Apparently, after yesterday’s successful comsat launch by SpaceX, the Russian cargo mission to ISS is failing, or has failed. Wrong orbit, undeployed antennae on Kurs, spinning or tumbling, unable to contact from ground-station passes. With Cygnus still out of business, if they can’t deterrmine root cause, this puts all the responsibility on SpaceX to resupply in June. If that mission fails, they may have to think (once again) about abandoning ship, after a decade and a half of continuous occupation. And once again, this demonstrates the need for redundancy and resiliency, and why it would he stupid (as Palazzo, and Shelby, and others continue to push for) to go to a single provider for commercial crew. It’s also a reminder that, even after all these decades, spaceflight is not routine.
[Update a few minutes later]
OK, hearing now that the initial TLEs were incorrect, and the orbit is all right. That doesn’t mean they’ll be able to get to the station, though, given the control/communications issues.
[Update a while later]
Here‘s what looks like the manifest for the mission. It’s looking unlikely that it will be delivered.
[Early afternoon update]
OK, looks like the initial TLE was correct. It’s got a low perigee, and won’t last more than a day without a boost. I wonder if this will turn out to be a booster, or separation problem?
[Update a while later]
Interfax is now reporting a problem with the third stage. Which means Soyuz flights are iffy again, until they figure out what happened.
[Update mid-afternoon]
OK, now they’re saying that the original TLE was wrong, and it’s not far from the correct orbit. And that the prime suspect is now the primary flight computer.
[Wednesday-morning update]
It’s sounding pretty bad. They can’t contact it, it’s out of propellant, and it will enter in a few days. The JSpOC is tracking almost four dozen pieces, yet to be cataloged. Sounds like something happened at the end of the third-stage burn, or at separation. And it’s not clear what the implications are for Soyuz flights.
[Update a few minutes later]
Anatoly Zak has a pretty comprehensive report.
[Update a while later]
Jeff Foust describes the issues with resupply, and how much margin they have.
I’d note that while no one other than me is talking about it, this is likely to delay the next Soyuz flight, currently scheduled for May 26th, if they haven’t resolved it by then.
Answer me this Alpha Nerds, would the orbital dynamics work for Lockheed’s tug be able to nab this thing and bring it to the ISS?
In theory, except for the fact that it’s tumbling.
So they’d have to grab it at the axis of rotation. And to do that, they’d need some kind of grappler that could stick to the spacecraft at a point that is not meant to be grabbed. Calling Jon Goff…
They could use electromagnets to “grasp” from a distance to slow rotation, and then close in and use mechanical couplers.
Wouldn’t be an issue if Cooper was the pilot and it had to be done so magically would.
I suspected it would work because that is close to what it is designed to do but with these things it’s best to just ask.
Do Progress and Soyuz share any of the systems (like an IMU or other sensor suite) that could be responsible for the failure?
Well, they share a launch system. Also, I think the entire propulsion system is common.
Here’s a long-term question: What resupply craft can reboost the ISS? Is it only the Progress? What about the crew Dragon (I think so)? The Cargo Dragon (I don’t think so)?
It may have more to do with the position of the docking/berthing collar used on ISS than the thrust levels available. (?)
Here’s another thought: Would NASA pay SpaceX to run an extra supply mission to ISS this year? Would they compensate them for having to push aside a commercial customer? Or would they rather gamble on losing ISS?
What no Jupiter or Dreamchaser options?
Orrr… What about an x-37b? One is going up sometime soon.
It may not be possible for SpaceX to fly another mission this year. Their launch manifest is already aggressive. When is their first Dragon flight next year? If it’s early, say January or February, they might be able to accelerate the schedule a bit.
Excellent question.
ATV and STS reboosted ISS in past. ATV also transferred propellent to ISS in past.
But I believe the Progress is currently the only vehicle capable of transferring propellent to the ISS.
I’ve been following along at NSF.com all day. I don’t understand the confusion about the orbit.
The latest attempt to contact Progress was apparently unsuccessful.
Events of April 29
Another attempt to communicate with Progress M-27M was apparently made during the mission’s 13th orbit, in the early hours Moscow Time, however it was also fruitless. The spacecraft likely continued tumbling in space. The new communication window was expected to open around 05:00 Moscow Time (10 p.m. EDT on April 28).
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/progress-m27m.html
I can see why.
Space X is becoming increasingly indispensable to the survival of ISS. Poor Elon, he was so looking fwd to it feeling normal one day!
Complacency is the mother of all space screw-ups. If something like this can happen to a system as mature and proven as Progress, it can happen to anyone. Elon hopes for the day when launches won’t be so stressful. May that day never come. Just as soon as you get complacent, bam! Launching a Dragon is even more stressful because you can have a perfect launch and still have mission failure, like in the case of this Progress launch.
When will SpaceX get some real competition? After critical?
SpaceX has the manufacturing capability. Govt. could step up with launch facility funds… if space were important.
…or govt could just quit undermining commercial ventures.
Rand,
why was ATV retired, and why does Japan fly H-2 infrequently (in the words of the SpaceNews article)? Money and/or something else?
Not familiar with the history, but my bet would be on money. No country takes space seriously. They just do things to show off. Then, once done, they move on to some other wasteful demonstration of their technological prowess. They’re stuck in the sixties.
“Not familiar with the history, but my bet would be on money. No country takes space seriously.”
Yeah, I figured as much. I thought ATV was originally supposed to have half a dozen or more flights, though, although I haven’t paid close attention in a long time (but I did know it had been cancelled).
ESA only ever intended to build enough ATVs for the original projected life of the ISS. When they originally announced that they would only build 5, nobody batted an eye. By the time it dawned that they would need more, the production lines for subcomponents were shut down, companies had moved on, etc.
Not so sure about the HTV situation. That may be bound up in some MHI internal stuff.
Interesting, and all news to me.
Destroyed tooling -> can’t make any more even if we wanted to certainly makes sense.
As a reason, that is.
“Not familiar with the history, but my bet would be on money. No country takes space seriously.”
Of course it’s about money. That’s what “why go down another gravity well” people always get wrong. Local economics has to work or you don’t have trade economics. Pretend I’m not talking about mars. Anyplace that can sustain itself independently can then, and only then, be part of trade economics. No can of people in space is ever going to be the end point of trade. You have to first develop the end points, then the gas stations will spring up along the route.
No can of people in space is ever going to be the end point of trade.
That’s your (unsupported) opinion. It’s not a fact. There’s nothing magic about the bottom of a gravity well that makes it an “end point of trade.”
You’re right, it’s not magic. But there are facts that should not be ignored (I was going to say can’t be, but obviously they are being so.)
What the bottom of a gravity well is (and this is a fact that can not be denied) is a source of the material that makes industry possible… that will remain true until Star Trek replicators become common (3d printers do not produce matter from energy.)
An end point is a place you can’t imagine abandoning because it has a thriving local economy. I.S.S. is a can of people… note how often they consider abandoning it. Make it larger, 100 to 1000 crew, and we would still find ourselves considering abandoning it a (stupidly, but still so.)
We abandoned the moon because we never used it’s resources. Had we, we’d probably still have a growing base their today even if not fully independent.
Mars could be fully independent with just a few dozen people and more so as more colonists arrive, because gravity wells are where things are.
What the bottom of a gravity well is (and this is a fact that can not be denied) is a source of the material that makes industry possible
Asteroids in free space are also such a source. I don’t understand why you are so obtuse about this.
An end point is a place you can’t imagine abandoning because it has a thriving local economy. I.S.S. is a can of people… note how often they consider abandoning it. Make it larger, 100 to 1000 crew, and we would still find ourselves considering abandoning it a (stupidly, but still so.)
There is nothing about putting such a facility at the bottom of a gravity well that makes it immune from abandonment. Historically, many settlements have been abandoned.
Again you are correct. I wasn’t speaking in absolutes.
I’m not being obtuse. Planets and asteroids each have advantages and disadvantages as material sources. The overwhelming advantage of a planet is one stop shopping.
Which is faster and cheaper for getting resources? By many magnitudes. Those asteroids you want to go after using rocket fuel are already lying on the surface of mars. More than thousands could use in decades (millions in centuries I really should say.) How are you not aware of that? I know that you are. You’re on a planet. Even in LEO, halfway to anywhere it’s still true. Even floating above some bountiful rock, it is still true because that bounty is nothing compared to an entire planet even when most of that planets resources are not on its surface… because its surface alone is many times more abundant.
You are right about not being immune to abandonment, but somewhat disingenuous because you know what causes abandonment. Running out of resources is one reason, but covered in the last paragraph. Related is lack of independence and having support withdrawn. That danger is much less for mars which could be independent much sooner than the asteroid miners (who may not even leave earth.) A third reason applies only to crossroads which are in danger of having better routes utilized.
Further, those cans of people could, like many trading posts on crossroads in the past, turn into major centers… but it will be because of a forcing function. That’s the implication of the term crossroads.
Thank you sincerely Rand for challenging my assumptions. I am grateful.
I would look at it a little differently. It isn’t a question of Mars or asteroids (or something else), it is a question of Mars AND asteroids (or something else). The two are not mutually exclusive and both can provide benefits to the other.
The question I ask is, what would make colonization of Mars successful in the long term? Part of that answer is having a robust space based infrastructure to support Martian development, facilitate trade and communication with Earth, and act as a way station for transportation of goods and people to and from other locations.
There won’t be significant numbers of people on Mars without space based infrastructure. Why must we build from the surface up like we did on Earth rather than space down?
I absolutely agree that it should be ‘and’ rather than ‘or’, but still think getting an independent colony on mars is the fastest way to develop the entire solar system. So this is a good question…
“Why must we build from the surface up like we did on Earth rather than space down?”
We will do both. ‘Build’ is the key word. I’m all for building space down, but is there any evidence in the last 50 years that anyone is going to do it?
We need to get industry started off earth. Can we all agree on that? If so, we want that industry to grow at the fastest rate possible. Getting into space or to mars is the hard expensive part. But the difference is dramatic once there.
We’ve had 3 to 6 on the ISS continuously since the first. What have they accomplished? Put 6 on mars and give them ownership and watch out. ISS has limited space. Mars is not so limited. They are going to build a world because they have the motivation and resources without the need for constant resupply. All they need is people with expertise and local trade. Eventually they will out manufacture any competing entity, including the earth. Especially the earth, because their cost to deliver goods anywhere in the solar system is going to be cheaper than from the earth. Of course, it’s cheaper if already in space, but space isn’t going to grow as fast because their only real advantage is energy… But energy is not a limiting factor. You only need enough. More than enough is superfluous. Mars has more than enough which is more than they need.
Working on mars will be less exhausting than both earth and space. Working in zero g is exhausting, but 38% g will be much easier than a full g. All (space or mars) will work mostly in a shirtsleeve environment.
Lower gravity and less government interference are the main distinction from working on earth. It will be a new industrial age reborn rather than the malaise we see in space AND this new industry will be a forcing function that invigorates space.
Does anybody really believe that in the short term space will have independence from earth to grow? Even the moon will not have that kind of independence, perhaps forever.
You have people thinking mars must be planned. Planned economies DO NOT WORK. Success on mars will come because they will have the freedom and resources to be successful.
It is a world. Are the implications of that not getting through? The difference in cost to the individual once in space vs. on a world are dramatic. Space only gets economically possible when on a trade route. This is not an absolute statement. Water from the moon is an example.
“There won’t be significant numbers of people on Mars without space based infrastructure.”
Musk is planning to send a hundred at a time directly from earth. Even w/o that, FH and lander is enough.
Even though getting to space is cheaper now than going to mars, going to mars will be one way. Space will be a two way commute for most. They will not be making the same kind of commitment and will not have the same kind of incentive that creates industry.
How do you like having a college professor as president? That’s not an unrelated question. We need can do people. Not, yes we can, sloganeers.
Ownership makes a huge difference. They will build that.
How obtuse am I?