Mission type ISS resupply Spacecraft type Progress-MS Launch date 1 December 2016 Launch site Baikonur Cosmodrome | Operator Roscosmos Docking port Zvezda aft Rocket Soyuz-U | |
 | ||
Spacecraft Progress MS-04 (No.434) Docking date Spacecraft failed to orbit Manufacturer S. P. Korolev Rocket and Space Corporation Energia Contractor Roscosmos State Corporation Similar Progress MS‑01, Kounotori 6, Progress MS‑03, JCSAT‑15, Progress MS‑05 | ||
Progress MS-04 (Russian: Прогресс МC-04), identified by NASA as Progress 65 or 65P, was a Progress cargo spacecraft launched by Roscosmos in an unsuccessful attempt to resupply the International Space Station (ISS).
Contents
Iss progress 65 progress ms 04 launch
Cargo
The Progress MS-4 spacecraft was carrying about 2450 kg of cargo and supplies to the International Space Station. The spacecraft was delivering food, fuel and supplies, including 705 kg of propellant, 50 kg of oxygen and air, and 420 kg of water.
Progress MS-4 was scheduled to dock with the aft docking port of the Zvezda module.
Launch Failure
Progress MS-4 was launched on December 1, 2016 from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. It used the second to last Soyuz-U rocket.
The launch proceeded normally until telemetry was lost at T+382 seconds, about two minutes into the Blok I stage burn. At this time, the Progress apparently separated from the third stage, almost six minutes earlier than nominal. A high altitude explosion was reported over the skies of Tuva, and debris from the third stage and Progress impacted in a mountainous area approximately 2200 miles (3500 km) downrange from Baikonur.
Roskosmos has confirmed the loss of Progress MS-04. The loss of the spacecraft occurred at an altitude of 190 km above deserted mountainous terrain in Tuva.
The Spaceship was insured by LLC IC "VTB Insurance" for the amount of about 2.5 billion rubles.
Investigation
Preliminary investigation found that the Progress had separated from the third stage six minutes and 23 seconds into launch, and that third stage telemetry failed. The reason for the premature separation was unclear. Although the Blok I computer system was capable of issuing a manual shutoff command in the event of a malfunction, this could only occur if engine chamber pressure dropped below a certain level or the booster began deviating from its flight path and telemetry data up to the point of the malfunction indicated normal third stage performance. Sensing normal separation, the Progress began deploying its antennas and preparing to fire its propulsion system, but the Blok I was still thrusting and apparently collided with the spacecraft at least twice, sending it into a tailspin and possibly rupturing the instrument module. As evidence of this, the Progress began activating its thermal control system in response to loss of instrument module compartment temperatures. It was suspected that the loss of Blok I telemetry could have been caused by the collision with the Progress, which may have damaged antennas on the booster.
The separation command was normally issued by the third stage following engine cutoff, but the Progress could issue a backup command itself, which was maintained as a possible cause of the malfunction.
On Jan 11, 2017, Roscosmos announced the results of an investigation into the cause of the failure. Most likely, the oxygen pump of the Blok I third stage engine (11D55) caught fire and disintegrated, rupturing the oxygen tank. The fire was probably caused by "foreign particles" in the pump, or an assembly error.
On Jan 23, 2017, Ivan Koptev, Director General of the Federal State Unitary Enterprise Voronezh Mechanical Plant resigned for unsatisfactory performance and quality of products.
On Jan 28, 2017, The Russian government announced as a result of the investigation into MS-04 the recall of all Proton-M 2nd and 3rd stage engines produced by the Voronezh Mechanical Plant (common to the failed Progress flight) including the disassembly of three completed Proton rockets and a three and a half month suspension of flights. An investigation had found that engine parts that were supposed to use precious metals had been substituted for cheaper alternatives that were unable to resist high temperatures as well as finding that production and certification documentation were falsified.