Author Topic: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015  (Read 335895 times)

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12671
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3463
  • Likes Given: 578
Could the tracked orbit be a result of an out-of-control Progress firing its thrusters in uncontrolled directions?

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 04/28/2015 07:41 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3728
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 687
  • Likes Given: 433
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.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3728
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 687
  • Likes Given: 433
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.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2015 08:26 PM by russianhalo117 »

Offline Chris Bergin

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.

Offline Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 281
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 678
Were those reports of incorrect orbit officially confirmed, or refuted?

Offline Jester

  • NSF Night Flyer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6754
  • Some Space Agency
  • Liked: 2732
  • Likes Given: 80
Interfax quoting third stage problem

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

Offline dsell88

  • Member
  • Posts: 5
  • Washington
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 4
Anybody with CAD skills interested in modeling M-27M's tumble? It would make a spectacular video :P

Offline asmi

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

Online Galactic Penguin SST

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

Offline Jester

  • NSF Night Flyer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6754
  • Some Space Agency
  • Liked: 2732
  • Likes Given: 80
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 :)
« Last Edit: 04/28/2015 08:40 PM by Jester »

Offline Mark McCombs

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 259
  • SW Washington
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 1167
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?
"Are you sure you want to go to Red Alert, Sir? It does mean changing the bulb." - Kryten
"A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory". LLAP - Leonard Nimoy

Offline WindnWar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 410
  • South Carolina
  • Liked: 213
  • Likes Given: 1146
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.

Online Galactic Penguin SST

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.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2015 09:16 PM by Galactic Penguin SST »
Chinese spaceflight is a cosmic riddle wrapped in a galactic mystery inside an orbital enigma... - (not) Winston Churchill

This is an update from the NORAD ?

Online Galactic Penguin SST

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

Offline asmi

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

Offline Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 281
  • Liked: 132
  • Likes Given: 678
How long, would it take for the Soyuz, to enter atmosphere from this orbit, if it cannot be fixed?

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3728
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 687
  • Likes Given: 433
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?

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1071
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Commonwealth of Virginia
  • Liked: 223
  • Likes Given: 615
Ted Molczan has withdrawn his decay prediction for tomorrow, given the new, accurate orbital elements.
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Apr-2015/0251.html
Support your local planetarium!

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3728
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 687
  • Likes Given: 433
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
« Last Edit: 04/28/2015 09:46 PM by russianhalo117 »

Tags: