Author Topic: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015  (Read 344415 times)

Offline CosmicDebris

  • Member
  • Posts: 2
  • Santa barbara, CA
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

Offline Remes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Germany
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 100
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.
« Last Edit: 04/28/2015 09:51 PM by Remes »

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12860
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3610
  • Likes Given: 617
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
« Last Edit: 04/28/2015 10:04 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline Nicolas PILLET

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

Offline satwatcher

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

Offline The man in the can

  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 10
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

Offline Liss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 936
  • Moscow, Russia
  • Liked: 122
  • Likes Given: 8
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.

This message reflects my personal opinion based on open sources of information.

Offline asmi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 658
  • Ontario, Canada
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 93
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.

Offline StarGeezer

  • Member
  • Posts: 69
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 21
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?

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7779
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 13
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.
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17775
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 442
  • Likes Given: 3381
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
« Last Edit: 04/28/2015 11:07 PM by robertross »
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7779
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 13
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.
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Online russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3866
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 755
  • Likes Given: 465
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??

Online Chris Bergin

So we're coming up on this attempt of communicating with the spacecraft.

About an hour away I believe.

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7779
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 13
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.
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Online ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3534
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 2101
  • Likes Given: 2480
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.


Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7779
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 13
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).
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline BowShock

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
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.

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1887
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA -- previously in Ann Arbor, MI
  • Liked: 465
  • Likes Given: 188
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.
Internal combustion engine in space. It's just a Bad Idea.TM - Robotbeat

Online RotoSequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 785
  • Liked: 573
  • Likes Given: 782
Well, if all recovery efforts fail, at least they can afford to lose this one, and won't be forced to re-enact in real life...  :P

Tags: