With another upper stage booster failure, are there any new concerns regarding tomorrows manned launch?
USSTRATCOM has issued three new TLEs since my comments yesterday on the payload's rate of decay. They confirm that the apparent small increase in orbital altitude is real, and apparently it is continuing.Prior to the onset of this effect, which became evident in the TLEs issued after epoch day 11314.76789777, the rates of decay of the payload and its rocket body were roughly proportionate to their respective area to mass ratios, as would be expected for bodies encountering nearly identical atmospheric density, due to their nearly identical orbits.
It [Progress] can't do the relay task any better unattached from the ISS than attached. Zero and zero ability.
So sending an observer is too dangerous then? If we are not developing facilities to respond to 'unexpected' unexpected rescue missions in space, now and in the future, then maybe we should just pack our bags and go home.
Quote from: Jim on 11/12/2011 03:51 pmIt [Progress] can't do the relay task any better unattached from the ISS than attached. Zero and zero ability.Even so... if a -generic- agile spacraft could be quickly moved to station keeping with F-G, is there any way it could -in theory- help ?1/ by obstructing the Sun from the F-G sensor; could force the flight computer to do something new ?2/ by acting as a reflector/amplifier for radio waves originating from ground ?
New results and analysis from Ted Molczan. Something definitely seems to be going on with the orbit.http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Nov-2011/0131.htmlSummary:QuoteUSSTRATCOM has issued three new TLEs since my comments yesterday on the payload's rate of decay. They confirm that the apparent small increase in orbital altitude is real, and apparently it is continuing.Prior to the onset of this effect, which became evident in the TLEs issued after epoch day 11314.76789777, the rates of decay of the payload and its rocket body were roughly proportionate to their respective area to mass ratios, as would be expected for bodies encountering nearly identical atmospheric density, due to their nearly identical orbits.
1/ by obstructing the Sun from the F-G sensor; could force the flight computer to do something new ?
So it seems that this might be some good news, since if it is climbing, this will allow longer windows for comm attempts, and of course, delay it's inevitable entry.
One thing that occurs to me is that Fobos-Grunt is not a particularly symmetrical. If it were venting from anywhere other than near the main engine, wouldn't this cause spinning?Another is that if this is venting, would it not likely be from the torus-shaped drop tank that was not intended to last more than a few hours?
It's not out of the question that it's both slowly venting, but maintaining three axis control (meaning it's alive).
Since the spacecraft was intended for a long cruise to Mars anyway, is waiting until the next launch window out of the question?
Another 18 months *might* allow for the launch of a tug (possibly Progress derived) to push FG into TMI (to make up for propellant losses during that time).
According to some people in NK (ones that have to do with space, including some Lavochkin guys) the other problem is that the spacecraft uses X band and from all the ground antennas available configured to woek with the craft, the smallest one is 64m wide.
I wonder if it means raising the orbit on purpose
"All attempts to obtain telemetric information from the Phobos-Grunt probe and activate its command system have failed. The probe must be considered lost," Interfax quoted a source in the Russian space sector as saying.The source said Russia's space agency would announce the failure of the mission in the next few days.
