-
#500 by Michael J on 24 Nov, 2011 12:46
-
Interfax [0938 GMT] is quoting some "former commander of the missile attack early warning army", Lieut. Gen. Nikolai Rodionov, as claiming Ph-G "could have been disabled by external influence caused by emissions from a powerful U.S. radar in Alaska".
(REQUIRES URL LINK. Material is Copyrighted).
No matter what happens, you can always bet on someone blaming the HAARP...
He also took a poke at missile defense radars; if I recall there is an active X-band in Alaska. -
#501 by Galactic Penguin SST on 24 Nov, 2011 12:59
-
BREAKING NEWS: Looks like the ground station at Baikonur is receiving telemetry from Phobo-Grunt too!
Link: http://www.interfax.ru/politics/txt.asp?id=218260 -
#502 by SiberianTiger on 24 Nov, 2011 13:00
-
http://www.interfax.ru/politics/txt.asp?id=218260Quote
November 24, 2011 17:40
Moscow. November 24. INTERFAX.RU - Russian ground tracking station in Baikonur (Kazakhstan) has established communications with Russian interplanetary probe Phobos-Grunt that has stuck in Earth's orbit and managed to receive telemetry information from it, told a source from Baikonur.
"About an hour (ago or p.m. -???) our station has been able to make a link with the spacecraft and take telemetry readings. We have begun decoding the data. So far it's going fine" - he told us.
Roscosmos have confirmed the information of establishing communication to Phobos-Grunt. "A signal from the spacecraft and part of telemetry are received. At present moment, our specialists are working with that data", told us Alexey Kuznetsov, head of the agency's press service.
Onboard computer of Phobos-Grunt is working and powered enough for its function. In the nearest possibility, Baikonur will repeat communicating to the probe. -
#503 by Danderman on 24 Nov, 2011 13:14
-
So far, I can't determine if what is happening is that the ground stations are now capable of "hearing" a blindly transmitting spacecraft, or whether telemetry is being sent on command by the spacecraft.
-
#504 by ChileVerde on 24 Nov, 2011 13:21
-
Apparently independent of the telemetry developments, the anomalous orbital behavior ceased or greatly abated a couple of days ago -- the perigee is now coming down instead of going up.
At the same time, SatEvo decay predictions settled down to Jan 12-14.
Edit:
See
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Nov-2011/0291.html
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Nov-2011/0299.html
"A quick update of last night's report: ballistic flight continued through the epoch 11328.24537235 USSTRATCOM TLE.
"Manoeuvring ended sometime between the TLEs of epoch 11324.94169617 and 11325.19110916." -
#505 by bolun on 24 Nov, 2011 13:25
-
More ESA news.
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM5AJZW5VG_index_0.htmlQuoteDuring last night's first two passes, one of the two low-gain antennas on Phobos–Grunt was, due to the spacecraft's orbital position, oriented toward Perth, and communications worked.
During the three later passes, the spacecraft's orbital position changed, and the second, opposing, antenna had to be used – but no signal was received.QuoteAnother five communication slots are available during the night of 24–25 November, and the Perth tracking station will again be allocated on a priority basis to Phobos–Grunt.
-
#506 by Ben the Space Brit on 24 Nov, 2011 13:28
-
My gut feeling is that this is some kind of weird software error - the TMI burn command was never sent for some reason. The reason I say this was that, if it was an engine failure and the flight control computer was continuing down its list of pre-scheduled commands regardless of the failure, the propulsion module and the Chinese satellite would have both seperated and been spotted seperately.
It is possible that the solar array deployment with propulsion module still attached might be an automatic contingency program in the event of a TMI burn failure but we'll wait and see. -
#507 by SiberianTiger on 24 Nov, 2011 13:34
-
It is possible that the solar array deployment with propulsion module still attached might be an automatic contingency program in the event of a TMI burn failure but we'll wait and see.
Nonsense, the propulsion module was supposed to remain attached all the way down Mars orbit insertion. -
#508 by JohnFornaro on 24 Nov, 2011 13:35
-
Quote from: Ben
Why on Earth (or Phobos, in this case) would a (1) civilian probe need to encrypt its telemetry data? And why would the (2) probe's manufacturers not have the key to the encryption?
(1) I'll tell ya why. Because it is the data itself that is proprietary, and it needs to be "filtered" before the public is "granted" limited access. But it also may be that the translation is inadequate, since "coding", generally, would be expected. As to whether or not it is fine to keep the public in the dark as to the data, I recognize that after spending all the money they have on the probe, that they would be jealous of that data, and the next legitimate question, by UGordon is legitimately asked: "Why should anyone else be able to eavesdrop and steal telemetry?" The answer to that would be in asking the question, What then is the real meaning of "we come on behalf of all mankind", and other similar agency blandishments. For me, that is a very interesting side discussion, but I don't have a pat answer.
(2) That, I couldn't guess. But I think both questions are legitimately asked.
Obviously uplink needs to be seriously encrypted. That downlink encrypting is thought to be "simply an impediment to troubleshooting", shows that the impediment then can "simply" be the proximate cause of some types of failure.Quote from: UGordonWhat is your expertise in the field to claim you know what should be done and how the whole telemetry bitstream is or should be handled in the first place?
The same thing was asked of me when I questioned, with the "expertise" of 20-20 hindsight, the wisdom of confusing imperial and metric units in our failed martian probe. An explanation of the benefits and detriments of downlink encoding would be far more helpful to everyone. Again, regarding expertise, the "amateur" rightly would think that the "experts" would have considered beforehand the contingency plans. That is the fundamental difference between amateurs and experts.
Note that the extra fuel tank is thought to have been an impediment to communication as well, and the possibility of its failure to have separated may not have been considered during the design of the mission. Eventually, there will be a de-briefing of some sort regarding the failure. My prediction is that the managerial DNA of the Russians is virtually identical to American managers, when the time comes to accept responsibility for errors. "Not me", and "we never thought of that", are two phrases which can be directly translated from English to Russian. Savvy?
More to the point: Can F-G be saved? Can it be parked into a higher stable orbit where atmospheric drag is minimized, so as to stay up there for a period until the next window opens? Could there be a Russian rescue mission? It would be a shame to lose that machine. -
#509 by LegendCJS on 24 Nov, 2011 13:52
-
Why are people asking about rescue missions? The whole probe cost <$200 million. Does anyone really think a rescue would be cheaper than a straight up replacement, especially now that the design for the probe is set (except for fixes to the problems revealed this time around)?
-
#510 by JimO on 24 Nov, 2011 14:05
-
An English-language story about Rodionov's ravings is here:
Did US 'climate weapon' knock-out Russian probe?
http://rt.com/news/phobos-grunt-climate-weapon-129/
In particular don't miss the comments section.
If you yandex.ru the right terms you'll find
the story has gone viral in the Russian media, including in
official government newspapers [which didn't endorse it].
http://www.rg.ru/2011/11/24/kosmos-site-anons.html
Фобос-Грунт and Николай Родионов -
#511 by Cbased on 24 Nov, 2011 14:12
-
If this is indeed orientation sensors ("stabilisers"?)(all of them?) at fault then how did it pass vibration tests? (assuming they were damaged during launch).
Too many questions. -
#512 by Ben the Space Brit on 24 Nov, 2011 14:23
-
Why are people asking about rescue missions? The whole probe cost <$200 million. Does anyone really think a rescue would be cheaper than a straight up replacement, especially now that the design for the probe is set (except for fixes to the problems revealed this time around)?
An interesting question. I think it is a genuine lack of knowledge of what a rescue mission would cost and how long it would take to plan and prepare for.
I blame Hollywood. No, seriously; Armageddon is a good example of a film in which a major HSF mission is planned, prepared and executed in a few weeks when it would actually take years. I think that people honestly think that a Soyuz could be prepped and a crew launched to trouble-shoot the probe with a few days' lead time because that's the way it happens in the movies. -
#513 by douglas100 on 24 Nov, 2011 14:29
-
My gut feeling is that this is some kind of weird software error - the TMI burn command was never sent for some reason. The reason I say this was that, if it was an engine failure and the flight control computer was continuing down its list of pre-scheduled commands regardless of the failure, the propulsion module and the Chinese satellite would have both seperated and been spotted seperately.
No, the propulsion module and YH 1 are supposed to separate after the vehicle reaches Mars orbit. -
#514 by Svetoslav on 24 Nov, 2011 14:51
-
http://ria.ru/science/20111124/497098161.html
According to an unnamed source the specialists have been able to decode the telemetry which has been received from Baykonur. -
#515 by kevin-rf on 24 Nov, 2011 14:56
-
An English-language story about Rodionov's ravings is here:
Funny, due to the launch inclination, I think it was closest Alaska just before T-0. The burn was supposed to happen over south america.
Did US 'climate weapon' knock-out Russian probe?
http://rt.com/news/phobos-grunt-climate-weapon-129/
In particular don't miss the comments section. -
#516 by Svetoslav on 24 Nov, 2011 15:05
-
More from RIA Novosti: The unnamed source says that there are two types of telemetry : the "emergency one" and the other one, received from BKU. The unmanned source doesnt say which one has been decoded successfully
More to follow -
#517 by SiberianTiger on 24 Nov, 2011 15:12
-
More from RIA Novosti: The unnamed source says that there are two types of telemetry : the "emergency one" and the other one, received from BKU. The unmanned source doesnt say which one has been decoded successfully
More to follow
The one from BKU, according to NK forum.
BTW, "the unmanned source" is a precious saying in the context!
-
#518 by robertross on 24 Nov, 2011 15:20
-
More from RIA Novosti: The unnamed source says that there are two types of telemetry : the "emergency one" and the other one, received from BKU. The unmanned source doesnt say which one has been decoded successfully
More to follow
Appreciate the translation updates you are providing! -
#519 by asdert on 24 Nov, 2011 15:26
-
According to the tracking data provided by Heavans Above, F-G passes over Baikonur several times per day (of course), but only one or two are really useful, because F-G will not be in sunlight during the others.
Now those around 13:30 UTC happen just at the time when F-G goes into the shadow of the Earth, which is a very interesting moment.
Will the transmitter stop sending abruptly after there is no longer sunlight shining on the solar panels?
Will it take some time, because the batteries can still provide some power for a few minutes?
Will F-G still be able to send a message "power level decreasing, initiating sleep mode, shutting down all sys..."?
Note: edited for typos and clarity
