Author Topic: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015  (Read 336072 times)

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17772
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 440
  • Likes Given: 3279
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)
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Online kevinof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
  • Dublin/London
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 286
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.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9565
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 453
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.

Online Chris Bergin

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.

Offline Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6633
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 136
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. 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?

Offline Space Pete

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.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2015 02:15 PM by Space Pete »
Electronic Engineer by day, NASASpaceflight's ISS Editor by night | Read my NASASpaceflight articles here

Offline JimO

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 49
When does the Progress 'lap' ISS and pass beneath it for possible dramatic crew visual observation?

Offline Liss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 905
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 8
USSTRATCOM issued second elset for object B at 119x314 km.
This message reflects my personal opinion based on open sources of information.

Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1490
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 136
  • Likes Given: 393

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.

Offline Graham

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 218
  • New York
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 111

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.
I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night
- Sarah Williams

Offline AJA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 855
  • Per Aspera Ad Ares, Per Aspera Ad Astra
  • India
  • Liked: 135
  • Likes Given: 202
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...)

Offline asmi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 90
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.

Offline Graham

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 218
  • New York
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 111
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.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2015 02:48 PM by Graham »
I have loved the stars too fondly to be fearful of the night
- Sarah Williams

Offline jcm

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2795
  • Jonathan McDowell
  • Somerville, Massachusetts, USA
    • Jonathan's Space Report
  • Liked: 336
  • Likes Given: 289
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.
-----------------------------

Jonathan McDowell
http://planet4589.org

Offline asmi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 90
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.

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 437
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 35
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.

Offline asmi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 90
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.

Offline JimO

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 49
Is the time displayed on the Progress video UT + 3 hrs?

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3935
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 2596
  • Likes Given: 866
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!
« Last Edit: 04/28/2015 03:07 PM by FutureSpaceTourist »

Offline Galactic Penguin SST

Is the time displayed on the Progress video UT + 3 hrs?

Yup. Moscow Standard Time.
Chinese spaceflight is a cosmic riddle wrapped in a galactic mystery inside an orbital enigma... - (not) Winston Churchill

Tags: