Breaking: “Emergency Situation” as Russian Progress Re-Supply Ship Fails

by Nancy Atkinson on August 24, 2011

Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter

The first post-shuttle era launch of a Russian Progress re-supply ship for the International Space Station has apparently failed. Controllers at the mission control center in Korylov lost contact with the ship six minutes into the flight. This is the first time since 1978 that this normally reliable ship has failed to deliver its cargo to space, and this could have dire consequences for the space station program. If the ship cannot be recovered and docked to the ISS, not only are the supplies lost, but planned re-boosts of the ISS in its orbit will not occur. This could also affect future Progress — as well as Soyuz launches for crew exchange — until the cause of the failure is known. Without the space shuttle, the Soyuz is the only way to bring humans to the space station.

UPDATE: The Russian cargo spaceship Progress M-12M has reportedly crashed to Earth in eastern Russia, Interfax is now reporting, saying that the crash did not cause any destruction on the ground as it fell in an unpopulated area in the Choisk region of the Republic of Altai.

See our Twitter feed for the most current updates.

Via Twitter, @NASASpaceflight (NASASpaceflight.com) is reporting that the Russians have confirmed that the spacecraft failed to separate and the Progress M-12M is still attached to Upper Stage. It can’t fire its thrusters, as is required. Conflicting news reports via Twitter make it unclear whether the craft reached orbit. (update — it’s now clear that the Progress did not reach orbit, as it has crashed in eastern Russia).

The InterFax news agency is reporting an “emergency situation” occurred during launch. Liftoff of the Soyuz rocket took place at 9:00 a.m. EDT (1300 GMT) from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. This was Russia’s 44th Progress cargo supply mission to the space station.

“It is practically the first time in the history of domestic human flight that the launch of a cargo ship did not go regularly. There has been nothing of the kind with the Progresses since 1978,” a spokesman said on InterFax.

UPDATE: NASA has now posted on their website that 5 minutes and 50 seconds after launch, Mission Control Houston received a report of an “off-nominal situation” during the rocket’s third and final stage.

We’ll provide more details as they become available.

About

Nancy Atkinson is Universe Today's Senior Editor. She also is the host of the NASA Lunar Science Institute podcast and works with the Astronomy Cast and 365 Days of Astronomy podcasts. Nancy is also a NASA/JPL Solar System Ambassador.

  • Christopher Long

    np, we’ll just send up an extra shutt…oh wait…

    • Anonymous

      It could not respond that quickly, anyway. Space Shuttles never could ‘scramble.’

      • Christopher Long

        That’s not the point. I think most of us here understand that no craft available today could reasonably ‘scramble’. They all need some amount of prep and check time to get things right. I’m trying to make light of what I see as a negative and disappointing situation. Despite some folks claims that our nation’s spaceflight program is moving forward, we are less capable now and I’ve not yet seen convincing evidence that a new system will soon be ready. I like SpaceX a lot and have been rooting for them all along, but I’m not counting them in this. I want NASA to maintain some ability to do this. In time I’m sure private enterprise will be able to provide everything the shuttle could, but I’m not comfortable with NASA being cut off at the knees like this.

  • http://twitter.com/hemo_jr Matt Hickman

    Murphy strikes! I hope he doesn’t strike the contingency plans as well.

  • Tom

    I’m glad it was just a cargo ship.

  • Tom

    I’m glad it was just a cargo ship.

  • Zach Johnson

    Kinda like keeping a spare tire in your trunk…NASA probably should have kept a flight-ready shuttle around…just in case.

  • Zach Johnson

    Kinda like keeping a spare tire in your trunk…NASA probably should have kept a flight-ready shuttle around…just in case.

    • Anonymous

      Maintaining a ‘flight ready Shuttle’ is slightly more expensive than getting a space tire….

      But this is why NASA is pursuing more than one CCDev approach…

    • Torbjörn Larsson

      They were out of external tanks.

      • WaxyMary

        Now, I thought great progress was being made converting the sausage balloons from the Macy’s Thanksgiving parade into tanks… or was that for the balloon shuttle, it is so hard to keep track of it all, sigh.

        Mary

  • Sebastian F

    The fourth or so failure in the last month, isn’t it? What’s going wrong?

    (btw: why do the Russian rockets have to be stabilized by at least 10 arms? Is it the wind in the desert?)

    • Torbjörn Larsson

      Good question! I think possibly the launcher must be suspended until engines provides lift and can’t stand. I.e. it was developed for military use as the (failed) ballistic rocket it originally was and never redesigned for stationary towers.

