Author Topic: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015  (Read 335127 times)

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9565
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 453
CCAM is done via pryo valves in Ozidizer tank (in location mast umbilicals are connected and filled and drained) followed by pressure blow down on all remaining tanks. operation is similar to Ariane 5 first stage at sep.

Actually, that is a description of safing the upper stage, rather than a CCAM.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31222
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9494
  • Likes Given: 298
According to N2YO, Progress-59 will overfly Cape Canaveral in a few minutes. Are there any assets there that could help assess the situation?

None

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7969
  • UK
  • Liked: 1274
  • Likes Given: 168

Apparently in that press briefing Roscosmos chief Komarov reported that the (main?) engine of Progress had depressurized (!), and that telemetry from the spacecraft ceased 1.5 seconds before S/C separation from rocket third stage. He said that because of that docking to ISS is impossible and controlled de-orbit is under consideration.

Damn!  :-X

Source: http://tass.ru/kosmos/1941163

How are they going to do a controlled de-orbit if they can't communicate with it?

Offline orbitaldebris

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 9
How are they going to do a controlled de-orbit if they can't communicate with it?
And how are they going to do a controlled de-orbit with a depressurized main engine? Thrusters?

Offline king1999

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 234
  • F-Niner Fan
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 345
Total loss declared as expected in interview with Scott Kelly this morning:

http://www.sunherald.com/2015/04/29/6200800/space-station-crew-russias-spinning.html

Offline AJA

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

Well, this sucks. Was rooting (as was everybody I think) for a dramatic rescue. Anyway...

1. If the reports of 44 pieces of debris are accurate

a) why must it imply an INTERNAL energetic event (internal to the 3rd stage + PROGRESS system)? Why couldn't it have been an impact with a SINGLE piece of pre-existing space debris? Something either small enough, or large and made of some material transparent to the space radar frequency. This is pretty plausible, given that the same parking orbit is extensively used. The culprit could've been something discarded from a previous Soyuz/Progress mission. It could've been one piece impacting, and then creating 44 additional pieces of shrapnel?

b) Regardless of whether it's a 3rd stage or Progress failure, and regardless of whether there is any commonality of failure modes between this and the Soyuz - doesn't the debris cloud (those 44 tracked elements) ITSELF warrant either a postponement of the coming Soyuz launch (until they decay), or perhaps a launch to a slightly different orbit (inclination, apogee, perigee etc.) to ensure NO chances of conjunction? The latter's very doable, isn't it? Or is the debris expected to decay really fast?

2. This is a hypothetical exercise.. but would having launched this mission at a different time of year - and during a different Beta Angle - have given us any additional time to resolve the issue? I'm asking from the "Even a spinning spacecraft's solar arrays are sun-aligned, twice every two tumbles" (I realise this isn't necessarily always true, but I'm going to guess that it holds more often than not). So while it wouldn't have had constant solar illumination on its arrays, it would still have been power positive, for a fraction of each tumble. Is there anything in the hardware/software of the battery charging circuitry, or battery charging physics/chemistry itself which prevents the system from harnessing a swiftly changing photo-current?

3. This is probably a generic question... but can anyone well versed with telemetry protocol explain if any delay tolerant networking principles are used for telecommand/flight-control? In the context of this incident, I'm assuming telecommand was ineffective, because there was never a stable enough signal to transmit a complete instruction packet - properly formatted and all. I was wondering if a communication protocol, which - for example, recorded all received instructions - and then processed it, using all permutations/formats/error correction/re-ordering of packets etc. would've been more robust, and if it would've enabled "delayed execution" of ground instructions.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2015 02:57 PM by AJA »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6954
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 535
  • Likes Given: 608
How exactly did TsUP get the solar panel deployed signal if telemetry ceased before spacecraft separation?

I remember a Taurus-XL launch when the PAO was reading off the 'expected events' list and it wasn't realised until shortly afterwards that the event (PLF separation) hadn't occurred. It's possible that what they meant to say is that the solar arrays should have deployed and, as there was no indication of any fault except loss of comms, TsUP was assuming that they had been.

That said, a failure of telemetry on Progress before S/C sep is highly unlikely given that videos from the KURS camera have been received since  then. I think that they meant a loss of telemetry from the Soyuz third stage. At least I hope that this is what they meant as it sounds more plausible. I do hope that they aren't going to start down the 'those videos and those telemetry don't exist; they never existed' route.

How are they going to do a controlled de-orbit if they can't communicate with it?

And how are they going to do a controlled de-orbit with a depressurized main engine? Thrusters?

I don't think that they're seriously planning (or planning at all) to make the attempt. This is telling the people that 'we have everything under control'. They may even try to spin the spacecraft's eventual orbital decay as a 'controlled re-entry'.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline MarekCyzio

Apparently in that press briefing Roscosmos chief Komarov reported that the (main?) engine of Progress had depressurized (!),

The article seems to state that the third stage engine had depressurized (not Progress engine) and telemetry from the third stage was lost.

Offline schaban

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 17
Can someone translate this piece of Russian on NK? Seems to be something about losing telemetry from the Soyuz 3rd stage in the final 3 seconds of ascent?  :o

Вот, а это уже информация, спасибо.
just to clarify 1st line of 4th quote

"Oh, this is a piece of information, thank you"

Everything else was already translated properly.



Offline Danderman

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


That said, a failure of telemetry on Progress before S/C sep is highly unlikely given that videos from the KURS camera have been received since  then. I think that they meant a loss of telemetry from the Soyuz third stage. At least I hope that this is what they meant as it sounds more plausible. I do hope that they aren't going to start down the 'those videos and those telemetry don't exist; they never existed' route.


There are no "Kurs cameras"; instead the existing camera system is called "Klest" or "Klyost" depending on who is doing the spelling. I believe the system is up for replacement.


Offline orbitaldebris

  • Member
  • Posts: 52
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 9
why must it imply an INTERNAL energetic event (internal to the 3rd stage + PROGRESS system)? Why couldn't it have been an impact with a SINGLE piece of pre-existing space debris? Something either small enough, or large and made of some material transparent to the space radar frequency. This is pretty plausible, given that the same parking orbit is extensively used. The culprit could've been something discarded from a previous Soyuz/Progress mission. It could've been one piece impacting, and then creating 44 additional pieces of shrapnel?
Debris from a previous mission wouldn't survive at that altitude for more than a few days. And the odds of Progress hitting any piece of debris during launch must be astronomically low.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2015 03:05 PM by orbitaldebris »

Online Galactic Penguin SST

First NORAD TLEs of the "debris" from this incident has just come in - 14 of them. Catalog number #40621-40634/2015-024C-R.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2015 03:24 PM by Galactic Penguin SST »
Chinese spaceflight is a cosmic riddle wrapped in a galactic mystery inside an orbital enigma... - (not) Winston Churchill

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7152
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 2760
  • Likes Given: 823
Note from the TASS report: the State Committee investigating this failure is expected to issue a (preliminary) report no later then May 13th.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8503
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1021
  • Likes Given: 234
First NORAD TLEs of the "debris" from this incident has just come in - 14 of them. Catalog number #40621-40634/2015-024C-R.

Any debris boosted into a higher orbit, indicative of an energetic event!
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline hrissan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
  • Novosibirsk, Russia
  • Liked: 306
  • Likes Given: 1876
Very interesting points from video.

Quote
The third stage flight went fully nominal. But 1.5 seconds before spacecraft separation the telemetry was lost from BOTH 3d stage and spacecraft.
We used a backup channel to regain some telemetry from spacecraft (no more telemetry from 3d stage). Many spacecraft systems function off-nominaly. We have lost pressure in fuel lines leading to main engine.

Regarding 40 (14?) debris objects: at least some of them (possibly all) are separation devices covers/shafts, not debris.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2015 03:44 PM by hrissan »

Online Galactic Penguin SST

Regarding 40 (14?) debris objects: at least some of them (possibly all) are separation devices covers/shafts, not debris.

Well, NORAD never tracked such things from previous launches (usually only 2 objects would appear), so.....  :-X
Chinese spaceflight is a cosmic riddle wrapped in a galactic mystery inside an orbital enigma... - (not) Winston Churchill

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3819
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 250
  • Likes Given: 125
LOM/LOV Verified by Roscosmos




Well this is a shame! Hope any experiments on board can be reflown.

More:
From Roscosmos Control
Quote
We believe a problem occurred during third stage separation. We have opened an emergency and investigative team to determine what occurred and fix it. We are planning to press ahead with another launch on May 26th, but this launch will use a different rocket (soyuz 2)

Raw link if your browser is not showing the embed
« Last Edit: 04/29/2015 04:53 PM by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline JimO

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 49
Revisit the hazard of uncontrolled reentry --

This reentry will be different, the Progress will have tanks practically full of propellant and water, which over the next few days can be expected to freeze. That ought to significantly enhance survivability through boil-off cooling at high temperatures, allowing large quantities of hypergolic propellants to reach the surface in a localized area.

Is this a USA-183-type event headed our way?

...and you may quote me.

Offline hrissan

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
  • Novosibirsk, Russia
  • Liked: 306
  • Likes Given: 1876
Regarding 40 (14?) debris objects: at least some of them (possibly all) are separation devices covers/shafts, not debris.

Well, NORAD never tracked such things from previous launches (usually only 2 objects would appear), so.....  :-X
Well, debris are no suprise after the event that knocked telemetry on both stage and spacecraft and ruptured fuel lines. :) I just quoted what officials said on the video, do not throw stones at me.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3819
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 250
  • Likes Given: 125
Revisit the hazard of uncontrolled reentry --

This reentry will be different, the Progress will have tanks practically full of propellant and water, which over the next few days can be expected to freeze. That ought to significantly enhance survivability through boil-off cooling at high temperatures, allowing large quantities of hypergolic propellants to reach the surface in a localized area.

Is this a USA-183-type event headed our way?

...and you may quote me.
According to the latest update, they are going to try and do a semi controlled de orbit burn and deal with it that way as soon as they can send any kind of telemetry.

Barring that, it will freeze up and then it will fall wherever it falls.

Edit:

As far as what makes it through EI?
I would imagine that depends on how much prop actually ends up left over for one, also will depend on angle of attack. And both of these only matter if they do manage to initiate a de orbit burn instead of natural decay. Otherwise yes, I would imagine some large parts of this might make it through. And we won't know exactly where they will fall, not necessarily good.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2015 04:18 PM by FinalFrontier »
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Tags: