Quote from: klausd on 11/12/2011 11:40 pmLook @ the upload time. It could be true. A Fake, just to baffle you, would have been uploaded later. The title of a youtube video can be changed any time. And i know of a guy in Rio who had linked a livestream on http://www.satview.org to watch for fobos-grunt. Let's say it's real, what does it show ? I see a point of light going in and out of focus, and then fades out around 3:00, which would be consistent with no burn taking place, and PG eventually going into eclipse. Or being eclipsed by something local such as a telephone pole, but to me it fades out a bit slow for that. He picks something up at the end but that looks like a light to me.Looking at the maps here: http://phobos.cosmos.ru/index.php?id=312&L=2 this appears consistent with expectation for an observer in Sao Palo, although of course without any reference points, we can't say.
Look @ the upload time. It could be true. A Fake, just to baffle you, would have been uploaded later. The title of a youtube video can be changed any time. And i know of a guy in Rio who had linked a livestream on http://www.satview.org to watch for fobos-grunt.
I though it is this: before 3:01, the engine is burning; after 3:01, the engine is turned off?
That is quite obviously an object in the foreground that it goes behind, being that you can see it in the video.
Quote from: JimO on 11/12/2011 02:20 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 11/12/2011 11:33 amDifference in opinion in our friend JimO and Russian officialsThat about summarizes it, except to add the nuance that we need more information about structural elements to calculate with any reliability the rtemperature evolution of each of the >24 tanks on the vehicle. Also, I should point out the LAST time my assessment differed from official Russian assessments of a failed Mars probe, in 1996.The Russians, and the Clinton White House on FEMA advice, advertised that the Mars-96 probe and its hazardous plutonium batteries had fallen safely into the deep Pacific and no further safety measures were needed.My own orbital analysis suggested an entry significantly east of that point, over the Chile-Bolivia border. This was subsequently supported by eyewitness accounts from Chile, including one from an employee of the Cerro Tololo observatory, of a fireball swarm crossing the coast at precisely the time of the probe's overflight. NORAD checked its IR trackers and released a statement describing entry along a strip that straddled the coastline [the press release came out at 5 PM on the friday after Thanksgiving -- ever wonder why?]. A NORAD spokesman later agreed that the eyewitness accounts "probably" were of the probe headed inland.But from Moscow, no warnings to locals, no searches for debris, nothing. And Russian official websites still list the 'safe splash in Pacific' story. Although Lavochkin's site apparently has been scrubbed of ALL reference to the probe that they built.So yes, on occasion, my views do differ from those of Russian space officials.Thanks Jim over the years I have learned to trust your expertise and judgment. Russia’s approach seems to be cavalier and the lack of information and concern just reinforces my perception…RegardsRobert
Quote from: Rocket Science on 11/12/2011 11:33 amDifference in opinion in our friend JimO and Russian officialsThat about summarizes it, except to add the nuance that we need more information about structural elements to calculate with any reliability the rtemperature evolution of each of the >24 tanks on the vehicle. Also, I should point out the LAST time my assessment differed from official Russian assessments of a failed Mars probe, in 1996.The Russians, and the Clinton White House on FEMA advice, advertised that the Mars-96 probe and its hazardous plutonium batteries had fallen safely into the deep Pacific and no further safety measures were needed.My own orbital analysis suggested an entry significantly east of that point, over the Chile-Bolivia border. This was subsequently supported by eyewitness accounts from Chile, including one from an employee of the Cerro Tololo observatory, of a fireball swarm crossing the coast at precisely the time of the probe's overflight. NORAD checked its IR trackers and released a statement describing entry along a strip that straddled the coastline [the press release came out at 5 PM on the friday after Thanksgiving -- ever wonder why?]. A NORAD spokesman later agreed that the eyewitness accounts "probably" were of the probe headed inland.But from Moscow, no warnings to locals, no searches for debris, nothing. And Russian official websites still list the 'safe splash in Pacific' story. Although Lavochkin's site apparently has been scrubbed of ALL reference to the probe that they built.So yes, on occasion, my views do differ from those of Russian space officials.
Difference in opinion in our friend JimO and Russian officials
Novosti-Kosmonavtiki (forum) reports that the apogee of the orbit has been raised from 311 to 349 kms... This leads some people think that the spacecraft is actually being commanded, and it's not a side-effect like venting
the inexorably planar shift [~6 degrees per day] of the Phobos-Grunt parking orbit
I just registered to say I respectfully disagree with the view that Mr. Oberg is a truthful and unbiased "analyst". The articles I read from him online (Certainly not in this forum) are redacted in a way that makes me think there is a small amount of bad faith going on about the soviet and later russian programs in his conclusions. I'm talking about weasel words and hawkish recommendations on how to deal with the dissolute russians, that probably reflects more than their than evident problems. They are not neutral and I suspect a ideological bias rooted in the Cold War era, tainting MR. Oberg's analysis.Cheers from Argentina, people. I'm sure this post will get "moderated" (Erased, redacted) in no time, but let me say you all are my prime source about space projects and particularly launch vehicles. Keep the good work.
A source from the space industry has informed RIA Novosti that during the last three days the height of the apogei has been lowered to 6.5 kilometers, while the height of the perigee (which had to lower too), had risen to a kilometer due to unknown reason.
