Obviously the distance from the ISS to the Progress would be smaller than the distance from Progress to the ground, but wouldn't it be better to try to take pictures from the ground? I mean with telescopes, etc. Surely there is better imaging equipment available on the ground.
Per L2, Crew was instructed to try to take photos of 59P as it passes underneath ISS
Quote from: Jester on 04/30/2015 08:24 amPer L2, Crew was instructed to try to take photos of 59P as it passes underneath ISSWatching the ISS orbital track graphic last night it looked like the Progress may have passed under ISS during darkness
Back on subject; Any one hear if they have a predicted reentry point yet?
Are there any detailed description of the Soyuz rocket payload separation mechanism for Progress/Soyuz spacecraft? I guess it's just standard explosion bolts and/or springs?Also from Russian sources I read, it seems that only the fuel lines on "side A" of the Progress propulsion system was damaged; "side B" (which usually is only used for de-orbiting) is fine, hence the talk of using it for controlled de-orbit. Of course, the spin needs to be stopped first....
According to NASA, during the day, the mission control in Korolev also asked the current ISS crew, to try to photograph the stricken ship as it passes 170 kilometers below the station around 8:30 p.m. EDT. NASA also said that the previous night, Russian ground controllers had been able to establish communications with the vehicle and review telemetry. Russian controllers configured the refueling system to feed the thrusters (editor's note: in the remaining manifold) and made two unsuccessful attempts to command the thrusters to stabilize the vehicle’s angular rotation, NASA said.
What is the chance that the upper stage & Progress stack got unlucky encounter with some small orbital debris around spacecraft separation event? Would such a collision explain the state of the upper stage & the Progress plus the Progress's axial rotation?
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 04/30/2015 01:37 pm Back on subject; Any one hear if they have a predicted reentry point yet?They have a predicted reentry date of May 9th, give or take a few days. It is still to early.
Quote from: Galactic Penguin SST on 04/30/2015 04:47 pmAre there any detailed description of the Soyuz rocket payload separation mechanism for Progress/Soyuz spacecraft? I guess it's just standard explosion bolts and/or springs?Also from Russian sources I read, it seems that only the fuel lines on "side A" of the Progress propulsion system was damaged; "side B" (which usually is only used for de-orbiting) is fine, hence the talk of using it for controlled de-orbit. Of course, the spin needs to be stopped first.... bolts attach Progress to transfer compartment and springs and bolts are I believe are mounted Progress side and when bolts are broken springs pop out of the bolt holes. When Poisk launched springs were visible. I haven't found visual confirmation yet that Progress M-M series employs springs in same location as Poisk did. Only 300 series seems to have visible springs.
Now TsUP is claimed to be "in control" of Progress, and one of the two manifolds is supposedly working. This implies that Progress has power, somehow, despite the rotation.Under those conditions, there would be no reason for a controlled de-orbit, or any de-orbit at all.
Quote from: Danderman on 05/01/2015 02:59 amNow TsUP is claimed to be "in control" of Progress, and one of the two manifolds is supposedly working. This implies that Progress has power, somehow, despite the rotation.Under those conditions, there would be no reason for a controlled de-orbit, or any de-orbit at all.Is TsUP claiming that, or is NASA claiming TsUP is claiming that?
According to NASA, during the day, the mission control in Korolev also asked the current ISS crew, to try to photograph the stricken ship as it passes 170 kilometers below the station around 8:30 p.m. EDT. NASA also said that a previous night, Russian ground controllers had been able to establish communications with the vehicle and review telemetry. Russian controllers configured the refueling system to feed the thrusters (editor's note: in the remaining manifold) and made two unsuccessful attempts to command the thrusters to stabilize the vehicles angular rotation, NASA said.