What is the comm status of Express-AM4 and where did these claims of contact come from -- true, false, or merely misinterpreted? Help!!
This looks like the last NOTAM (of 3) for Express-AM4 re-entry over the Pacific.
This third window would be March 27 from 1330 to 1530UTC
First window: March 25 from 1250 to 1450UTC
Second window: March 26 from 1310 to 1510UTC
A1160/12 - QXXXX THE RUSSIAN FEDERAL SPACE AGENCY HAS PLANNED A SPACECRAFT RE-ENTRY. DEBRIS FROM THIS RE-ENTRY WILL FALL WITHIN AN AREA BOUNDED BY 4500N/17000E 4500N/16500W 3500N/16500W 3500N/17000E BACK TO THE POINT OF ORIGIN. IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY ALL NON-PARTICIPATING AIR TRAFFIC ARE ADVISED TO AVOID THE NOTAMED AREA. IFR AIRCRAFT UNDER ATC JURISDICTION SHOULD ANTICIPATE CLEARANCE AROUND THE NOTAMED AREA. SFC - UNL, 27 MAR 13:30 2012 UNTIL 27 MAR 15:30 2012. CREATED: 19 MAR 18:38 2012
Related navigational warnings
NAVAREA NO.12-0176 Date:2012/03/20 12 UTC
NORTH PACIFIC.
DANGEROUS TO NAVIGATION AREA DESIGNATED
DUE TO SPACE VEHICLE ELEMENTS FALL.
251250Z TO 251450Z AND 261310Z TO
261510Z MAR. AREA BETWEEN 35-00N 45-00N
AND 170-00E 165-00W.
CANCEL THIS MSG 261610Z MAR.
NAVAREA NO.12-0183 Date:2012/03/22 12 UTC
NORTH PACIFIC.
DANGEROUS TO NAVIGATION AREA DESIGNATED
DUE TO SPACE VEHICLE ELEMENTS FALL.
271330Z TO 271530Z MAR. AREA BETWEEN
35-00N 45-00N AND 170-00E 165-00W.
CANCEL THIS MSG 271630Z MAR.
I'm wondering why this Satellite failed to reach the designated orbit
I'm wondering why this Satellite failed to reach the designated orbit
I would suggest reading THIS thread...
I'm wondering why this Satellite failed to reach the designated orbit
I would suggest reading THIS thread...
And start reading from the beginning every post to the present one.
Thanks friends, I read all the posts.
I did some reading too. This is interesting:
The satellite has been in the wrong orbit since August, but was not damaged. Still, Russian officials said that from its erroneous orbit, Express-AM4 had been exposed to harmful radiation in space, and while several plans to salvage the satellite were reviewed, none were deemed feasible.
But officials at Polar Broadband disagree.
"Neither of the rationales used for deorbiting Express AM 4 — radiation dose received while stranded in its transfer orbit or risk of collision with other satellites — were applicable to our Antarctic mission orbit," company officials said. "The deorbit of the Russian satellite Express AM4 is a tremendous loss to the entire international scientific community and most particularly, those personally conducting scientific research in the harsh and unforgiving environment of the Antarctic."http://www.space.com/15067-dead-russian-satellite-express-am4-mourned.htmlThe Satellite was a very good design, such a sad loss
Ooooohhhhh, its made in the Ukraine. Look for some backwash from that.
The gyroscope flown was made by NII KP, an FGUP located in St. Petersbourg, as I and Anik mentioned. So, it is impossible to pin the failure on Ukrainians. I think Mr. Prober is trying to point out an alternative with a different technology base.
In any case, it is not established that frames have in fact folded and this is why the gyroscope exceeded the alotted time to orient. The State Commission apparently implied that giving it more time would let it orient itself, and thus the fault was with Mars Ltd. This is the official conclusion, as far as I know.
I didn't catch this at the time, but there might have been some confusion over the role of the design bureau and the production facility in assigning blame.
Every article produced for Russian aerospace is designed by a design bureau, but generally produced (made) by a production facility. So, in the case of a failure, there is the possibility of a design flaw, or a quality control failure. In the case of this particular spacecraft failure, although the unit was made in St. Petersburg, it is possible that the unit was designed in the Ukraine (I don't know where it was designed, but earlier messages ascribe the unit to the Ukraine).
Ooooohhhhh, its made in the Ukraine. Look for some backwash from that.
The gyroscope flown was made by NII KP, an FGUP located in St. Petersbourg, as I and Anik mentioned. So, it is impossible to pin the failure on Ukrainians. I think Mr. Prober is trying to point out an alternative with a different technology base.
In any case, it is not established that frames have in fact folded and this is why the gyroscope exceeded the alotted time to orient. The State Commission apparently implied that giving it more time would let it orient itself, and thus the fault was with Mars Ltd. This is the official conclusion, as far as I know.
I didn't catch this at the time, but there might have been some confusion over the role of the design bureau and the production facility in assigning blame.
Every article produced for Russian aerospace is designed by a design bureau, but generally produced (made) by a production facility. So, in the case of a failure, there is the possibility of a design flaw, or a quality control failure. In the case of this particular spacecraft failure, although the unit was made in St. Petersburg, it is possible that the unit was designed in the Ukraine (I don't know where it was designed, but earlier messages ascribe the unit to the Ukraine).
Your talking about the "all Russian" parts program.
Ooooohhhhh, its made in the Ukraine. Look for some backwash from that.
The gyroscope flown was made by NII KP, an FGUP located in St. Petersbourg, as I and Anik mentioned. So, it is impossible to pin the failure on Ukrainians. I think Mr. Prober is trying to point out an alternative with a different technology base.
In any case, it is not established that frames have in fact folded and this is why the gyroscope exceeded the alotted time to orient. The State Commission apparently implied that giving it more time would let it orient itself, and thus the fault was with Mars Ltd. This is the official conclusion, as far as I know.
I didn't catch this at the time, but there might have been some confusion over the role of the design bureau and the production facility in assigning blame.
Every article produced for Russian aerospace is designed by a design bureau, but generally produced (made) by a production facility. So, in the case of a failure, there is the possibility of a design flaw, or a quality control failure. In the case of this particular spacecraft failure, although the unit was made in St. Petersburg, it is possible that the unit was designed in the Ukraine (I don't know where it was designed, but earlier messages ascribe the unit to the Ukraine).
Your talking about the "all Russian" parts program.
The Ukrainians use the same system. If the Russian Briz-M failed due to a gyroscope system failing, the question is whether there was a design flaw or a quality control. What I don't know is whether the original design was by a UKrainian design firm, or a Russian one (earlier this thread, the blame was pointed at a Ukrainian firm).
Also, and to complicate matters, production facilities generally are associated with their design bureau, which oversees production. For example, Khunichev has the Salyut design bureau on-site; when NPO Mash was separated from Khrunichev, the Salyut design bureau was transmuted from a production facility design bureau to a full design bureau.
Is this from a different manufacturer then used before?
No, the inertially stabilized platform for Briz-M upper stage is producing only by NII KP enterprize.
The question on the table is what enterprise
designed the inertially stabilized platform?