      Anyone knows?

      • IVAN3MAN_AT_LARGE

        Yep. According to Wikipedia – Soyuz (rocket family) – the launch system trusses bear the wind loads on the rocket because resistance to high wind is an important feature of the launch system, as the Kazakhstan steppes, where the Baikonur launch site is located, are known for their windstorms.

        • Torbjörn Larsson

          Thanks!

          So we were *both* right, huh? Great minds think alike, greater minds thinks differently! =D

  • Anonymous

    “off-nominal situation”

    That’s a new one to me.

    • Torbjörn Larsson

      It means “fubar” – in a nice way.

  • OK, Now What!

    Another BAD decision from Obama.

    • Anonymous

      Last I heard, Barack Obama wasn’t a Russian rocket engineer…

      Oh, you mean the Shuttle? THAT decision was made in January of 2004. Sorry.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aaron-Ceraldi/702412161 Aaron Ceraldi

        Last I heard he was still the current president and would have the power to override that 2004 decision sorry. he has no spine.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Aaron-Ceraldi/702412161 Aaron Ceraldi

        Last I heard he was still the current president and would have the power to override that 2004 decision sorry. he has no spine.

        • Anonymous

          Ah, so it was ‘bad’ because he didn’t reverse a years-old decision?

          Not only is Torbjörn correct in that once such decisions are made, contracts are not renewed, production lines for ongoing items like the external tanks are shut down and the tooling disassembled, as well as for any stream of spare parts (this is just one of the reasons you can’t keep a shuttle ‘on standby’), making it much more expensive to restart than continuing would have been, but the Space Transportation System had, for all its advantages, clearly shown itself to be an overly expensive, fragile and unreliable system. No Presidential decree can change that.

          Many (including some here) asserted that it would’ve been cheaper to, say, replace Hubble than pay for a Shuttle repair mission. I don’t believe it’s as simple as that, but a time *does* come when you have to cut your losses, and move to different manned spacecraft. I’m only sorry that it isn’t a different RLV, but having multiple CCDev partners is precisely to avoid reliance on just one domestic human launch system, should any one of them have a serious issue.

          Letting the Shuttle cancellation stand (and developing multiple lower cost, commercializeable alternatives), was the correct choice.

          This is about practicality, not spine.

        • Anonymous

          As mentioned above, he could have told them to keep the shuttle running, but it just wasn’t going to happen without costing at least as much as building an entirely new launch system.

    • Torbjörn Larsson

      If you are alluding to the STS discontinuation, you mean Bush; check with any encyclopedia.

      I’m not sure Obama ever got the opportunity to (very, very expensively) change the 4 year old decision (to keep a very expensive system). My take was that, since the production chain for the external tank was disassembled about that time, there were never a way to piece Humpty-Dumpty together again.

  • Anonymous

    Not to kick someone when they’re down, but this would be an especially good time for SpaceX and the cargo Dragon to prove its stuff…

    • Anonymous

      It would be bad if SpaceX would also crash. I think it is better for them to be extra cautious.

      • Anonymous

        Oh, I don’t suggest they launch any sooner than scheduled. But if you thought the pressure was on for their first recoverable Dragon flight last year, this may cause even more sleepless nights at SpaceX. They pretty much *have* to perform now.

        But they’ll look *very* good, if they can…

  • Anonymous

    Falcon to the Rescue!

  • Torbjörn Larsson

    Ouch!

    This will have serious consequences for later crafts (and the web is already filling with such rumor). Unfortunately this means the Dragon COTS2+3 mission will likely be postponed instead of a saving way out.

  • Anonymous

    Is there a contingency plan? How long can the ISS last without resupply or reboost?

  • Anonymous

    Is there a contingency plan? How long can the ISS last without resupply or reboost?

    • Anonymous

      It isn’t life-or-death, if that’s what you mean. The last Shuttle flight brought up as much as possible. There’s plenty of time to consider their next move…

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ryan-Tucker/751833310 Ryan Tucker

    I would NOT want to have been the messenger to deliver this news to Vladimir Putin. Especially with all of the recent Russian space, rocket, and missile failures. I wouldn’t be suprised at all about hearing news soon about the whole Russian space agency getting laid off after this major fiasco and embarrasment… So much for the “Era of Soyuz”. Go, go, go SpaceX!!! lol ;-)

Previous post:

Next post: