Author Topic: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015  (Read 335411 times)

Offline speedevil

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
  • Fife
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 126
Will there be any information on what would have happened if this had been a crewed Soyuz?
If the crew wouldn't be able to regain control of the spacecraft, they would likely be dead.

I can't find any sources on design of the control systems for progress vs soyuz.

If indeed there was no significant damage to progress, and the tumble was due to either recontact, or off-nominal deployment in some manner - it's perhaps not unreasonable that the control system was unable to handle the rotation rate, leading to it being unable to stop the tumble as it couldn't sense it due to all of the rate sensors being pinned.

If there were humans inside, and there is some way for them to reconfigure the computer to ignore the sensors, or to directly command the thrusters, in principle they could have stopped the spin (it was certainly not incapacitiating) and then the rest of the mission could have gone nominally.

Offline ChrisC

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1410
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 242
Does anybody know what is the likelihood (statistical percentage) that it would have ended up in the Pacific anyway?

Same question but for ANY ocean?

I know that the Pacific accounts for 30.5% of the Earth's surface, and that ALL oceans account for 65.7% (and another 5% for other water features).  But that's against the entire Earth's surface, whereas ISS and missions to it only cover to +/- 51.6 degrees latitude.  Anybody know what the stats are for that band?
NASA TV in HD:  history, FAQ and latest status

Offline BabaORileyUSA

  • Member
  • Posts: 71
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 17
First, TIP predictions aren't issued by NORAD anymore, they're issued by the JSpOC.  Second, TIP messages are only issued for objects of "significant' radar cross section (RCS), and I'm pretty sure they use measured values rather than the qualifiers 'LARGE' and 'SMALL' to determine what has a 'significant' RCS!  It would be a computing nightmare to have to issue TIPs on ALL re-entering objects!

Online RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2102
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 988
  • Likes Given: 760
Will there be any information on what would have happened if this had been a crewed Soyuz?
If the crew wouldn't be able to regain control of the spacecraft, they would likely be dead.

I can't find any sources on design of the control systems for progress vs soyuz.

If indeed there was no significant damage to progress, and the tumble was due to either recontact, or off-nominal deployment in some manner - it's perhaps not unreasonable that the control system was unable to handle the rotation rate, leading to it being unable to stop the tumble as it couldn't sense it due to all of the rate sensors being pinned.

If there were humans inside, and there is some way for them to reconfigure the computer to ignore the sensors, or to directly command the thrusters, in principle they could have stopped the spin (it was certainly not incapacitiating) and then the rest of the mission could have gone nominally.

If the issue was the thrusters, I would assume cosmonauts could turn the automated system off and manually control the thrusters.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8504
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1021
  • Likes Given: 234
Does anybody know what is the likelihood (statistical percentage) that it would have ended up in the Pacific anyway?

Same question but for ANY ocean?

I know that the Pacific accounts for 30.5% of the Earth's surface, and that ALL oceans account for 65.7% (and another 5% for other water features).  But that's against the entire Earth's surface, whereas ISS and missions to it only cover to +/- 51.6 degrees latitude.  Anybody know what the stats are for that band?

It was posted up thread that JSC debris quarterly had a few articles on those percentages. I think it was the jan or april 2012 issue. On cell, so my going up thread is limited.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2450
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 1493
  • Likes Given: 2609
Will there be any information on what would have happened if this had been a crewed Soyuz?
If the crew wouldn't be able to regain control of the spacecraft, they would likely be dead.

I can't find any sources on design of the control systems for progress vs soyuz.

If indeed there was no significant damage to progress, and the tumble was due to either recontact, or off-nominal deployment in some manner - it's perhaps not unreasonable that the control system was unable to handle the rotation rate, leading to it being unable to stop the tumble as it couldn't sense it due to all of the rate sensors being pinned.

If there were humans inside, and there is some way for them to reconfigure the computer to ignore the sensors, or to directly command the thrusters, in principle they could have stopped the spin (it was certainly not incapacitiating) and then the rest of the mission could have gone nominally.

If the issue was the thrusters, I would assume cosmonauts could turn the automated system off and manually control the thrusters.

But, but, but...  it's my understanding that Russian ground controllers (as well as ISS crew) have the same capability, by taking over remote control of the Progress.  And in this case, they said that while they were able to command the system, they were unable to make the thrusters work.

I don't think we have a really good idea of the actual status of the Progress after the accident.  It seems like a lot of the early commentary, especially in terms of the manifolds not pressurizing and indications of loss of propellant, are in the process of being ret-conned by others in the Russian program.  They all want us to believe that nothing happened to the Progress except for some kind of recontact putting it into a spin that it couldn't get out of, and that doesn't completely jibe with a lot of self-consistent reports we heard at the time of the accident.

I think it will take some time for the actual facts of the accident, and the status of the Progress from insertion until entry, to come out.  And if there is someone in the Russian hierarchy who will lose his job over this, he is likely trying cover his ass with great, energetic armwaving right now.  So, I just don't believe the latest reports that the Progress was completely unscathed, just got into a spin it couldn't recover from.  Sounds like CYA to me, not reliable info.
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Online RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2102
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 988
  • Likes Given: 760
Will there be any information on what would have happened if this had been a crewed Soyuz?
If the crew wouldn't be able to regain control of the spacecraft, they would likely be dead.

I can't find any sources on design of the control systems for progress vs soyuz.

If indeed there was no significant damage to progress, and the tumble was due to either recontact, or off-nominal deployment in some manner - it's perhaps not unreasonable that the control system was unable to handle the rotation rate, leading to it being unable to stop the tumble as it couldn't sense it due to all of the rate sensors being pinned.

If there were humans inside, and there is some way for them to reconfigure the computer to ignore the sensors, or to directly command the thrusters, in principle they could have stopped the spin (it was certainly not incapacitiating) and then the rest of the mission could have gone nominally.

If the issue was the thrusters, I would assume cosmonauts could turn the automated system off and manually control the thrusters.

But, but, but...  it's my understanding that Russian ground controllers (as well as ISS crew) have the same capability, by taking over remote control of the Progress.  And in this case, they said that while they were able to command the system, they were unable to make the thrusters work.

I don't think we have a really good idea of the actual status of the Progress after the accident.  It seems like a lot of the early commentary, especially in terms of the manifolds not pressurizing and indications of loss of propellant, are in the process of being ret-conned by others in the Russian program.  They all want us to believe that nothing happened to the Progress except for some kind of recontact putting it into a spin that it couldn't get out of, and that doesn't completely jibe with a lot of self-consistent reports we heard at the time of the accident.

I think it will take some time for the actual facts of the accident, and the status of the Progress from insertion until entry, to come out.  And if there is someone in the Russian hierarchy who will lose his job over this, he is likely trying cover his ass with great, energetic armwaving right now.  So, I just don't believe the latest reports that the Progress was completely unscathed, just got into a spin it couldn't recover from.  Sounds like CYA to me, not reliable info.

Two points:

1) If the issue was the thrusters, cosmonauts on the scene could react in seconds. By the time ground controllers realize something is wrong and establish communications, the fuel tanks are empty.

2) I wrote IF the issue was the thrusters. I was responding to speedevil who also used if in the questions. If the tanks were ruptured by a collision with the third stage, then nothing could be done.

Reports just after the accident can be inaccurate. Later reports could also be inaccurate because of CYA. It will take a detailed investigation to figure out what happened, assuming there is enough data to figure it out.

Offline ChrisC

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1410
  • Liked: 244
  • Likes Given: 242
Does anybody know what is the likelihood (statistical percentage) that it would have ended up in the Pacific anyway?

Same question but for ANY ocean?

I know that the Pacific accounts for 30.5% of the Earth's surface, and that ALL oceans account for 65.7% (and another 5% for other water features).  But that's against the entire Earth's surface, whereas ISS and missions to it only cover to +/- 51.6 degrees latitude.  Anybody know what the stats are for that band?

It was posted up thread that JSC debris quarterly had a few articles on those percentages. I think it was the jan or april 2012 issue. On cell, so my going up thread is limited.

Yes!  Thank you!

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35789.msg1366437;topicseen#msg1366437
NASA TV in HD:  history, FAQ and latest status

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9565
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 453
I have come to the conclusion that much of the "data" we have received is either inaccurate, or just made up, so it is not too useful to try to guess what really happened to the Progress.

What we have is internally inconsistent, and does not make sense, based on known technical parameters of Progress.

I believe that Progress was spinning after separation from the launch vehicle, and that ground controllers had limited ability to control the spacecraft. That's about all I believe at this point.



Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
I have come to the conclusion that much of the "data" we have received is either inaccurate, or just made up, so it is not too useful to try to guess what really happened to the Progress.

What we have is internally inconsistent, and does not make sense, based on known technical parameters of Progress.

I believe that Progress was spinning after separation from the launch vehicle, and that ground controllers had limited ability to control the spacecraft. That's about all I believe at this point.

we may never know.....best guess human error IMHO this thread can't be dismissed as a factor. 

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36201.0
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Online Chris Bergin

So do we have any update on what the re-entry time was, or is it still 02:20 UTC?

Offline JimO

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1813
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 215
  • Likes Given: 49
Can somebody check wxsat imagery over Terra del Fuego to see the cloud cover, so as to anticipate ground witness accounts of a fireball?

Offline Jester

  • NSF Night Flyer
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6750
  • Some Space Agency
  • Liked: 2724
  • Likes Given: 80
Mostly splashes, but add in the normal downrange scatter for denser, heavier fragments and there ought to have been a few 'thunks' as well -- on Tierra del Fuego.

Revenge for Top Gear... *


* kidding of course, hope nobody got hurt


wx
« Last Edit: 05/09/2015 11:52 AM by Jester »

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4685
  • Liked: 2806
  • Likes Given: 3925
I have come to the conclusion that much of the "data" we have received is either inaccurate, or just made up, so it is not too useful to try to guess what really happened to the Progress.

What we have is internally inconsistent, and does not make sense, based on known technical parameters of Progress.

I believe that Progress was spinning after separation from the launch vehicle, and that ground controllers had limited ability to control the spacecraft. That's about all I believe at this point.

we may never know.....best guess human error IMHO this thread can't be dismissed as a factor. 

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36201.0

So, this being the case, will NASA get access to telemetry, etc. to inform their decision to proceed with crew flights?  Seem that 'trust us' will be a technically unsound basis for the decision to fly.  How will the decision be made?  (Is there going to be a run on trampolines?)
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Too early to decide if this was a LV failure?

Online edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12660
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 3454
  • Likes Given: 576
Too early to decide if this was a LV failure?
I think we may hear something from the investigation this week.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 05/10/2015 04:17 PM by edkyle99 »

Offline DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7755
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 282
  • Likes Given: 12
Too early to decide if this was a LV failure?
I guess so as they haven't rescheduled the Soyuz 2.1A with Kobalt M. That would be an indication of which way this investigation is moving. A reschedule to sometime late this month would be a indication that the LV might not be to blame.
"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 Chris Bergin

Third stage issues and a bad S/C Sep:

http://www.federalspace.ru/21481/

ROSCOSMOS: it identifies the main causes of accidents TGK "Progress M-27M"

12/05/2015 18:14

May 12, 2015, the State Commission chaired by the Deputy head of Roscosmos, Alexander Ivanov presented the preliminary findings on the situation of TGK "Progress M-27M", the launch of which was made April 28, 2015 from the Baikonur Cosmodrome.

In general, start-up and separation of THC «Progress M-27M" took place in normal mode until the separation of THC third stage "Soyuz 2.1a."  On the second flight was 526.716 unintended separation of the third stage of the launch and the THC, resulting in the ship was in orbit with an apogee of 40 km upstream, and third stage of the launch - in an orbit with an apogee of 20 km below the calculated trajectory excretion.

Having studied all the materials, the members of the State Commission came to the preliminary conclusion that objectively confirmed version abnormal division, including two consecutive events associated with depressurization (opening after turning off the main engine third stage rocket) first oxidizer tank, and then - and the fuel tank 3 th stage of the launch.

The work of the State Commission continues.  For the final classification of the nature of the causes that led to the end of the emergency starter requires in-depth computational and theoretical studies, additional modeling and a number of experimental works that will be done.

On 13 May 2015 the committee members begin to work at the enterprises producing rocket and space technology to identify and eliminate all possible causes of the accident.

ROSCOSMOS in cooperation with partners in the ISS flight program corrects:

 - The beginning of June: the return of the ISS to Earth;

 - The beginning of July: launching another cargo ship to the ISS;

 - The end of July: the launch of the next manned spacecraft to the ISS.

The final conclusions of the State Commission is expected May 22, 2015.

Online Galactic Penguin SST

Third stage issues and a bad S/C Sep:

http://www.federalspace.ru/21481/

Nothing new really - they are still looking at what caused the blowing up at the spacecraft separation plane.
Chinese spaceflight is a cosmic riddle wrapped in a galactic mystery inside an orbital enigma... - (not) Winston Churchill

Offline saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • Liked: 351
  • Likes Given: 1117
Nothing new really - they are still looking at what caused the blowing up at the spacecraft separation plane.

Doesn't this count as an official confirmation that it was in fact a launch failure? I personally count 3rd stage shutdown and s/c sep as parts of launch. I'm just looking at the "2015 in spaceflight" wikipedia page which I believe you are curating and it lists the launch as success and notes s/c failure.

Tags: