a failure, Ed's just described the issue and Jonathan gave it a 0.3 mission success (partial failure). So, the custom payload interface, is it a vehicle failure or payload failure?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Nicolas PILLET on 06/07/2015 12:48 PM
Considering that it has reached orbit, but not the correct one, I consider it to be a partial failure.

But this is not a "standard" partial failure, since a mysfunctionement of LV caused the lost of payload...
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/08/2015 06:18 AM
I consider the launch to be a failure, since the payload was not able to achieve a usable orbit due to damage from the third stage. By the way, Gunter classes this as a partial failure.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 06/09/2015 09:45 AM
FWIW, I think that recording this mission as a 'failure' is appropriate'. Whilst the LOV for the launch vehicle didn't immediately result in the LOV of the payload, there was an eventual LOM and the payload was damaged enough that its own LOV was an inevitable eventuality.

In space, where disabled spacecraft can float around for years, centuries or even epochs, a LOM doesn't automatically have to mean a physical LOV, even if the vehicle is lost to all practical purposes (no comms and no functional on-board GNC).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: saliva_sweet on 06/09/2015 10:35 AM
The mission accomplished none of its goals. Full failure in my book. I'm not an expert though.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Rebel44 on 06/09/2015 10:43 AM
IMO, its 100% failure.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: saliva_sweet on 06/09/2015 01:16 PM
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/
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: woods170 on 06/09/2015 02:57 PM
The mission accomplished none of its goals. Full failure in my book. I'm not an expert though.
Agreed. While the payload made it to a orbit, it was lost as a result of the LV failure. None of the primary objectives of this mission were accomplished and the end-result (both LV and payload lost) was just as definitive as an all-out first stage failure at T+20 seconds would have been.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Galactic Penguin SST on 06/09/2015 03:01 PM
I think the best answer comes from Jonathan McDowell (http://planet4589.org/space/jsr/back/news.712):

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).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: saliva_sweet on 06/09/2015 03:23 PM
I think the best answer comes from Jonathan McDowell (http://planet4589.org/space/jsr/back/news.712):

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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: baldusi on 06/09/2015 03:57 PM
I think the best answer comes from Jonathan McDowell (http://planet4589.org/space/jsr/back/news.712):

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 (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html#conclusion):
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?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: saliva_sweet on 06/09/2015 04:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/09/2015 05:30 PM
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
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: aga on 06/09/2015 05:30 PM
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
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: wronkiew on 06/09/2015 06:24 PM
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»).
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: cscott on 06/30/2015 01:51 PM
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 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36670.0).  So we have any details other than "bad integration"?
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: jcm on 06/30/2015 08:57 PM
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.


Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Skyrocket on 06/30/2015 09:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: Danderman on 07/21/2015 03:15 PM
So, SpaceX suffered an upper stage failure due to a structural fault in a part that had flown many times before.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: asmi on 07/21/2015 03:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: eeergo on 12/21/2015 12:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/21/2015 04:35 PM
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 (http://spaceflight101.com/successful-launch-of-first-progress-ms/)
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.
Title: Re: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015
Post by: zubenelgenubi on 12/21/2015 04:41 PM
I found this interesting; Wayne Hale also refers to this failure in his blog post of October 5, 2015: How to Avoid Train Wrecks (https://waynehale.wordpress.com/2015/10/05/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.