-
#600
by
kevin-rf
on 26 Nov, 2011 02:28
-
Have they determined what PG's orbital parameters are with sufficient accuracy to determine its rate of decay and likely re-entry date?
IF the more normal decay behavior that began a few days ago continues, reentry around 5-15 January is predicted. But, given PG's orbital antics to date, don't put money on that.
Or does the end to the antics mean it has used up the fuel reserve in the system that has been keeping it sun pointed. If they recover it, that would be bad for prospects of any long term mission.
-
#601
by
Prober
on 26 Nov, 2011 02:46
-
Found this info regarding the "power" interesting.
"Another mystery of erratic appearance and disappearance of communications from Phobos-Grunt was attempted to be explained by the architecture of the power supply system, SEP. In case if solar panels stop supplying power and the onboard rechargeable battery discharge, the SEP switches to chemical source of power, KhIT, with a (non-rechargeable) half-day supply of electricity. Under such circumstances, the main rechargeable battery would be switched off, however the probe's power supply grid would be powered up only when the solar panels are exposed to the Sun. Obviously, power supply would stop in the shadow. As a result of the spacecraft flying in the emergency mode, the rechargeable battery might be staying off-line even when the solar panels were supplying electricity. "
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/phobos_grunt_launch.html#11_24Anatoly Zak
I would put the command "deploy solar panels" followed by "recharge". cover all bases.
-
#602
by
Andy USA
on 26 Nov, 2011 02:54
-
We've been over this rescue stuff before. Let's not go over it again folks.
Thanks.
And those that ignored this have lost their posts.
-
#603
by
Sparky
on 26 Nov, 2011 03:06
-
So, assuming that the failure that prevented the original burn is identified and solved, what is the most likely future for this spacecraft, practically?
Will the Russians try to deorbit the vehicle over an uninhabited area, or send it higher into a graveyard orbit? I would like to think that some of the more plausible alternate proposals are being considered, (ie, waiting for the next window, finding a suitable NEO, etc) but I'd like to see what people here see as the most likely course of action on the part of the Russians.
-
#604
by
DaveS
on 26 Nov, 2011 03:09
-
-
#605
by
alk3997
on 26 Nov, 2011 03:24
-
So, assuming that the failure that prevented the original burn is identified and solved, what is the most likely future for this spacecraft, practically?
Will the Russians try to deorbit the vehicle over an uninhabited area, or send it higher into a graveyard orbit? I would like to think that some of the more plausible alternate proposals are being considered, (ie, waiting for the next window, finding a suitable NEO, etc) but I'd like to see what people here see as the most likely course of action on the part of the Russians.
I don't think the answer to this has changed in the last 10 pages of this thread. First we don't know if the reason for the original burn failure can be solved or bypassed - in fact, no one here knows the reason. Secondly we don't know how long a correction or bypass would take to develop.
Combine that with the lack of knowledge how much hydrazine is left and then add that we don't know how much power is available to the spacecraft and your answer is, we don't know enough to provide an answer to your question. Once telemetry has been released (or at least a summary of the telemetry) there might be someone out here who could provide an educated guess but until then any definitive answer would be a random guess.
-
#606
by
Hurrikansaison
on 26 Nov, 2011 03:33
-
ESA-Tweet just 1 minute ago:
"Today's web report will be updated shortly"
Sounds like upcoming important news at this time of the night in Europe, doesn't it?
The to-be-updated article:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Operations/SEMQTNZW5VG_0.html
That particular tweet was sent some 13 hours ago. Here's the original from @esaoperations: http://twitter.com/#!/esaoperations/status/140078366781997056
You´re more than right, Dave.
I apologize again.
I followed an interesting discussion the night PG was launched. As a result the person using the PhG_Reentry account on Twitter became something like recognized by experts. Clearly my mistake not reading well (PhG_Reentry tweeting a 13-hours-old information). I only saw ESA's logo and wrote.
If it is possible - @Andy or Chris - please delete my post.
SORRY!
-
#607
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 26 Nov, 2011 03:57
-
I would put the command "deploy solar panels" followed by "recharge". cover all bases.
The solar panels have already been deployed. From
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM4NEZW5VG_index_0.html they say that "after separation of the spacecraft and its modified Fregat stage from the launcher, controllers received signals confirming deployment of the solar panels."
-
#608
by
MP
on 26 Nov, 2011 07:17
-
Wednesday's lead article on the home page sums it up pretty well.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/11/live-fobos-grunt-recovery-efforts-underway/
Excuse me, but why this article mentions "all of the previous 16 Russian missions to the Red Planet since the 1960s have failed"? Considering botn EN & RU Wikipedia articles, I can count 18 RU/SU launches toward Mars/Phobos, before Phobos-Grunt.
Maybe authors decided not to count Phobos 1 & Phobos 2 launches in 1998 as they were not to Mars itself, but to Phobos? Or did I miss something else?
-
#609
by
Svetoslav
on 26 Nov, 2011 08:30
-
-
#610
by
ChileVerde
on 26 Nov, 2011 13:14
-
Have they determined what PG's orbital parameters are with sufficient accuracy to determine its rate of decay and likely re-entry date?
IF the more normal decay behavior that began a few days ago continues, reentry around 5-15 January is predicted. But, given PG's orbital antics to date, don't put money on that.
Or does the end to the antics mean it has used up the fuel reserve in the system that has been keeping it sun pointed. If they recover it, that would be bad for prospects of any long term mission.
That's one possibility, but we really don't know what was causing the antics in the first place. Presumably some loss of mass was involved, but just what that was and at what Isp is a matter of speculation.
Edit: Fix English.
-
#611
by
Kaputnik
on 26 Nov, 2011 14:17
-
Wednesday's lead article on the home page sums it up pretty well.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/11/live-fobos-grunt-recovery-efforts-underway/
Excuse me, but why this article mentions "all of the previous 16 Russian missions to the Red Planet since the 1960s have failed"? Considering botn EN & RU Wikipedia articles, I can count 18 RU/SU launches toward Mars/Phobos, before Phobos-Grunt.
Maybe authors decided not to count Phobos 1 & Phobos 2 launches in 1998 as they were not to Mars itself, but to Phobos? Or did I miss something else?
You can also interpret 'failure' differently. Mars 5 met all of its objectives, it just stopped working after a few weeks. Mars 3 became the first object to transmit from the surface of Mars. Mars 6 sent the first direct measurements from within the atmosphere. Etc.
-
#612
by
robertross
on 26 Nov, 2011 14:58
-
Well it looks like Fobos-Grunt is being left behind with the successful launch today of the MSL Curiosity.
I feel bad for the Russian teams, and I hope they can salvage something before it's too late.
-
#613
by
TheFallen
on 26 Nov, 2011 15:16
-
I hope Fobos-Grunt is able to accomplish some type of mission at this point...
And I find it ironic that Russian-made engines helped send Curiosity to Mars but wasn't able to get a Russian-made Mars spacecraft out of Earth orbit. That's unfortunate.
-
#614
by
Svetoslav
on 26 Nov, 2011 15:28
-
Well it looks like Fobos-Grunt is being left behind with the successful launch today of the MSL Curiosity.
I feel bad for the Russian teams, and I hope they can salvage something before it's too late.
Yeah...
But there's a Russian instrument aboard Curiosity... So not all's lost for the Russian science
-
#615
by
rcoppola
on 26 Nov, 2011 15:46
-
I hope Fobos-Grunt is able to accomplish some type of mission at this point...
And I find it ironic that Russian-made engines helped send Curiosity to Mars but wasn't able to get a Russian-made Mars spacecraft out of Earth orbit. That's unfortunate.
Well, they are Licensed Russian designs but the incredible success of this launch has much more to do with the level of excellence across all functions throughout NASA and ULA then any one component. There are reasons why the US is still the predominant space activities center and this mission is one of them...
-
#616
by
Svetoslav
on 26 Nov, 2011 15:48
-
Hm... yes, the Russians obviously have a very strong sense of justice... You will find out that there will be a lot of talks about punishments after space failures... The same thing happened after the Proton-Briz and Progress rocket failures in August...
I don't think I can blame them...
-
#617
by
Nickolai
on 26 Nov, 2011 15:50
-
I hope Fobos-Grunt is able to accomplish some type of mission at this point...
And I find it ironic that Russian-made engines helped send Curiosity to Mars but wasn't able to get a Russian-made Mars spacecraft out of Earth orbit. That's unfortunate.
Well, they are Licensed Russian designs...
They are actually built in Russia, by Russian engineers and technicians (and yes they are Russian designs, ULA has a license to build them in the US but they have not yet exercised this option, preferring to buy them from Russia).
-
#618
by
pippin
on 26 Nov, 2011 16:25
-
I hope Fobos-Grunt is able to accomplish some type of mission at this point...
And I find it ironic that Russian-made engines helped send Curiosity to Mars but wasn't able to get a Russian-made Mars spacecraft out of Earth orbit. That's unfortunate.
Well, they are Licensed Russian designs but the incredible success of this launch has much more to do with the level of excellence across all functions throughout NASA and ULA then any one component. There are reasons why the US is still the predominant space activities center and this mission is one of them...
Ironically it's even the same engine family launching both probes.
And the reason the US is still doing most activities is also quite simple: the US still spends most money by far for spaceflight.
-
#619
by
Trouquel
on 26 Nov, 2011 16:29
-
I hope Fobos-Grunt is able to accomplish some type of mission at this point...
And I find it ironic that Russian-made engines helped send Curiosity to Mars but wasn't able to get a Russian-made Mars spacecraft out of Earth orbit. That's unfortunate.
Well, they are Licensed Russian designs...
They are actually built in Russia, by Russian engineers and technicians (and yes they are Russian designs, ULA has a license to build them in the US but they have not yet exercised this option, preferring to buy them from Russia).
Btw., to send future manned missions to the Moon and Mars NASA can also prefer to buy about twice more powerful engines (than RD-180 used on the 1st stage of Atlas V to launch MSL). It is third decade since these engines are being produced to launch various payloads, such as Fobos-Grunt.