You are at netAirspace : Forum : Air and Space Forums : Space

Soyuz Rocket Fails to Launch ISS Cargo

Everything that is sub-orbital or beyond.
 

da man (Space Guru & Founding Member) 24 Aug 11, 17:54Post
Russia’s Progress M-12M launches toward ISS – fails to achieve orbit
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/russias-progress-m-12m-fails-to-achieve-orbit/
The Russian Progress M-12M spacecraft, also known by its US designation of 44P, blasted off toward the International Space Station (ISS) from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan today (Wednesday 24th August) at around 1:00 PM GMT, which was 7:00 PM Baikonur time. Unfortunately for the ISS, around 325 seconds into the flight, the third stage of the Russian Soyuz-U rocket prematurely shut down, leaving Progress M-12M stranded on a sub-orbital trajectory.


For the first time since 15 October 2002, the Russian Soyuz-U, one of the three most-reliable launch vehicles currently in operation failed to successfully launch its payload. This launch was also the first-ever launch failure with a Progress spacecraft since they began resupplying space stations in 1978. With the recent retirement of the Space Shuttle, the International Space Station is largely dependent upon the Soyuz-U for cargo resupply and exclusively depends upon the Soyuz-FG for crew. This failure will ground the Soyuz launch vehicle and will delay the next planned crew launch.

Gee, that "Era of the Soyuz" and reliability the Russians were gloating about last month didn't work out too well did it? {crazy}
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/07/21/dasvidaniya-as-shuttle-era-ends-soyuz-era-begins-russia-says/
Diss Vidaniya: Shuttle Ends 50 Years of U.S. Space Flight as Russia Trumpets 'Era of Soyuz'
"From today, the era of the Soyuz has started in manned space flight, the era of reliability," the Russian space agency Roskosmos said.


Progress M-12M – carrying three tons of supplies including food, fuel, and other miscellaneous items – was the first spacecraft to launch to the ISS in the post-Shuttle era, an era where regular ISS resupply flights will be extremely important to the continued operation of the station. Needless to say, the launch failure sets the post-Shuttle ISS resupply plan off to a bad start. The failure could not have come at a worse time for the ISS, with the Space Shuttle recently retired, commercial resupply flights not yet online, and a potential delay of the HTV-3 and ATV-3 missions into mid-2012.

The ISS now has ample room to accommodate supplies, due to the addition of the Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM), now stocked full of supplies from the recent STS-135 mission, which delivered one year’s worth of supplies to the ISS, which sources say is only sufficient to sustain the station crew when supplemented with scheduled Progress deliveries.


The loss of this Progress will especially be felt by the ISS because it was scheduled to perform three reboosts of the station's orbit in the coming weeks, which now will have to be performed with assets already at the station, namely the engines onboard the Service Module (which are rarely used because of their limited service life, i.e. can be used only a certain number of times). Also, per ISS policy, if the Soyuz rocket is still grounded 40 days from now, half of the ISS crew would be required due to mission rules to return to Earth. This is unlikely to happen because those three are already scheduled to return home on 8 September (because the on-orbit life of their Soyuz spacecraft will expire), but their replacements will be delayed due to the failure investigation (they were scheduled to launch on 22 September). The next scheduled Progress resupply launch is on 28 October.

This was the third consecutive orbit launch attempt which failed.
I said in the thread about the two consecutive failures that this is practically unheard of in the modern era, well three consecutive failures hasn't happened since the end of 1965 and beginning of 1966. A Russian Kosmos rocket failed to launch an ELINT satellite on 28 December 1965, followed by the failure of an American Thor rocket with a military weather satellite on 6 January 1966 from Vandenberg AFB, California. Then the next day, a Russian Vostok rocket failed to launch a photo reconnaissance satellite.

This failure places added pressure upon SpaceX and their scheduled launch on 30 November of the Dragon spacecraft to the ISS as a demonstration for their COTS resupply contract. The failure means that this launch will be docking at the ISS and will be carrying supplies.

More updates and a detailed ISS Status Update as I get the information...
AndesSMF (Founding Member) 24 Aug 11, 17:59Post
Good time to buy some SpaceX stock. This could be the beginning of something good.
Einstein said two things were infinite; the universe, and stupidity. He wasn't sure about the first, but he was certain about the second.
Click Click D'oh (Photo Quality Screener & Founding Member) 24 Aug 11, 18:26Post
AndesSMF wrote:Good time to buy some SpaceX stock.


If you figure that one out, let me know the trick to doing it. ;)
We sleep peacefully in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf
AndesSMF (Founding Member) 24 Aug 11, 18:53Post
Click Click D'oh wrote:If you figure that one out, let me know the trick to doing it.

First, you need to have the appropriate contacts...

Think about it this way:

If they successfully launch to the ISS, they can get the contract, and the initial investors may want to take their profits by selling to the public.

Honestly, the retirement of the shuttle may have been the best thing for private space travel and commerce.
Einstein said two things were infinite; the universe, and stupidity. He wasn't sure about the first, but he was certain about the second.
Click Click D'oh (Photo Quality Screener & Founding Member) 24 Aug 11, 18:56Post
AndesSMF wrote:
Click Click D'oh wrote:If you figure that one out, let me know the trick to doing it.

First, you need to have the appropriate contacts...


I think an IPO might actually be the first step. :)
We sleep peacefully in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf
Allstarflyer (Database Editor & Founding Member) 24 Aug 11, 18:58Post
the third stage of the Russian Soyuz-U rocket prematurely shut down, leaving Progress M-12M stranded on a sub-orbital trajectory.


What does that exactly mean? Will it have an orbital decay sooner/later - what exactly happens to the M-12M?
ANCFlyer (netAirspace ATC & Founding Member) 24 Aug 11, 18:59Post
Pathetic the US is no longer the leader in space and we must rely on whomever to launch to the ISS, or anywhere.

What happened to the dream???

JFK would be pissed.
LET'S GO BRANDON!!!!
AndesSMF (Founding Member) 24 Aug 11, 19:33Post
ANCFlyer wrote:Pathetic the US is no longer the leader in space and we must rely on whomever to launch to the ISS, or anywhere.

What happened to the dream???

JFK would be pissed.

I'm getting more confident that private interests can take over.
In December 2010, SpaceX became the first privately funded company to successfully launch, orbit and recover a spacecraft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacex
Einstein said two things were infinite; the universe, and stupidity. He wasn't sure about the first, but he was certain about the second.
da man (Space Guru & Founding Member) 24 Aug 11, 19:43Post
Allstarflyer wrote:
the third stage of the Russian Soyuz-U rocket prematurely shut down, leaving Progress M-12M stranded on a sub-orbital trajectory.


What does that exactly mean? Will it have an orbital decay sooner/later - what exactly happens to the M-12M?

It flew a trajectory which made it to space but did not have enough velocity to orbit. It fell back to earth over the Altai Republic region of Siberia. The profile is almost exactly like the Russian's high-altitude abort of Soyuz 18a in 1975, but the failure mode was different.
AndesSMF (Founding Member) 29 Aug 11, 18:06Post
Could this actually happen?

The International Space Station may have to start operating without a crew in November if Russian engineers don't figure out soon what caused a recent rocket failure, NASA officials announced today


http://news.yahoo.com/astronauts-may-ev ... 02734.html
Einstein said two things were infinite; the universe, and stupidity. He wasn't sure about the first, but he was certain about the second.
da man (Space Guru & Founding Member) 29 Aug 11, 20:53Post
AndesSMF wrote:Could this actually happen?

Absolutely, I'd peg it at a 50-50 probability at this point.

Here is the current situation with regards to keeping a crew onboard:
There are two driving factors:

The first is the Soyuz on-orbit lifetime, which is 200-210 days. This is driven by the Soyuz thruster and propellant system. NASA are currently in discussions with Russia about whether it’s worth re-certifying Soyuz to remain on-orbit longer than 200 days.

The second is lighting conditions and weather in Kazakhstan. Orbital mechanics dictates what times you can land a Soyuz in Kazakhstan, and there are certain periods where the landing site would be in darkness during those times, which is not desired since it would make it difficult for the SAR forces. Also, during the winter months (December-February), the weather in Kazakhstan is too bad to land a Soyuz (strong winds, heavy snows).


The last Soyuz to land in December was in an extremely heavy snow storm a year ago (and that was the first Soyuz to land in December in a decade). The back-up recovery forces had a hell of a time recovering the crew. NASA and Roskosmos do not want to to that again EVER.

There is one other option out of left-field, one of the emergency landing sites could be used instead in conjunction with a December landing. Russia has maintained plans to bring down a Soyuz within 30 minutes in the event of a major problem or medical emergency which would prevent it from being able to phase itself for a nominal landing in Kazakhstan. The emergency sites have always been in the West even during the Cold War. The two likely locations are the Australian outback and the plains of the USA (Nebraska and Kansas)!

While none of the following is certain, this is how things are shaping up at the moment:

The Soyuz TMA-21/26S return that was planned for 8 September has been delayed to 16-18 September, whereupon TMA-21 will have been on-orbit for around 170 days. This keeps the ISS at 6 crew for an extra week, to allow for more research. After 18 September, landing site lighting becomes an issue. Adequate landing site lighting returns around 40 days later on 26/27 October, but by then TMA-21 would have been on-orbit for 210 days. If however Soyuz can be re-certified, it would be possible to return TMA-21 on 26/27 October, thus gaining an extra 40 days of 6 crew ops.

Soyuz TMA-02M/27S currently looks likely to return to Earth on its originally planned date of 16 November, after 160 days on-orbit. From 19 November to the end of December, landing site lighting will be an issue, so that prevents TMA-02M from being kept on-orbit for an extra 40 days (to around 26 December) so as to use all of its orbital lifetime, since then it would be landing in darkness. Adequate landing site lighting returns toward the end of December, but even if the orbital lifetime can be extended, by this time severe winter weather in Kazakhstan would be an issue.

So, this means that if Soyuz TMA-22/28S cannot be launched before 14 November, so that it could arrive at ISS on the 16 to do a direct handover with the departing TMA-02M crew, ISS will have to be de-manned.


The current (optimistic) schedule calls for an unmanned Soyuz satellite launch in early October, then the Progress M-13M/45P launch in mid-October (accelerated from late October). This should set things up for the Soyuz TMA-22 launch in early November. If this happens, Soyuz TMA-03M/29S will launch in early December, which will put ISS back up to 6 crew.

So, best case scenario is the Soyuz TMA-22 launch in early November and the TMA-03M launch in early December, which will put ISS back up to 6 crew before the year is out.

Worst case scenario is that Soyuz TMA-22 doesn't launch in November, which means ISS will have to be de-manned once TMA-02M departs in mid-November.
AndesSMF (Founding Member) 29 Aug 11, 21:06Post
Thanks for the info! {thumbsup}

What are the issues present if the ISS is de-manned? Does it depend on how long it stays de-manned?
Einstein said two things were infinite; the universe, and stupidity. He wasn't sure about the first, but he was certain about the second.
da man (Space Guru & Founding Member) 29 Aug 11, 21:37Post
AndesSMF wrote:What are the issues present if the ISS is de-manned? Does it depend on how long it stays de-manned?

Well, the moment they go to 3-crew the amount of research onboard drops to almost zero (this is already certain). No crew means no research except for the automated experiments on the outside like the recently-delivered Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer.

The main issue with no crew is that if there is a failure onboard, there will be no one there to fix it. Remember the pump failure last year that took three spacewalks to fix...

The reason that dropping to three crew brings research to next to nothing is because the station requires about 2.5 crew to maintain it. (That is why we struggled during the Columbia downtime when we went to 2-crew).

Time period matters in as so much as that the longer we go without crew, the more likely there will be a failure that will require the crew to fix.
halls120 (Plank Owner) 30 Aug 11, 03:25Post
saw this today.

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) — Astronauts may need to take the unprecedented step of temporarily abandoning the International Space Station if last week's Russian launch accident prevents new crews from flying there this fall.

Until officials figure out what went wrong with Russia's essential Soyuz rockets, there will be no way to launch any more astronauts before the current residents have to leave in mid-November.

The unsettling predicament comes just weeks after NASA's final space shuttle flight.

"We have plenty of options," NASA's space station program manager, Mike Suffredini, assured reporters Monday. "We'll focus on crew safety as we always do."


Sad to think that we were once a nation pushing the boundaries of space exploration. Now we're retreating. {mad}
At home in the PNW and loving it
MD11Engineer 30 Aug 11, 12:08Post
According to an article in this week´s German Spiegel news magazine the main problem the Russian space industry is facing is the result of the brain drain of the 1990s. Employees in the Russian space industry have been badly paid after the collapse of the Soviet Union (and even today) and many prospective engineering graduates have left the industry for more lucrative jobs in other fields.
The existing staff are rapidly reaching retirement age and also have a low morale due to their working conditions, leading to quality issues. Similar to NASA, the working conditions are such that these organisations are not attractive enough for young, keen engineers.

Jan
AndesSMF (Founding Member) 31 Aug 11, 19:35Post
"There is a greater risk of losing the ISS when it's unmanned than if it were manned," Michael Suffredini, the ISS program manager for the US space agency, said on a conference call with reporters.

"The risk increase is not insignificant," he added.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... 66ca17.b31

This is not good.
Einstein said two things were infinite; the universe, and stupidity. He wasn't sure about the first, but he was certain about the second.
MD11Engineer 10 Sep 11, 22:49Post
Acc. to the BBC the cause of the premature engine shutdown was found. It was a blocked fuel line, an issue which should have been caught by quality control in the factory. I´ll bet heads are going to roll.

Jan
ShanwickOceanic (netAirspace FAA) 11 Sep 11, 10:27Post
MD11Engineer wrote:Acc. to the BBC the cause of the premature engine shutdown was found. It was a blocked fuel line, an issue which should have been caught by quality control in the factory.

That's a good thing, I guess - they know that there hasn't been some latent design fault.
My friend and I applied for airline jobs in Australia, but they didn't Qantas.
Allstarflyer (Database Editor & Founding Member) 13 Sep 11, 19:27Post
Next launch, November 12 now

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/ ... il-nov-12/


MOSCOW – Russia's space agency has postponed the next manned Soyuz spacecraft to the International Space Station until Nov. 12 amid deep concern over a rocket crash last month.


Yes, the space agency (Russia's) that's reportedly lost 4 spacecraft the last 10 months is counting on a different engine type to get the goods to the station. At least they stocked the place w/supplies just in case, it's otherwise pretty somber. {facepalm}
Thorben 01 Nov 11, 08:14Post
I wouldn't get too excited about this. The Soyuz is still a very reliable rocket that has had many many successful missions.

AndesSMF wrote:I'm getting more confident that private interests can take over.
In December 2010, SpaceX became the first privately funded company to successfully launch, orbit and recover a spacecraft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacex


Indeed, but they are still somewhat away from it. Space X has had a rough start with their rockets, too. I wish them good luck and I think private companies will make space exploration a lot cheaper, but it won't happen over night.
I demand a fifth Emirates (EK) destination in Germany: Berlin, coolest and biggest city.
 

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

LEFT

RIGHT
CONTENT