Author Topic: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015  (Read 344278 times)

Offline kevind

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

Offline Nicolas PILLET

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2212
  • Gien, France
    • Kosmonavtika
  • Liked: 364
  • Likes Given: 35
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.
Nicolas PILLET
Kosmonavtika : The French site on Russian Space

Offline Razvan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • United States
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 51
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.

Offline Bubbinski

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?
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 301
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 759
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.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2015 06:18 PM by Rebel44 »

Offline Xspace_engineerX

  • Member
  • Posts: 51
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 19
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.

Offline MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 918
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 624
  • Likes Given: 1091
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)

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

And that's my one "congrats" post in what is still, I think, an update thread.
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3864
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 755
  • Likes Given: 463
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.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2015 06:39 PM by russianhalo117 »

Offline Razvan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 163
  • United States
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 51
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...

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3834
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 255
  • Likes Given: 131
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).
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Endeavour_01

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Physics Professor in SC, USA
  • Liked: 414
  • Likes Given: 410
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.
I cheer for both NASA and commercial space. For SLS, Orion, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, Dragon, Starliner, Cygnus and all the rest!
I was blessed to see the launch of Space Shuttle Endeavour on STS-99. The launch was beyond amazing. My 8-year old mind was blown. I remember the noise and seeing the exhaust pour out of the shuttle as it lifted off. I remember staring and watching it soar while it was visible in the clear blue sky. It was one of the greatest moments of my life and I will never forget it.

Offline Xspace_engineerX

  • Member
  • Posts: 51
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 19
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?

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12858
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3610
  • Likes Given: 617
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

Offline LostInSpace

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 250
  • Cape Canaveral
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 6


Anyone have knowledge of the odds of this affecting soyuz capsules due to commonality?
[/quote]

Online speedevil

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 467
  • Fife
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 192
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.

Online Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8756
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 5449
  • Likes Given: 3603
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 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

Offline Jester

  • NSF Night Flyer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6795
  • Some Space Agency
  • Liked: 2801
  • Likes Given: 84
any confirmation that Progress M-27M is NORAD ID 40619 ?? (this is my assumption but no update from space-track yet)

Offline Appable

  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Washington, USA
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 21
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.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2015 07:17 PM by Appable »
This end should point toward the ground if you want to go to space. If it starts pointing toward space you are having a bad problem and you will not go to space today.

Online kdhilliard

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 178
  • Kirk
  • Tanstaa, FL
  • Liked: 171
  • Likes Given: 537
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 [YouTube]
Dan Hartman, Deputy ISS Program Manager, in response to questions at :
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 :
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

Offline asmi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 658
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 92
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.

Tags: