Tass reports that it will be deorbited May 5-7.http://tass.ru/en/non-political/792523
Yes, I imagine "assets" could be put into place and would likely be able to break up the Progress on its way down. They'd want to hit it from the trailing part of the orbit to minmize the chance of any debris bouncing back up in orbit.
The USA-193 pieces reentered quickly, including in a meteor shower observed twenty minutes later in Canada with a MOVING radiant [imagine that!]. But the time factor is the show-stopper.Time also helps, in the other direction, maybe ten days isn't a long-enough 'cold soak' to get the geptyl down really really cold. How much do we think is on board? What's the amount at insertion?
Quote from: Elvis in Space on 04/29/2015 04:30 pmI'm not questioning anything but I don't understand. Full tanks of anything getting hot and exploding would seem to reduce the risk of substantial anything getting to the ground. Frozen fuel is what makes this more dangerous than usual? Your 'common sense' take on it is entirely reasonable, on Earth. Most people reach the same conclusion. But please read my treatment of the real science, here: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/down-in-flames
I'm not questioning anything but I don't understand. Full tanks of anything getting hot and exploding would seem to reduce the risk of substantial anything getting to the ground. Frozen fuel is what makes this more dangerous than usual?
Ground-based ASATs strike their target spacecraft from the front. Or rather, they place their warhead in a spot where *spacecraft hits it* - the warhead has much lower velocity relative to Earth than the sat.
Let's remember that this was the 148th Progress to fly, and the Soyuz-U/2 has over 850 under its belt. Whatever the root cause of the failure, it most assuredly won't be a design flaw.
Quote from: JimO on 04/29/2015 05:54 pmQuote from: Elvis in Space on 04/29/2015 04:30 pmI'm not questioning anything but I don't understand. Full tanks of anything getting hot and exploding would seem to reduce the risk of substantial anything getting to the ground. Frozen fuel is what makes this more dangerous than usual? Your 'common sense' take on it is entirely reasonable, on Earth. Most people reach the same conclusion. But please read my treatment of the real science, here: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/down-in-flamesGreat article Jim, thanks for linking it!
Too bad we don't have a few ships equipped with railguns, as those would blow it apart in one shot.
Poor wording by TASS (or poor translation). The Progress will NOT be de-orbited; its orbit will naturally decay into the atmosphere. Without attitude control, engine firings are possible, but stupid, since you are guaranteed to be firing in random directions, which increases the possibility of raising the orbit and slowing the decay. No engine firing will take place. Oh, and solar panels don't work to brake the vehicle because they break off pretty quickly (yes, intentional slight play on words).
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.
If they can at least get it to hit the atmosphere broadside instead of front or rear first, it would stand a much better chance of breaking up and burning.
Crazy as it sounds, so long as it still has its solar panels and they can be controlled from groundside, as it starts to brush the atmosphere, they could be used to adjust the attitude of the whole spacecraft through drag.
Apparently the heavy docking mechanism usually survives re-entry. Don't want that landing on your head!
Quote from: Space Pete on 04/29/2015 06:51 pmApparently the heavy docking mechanism usually survives re-entry. Don't want that landing on your head!Wonder if they have enough power and control to separate the sections? That Also might also break the fuel line connections.
Quote from: Prober on 04/29/2015 07:07 pmQuote from: Space Pete on 04/29/2015 06:51 pmApparently the heavy docking mechanism usually survives re-entry. Don't want that landing on your head!Wonder if they have enough power and control to separate the sections? That Also might also break the fuel line connections.I don't think Progress can be split up into sections, like Soyuz is.
I don't think Progress can be split up into sections, like Soyuz is.
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!