LIVE: Zenit-2SB launch with Phobos-Grunt - November 8, 2011

[Rocket Science]

A couple of minutes old...

That's the Daily Mail. One of the most disliked papers in the UK, and tabloid! Please don't link crap like that on this excellent thread.

I will take your word on that. I really was only interested in the difference on opinion...

Robert

[Rocket Science]

Entry time predictions differ…

If Phobos-Grunt can't be revived, its orbit will steadily decay until it plunges back through the atmosphere and crashes. Some reports suggested that the re-entry could come as soon as Nov. 26 — but Nicholas Johnson, the head of NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office, favored a later time frame.

"NASA predicts that under current conditions, the re-entry of Phobos-Grunt will likely not occur until next month," he told msnbc.com in an email. "This is dependent upon both the level of solar activity and the attitude/stability of Phobos-Grunt. As the re-entry date nears, the uncertainty will be reduced."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45263287/ns/technology_and_science-space/

[Jim]

Let's use our automobile analogy again...It's equivalent to saying that the steering wheel is apparently working and the front tires move but the engine is dead, the radio and horn don't seem to work, we don't know if the A/C is good and there are some other unknown problems that keep the car from starting.  I don't think I would describe this automobile as "OK".

How about a runaway train with an incapacitated engineer and the dead man switch isn't working.

[geza]

Assume that they will regain control over the s/c before reentry, but too late for trans-Mars injection. Would it be feasible to put the bird to a higher parking orbit and wait there for the next Mars window two years from now?

[i2000s]

Good idea. But you cannot prevent venting of gas and losing of battery life.

[Spacenick]

Ok, so if continuing the mission successfully even if control could be regained wouldn't it still makes sense to try to get some control?
I mean what kind of control would be needed to at least get the spacecraft from polluting the environment and specifically if the only thing one could do is fire it's engines how dangerous would that be?
I mean if you could fire them till all it's tanks are empty it would surely go in some solar orbit right?

[JimO]

Difference in opinion in our friend JimO and Russian officials

That 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.

[Rocket Science]

Difference in opinion in our friend JimO and Russian officials

That 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…

Regards
Robert

[InvalidAttitude]

To throw in some weird sci-fi idea, the Progress M-13M should be undocked from the ISS, positioned the same orbit and used as observer/relay craft to PG.

[HIPAR]

To throw in some weird sci-fi idea, the Progress M-13M should be undocked from the ISS, positioned the same orbit and used as observer/relay craft to PG.

Hey, why not?  They do this kind of thing all the time on the Syfy channel.   

---  CHAS

[Jim]

To throw in some weird sci-fi idea, the Progress M-13M should be undocked from the ISS, positioned the same orbit and used as observer/relay craft to PG.

It can't do the relay task any better unattached from the ISS than attached.  Zero and zero ability.

[apace]

Why not using the secret X-37B ;-) with the secret remote manipulator to toggle the on/off switch of the rocket engine... Haha...

After 58 Pages no real new facts...

[apace]

Report on german technology magazine C't:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Experte-Russischer-Raumfahrt-fehlen-die-Programmierer-1378106.html

Content: The russians have not enough experienced programmers.

[HIPAR]

To throw in some weird sci-fi idea, the Progress M-13M should be undocked from the ISS, positioned the same orbit and used as observer/relay craft to PG.

It can't do the relay task any better unattached from the ISS than attached.  Zero and zero ability.

But Jim, we just need to bring in Dr. Superchick, who is smarter than Einstein and prettier than Miss Universe, to contrive a 'lashup' that saves the mission 

---  CHAS

[rsnellenberger]

To throw in some weird sci-fi idea, the Progress M-13M should be undocked from the ISS, positioned the same orbit and used as observer/relay craft to PG.

It's about time that the Chinese stepped up and *did* something with that prototype space station of theirs!  Quit expecting the Russians to take care of every little thing!  Talk about slackers...

_{/not serious}

[StarGeezer]

To throw in some weird sci-fi idea, the Progress M-13M should be undocked from the ISS, positioned the same orbit and used as observer/relay craft to PG.

It 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.

[alk3997]

To throw in some weird sci-fi idea, the Progress M-13M should be undocked from the ISS, positioned the same orbit and used as observer/relay craft to PG.

Let me give you a serious answer to your not-so-serious question.  While inclination and altitude are important for rendezvous, so are orbital planes.  If you think about it, the Shuttle had and Progress/Soyuz have a very specific launch windows.  They could launch anytime into the right inclination and altitude but the plane (and desired length of rendezvous days) dictate the launch window for ISS.

I'll bet Fobos-Grunt was specifically not launched into an ISS plane since the launch window was dictated by Mars and not ISS.  So not only would the Progress have to undock but it would have to make orbital correction burns to get it to the right orbital plane for subsequent rendezvous and docking.

Also keep in mind that the Progress has hopefully use all of its "optional" propellant to reboost ISS.  The remaining propellant is for a controlled re-entry over the Pacific.  I, for one, would prefer not creating a second problem by now having an uncontrolled Progress coming down as well as an uncontrolled Fobos-Grunt.

Of course, the real answer (as had been stated previously) is that Progress would be no more useful close-in as it was far-away.  It's not a relay system and one form of communications gear does not work for every spacecraft (believe it or not).

Now some other questions which I am shocked (just shocked!) that no one has dared to ask...

1) What if we invented a warp drive and flew it to Fobos-Grunt.  Would the spacecraft then be able to reach Mars?

Answer: No, the force of the warp drive would rip the solar arrays and other appendeges apart.  Also one hydrogen atom would tunnel right through the structure at warp speed.

2) Could we contact a space-faring alien species who could then rescue Fobos-Grunt?

Answer: No, if this hypothetical alien species was contacted and agreed to fly to Earth (why would they?) they would also be smart enough to stay far away from that much hydrazine in an unknown state.

Andy

[alk3997]

To throw in some weird sci-fi idea, the Progress M-13M should be undocked from the ISS, positioned the same orbit and used as observer/relay craft to PG.

It 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.

First of all we are home (at least I'm assuming that you're on the surface of the Earth somewhere). 

Secondly, provide the money.  With enough funding yes you could have a rescue Soyuz standing-by with all the parts you need.  We could fly both up on an Energiya rocket which would provide plenty of lifting capability.  But, we, as a society have decided that type of funding is not a priority in the space business.  So, those resources are not available.

Of course we would also have to lower our astronaut safety standards or invent a manipulator system that would work with Fobos-Grunt.  But with an infinite amount of funding, this is also do-able.

Of course, a much cheaper alterative would be to properly test the spacecraft and have a second backup craft available.  But no resources for that either.

Andy

[TJL]

With another upper stage booster failure, are there any new concerns regarding tomorrows manned launch?

[Andy USA]

Keep this long thread on track. Has to be worth posting to post it. No mumbling, as Chris would say