Quote from: Danderman on 04/29/2015 12:05 pmSince if there is a stage 3 problem it will likely be a control system problemHow do you come to that conclusion? If the debris reports are correct, that doesn't sound like a control system problem to me.
Since if there is a stage 3 problem it will likely be a control system problem
However, NORAD data indicated much more severe deviation (120.5 by 316.4 kilometers) or 70 kilometers up and down, which many Russian observers believed to be erroneous. By the time the flow of telemetry from the Progress was interrupted few seconds before the separation of the spacecraft from the rocket, its orbit was around 38 or 39 kilometers off the mark at its apogee, even though the rocket should've been capable of delivering its cargo within five kilometers from a prescribed altitude.
Quote from: ugordan on 04/29/2015 12:11 pmQuote from: Danderman on 04/29/2015 12:05 pmSince if there is a stage 3 problem it will likely be a control system problemHow do you come to that conclusion? If the debris reports are correct, that doesn't sound like a control system problem to me.A botched shutdown and separation sequence followed by collision explains everything. Other explanations don't address the high orbit.
FYI, there is one member on NK (who probably has access to LV telemetry) that reports that they did not see any problem with the rocket attitude or other issues up till S/C separation, except for the slightly high apogee (out of planned range for the Soyuz-2.1a, but within those for the legacy Soyuz-U). Here's an excerpt translated on RussianSpaceWeb:QuoteHowever, NORAD data indicated much more severe deviation (120.5 by 316.4 kilometers) or 70 kilometers up and down, which many Russian observers believed to be erroneous. By the time the flow of telemetry from the Progress was interrupted few seconds before the separation of the spacecraft from the rocket, its orbit was around 38 or 39 kilometers off the mark at its apogee, even though the rocket should've been capable of delivering its cargo within five kilometers from a prescribed altitude.Also I have yet to find a non-Russian source reporting on the 44 debris objects (the quote was attributed to USAF JSpOC's chief Lt. Gen. Jay Raymond, but I have been unable to find the source), so take it with a grain of salt until new reports/TLEs come in.
In principle, how much manoevering capability does ISS have?
I'm wondering if we might have two completely separate failures here - some unknown event that caused the Soyuz-2-1A's third stage engine to not respond to the IU's shut-down command and a wholly separate failure in the prop system pressurisation sequence on Progress-59. Alternately, the possibility that a runaway third stage re-contacted Progress and caused a catastrophic over-pressurisation of the fuel system leading to a tank or line rupture is another viable theoryI guess we'll have to wait and see what Roscosmos and the manufacturers come up with after they've crunched the numbers.Quote from: speedevil on 04/29/2015 12:32 pmIn principle, how much manoevering capability does ISS have?Very limited to the point of being near-zero. It can rotate around its centre of gravity thanks to the Control Moment Gyros and can probably very slightly alter its altitude thanks to the thrusters on the Russian Segment but not by very much.
In principle, how much manoevering capability does ISS have?Given - say - a progress parked at 10km from ISS, with the engines off to everyones satisfaction, and not spinning faster than once every several hours say, is it in principle possible for ISS to rendevous over the course of a week or three, grab the craft, and get it docked in some manner?
1. На конец выведения ракетная ТЛМ и ВТИ получены?
пропала за 3 сек до ГК-3
Кто-то здесь из Самары уже говорил, что подтверждение ГК3 было получено. Как оно было получено, если ТМ дала сбой?
Вот, а это уже информация, спасибо. Предположу, что было АВД на этапе работы 3-й ступени. Ну там ТМИ по параметрам посмотрят и будет ясно
I'm wondering if we might have two completely separate failures here - some unknown event that caused the Soyuz-2-1A's third stage engine to not respond to the IU's shut-down command and a wholly separate failure in the prop system pressurisation sequence on Progress-59. Alternately, the possibility that a runaway third stage re-contacted Progress and caused a catastrophic over-pressurisation of the fuel system leading to a tank or line rupture is another viable theory
Can someone translate this piece of Russian on NK? Seems to be something about losing telemetry from the Soyuz 3rd stage in the final 3 seconds of ascent?
I'm pretty sure that the Russian mission controllers are most angry about the loss of telemetry. As Dave S's post above shows, the post-LOV investigation is going to have to rely an awful lot on ambiguous remote sensing results and educated guesswork by people familiar with the engineering of the vehicles in question. The objective will be, of course, to ensure that probability of this failure is minimised. Unfortunately, that is always made more difficult for space engineers by the fact that there is too often no clear physical evidence to investigate.FWIW, if Space Command's report is verified, the probability is high that either the Soyuz U/S or the Progress suffered some kind of catastrophic rupture. My guess, based purely on this thread, is that it was probably of the Progress's propellent tanks during pressurisation. The likelihood that the two vehicles would have been inserted into an orbit precisely matching that of a pre-existing debris cloud is so remote as to be nearly-unthinkable.
Quote from: DaveS on 04/29/2015 10:24 amNow this is an interesting report, again from Interfax: http://www.interfax.ru/world/439233I'll post the most interesting bit translated: "Earlier, the US Air Force Space Command based on "Vandenberg" in California gave the 44 fragments in orbit near the cargo ship "Progress M-27M" and the third-stage rocket "Soyuz-2.1a"Well that's not good. So either a collision resulting in debris, or something going kaboom onboard one of the vehicles and distributing debris. At this point I'd say the fat lady is singing and this Progress is almost certainly a goner.
Now this is an interesting report, again from Interfax: http://www.interfax.ru/world/439233I'll post the most interesting bit translated: "Earlier, the US Air Force Space Command based on "Vandenberg" in California gave the 44 fragments in orbit near the cargo ship "Progress M-27M" and the third-stage rocket "Soyuz-2.1a"
Now this is an interesting report, again from Interfax: http://www.interfax.ru/world/439233I'll post the most interesting bit translated: "Earlier, the US Air Force Space Command based on "Vandenberg" in California gave the 44 fragments in orbit near the cargo ship "Progress M-27M" and the third-stage rocket "Soyuz-2.1a"However, the space center on the basis of "Vandenberg" can not yet confirm whether the fragments belong to the "progress" and the third stage of the rocket."
Heavens above is now providing pass predictions for this vehicle, if anyone would like to go out and see it. No visible passes in my area for the next two weeks, I'm afraid.