Apparently the heavy docking mechanism usually survives re-entry. Don't want that landing on your head!
Quote from: JimO on 04/29/2015 06:49 pmQuote from: kevin-rf on 04/29/2015 06:14 pmNot to argue with you but, trackable debris from the USA-193 event was shot as high as 147 km x 2,689 km. While most of it reentered quickly, a trackable amount was sent into higher orbits. That is what would endanger ISS.Again, this is why an similar intercept is a bad idea for ISS. I gratefully stand corrected, and will need it more and more as time goes by, so lay on, MacDuff!Yes, it would be a bad idea. Imagine trying to control and extinguish a fire by throwing a grenade on it.ASAT weapons are intended for destruction of satellites. Not debris removal - it will have the opposite effect.
Quote from: kevin-rf on 04/29/2015 06:14 pmNot to argue with you but, trackable debris from the USA-193 event was shot as high as 147 km x 2,689 km. While most of it reentered quickly, a trackable amount was sent into higher orbits. That is what would endanger ISS.Again, this is why an similar intercept is a bad idea for ISS. I gratefully stand corrected, and will need it more and more as time goes by, so lay on, MacDuff!
Not to argue with you but, trackable debris from the USA-193 event was shot as high as 147 km x 2,689 km. While most of it reentered quickly, a trackable amount was sent into higher orbits. That is what would endanger ISS.Again, this is why an similar intercept is a bad idea for ISS.
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.
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: Liss on 04/29/2015 04:43 pmActually, Komarov/Ivanov/Solovyov have said that:(1) TM from 3rd stage was lost some 1.5 sec before scheduled ejection of SC;(2) SC separated more or less on time;(3) SC was found to rotate with the period of 4 seconds;(4) today, manifolds of SC were found to be depressurized which led to cancellation of the mission.No most possible cause was named but they would check issues at the moment of separation.Ouch. So that would mean things depressurized. Not good. Still, seems like contrary to what I thought earlier that the problem was with the 3rd stage after all.
Actually, Komarov/Ivanov/Solovyov have said that:(1) TM from 3rd stage was lost some 1.5 sec before scheduled ejection of SC;(2) SC separated more or less on time;(3) SC was found to rotate with the period of 4 seconds;(4) today, manifolds of SC were found to be depressurized which led to cancellation of the mission.No most possible cause was named but they would check issues at the moment of separation.
Question: would there be a difference in a tumbling spacecraft reentering versus a directed path? I doubt there would be anything resembling a 'bounce' off the atmosphere, but I'm thinking it could make it more difficult to ascertain the exact (expected) point of impact?
It's already been said. ASAT weapons are designed for achieving a satellite 'mission kills'. Meaning that the objective is to simply prevent the satellite from performing its function. It just so happens that it isn't going to take a lot of physical destruction to do that. That is what ASAT weapons are for.
As has been already said they are not designed for debris removal.
Right now the situation has some thousands of variable...hitting it with an ASAT turns that into millions of variables.
Things have been reentering the atmosphere in unexpected ways since the start of the space age, apart from being more newsworthy for all the wrong reasons this will be nothing to get excited about.
There are so many variables on satellite decay that it is next to impossible to get an accurate reentry prediction time with large error bars less than 24hrs in advance, and an estimated reentry location with large error bars less than a couple of orbits in advances.
.... Things have been reentering the atmosphere in unexpected ways since the start of the space age, apart from being more newsworthy for all the wrong reasons this will be nothing to get excited about.
Back to the mission itself. I've been mulling it over and just cannot imagine any energetic event at payload insertion that would result in an accidental asymmetric force on the Progress sufficient to induce such a fast tumble rate -- except a LONG thruster burn. That would itself take up lots of propellant, even more if other thrusters were commanded on to attempt to counteract it. What are the alternative sources of sufficient rotational force on the Progress?