Author Topic: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015  (Read 335268 times)

Offline satwatcher

  • Member
  • Posts: 99
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 41
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

Offline WindnWar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 410
  • South Carolina
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 1144
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?

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4186
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 207
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

Not much time to sort things out or at least get some more telemetry.

Offline ClaytonBirchenough

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 778
  • ~ 1 AU
    • LinkedIn
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 342
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?
Clayton Birchenough
Astro. Engineer and Computational Mathematics @ ERAU

Online ChrisC

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1410
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 242
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

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.
NASA TV in HD:  history, FAQ and latest status

Offline asmi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 90
It turns out that using TORU from the ground is not only possible, but actually is a standard test prior to docking.

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3724
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 685
  • Likes Given: 431
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??

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4186
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 207

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

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.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2015 05:54 PM by Patchouli »

Offline Razvan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 162
  • United States
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 50
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

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8330
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5105
  • Likes Given: 3414
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/
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online zubenelgenubi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1066
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Commonwealth of Virginia
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 609
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
Support your local planetarium!

Offline Phillip Clark

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1998
  • Hastings, England
  • Liked: 259
  • Likes Given: 607
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.

Offline sailor.dm

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 4
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.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3820
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 250
  • Likes Given: 125
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.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3820
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 250
  • Likes Given: 125
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.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Online Orbiter

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
  • Florida
  • Liked: 385
  • Likes Given: 908
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
Attended space missions: STS-114, STS-124, STS-128, STS-135, Atlas V "Curiosity", Delta IV Heavy NROL-15, Atlas V MUOS-2, Delta IV Heavy NROL-37, SpaceX CRS-9, SpaceX JCSAT-16, Atlas V GOES-R, SpaceX SES-11.

Offline Nicolas PILLET

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2199
  • Gien, France
    • Kosmonavtika
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 34
Also, this is only the second Progress failure in a programme that started in January 1978.

It is not yet a failure !
Nicolas PILLET
Kosmonavtika : The French site on Russian Space

Offline Razvan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 162
  • United States
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 50
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...

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4186
  • Liked: 117
  • Likes Given: 207
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.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2015 06:10 PM by Patchouli »

Online Chris Bergin

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

Tags: