Author Topic: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015  (Read 344264 times)

Online A12

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • ROME, ITALY
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 341
Another translation available on russianspaceweb.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7000
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 555
  • Likes Given: 643
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.

I think that it is interesting that both this and the recent Proton-M failure have now been attributed to long-running and previously-unsuspected design faults. For all we know about high-stress engineering, stuff still takes us by surprise every now and then.
"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 owais.usmani

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 60
Roskosmos declares Progress investigation over

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html#conclusion

Quote
On June 1, 2015, Roskosmos published a press-release entitled "Cause of the Failure Determined." It went as following:

...After a thorough analysis of the failed launch and the completion of full-scale experiments, members of the commission came to the following conclusion:

The damage to the ship during its abnormal separation from the third stage of the Soyuz-2-1a launch vehicle resulted from a particular property of the joint use of the cargo spacecraft and the launch vehicle. This design property was related to frequency and dynamic characteristics of joint vehicles.

This design property was not fully accounted for during the development of the rocket and spacecraft complex.

Limitations on further flights of the Soyuz-2-1a rocket with other spacecraft had not been found.

Currently, Roskosmos is developing an action plan for conducting further flight tests of this space complex.

On June 9, Roskosmos will finalize the new flight manifest for human missions in 2015, including launches of cargo ships.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10313
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 700
  • Likes Given: 728
Another translation available on russianspaceweb.

Yes, and my date question became clearer..."On June 9, Roskosmos will finalize the new flight manifest for human missions in 2015, including launches of cargo ships."

Reading that tells me the current dates are not even "net" dates yet or am I wrong?
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 Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7000
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 555
  • Likes Given: 643
Reading that tells me the current dates are not even "net" dates yet or am I wrong?

I would say that the entire Soyuz and Proton manifests are now completely up in the air.
"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!!!

Online cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2545
  • Liked: 1752
  • Likes Given: 656
@Ben: The proton-m failure was a long-hidden design fault.  This failure is not: it appears to be specific to the (new) Soyuz 2-1A rocket.
« Last Edit: 06/02/2015 01:50 PM by cscott »

Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 136
  • Likes Given: 418
Roskosmos declares Progress investigation over

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html#conclusion

Quote
On June 1, 2015, Roskosmos published a press-release entitled "Cause of the Failure Determined." It went as following:

...After a thorough analysis of the failed launch and the completion of full-scale experiments, members of the commission came to the following conclusion:

The damage to the ship during its abnormal separation from the third stage of the Soyuz-2-1a launch vehicle resulted from a particular property of the joint use of the cargo spacecraft and the launch vehicle. This design property was related to frequency and dynamic characteristics of joint vehicles.

This design property was not fully accounted for during the development of the rocket and spacecraft complex.

Limitations on further flights of the Soyuz-2-1a rocket with other spacecraft had not been found.

Currently, Roskosmos is developing an action plan for conducting further flight tests of this space complex.

On June 9, Roskosmos will finalize the new flight manifest for human missions in 2015, including launches of cargo ships.

Thanks for posting this.  Sounds like the Soyuz FG and Soyuz U will be the LVs of choice for TMA and Progress launches for the "near term" (years?)...

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
@Ben: The proton-m failure was a long-hidden design fault.  This failure is not: it appears to be specific to the (new) Soyuz 2-1A rocket.
It's actually an interface design fault. And more specifically would point to a coupled loads analysis failure. Which is very worrisome since it has to be done for every payload.

Offline the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2511
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 1540
  • Likes Given: 2733
So -- is the thinking that there was longitudinal motion along the X-axis of the stack that caused recontact after separation (or damaged the separation mechanism)?  A la a POGO effect?  Or are we talking about movement along the Y and Z axes, like a diving board vibrating up and down?

I know the current report doesn't specify the direction and amplitude of movement.  Just wondering what all of you engineers think is the most likely result of what sounds like poor balancing between the spacecraft and third stage.
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8274
  • UK
  • Liked: 1341
  • Likes Given: 168

Roskosmos declares Progress investigation over

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html#conclusion

Quote
On June 1, 2015, Roskosmos published a press-release entitled "Cause of the Failure Determined." It went as following:

...After a thorough analysis of the failed launch and the completion of full-scale experiments, members of the commission came to the following conclusion:

The damage to the ship during its abnormal separation from the third stage of the Soyuz-2-1a launch vehicle resulted from a particular property of the joint use of the cargo spacecraft and the launch vehicle. This design property was related to frequency and dynamic characteristics of joint vehicles.

This design property was not fully accounted for during the development of the rocket and spacecraft complex.

Limitations on further flights of the Soyuz-2-1a rocket with other spacecraft had not been found.

Currently, Roskosmos is developing an action plan for conducting further flight tests of this space complex.

On June 9, Roskosmos will finalize the new flight manifest for human missions in 2015, including launches of cargo ships.

Thanks for posting this.  Sounds like the Soyuz FG and Soyuz U will be the LVs of choice for TMA and Progress launches for the "near term" (years?)...

Not possible with the U version I would have thought as long out of production.

Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1498
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 136
  • Likes Given: 418


Thanks for posting this.  Sounds like the Soyuz FG and Soyuz U will be the LVs of choice for TMA and Progress launches for the "near term" (years?)...

Not possible with the U version I would have thought as long out of production.

As you know per comments in the thread, and to tie in with this one:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37750.msg1384826#new

There are available Soyuz U, but how many is a question.  Another couple of questions (as you touched on in that thread) is what about Soyuz FG (both for future production, and for use with Progress)?

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
I'm interested on how would the guys who actually keep launch stats would classify this launch. Gunter call it a failure, Ed's just described the issue and Jonathan gave it a 0.3 mission success (partial failure). So, the custom payload interface, is it a vehicle failure or payload failure?

Offline Nicolas PILLET

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2212
  • Gien, France
    • Kosmonavtika
  • Liked: 364
  • Likes Given: 35
Considering that it has reached orbit, but not the correct one, I consider it to be a partial failure.

But this is not a "standard" partial failure, since a mysfunctionement of LV caused the lost of payload...
Nicolas PILLET
Kosmonavtika : The French site on Russian Space

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13160
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 2901
  • Likes Given: 435
I consider the launch to be a failure, since the payload was not able to achieve a usable orbit due to damage from the third stage. By the way, Gunter classes this as a partial failure.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7000
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 555
  • Likes Given: 643
FWIW, I think that recording this mission as a 'failure' is appropriate'. Whilst the LOV for the launch vehicle didn't immediately result in the LOV of the payload, there was an eventual LOM and the payload was damaged enough that its own LOV was an inevitable eventuality.

In space, where disabled spacecraft can float around for years, centuries or even epochs, a LOM doesn't automatically have to mean a physical LOV, even if the vehicle is lost to all practical purposes (no comms and no functional on-board GNC).
"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!!!

Online saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 377
  • Likes Given: 1197
The mission accomplished none of its goals. Full failure in my book. I'm not an expert though.

Offline Rebel44

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 301
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 759
IMO, its 100% failure.

Online saliva_sweet

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 495
  • Liked: 377
  • Likes Given: 1197
A new schedule for Soyuz and Progress:
Quote
1. 3 июля: ТГК Прогресс М-28М (РН СоюзУ);
2. 23-25 июля: ТПК Союз ТМА-17М (РН СоюзФГ; дата будет определена позднее в связи с коррекцией обриты МКС, состоявшейся 8 июня);
3. 1 сентября: ТПК Союз ТМА-18М (РН СоюзФГ);
4. 21 сентября: ТГК Прогресс М-29М (РН СоюзУ);
5. 21 ноября: первый запуск модернизированного космического грузовика ТГК Прогресс-МС (РН Союз 2.1а);
6. 15 декабря: ТПК Союз ТМА-19М (РН СоюзФГ).
http://www.roscosmos.ru/21529/

Online woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7361
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 3084
  • Likes Given: 904
The mission accomplished none of its goals. Full failure in my book. I'm not an expert though.
Agreed. While the payload made it to a orbit, it was lost as a result of the LV failure. None of the primary objectives of this mission were accomplished and the end-result (both LV and payload lost) was just as definitive as an all-out first stage failure at T+20 seconds would have been.

Online Galactic Penguin SST

I think the best answer comes from Jonathan McDowell:

Quote
Progress M-27 was launched on Apr 28; however, the Soyuz-2-1a third
stage did not shut down correctly and damaged the spacecraft during
separation. 44 debris objects were tracked, 20 of them being cataloged
(all  reentered by May 7). Limited telemetry was obtained from the
Progress, but Russian mission control was unable to control the
spacecraft, which was found to be spinning. The damaged spacecraft
reentered over the South Pacific off the SW coast of Chile at 0220 UTC
May 8. I am scoring the launch as 0.30 success (orbit reached but fatal
payload separation problem).
Chinese spaceflight is a cosmic riddle wrapped in a galactic mystery inside an orbital enigma... - (not) Winston Churchill

Tags: