Quote from: Pheogh on 05/07/2015 07:47 pmWill 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.
Will there be any information on what would have happened if this had been a crewed Soyuz?
Quote from: asmi on 05/08/2015 04:27 amQuote from: Pheogh on 05/07/2015 07:47 pmWill 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.
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?
Quote from: speedevil on 05/08/2015 02:28 pmQuote from: asmi on 05/08/2015 04:27 amQuote from: Pheogh on 05/07/2015 07:47 pmWill 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.
Quote from: RonM on 05/08/2015 04:29 pmQuote from: speedevil on 05/08/2015 02:28 pmQuote from: asmi on 05/08/2015 04:27 amQuote from: Pheogh on 05/07/2015 07:47 pmWill 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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Danderman on 05/08/2015 10:21 pmI 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
Too early to decide if this was a LV failure?
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.