Revisit the hazard of uncontrolled reentry -- This reentry will be different, the Progress will have tanks practically full of propellant and water, which over the next few days can be expected to freeze. That ought to significantly enhance survivability through boil-off cooling at high temperatures, allowing large quantities of hypergolic propellants to reach the surface in a localized area. Is this a USA-183-type event headed our way?...and you may quote me.
Quote from: JimO on 04/29/2015 04:12 pmRevisit the hazard of uncontrolled reentry -- This reentry will be different, the Progress will have tanks practically full of propellant and water, which over the next few days can be expected to freeze. That ought to significantly enhance survivability through boil-off cooling at high temperatures, allowing large quantities of hypergolic propellants to reach the surface in a localized area. Is this a USA-183-type event headed our way?...and you may quote me.Can we get assets in place for an intercept?
Quote from: Rocket Science on 04/29/2015 04:17 pmCan we get assets in place for an intercept?Like shooting it down?
Can we get assets in place for an intercept?
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 04/29/2015 02:20 pmCCAM is done via pryo valves in Ozidizer tank (in location mast umbilicals are connected and filled and drained) followed by pressure blow down on all remaining tanks. operation is similar to Ariane 5 first stage at sep.Actually, that is a description of safing the upper stage, rather than a CCAM.
CCAM is done via pryo valves in Ozidizer tank (in location mast umbilicals are connected and filled and drained) followed by pressure blow down on all remaining tanks. operation is similar to Ariane 5 first stage at sep.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 04/29/2015 04:19 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 04/29/2015 04:17 pmCan we get assets in place for an intercept?Like shooting it down?Not 'shoot down' but 'disintegrate' so that there is nothing large and dense enough to likely survive passage through the upper and middle atmosphere.
I was wondering how they could do a controlled re-entry if the vehicle is spinning.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 04/29/2015 04:22 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 04/29/2015 04:19 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 04/29/2015 04:17 pmCan we get assets in place for an intercept?Like shooting it down?Not 'shoot down' but 'disintegrate' so that there is nothing large and dense enough to likely survive passage through the upper and middle atmosphere.Both the ballistic missile interceptor force in Alaska and/or the U.S. Navy could potentially do this. Capability was demonstrated by the U.S. Navy in the shoot-down of a CIA spy satellite a few years ago. A modified tactical strike missile fired from an AEGIS capable ship or a modified interceptor missile are probably capable. Attach a high explosive warhead and you are good to go. There would still be large pieces however, just smaller ones and more of them. This might give a better chance for the pieces burning up though. http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/20/satellite.shootdown/
LOM/LOV Verified by RoscosmosWell this is a shame! Hope any experiments on board can be reflown. More:From Roscosmos ControlQuote We believe a problem occurred during third stage separation. We have opened an emergency and investigative team to determine what occurred and fix it. We are planning to press ahead with another launch on May 26th, but this launch will use a different rocket (soyuz 2)
We believe a problem occurred during third stage separation. We have opened an emergency and investigative team to determine what occurred and fix it. We are planning to press ahead with another launch on May 26th, but this launch will use a different rocket (soyuz 2)
I was wondering how they could do a controlled re-entry if the vehicle is spinning. Are they going to time the firing to just when the vehicle is pointing the right way every six seconds? Or is it spinning right along the axis of the engines, in which case I guess a retro burn wouldn't really care if the vehicle is spinning.Also, how could this affect the next manned launch in September? I guess they would need to be sure whatever the problem turns out to be can't be repeated for that launch?
Quote from: Star One on 04/29/2015 02:50 pmHow are they going to do a controlled de-orbit if they can't communicate with it?And how are they going to do a controlled de-orbit with a depressurized main engine? Thrusters?
How are they going to do a controlled de-orbit if they can't communicate with it?
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 04/29/2015 04:01 pmLOM/LOV Verified by RoscosmosWell this is a shame! Hope any experiments on board can be reflown. More:From Roscosmos ControlQuote We believe a problem occurred during third stage separation. We have opened an emergency and investigative team to determine what occurred and fix it. We are planning to press ahead with another launch on May 26th, but this launch will use a different rocket (soyuz 2) From that video at 15:40: "As for the current monitoring, I just talked to the Flight Control Center, today at 3'o clock, the Flight Control Center established contact with the spacecraft, so it is monitoring the systems onboard the spacecraft so it is not true that the spacecraft is totally uncontrolled. We are going to continue the monitoring for as long as we can."Emphasis mine.
From that video at 15:40: "As for the current monitoring, I just talked to the Flight Control Center, today at 3'o clock, the Flight Control Center established contact with the spacecraft, so it is monitoring the systems onboard the spacecraft so it is not true that the spacecraft is totally uncontrolled. We are going to continue the monitoring for as long as we can."Emphasis mine.
To be quite honest the safe bet might actually be to shoot it down. But I doubt this will happen. If it did, the Russians would likely opt to do it I doubt they would want the US Navy doing it. As far as I know, they do posses missile systems capable of this task, though unlike the U.S. and China I am not sure they have ever tried it, recently anyway.
Quote from: DaveS on 04/29/2015 04:30 pmFrom that video at 15:40: "As for the current monitoring, I just talked to the Flight Control Center, today at 3'o clock, the Flight Control Center established contact with the spacecraft, so it is monitoring the systems onboard the spacecraft so it is not true that the spacecraft is totally uncontrolled. We are going to continue the monitoring for as long as we can."Emphasis mine. At this juncture, I am inclined to dismiss any factoid that is not confirmed by a second source.
Quote from: JimO on 04/29/2015 04:12 pmRevisit the hazard of uncontrolled reentry -- This reentry will be different, the Progress will have tanks practically full of propellant and water, which over the next few days can be expected to freeze. That ought to significantly enhance survivability through boil-off cooling at high temperatures, allowing large quantities of hypergolic propellants to reach the surface in a localized area. Is this a USA-183-type event headed our way?...and you may quote me.Why are the tanks expected to freeze? Progress is designed for a long orbital life, mostly attached to another spacecraft and unable to control its attitude. I would have thought the thermal design of the thing would be aimed at keeping fluids fluid, regardless of attitude.