ISS Resupply Ship in Trouble

A Russian Progress cargo ship launched to resupply the ISS is having problems. Some of the antennas that help it to navigate and dock are not deployed properly, it's in a spin, and it is not in a correct orbit.

https://sen.com/news/russian-cargo-enters-wrong-orbit-experiences-antenna-problem

Here is an on board video of the craft in spin. Its a pretty fast tumble.

[video=youtube;YMiNjHjpunU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMiNjHjpunU[/video]

Whatever has gone wrong, the undeployed antennas seem more of a symptom than a cause.

Note all the 0.000 readouts in the video HUD.

"Multiple rate sensor failures", which implies some very bad electrical/guidance/computer problems. So bad that on the face of it.... why would rate sensor failures alone cause antennas not to deploy? Unless there is some "smart" programming that prevents antenna deployments under certain conditions (not very Russian-ish), or the centrifugal forces are causing other forces/binding that is fighting against deployment. Otherwise, seems like additional electrical/computer issues.

Some seriously bad stuff.

Those Progress resupply ships are basically like modified Soyuzes, some of the guidance systems are the same. Indeed an article said this was also going to test a new system for use by future crews. No idea if it's the new system that has gone bad, or if they had not yet tried the new system. It would be great if the new system could now be activated and save it all, but I have a feeling if that was the case they'd have already done it (or they already tried and no good).

Probably the only good thing is that there is no crew aboard.....they might be seriously screwed. Well, it is going to re-enter about 30 hours after liftoff, so if it was a crewed Soyuz with the same problem it MIGHT be able to survive re-entry, with an unsteered landing most likely in the ocean (it can and has landed in water before) or in some country other than Russia. That last part assuming it would aerodynamically orient heat-shield first, after manually separating the descent module, and that the parachute deployment system was not also affected. Let's hope nobody ever has to find that out for real.

jmwiese said:

Here is an on board video of the craft in spin. Its a pretty fast tumble.

[video=youtube;YMiNjHjpunU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMiNjHjpunU[/video]

Click to expand...

That is pretty fast! Not good.

georgegassaway said:

Whatever has gone wrong, the undeployed antennas seem more of a symptom than a cause.

Note all the 0.000 readouts in the video HUD.

"Multiple rate sensor failures", which implies some very bad electrical/guidance/computer problems. So bad that on the face of it.... why would rate sensor failures alone cause antennas not to deploy? Unless there is some "smart" programming that prevents antenna deployments under certain conditions (not very Russian-ish), or the centrifugal forces are causing other forces/binding that is fighting against deployment. Otherwise, seems like additional electrical/computer issues.

Some seriously bad stuff.

Those Progress resupply ships are basically like modified Soyuzes, some of the guidance systems are the same. Indeed an article said this was also going to test a new system for use by future crews. No idea if it's the new system that has gone bad, or if they had not yet tried the new system. It would be great if the new system could now be activated and save it all, but I have a feeling if that was the case they'd have already done it (or they already tried and no good).

Probably the only good thing is that there is no crew aboard.....they might be seriously screwed. Well, it is going to re-enter about 30 hours after liftoff, so if it was a crewed Soyuz with the same problem it MIGHT be able to survive re-entry, with an unsteered landing most likely in the ocean (it can and has landed in water before) or in some country other than Russia. That last part assuming it would aerodynamically orient heat-shield first, after manually separating the descent module, and that the parachute deployment system was not also affected. Let's hope nobody ever has to find that out for real.

Click to expand...

There may be a few kinks to iron out with that new system...

The update I read a little while ago said it's going to de-orbit and fall back to earth.

This really is not good. ISS is still below what they consider to be "normal" supply levels (six months of supplies) because of the Orbital resupply failure. Now this one is lost as well. The next resupply is SpaceX in June. I have no difficulty imagining that they will pack that puppy as tight as they can.

Wow...not good.

Reminds me of the Gemini 8 spin...I can't find a brief clip, for anybody with 25 min. to kill, pop some popcorn (this reminds me of the films we used to see in school), and watch a true American hero (Neil Armstrong) save the day...

[video=youtube;eP9T4rjm56U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP9T4rjm56U[/video]

When it burns up on re-entry I hope someone gets video of it.
If it lands in my backyard I'm keeping it.
I'll trade it for rocketry stuffs.

Here's an article on Space.com. It is definitely not going to make it and will reenter the atmosphere and burn up. Unfortunately, this means Scott Kelly is going to have to get through his year-long mission with just the undies he has been wearing for the last month or so. Just keep turning them inside out and flipping them around backwards...

https://www.space.com/29257-russian-progress-59-spacecraft-doomed.html

georgegassaway said:

Probably the only good thing is that there is no crew aboard.....they might be seriously screwed.

Click to expand...

Hopefully if a crew were on board they'd have the ability to use manual thrusters to stop the spin or make any corrections to whatever caused the spin.

Hopefully.

The_Lone_Beagle said:

Wow...not good.

Reminds me of the Gemini 8 spin...I can't find a brief clip, for anybody with 25 min. to kill, pop some popcorn (this reminds me of the films we used to see in school), and watch a true American hero (Neil Armstrong) save the day...

[video=youtube;eP9T4rjm56U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP9T4rjm56U[/video]

Click to expand...

Wow after watching that it puts into perspective the resources that were dedicated to space exploration back then. I don't know the numbers but today's resources must be a small percentage of the glory days.

Mushtang said:

Hopefully if a crew were on board they'd have the ability to use manual thrusters to stop the spin or make any corrections to whatever caused the spin.

Hopefully.

Click to expand...

Yes, hopefuly. However, from the beginnings of the Russian space program they favored "automation" over "pilot control". I do not know the Soyuz like I know the shuttle, so I do not know if there are literally manual controls that a crew could use to stop a tumble/spin and to help orient the spacecraft for re-entry (ideally, have enough control and navigation information to even do a crude re-entry burn to say land within a 1000 mile corridor over Russia and not in the ocean or other randomly bad place).

From what I recall of the near-fatal Gemini-8 roll, I wont; bother to google/wiki details, they thought there was a stuck roll thruster with the Agena it was docked with. When they undocked, the Gemini spun faster and faster. It was a stuck thruster on the Gemini. What they had to do was turn off the automated system which disabled the stuck thruster, then had to manually fire opposing roll thrusters to stop the spin. That is the part I'm not so sure that a Soyuz allows its crew to do.

Of course with the shuttle....the computers controlled the RCS thruster firings. Sure, the crew could be in "manual mode", but the manual commands were sent to the computers, which then determined which thrusters to fire to move as commanded. Fly by Wire. Not the same thing as true manual control where pressing a button (or moving a control stick) means direct control over the thrusters (or control surfaces). I highly doubt that "Orion" or SpaceX's crewed "Dragon" spacecraft have true manual controls. They probably have "fly by wire" type of manual control options but still relying on computers to carry out the commands.

Far different from say Apollo-13 when to save critically limited battery power, the LM's guidance system and computer was shut down, and when another course correction burn was needed..... they did it truly manually, by eye, looking out the window with Earth as a pitch reference, manually firing/throttling the LM engine, and manually controlling the thrusters to point the right way. I cannot imagine "modern" spacecraft ever being able to do such a thing. Though with the possible exception of Soyuz, depending on HOW much of the original mid-1960's control system options it may still have as a legacy. And yet again Russia was never into allowing a lot of crew control over the spacecraft as the US was..... (the early "Right Stuff" US Astronauts insisted on it. Though fortunately they didn't get 100% control as they even wanted to hand-fly into orbit, not use a guidance system at all, and a 100% manual lunar landing would have had several mission failures).

With the earlier Orbital loss and now this one, I wonder of they'll have to add another resupply launch to the schedule. And if so, who will provide it?

Whatever happened to the Agena Target Vehicle, I am guessing it reentered and burnt up but I can't find mention of it?

mpitfield said:

Whatever happened to the Agena Target Vehicle, I am guessing it reentered and burnt up but I can't find mention of it?

Click to expand...

FUBAR...

mpitfield said:

Whatever happened to the Agena Target Vehicle, I am guessing it reentered and burnt up but I can't find mention of it?

Click to expand...

You aren't familiar with the Katy Perry tribute song to the Agena Target Vehicle?

'Cause, baby, you're a firework
Come on, show 'em what you're worth
Make 'em go, "Aah, aah, aah"
As you shoot across the sky-y-y

ThirstyBarbarian said:

You aren't familiar with the Katy Perry tribute song to the Agena Target Vehicle?

'Cause, baby, you're a firework
Come on, show 'em what you're worth
Make 'em go, "Aah, aah, aah"
As you shoot across the sky-y-y

Click to expand...

or this version...

[YOUTUBE][video=youtube;DFoz29COLbs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFoz29COLbs[/video][/YOUTUBE]

Rob Campbell said:

or this version...

[YOUTUBE][video=youtube;DFoz29COLbs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFoz29COLbs[/video][/YOUTUBE]

Click to expand...

Ha ha! That was pretty good.

The_Lone_Beagle said:

Wow...not good.

Reminds me of the Gemini 8 spin...I can't find a brief clip, for anybody with 25 min. to kill, pop some popcorn (this reminds me of the films we used to see in school), and watch a true American hero (Neil Armstrong) save the day...

[video=youtube;eP9T4rjm56U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP9T4rjm56U[/video]

Click to expand...

Very cool vid. Also reminds me of in-school movies. Where do you find stuff like this?!

455 Buick said:

Very cool vid. Also reminds me of in-school movies. Where do you find stuff like this?!

Click to expand...

YouTube. It's amazing what's available there.

ThirstyBarbarian said:

With the earlier Orbital loss and now this one, I wonder of they'll have to add another resupply launch to the schedule. And if so, who will provide it?

Click to expand...

Well, the next SpaceX resupply is CRS-7 set for June 22nd.

CRS-8 set for Sept 2nd.

CRS-9 later in the year.

Though the farther out a date is, the more it tends to be bumped to later.

All of those will try to land the first stage on the ASDS landing barge that I have renamed "Mister Bill" due to three trips at sea in a row where it got damaged. Well, those will at least try to soft land the boosters somewhere. Ifthey get permission to try an RTLS landing, AND there is enough fuel left at staging to allow for a boostback to the Cape then one or more of those might land at LC-13 at the Cape rather than land on Mister Bill.

Orbital's "Antares" crashed and burned on Oct 28th. The Antares is being redesigned, will use different engines. The next ISS resupply flight that Orbital tries will not even be on an Antares, it will be a Delta V 401, didn't see a date.

In a quick look, didn't see any dates for the next Progress resupply flights. The info likely is out there...... if someone has the interest in googling for it. Obviously there are always more planned. But whatever schedule they had now means nothing as they need to figure out what went wrong with this one,. and how to avoid a repeat, before doing another launch.

So right now the only resupply provider that can reliably get supplies to ISS anytime soon is SpaceX.

In theory SpaceX could add more ISS resupply flights by doing musical chairs with launch vehicles for commercial satellites. But even if they could work things out with a commercial customer, they probably do not have the spare Dragon spacecraft to actually get to ISS. And I just do not get the impression that they could say add one more new one to the existing production line to have say an extra one ready by the end of the year.

Although a Joker in the deck could be the re-use of previously flown ISS resupply Dragon spacecraft, though they'd need a new "trunk" (Sort of hollow cargo carrying Service Module, with solar panels)

georgegassaway said:

In a quick look, didn't see any dates for the next Progress resupply flights. The info likely is out there...... if someone has the interest in googling for it.

Click to expand...

August 6 and October 22


https://www.nasa.gov/launchschedule/

georgegassaway said:

If they get permission to try an RTLS landing, AND there is enough fuel left at staging to allow for a boostback to the Cape then one or more of those might land at LC-13 at the Cape rather than land on Mister Bill.

Click to expand...

Apologies for the thread drift, but Geroge are you saying there has been progress on the issue of permission for Florida landings to the point where it might be tried in the near future?

cvanc said:

Apologies for the thread drift, but Geroge are you saying there has been progress on the issue of permission for Florida landings to the point where it might be tried in the near future?

Click to expand...

I said "If". But obviously with the work being done at LC-13 to turn it into a landing pad, and the continuing successes of "landing" the Falcon-9's close to where they are supposed to (hitting Mister Bill twice and accurate non-barge ocean landings since adding the grid fins), there is not much reason for the USAF/CCAFS to drag the approval process out much longer. After all, it's not for landing a human back safely within a handful of meters of an "X", with the booster eing in good condition for re-use. It's basic safety-based about confidence that an incoming F9 booster will stay INSIDE the landing zone (not pad, but zone), rather than stray out into other areas, and all the grid fin landings meet that criteria.

But AFAIK, there is no "news" on an expected date by which the permission might be granted. In theory it could happen today, or could happen in 6 months. Or could happen in 6 years, or never. I do not think that the criteria has been made public. But SpaceX did mention at a news conference a few weeks ago that they expected to do so soon, or something like that (Tried to Google it but can't find it). The wording they used.... I took that in part as an attempt to ratchet up the pressure on getting the approval for RTLS landings.

To get a bit back on-thread, below is an image from preparing the CRS-6 mission. It shows a Dragon spacecraft with it's "Trunk" service module which has solar panels (note the rectangular fairings. And that the trunk is hollow inside... it often carries cargo inside of it that does not need to be pressurized, accessed by spacewalk). So, if my Wild Card idea was in play for re-using Dragons, they'd need new "trunks". No idea if their assembly line could add some extra trunks to be ready early if ISS resupply flights got so critical that SpaceX was asked to add more CRS missions, if the Progress flights have a long delay due to this week's failure. Also no idea how close SpaceX is for actual re-use of previously flown Dragons as opposed to the "planned" re-use (other than the fact they plan to use the same Dragon for two Abort tests, but those are not the same as a flight to orbit and re-entry, and i'm not so sure that the Dragon for abort testing has a reason to be 100% space-worthy such as needed for ISS missions).

Thanks for posting the Gemini 8 video! Good stuff!

One thing that made me chuckle though....was the desert attire at about 6:40....

This Progress vehicle is probably going to burn in tonight or tomorrow morning:

https://www.space.com/29344-falling-russian-spacecraft-reentry-tonight.html

Annnnnd.... it's down

https://www.n2yo.com/progress-cargo-reentry.php

Last prediction of the landing track, in the Pacific, Southwest of South America:

Sploosh!

Looks like it randomly landed in the established disposal zone.