Author Topic: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015  (Read 335976 times)

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12574
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2752
  • Likes Given: 410
Here's some data for you. These are screenshots of what happened in MCC-M during separation that I took from the video below.

Video     Relative
Time (s)  Time (s)  Event
------------------------------------------------------------
  555        0      Third stage shutdown and separation
  562        7      Main screen switches to Soyuz
  648       93      Main screen switches to orbital plots
  749      194      Telemetry data shown in top right screen
  763      208      Last second of telemetry data


Thus, it looks like that about 14 seconds of data was obtained. If you toggle between the last two images, you can see part of the screen changing. Unfortunately, the resolution is too low to read what this says.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dzVYOwTKJGg
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8506
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1022
  • Likes Given: 234
Obviously the distance from the ISS to the Progress would be smaller than the distance from Progress to the ground, but wouldn't it be better to try to take pictures from the ground? I mean with telescopes, etc. Surely there is better imaging equipment available on the ground.

That would be AMOS (owned by the US Air Force) and Altai Optical Laser Center (Russia). There are a limited number of telescopes that are configured do it at a resolution that would be useful. It is a small object that would stretch the resolution limits of most amateur systems.
 
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Targeteer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3578
  • near hangar 18
  • Liked: 770
  • Likes Given: 364
Per L2, Crew was instructed to try to take photos of 59P as it passes underneath ISS

Watching the ISS orbital track graphic last night it looked like the Progress may have passed under ISS during darkness
Best quote heard during an inspection, "I was unaware that I was the only one who was aware."

Offline DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7757
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 285
  • Likes Given: 12
Per L2, Crew was instructed to try to take photos of 59P as it passes underneath ISS

Watching the ISS orbital track graphic last night it looked like the Progress may have passed under ISS during darkness
According to the latest TLEs, the pass was at 0023UTC and it was daylight.
"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 JimO

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 49
I'm quoted in an uncharacteristically non-alarmist tone in this morning news story:

Air Force Watching Falling Russian Satellite
‘Progress’ supply craft with toxic fuel to reenter in 10 days
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/air-force-watching-falling-russian-satellite/

For context behind my extreme skepticism towards Moscow assurances of 'complete safety', here are some precedents:

Coverup of Mars-96 impact on Bolivia
http://www.jamesoberg.com/plutonium.html
 
Fobos-Grunt probe fall 11 tons of rocket propellants]
http://www.jamesoberg.com/so_where_did_it_crash.pdf

kosmos-954 false assurances
http://www.jamesoberg.com/usd-rorsat.pdf

and also

NBC News background advisory on falling UARS sat
http://www.jamesoberg.com/advisory_on_falling_satellite.pdf



Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8506
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1022
  • Likes Given: 234
     Back on subject; Any one hear if they have a predicted reentry point yet?
They have a predicted reentry date of May 9th, give or take a few days. It is still to early.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Online Galactic Penguin SST

Are there any detailed description of the Soyuz rocket payload separation mechanism for Progress/Soyuz spacecraft? I guess it's just standard explosion bolts and/or springs?

Also from Russian sources I read, it seems that only the fuel lines on "side A" of the Progress propulsion system was damaged; "side B" (which usually is only used for de-orbiting) is fine, hence the talk of using it for controlled de-orbit. Of course, the spin needs to be stopped first....  :P
Chinese spaceflight is a cosmic riddle wrapped in a galactic mystery inside an orbital enigma... - (not) Winston Churchill

Offline SWGlassPit

  • I break space hardware
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 437
  • Liked: 249
  • Likes Given: 35
A controlled deorbit would also require the ability to successfully command the spacecraft.  It sounds like they don't even have that.

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3729
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 687
  • Likes Given: 433
Are there any detailed description of the Soyuz rocket payload separation mechanism for Progress/Soyuz spacecraft? I guess it's just standard explosion bolts and/or springs?

Also from Russian sources I read, it seems that only the fuel lines on "side A" of the Progress propulsion system was damaged; "side B" (which usually is only used for de-orbiting) is fine, hence the talk of using it for controlled de-orbit. Of course, the spin needs to be stopped first....  :P
bolts attach Progress to transfer compartment and springs and bolts are I believe are mounted Progress side and when bolts are broken springs pop out of the bolt holes. When Poisk launched springs were visible. I haven't found visual confirmation yet that Progress M-M series employs springs in same location as Poisk did. Only 300 series seems to have visible springs.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2015 05:14 PM by russianhalo117 »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3729
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 687
  • Likes Given: 433
Are there any detailed description of the Soyuz rocket payload separation mechanism for Progress/Soyuz spacecraft? I guess it's just standard explosion bolts and/or springs?

Also from Russian sources I read, it seems that only the fuel lines on "side A" of the Progress propulsion system was damaged; "side B" (which usually is only used for de-orbiting) is fine, hence the talk of using it for controlled de-orbit. Of course, the spin needs to be stopped first....  :P
From RussianSpaceWeb.com:
Quote
According to NASA, during the day, the mission control in Korolev also asked the current ISS crew, to try to photograph the stricken ship as it passes 170 kilometers below the station around 8:30 p.m. EDT. NASA also said that the previous night, Russian ground controllers had been able to establish communications with the vehicle and review telemetry. Russian controllers configured the refueling system to feed the thrusters (editor's note: in the remaining manifold) and made two unsuccessful attempts to command the thrusters to stabilize the vehicle’s angular rotation, NASA said.

This includes all stored data as well as current TLM data.
« Last Edit: 04/30/2015 06:39 PM by russianhalo117 »

Online Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2191
  • Canada
  • Liked: 281
  • Likes Given: 434
What is the chance that the upper stage & Progress stack got unlucky encounter with some small orbital debris around spacecraft separation event? Would such a collision explain the state of the upper stage & the Progress plus the Progress's axial rotation?

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3403
  • California
  • Liked: 2639
  • Likes Given: 1666

What is the chance that the upper stage & Progress stack got unlucky encounter with some small orbital debris around spacecraft separation event? Would such a collision explain the state of the upper stage & the Progress plus the Progress's axial rotation?

Very very slim. And any impact with orbital debris would likely cause a lot more damage. Also there is not that much orbital debris at that low altitude, since it would reenter fairly quickly.

Offline JimO

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 49
     Back on subject; Any one hear if they have a predicted reentry point yet?
They have a predicted reentry date of May 9th, give or take a few days. It is still to early.

That depends on knowing the mass of the object, and THAT depends on how much propellant remains, and THAT is anybody's guess. Working backwards, an earlier than predicted reentry would suggest a lighter than full tank vehicle.

Offline JimO

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 49
Interesting quote from Rogozin today:

"So far, no one has any theories as to what happened," he added. "I am meeting with designers today. The situation is so unusual that specialists have so far been unable to determine any causes," Rogozin said

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8506
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1022
  • Likes Given: 234
Jim, Don't forget solar activity plays a big factor in upper atmosphere density, and it is currently low. So maybe a little bit longer.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9565
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 453
Are there any detailed description of the Soyuz rocket payload separation mechanism for Progress/Soyuz spacecraft? I guess it's just standard explosion bolts and/or springs?

Also from Russian sources I read, it seems that only the fuel lines on "side A" of the Progress propulsion system was damaged; "side B" (which usually is only used for de-orbiting) is fine, hence the talk of using it for controlled de-orbit. Of course, the spin needs to be stopped first....  :P
bolts attach Progress to transfer compartment and springs and bolts are I believe are mounted Progress side and when bolts are broken springs pop out of the bolt holes. When Poisk launched springs were visible. I haven't found visual confirmation yet that Progress M-M series employs springs in same location as Poisk did. Only 300 series seems to have visible springs.

Poisk used a more or less standard PAO from Progress; since the separation system is in the PAO, I would suspect that the separation systems are similar, bolts and springs,

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9565
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 453
Now TsUP is claimed to be "in control" of Progress, and one of the two manifolds is supposedly working. This implies that Progress has power, somehow, despite the rotation.

Under those conditions, there would be no reason for a controlled de-orbit, or any de-orbit at all.

« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 03:00 AM by Danderman »

Offline JimO

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 49
Now TsUP is claimed to be "in control" of Progress, and one of the two manifolds is supposedly working. This implies that Progress has power, somehow, despite the rotation.

Under those conditions, there would be no reason for a controlled de-orbit, or any de-orbit at all.



Is TsUP claiming that, or is NASA claiming TsUP is claiming that?

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9565
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 453
Now TsUP is claimed to be "in control" of Progress, and one of the two manifolds is supposedly working. This implies that Progress has power, somehow, despite the rotation.

Under those conditions, there would be no reason for a controlled de-orbit, or any de-orbit at all.



Is TsUP claiming that, or is NASA claiming TsUP is claiming that?

http://russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html

Quote
According to NASA, during the day, the mission control in Korolev also asked the current ISS crew, to try to photograph the stricken ship as it passes 170 kilometers below the station around 8:30 p.m. EDT. NASA also said that a previous night, Russian ground controllers had been able to establish communications with the vehicle and review telemetry. Russian controllers configured the refueling system to feed the thrusters (editor's note: in the remaining manifold) and made two unsuccessful attempts to command the thrusters to stabilize the vehicle’s angular rotation, NASA said.
« Last Edit: 05/01/2015 08:20 AM by Danderman »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6960
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 535
  • Likes Given: 610
So, it appears that Progress-59 still has electrical power and the computers are mostly operational. However, that does not necessarily mean that the propulsion systems can be used.

If the RCS is unusable but the OMS is operational, does the computer have the right level of fine control to pulse-fire the OMS engine every time it is pointed in the right direction? If so, then it may be possible to control the de-orbit and ensure the vehicle re-enters over a safe spot.
"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!!!

Tags: