Author Topic: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch – Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015  (Read 343632 times)

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 235
The recontact was between first and second stage. They were nowhere to orbital. There was the talks about the SeaLaunch and Intelsat 19, I think?
Intelsat 19 was due to a manufacturing defect in the solar panels. The defect bit three Space Systems Loral Satellites (Estrela do Sul/Telstar 14, Estrela do Sul-2/Telstar 14R, Intelsat IS-19).
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 226
  • United States
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 40
The recontact was between first and second stage. They were nowhere to orbital. There was the talks about the SeaLaunch and Intelsat 19, I think?
Intelsat 19 was due to a manufacturing defect in the solar panels. The defect bit three Space Systems Loral Satellites (Estrela do Sul/Telstar 14, Estrela do Sul-2/Telstar 14R, Intelsat IS-19).
Failed to deploy. Cable clip.

According to this the fault was not the clip that was just a symptom after the initial failure http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/01/obscure-solar-array-failure-du/

Offline Space Ghost 1962

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2476
  • Whatcha gonna do when the Ghost zaps you?
  • Liked: 2377
  • Likes Given: 1738
The recontact was between first and second stage. They were nowhere to orbital. There was the talks about the SeaLaunch and Intelsat 19, I think?
Intelsat 19 was due to a manufacturing defect in the solar panels. The defect bit three Space Systems Loral Satellites (Estrela do Sul/Telstar 14, Estrela do Sul-2/Telstar 14R, Intelsat IS-19).
Failed to deploy. Cable clip.

According to this the fault was not the clip that was just a symptom after the initial failure http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/01/obscure-solar-array-failure-du/


Quote
"It found that it was inadvertent solar array pressurisation and exposive decompression that was the underlying cause."

"... during the launch phase, the satellites’ solar arrays had actually become pressurized relative to their ambient environment as the launch vehicle rose in altitude ... led to an explosive event which damaged the array’s deployment mechanism ... manufacturing defect that was found to be the root cause ... susceptible to explosive depressurization."

"Although the exact cause remained a mystery, evidence that an explosive event had been detected by onboard sound sensors hinted that the launch vehicle was in some way at fault. "

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 226
  • United States
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 40
The recontact was between first and second stage. They were nowhere to orbital. There was the talks about the SeaLaunch and Intelsat 19, I think?
Intelsat 19 was due to a manufacturing defect in the solar panels. The defect bit three Space Systems Loral Satellites (Estrela do Sul/Telstar 14, Estrela do Sul-2/Telstar 14R, Intelsat IS-19).
Failed to deploy. Cable clip.

According to this the fault was not the clip that was just a symptom after the initial failure http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/01/obscure-solar-array-failure-du/


Quote
"It found that it was inadvertent solar array pressurisation and exposive decompression that was the underlying cause."

"... during the launch phase, the satellites’ solar arrays had actually become pressurized relative to their ambient environment as the launch vehicle rose in altitude ... led to an explosive event which damaged the array’s deployment mechanism ... manufacturing defect that was found to be the root cause ... susceptible to explosive depressurization."

"Although the exact cause remained a mystery, evidence that an explosive event had been detected by onboard sound sensors hinted that the launch vehicle was in some way at fault. "

your third quote from the article is describing the suspicion at the time of the first failure and NOT the conclusion of the investigation. I'm working mobile and I can't really quote but I suggest you read the final paragraph of the linked article.

And my apologies to everyone as I realize this is way off topic

Offline Silmfeanor

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1164
  • Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Liked: 217
  • Likes Given: 458
Article does not clarify source of "pressure event" but by implication the third stage DM-SLB is suggested. Like perhaps tank pressurization prior to shroud separation.

Where do you read that? Are we talking about the same article?
( http://seradata.com/SSI/2013/01/obscure-solar-array-failure-du/ )
The source of the pressure event is made very clearly in the article; pressure from the solar arrays explosively escaping due to a manufacturing/design error in the SC.

Quote
Specifically, during the launch phase, the satellites’ solar arrays had actually become pressurised relative to their ambient environment as the launch vehicle rose in altititude.  This eventually led to an explosive event which damaged the array’s deployment mechanism and structure. It was a manufacturing defect that was found to be the root cause including overly pinching the ends of the panels which would not let gasses vent from the honeycomb structure, and having insufficent bonding of the layers of the panel making it more susceptible to explosive depressurisation.

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 235
It has been well documented the three failures where due to crimping the end of the solar panels and poor bonding of the panel honeycomb.

See this article, it makes it fairly clear
http://spacenews.com/33046spate-of-solar-array-failures-on-ssl-satellites-traced-to/

http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/aerospace-engineering/spacecraft-design/space-systemsloral-case-study-ineffective-incident-investigation/

If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Online Galactic Penguin SST

Whoa, that would be.....um, stupid if this turn out to be the cause of the accident! Why would a "blackbox" system be used with the rocket and spacecraft not syncing the separation actions?  ???

Or does every other rocket out there do that?
Chinese spaceflight is a cosmic riddle wrapped in a galactic mystery inside an orbital enigma... - (not) Winston Churchill

Online Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6997
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 553
  • Likes Given: 638
This investigation is starting to hit on some serious conceptual faults in the Soyuz and Progress vehicle designs as well as in their integration into their launch vehicles. This could easily snowball into a serious and maybe even existential crisis for Russian human spaceflight.

Additionally, if a third stage LOX tank failure is, in engineering terms, a remote probability, they are going to have to find another cause for the catastrophic fuel and oxidiser tank de-pressurisation.
« Last Edit: 05/25/2015 11:49 AM by Ben the Space Brit »
"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 Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Looks like the folks at CBS are getting impatient for answers for this failure.

 http://www.cbsnews.com/news/unanswered-questions-leave-iss-crews-in-holding-pattern/

turns into a sum up article on the ISS etc.

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

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31349
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9627
  • Likes Given: 299
Whoa, that would be.....um, stupid if this turn out to be the cause of the accident! Why would a "blackbox" system be used with the rocket and spacecraft not syncing the separation actions?  ???

Or does every other rocket out there do that?

Not unusual.
« Last Edit: 05/28/2015 01:13 AM by Jim »

Online Galactic Penguin SST

Looks like Roscosmos has just reported the cause of the accident: http://www.federalspace.ru/21513/

If I am reading the Internet translations correctly (can someone check the translations?), it looks like the spacecraft was damaged during separation from the third stage due to (pogo?) resonance problems at the connection interface, which was not taken into account during mission analysis for the Soyuz-2.1a rocket.

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

Offline MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 917
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 622
  • Likes Given: 1085
Looks like Roscosmos has just reported the cause of the accident: http://www.federalspace.ru/21513/

If I am reading the Internet translations correctly (can someone check the translations?), it looks like the spacecraft was damaged during separation from the third stage due to (pogo?) resonance problems at the connection interface, which was not taken into account during mission analysis for the Soyuz-2.1a rocket.

That's how I read it.

However, I read something more conflicting since this rocket and the Soyuz share similar/identical third stage motors. I can't find that specific source, but I believe another report indicated a specific turbopump design flaw as well as quality control issues as the cause of that failure. I found one link on a blog that summarizes things differently. Clarification is needed.

http://english.tachyonbeam.com/2015/05/31/the-proton-m-mishap-on-may-16-was-caused-by-a-design-flaw/
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Looks like Roscosmos has just reported the cause of the accident: http://www.federalspace.ru/21513/

If I am reading the Internet translations correctly (can someone check the translations?), it looks like the spacecraft was damaged during separation from the third stage due to (pogo?) resonance problems at the connection interface, which was not taken into account during mission analysis for the Soyuz-2.1a rocket.

this line opens up many more questions. 

"June 9, 2015 ROSCOSMOS determine the adjusted schedule of manned launches program for 2015 (including - and transport cargo ships)."

Schedule changes?
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

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1028
  • Likes Given: 235

However, I read something more conflicting since this rocket and the Soyuz share similar/identical third stage motors. I can't find that specific source, but I believe another report indicated a specific turbopump design flaw as well as quality control issues as the cause of that failure. I found one link on a blog that summarizes things differently. Clarification is needed.

http://english.tachyonbeam.com/2015/05/31/the-proton-m-mishap-on-may-16-was-caused-by-a-design-flaw/


Your confusing the Proton failure on May 16th with this Soyuz failure on April 28th. Different launch failures...
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Offline Ewoker

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Finland
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 3
Progress M-25M flew on Soyuz 2.1a rocket also. Was it just good luck this didn't happen then?

Offline MattMason

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 917
  • Space Enthusiast
  • Indiana
  • Liked: 622
  • Likes Given: 1085

However, I read something more conflicting since this rocket and the Soyuz share similar/identical third stage motors. I can't find that specific source, but I believe another report indicated a specific turbopump design flaw as well as quality control issues as the cause of that failure. I found one link on a blog that summarizes things differently. Clarification is needed.

http://english.tachyonbeam.com/2015/05/31/the-proton-m-mishap-on-may-16-was-caused-by-a-design-flaw/


Your confusing the Proton failure on May 16th with this Soyuz failure on April 28th. Different launch failures...

Right, but same third stage design or engine type?
"Why is the logo on the side of a rocket so important?"
"So you can find the pieces." -Jim, the Steely Eyed

Offline DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7774
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 302
  • Likes Given: 13

However, I read something more conflicting since this rocket and the Soyuz share similar/identical third stage motors. I can't find that specific source, but I believe another report indicated a specific turbopump design flaw as well as quality control issues as the cause of that failure. I found one link on a blog that summarizes things differently. Clarification is needed.

http://english.tachyonbeam.com/2015/05/31/the-proton-m-mishap-on-may-16-was-caused-by-a-design-flaw/


Your confusing the Proton failure on May 16th with this Soyuz failure on April 28th. Different launch failures...

Right, but same third stage design or engine type?
No and no. Completely separate.
"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 NovaSilisko

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1828
  • Liked: 1435
  • Likes Given: 1305
Right, but same third stage design or engine type?

No. Proton's third stage is unique to it.

Offline JimO

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1820
  • Texas, USA
  • Liked: 237
  • Likes Given: 52
I'm not sure the resonance referred to is engine associated ['pogo'], and may be structural of the two bodies. Any help from Russia?

Online A12

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • ROME, ITALY
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 340
Some update as found on spaceflight101 (bold mine):

Quote
In the Roscosmos statement issued on Monday, the agency announced that the likely culprit in the Progress M-27M failure lies within a design flaw in the spacecraft separation system and associated frequency-dynamic characteristics.
According to the State Commission, these properties were not fully studied as part of the design work that went into the accommodation of Soyuz and Progress spacecraft atop the Soyuz 2-1A rocket.
« Last Edit: 06/01/2015 08:10 PM by A12 »

Tags: