Author Topic: MISSION FAILURE: Progress M-27M launch Soyuz-2-1A - April 28, 2015  (Read 335796 times)

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7838
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2108
  • Likes Given: 4962
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.
Can we get assets in place for an intercept?
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3820
  • 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.
Can we get assets in place for an intercept?
Like shooting it down?

3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6960
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 535
  • Likes Given: 610
Can we get assets in place for an intercept?

Like shooting it down?

Not 'shoot down' but 'disintegrate' so that there is nothing large and dense enough to likely survive passage through the upper and middle atmosphere.
"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 SkipMorrow

I was wondering how they could do a controlled re-entry if the vehicle is spinning. Are they going to time the firing to just when the vehicle is pointing the right way every six seconds? Or is it spinning right along the axis of the engines, in which case I guess a retro burn wouldn't really care if the vehicle is spinning.

Also, how could this affect the next manned launch in September? I guess they would need to be sure whatever the problem turns out to be can't be repeated for that launch?

Offline russianhalo117

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3728
  • AR USA / Berlin, DE / Moscow, RF
  • Liked: 687
  • Likes Given: 433
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.

it pushes the vehicle off course immediately after sep. Arianespace lists the event as a CCAM

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3820
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 250
  • Likes Given: 125
Can we get assets in place for an intercept?

Like shooting it down?

Not 'shoot down' but 'disintegrate' so that there is nothing large and dense enough to likely survive passage through the upper and middle atmosphere.

Both the ballistic missile interceptor force in Alaska and/or the U.S. Navy could potentially do this. Capability was demonstrated by the U.S. Navy in the shoot-down of a CIA spy satellite a few years ago. A modified tactical strike missile fired from an AEGIS capable ship or a modified interceptor missile are probably capable. Attach a high explosive warhead and you are good to go. There would still be large pieces however, just smaller ones and more of them. This might give a better chance for the pieces burning up though.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/20/satellite.shootdown/
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6960
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 535
  • Likes Given: 610
I was wondering how they could do a controlled re-entry if the vehicle is spinning.

I suspect that this is a 'CYA' white lie. They are going to 'study' it and then announce that it is impossible due to loss of com and possibly battery exhaustion on the Progress. However, as long as they can claim that they've made the attempt, they can claim that they didn't just abandon a large spacecraft to fall wherever physics directs.

Politics...! ::)
"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 Elvis in Space

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 359
  • Elvis is Everywhere
  • Still on Earth
  • Liked: 256
  • Likes Given: 1388
I'm not questioning anything but I don't understand. Full tanks of anything getting hot and exploding would seem to reduce the risk of substantial anything getting to the ground. Frozen fuel is what makes this more dangerous than usual?
Cheeseburgers on Mars!

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7838
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 2108
  • Likes Given: 4962
Can we get assets in place for an intercept?

Like shooting it down?

Not 'shoot down' but 'disintegrate' so that there is nothing large and dense enough to likely survive passage through the upper and middle atmosphere.

Both the ballistic missile interceptor force in Alaska and/or the U.S. Navy could potentially do this. Capability was demonstrated by the U.S. Navy in the shoot-down of a CIA spy satellite a few years ago. A modified tactical strike missile fired from an AEGIS capable ship or a modified interceptor missile are probably capable. Attach a high explosive warhead and you are good to go. There would still be large pieces however, just smaller ones and more of them. This might give a better chance for the pieces burning up though.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/20/satellite.shootdown/
We could, but Russia may not like that... Politics... Pride etc...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob, Physics instructor, aviator, vintage auto racer

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7757
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 285
  • Likes Given: 12
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)


From that video at 15:40: "As for the current monitoring, I just talked to the Flight Control Center, today at 3'o clock, the Flight Control Center established contact with the spacecraft, so it is monitoring the systems onboard the spacecraft so it is not true that the spacecraft is totally uncontrolled. We are going to continue the monitoring for as long as we can."

Emphasis mine.
"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 FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3820
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 250
  • Likes Given: 125
I was wondering how they could do a controlled re-entry if the vehicle is spinning. Are they going to time the firing to just when the vehicle is pointing the right way every six seconds? Or is it spinning right along the axis of the engines, in which case I guess a retro burn wouldn't really care if the vehicle is spinning.

Also, how could this affect the next manned launch in September? I guess they would need to be sure whatever the problem turns out to be can't be repeated for that launch?

Well apparently they do not feel very safe about the third stage that was used on this vehicle. They seemed to think the issue occurred there. As far as we know, no it is not spinning about the axis of the engine its spinning about its other axis, at some sort of wild angle as well. So really even if you did get the engine to fire up, I have no idea what would happen, it would like just fly apart there would be absolutely no control whatsoever because the RCS is entirely out on the vehicle.

So I think honestly this is just wishful thinking. To be quite honest the safe bet might actually be to shoot it down. But I doubt this will happen. If it did, the Russians would likely opt to do it I doubt they would want the US Navy doing it. As far as I know, they do posses missile systems capable of this task, though unlike the U.S. and China I am not sure they have ever tried it, recently anyway.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3399
  • California
  • Liked: 2637
  • Likes Given: 1664
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?

They can't. But they are scrambling to make *appear* that they still have some control over the situtaion.

Online Chris Bergin

Can we remain focused. Do not post unless you're adding something to the discussion.

People are here for updates and discussion of the updates. Not wild speculation. I've trimmed that, but it shouldn't be here in the first place.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2015 04:34 PM by Chris Bergin »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3820
  • 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)


From that video at 15:40: "As for the current monitoring, I just talked to the Flight Control Center, today at 3'o clock, the Flight Control Center established contact with the spacecraft, so it is monitoring the systems onboard the spacecraft so it is not true that the spacecraft is totally uncontrolled. We are going to continue the monitoring for as long as we can."

Emphasis mine.

Yea I saw that as well, they had momentary contact. Not sure how they plan to do a controlled de orbit unless they can stop that spin. Maybe they are able to send the command to get the RCS up?
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Danderman

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

From that video at 15:40: "As for the current monitoring, I just talked to the Flight Control Center, today at 3'o clock, the Flight Control Center established contact with the spacecraft, so it is monitoring the systems onboard the spacecraft so it is not true that the spacecraft is totally uncontrolled. We are going to continue the monitoring for as long as we can."

Emphasis mine.

At this juncture, I am inclined to dismiss any factoid that is not confirmed by a second source.


Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3399
  • California
  • Liked: 2637
  • Likes Given: 1664
To be quite honest the safe bet might actually be to shoot it down. But I doubt this will happen. If it did, the Russians would likely opt to do it I doubt they would want the US Navy doing it. As far as I know, they do posses missile systems capable of this task, though unlike the U.S. and China I am not sure they have ever tried it, recently anyway.

Why would you "shoot it down"?. I doubt that would improve the situation. It will burn up soon enough - and the the pieces that survive will fall down and most likely cause no damage. If you attempt to shoot it down you simply add more unpredictability.
« Last Edit: 04/29/2015 04:37 PM by Lars-J »

Offline gwiz

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 431
  • Cornwall
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 1
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.
Why are the tanks expected to freeze?  Progress is designed for a long orbital life, mostly attached to another spacecraft and unable to control its attitude.  I would have thought the thermal design of the thing would be aimed at keeping fluids fluid, regardless of attitude.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3820
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 250
  • Likes Given: 125

From that video at 15:40: "As for the current monitoring, I just talked to the Flight Control Center, today at 3'o clock, the Flight Control Center established contact with the spacecraft, so it is monitoring the systems onboard the spacecraft so it is not true that the spacecraft is totally uncontrolled. We are going to continue the monitoring for as long as we can."

Emphasis mine.

At this juncture, I am inclined to dismiss any factoid that is not confirmed by a second source.

I mean it seems possible and they said they did it. But I doubt it actually means anything, because on what they ALSO said in this conference they got nothing useful out of this IE couldn't get RCS up couldn't stabilize the vehicle ect. So honestly I really don't think it matters much beyond possibility's of controlled de-orbit. Bottom line is they have declared the mission a loss the vehicle is going to come down one way or another.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3820
  • 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.
Why are the tanks expected to freeze?  Progress is designed for a long orbital life, mostly attached to another spacecraft and unable to control its attitude.  I would have thought the thermal design of the thing would be aimed at keeping fluids fluid, regardless of attitude.
This depends partly on having full electrical power. We don't know right now how much electrical capability is left on-board.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline rds100

  • Member
  • Posts: 93
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 21
I guess if they can somehow comand the thrusters to fire until fuel depletion could be good, even if not able to control the spin. Less nasty stuff would have a chance to hit the ground.

Tags: