Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 11/11/2011 08:38 amEven though the Soviet era of paranoia and secrecy is gone, many Russian institutions still operate very strongly on a 'cover up embarrassments' policy. However, failure to report success for a publicly-known mission that is publicly known to be in trouble is highly indicative, IMHO at least. A very perceptive comment. The term I've used in advising my news media clients, for the reaction of space officials and their press liaison teams, is 'panicked despair'. It's as if they are pulling the blanket over their heads and wishing people would just lose interest and move on to some other story. Unprofessional, irresponsible, and in the modern interdependent world of space partnerships, unacceptable -- IMHO. They have defiantly withheld information on their activities, on what they are attempting, on the true state of the vehicle [ARE the solar arrays really deployed?], on the degree of pre-flight contingency planning as it may apply to this situation, and to the most basic guidelines of any possible delayed trans-Mars insertions [such as -- what is the time limit imposed by the parking orbit's precession?].The one bright light was the pre-launch request from IKI for South American observers, a request that turned out to be prescient. But culturally, for a long time Russians had not been willing to ask for help from foreigners, it was regarded as a sign of weakness. In the bad old Soviet days, they would rather have died -- and sometimes did -- in sight of foreign help they refused to ask for. One glaring example was a serious fire at their 'Vostok' Antarctic base in 1982 that was covered up in a pretense of normalcy while the men struggled for their lives -- with rescue from other countries only days away, if asked for.In a spasm of dark humor, I'm reminded of the scene in "The Christmas Story" where Ralphie and his classmates are asked by their teacher where one of their friends (a boy named Flick) is -- who's actually in difficulty due to a prank he was dared into doing. Ralphie's innocent-faced response [voiced by the narrator}: "Flick? Flick who?"Moscow officials are playing the "Fobos? Fobos who?" game now, in contemptuous disregard of their international partners on this project. And as a result, they are seriously poisoning the trust and expected candor levels that have been grudgingly but inexorably built up over the long, difficult years of joint work with other nations, including the US. They've even annoyed China, never a prudent plan.And the project failure itself isn't the cause, since we've overcome worse, together. The failure is in the hearts, minds, and souls of the people running the program, who could have chosen differently, but did not so so. And you may quote me.
Even though the Soviet era of paranoia and secrecy is gone, many Russian institutions still operate very strongly on a 'cover up embarrassments' policy. However, failure to report success for a publicly-known mission that is publicly known to be in trouble is highly indicative, IMHO at least.
This is a disaster. Pure and simple.
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=12378There are too many interesting things there. One of these is a special paragraph that states that during the first part of interplanetary injeciton - which includes the entry on preliminary orbit (the current orbit of the spacecraft), the first burn of the MDU - is conducted in automated mode. The paragraph states that two-sided link between Phobos-Grunt and the Earth is practically impossible. I ask the Russian folks here for help - am I correct about my non-Google-translated translation?
DESPERATELY need Luch (TDRSS equivalents) - such a shame - ideally you really want to launch Luch first and then Phobos-Grunt
Poppycock.Nobody died.Try to keep things in perspective.
Quote from: Cbased on 11/11/2011 11:50 amDESPERATELY need Luch (TDRSS equivalents) - such a shame - ideally you really want to launch Luch first and then Phobos-Grunt Not really useful planetary missions. NASA doesn't use TDRSS for planetarys. More ground stations are needed. They should have worked with NASA and ESA and maybe paid for some use of commercial ones (USN-United Space Network for example)
Ok, there is time to assign blame later… Now is what are they going to do about entry and risk to those on the ground?
Quote from: Rocket Science on 11/11/2011 12:21 pmOk, there is time to assign blame later… Now is what are they going to do about entry and risk to those on the ground?When and where is it coming down? What can they do to prevent reentry?
Quote from: rdale on 11/11/2011 12:25 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 11/11/2011 12:21 pmOk, there is time to assign blame later… Now is what are they going to do about entry and risk to those on the ground?When and where is it coming down? What can they do to prevent reentry?Nobody knows yet and nothing.
When and where is it coming down? What can they do to prevent reentry?
Looks like amateur astronomers are able to visually confirm that Phobos-Grunt is in stable configuration and properly oriented to the Sun...
Maybe the Navy will shoot it down?
Are we talking the equiv. of a smoke detector,
Quote from: Blackstar on 11/11/2011 11:42 amPoppycock.Nobody died.Try to keep things in perspective.Nobody died due to the financial crisis either. Do people always have to die for something to be a disaster?