-
#620
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 26 Nov, 2011 16:35
-
I think it is worth noting that the launch vehicles in both PG and MSL operated nominally. The problems with PG appear to be exclusively due to issues on the S/C not the LV.
-
#621
by
MayaToitovna
on 26 Nov, 2011 19:02
-
Please, let's not get into these kind of political discussions. Such comments can easily offend people (including me) and this is not the correct place for such discussions.
After the difficult years of 1989-2003, we should be proud that Russia has a space program at all. Yes, the likely loss of Fobos-Grunt is a big catastrophe. But the industry is still recovering (I'm actually happy with the current level of funding and government support) and it's understandable the first ambitious interplanetary mission after so many years is not successful. Hopefully they can learn from it and rebuild the probe.
-
#622
by
Chris Bergin
on 26 Nov, 2011 20:24
-
Please, let's not get into these kind of political discussions.
Welcome to the site's forum and I agree with this. I removed the offending quote from your post, because I also removed some of the political posts.
To all: No more politically focused posts on this troubleshooting update thread, or they will be deleted. This site always has, and always will be focused on the hardware. When it is unavoidable to go into politics - such as NASA's budget etc - then we have the space policy section.
-
#623
by
Lee Jay
on 26 Nov, 2011 20:29
-
I think it is worth noting that the launch vehicles in both PG and MSL operated nominally. The problems with PG appear to be exclusively due to issues on the S/C not the LV.
Sort of a philosophical thing, then right? MSL was sent on its way to Mars by the LV, while PG was only put into very low Earth orbit by the LV and had to send itself on the way to Mars, which it failed to do.
-
#624
by
geza
on 26 Nov, 2011 20:51
-
Sort of a philosophical thing, then right? MSL was sent on its way to Mars by the LV, while PG was only put into very low Earth orbit by the LV and had to send itself on the way to Mars, which it failed to do.
Well, the point is that the Centaur upper stage was not modified for this specific mission; therefore the risk of its malfunctuion was much lower than in the case of the heaviliy modified Fregat stage of PG.
-
#625
by
hop
on 26 Nov, 2011 21:06
-
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...
Can't blame them for being angry, but finding a scapegoat isn't likely to be an effective solution. The Russians (and Soviets before) have taken this sort of punitive approach for decades, yet it hasn't given them a better success rate than those who take a less punitive approach.
If everyone is trying to cover their own posterior, it's very difficult to get an objective account of the full chain of management, process and technical causes of the failure.
-
#626
by
cro-magnon gramps
on 26 Nov, 2011 21:22
-
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...
Can't blame them for being angry, SNIP
I am sure the Russians will solve their internal problems as they think fit without any comment help from us;
so back to the point of this thread, what is happening in LEO with our favourite little lost SC - FG;
PS Welcome to the forum Maya, it can sometimes get a bit wild, but generally lots of good information and great posters, not to forget Chris and his Mods
Gramps
-
#627
by
rcoppola
on 26 Nov, 2011 21:47
-
Yes, welcome, as I was welcomed. Any comments made with regards to MSL are just expressions of excitement. I certainly wish both missions were on therir way and hope for a future when all space agencies from around the world come together and do what each does best to launch the first human mission to Mars. I have the upmost respect for the Russian space program and am certain great things await its' future. Sorry Chris, just wanted to clarify my thoughts...
-
#628
by
olasek
on 27 Nov, 2011 02:18
-
But the industry is still recovering
But before 1989 (when they were not recovering) their success rate in interplanetary missions was equally bleak, I wish them well, I just wonder whether there is any sharp public discussion in Russia about the need to get to the bottom of it. In previously highly closed USSR it was impossible, at least now there should be opportunity over there to have some frank, public discussion on the topic.
-
#629
by
savuporo
on 27 Nov, 2011 02:23
-
But before 1989 (when they were not recovering) their success rate in interplanetary missions was equally bleak..
You forgot the highly successful Venera/Vega series.
-
#630
by
olasek
on 27 Nov, 2011 02:32
-
You forgot the highly successful Venera/Vega series.
It was still bleak considering totality of their launches. At least in my definition of the word 'bleak'. Without Venera I might have said 'disastrous'?
-
#631
by
seshagirib
on 27 Nov, 2011 05:41
-
difficult to understand their string of failures with mars, when they succeeded with the much more challenging venus landers...
-
#632
by
John Santos
on 27 Nov, 2011 06:15
-
I'm sure this is a real long shot, but does anyone know if there is any chance of using a gravity assist (e.g. from the Moon or a second encounter with the earth) to provide the extra delta-V FG probably now needs, if the Russians do recover command and control of it?
-
#633
by
olasek
on 27 Nov, 2011 06:16
-
difficult to understand their string of failures with mars, when they succeeded with the much more challenging venus landers...
Not sure about the 'more challenging' part. Closer to the Sun makes power equation a lot easier, also landing on a dense-atmosphere planet is inherently easier since the most complex part with retro-rockets goes away. I think Mars is definitely a lot tougher target, in navigating to it, entering its orbit and soft- landing on it. Many more pieces to go wrong, tougher tolerances.
-
#634
by
Sparky
on 27 Nov, 2011 06:28
-
difficult to understand their string of failures with mars, when they succeeded with the much more challenging venus landers...
Not sure about the 'more challenging' part. Closer to the Sun makes power equation a lot easier, also landing on a dense-atmosphere planet is inherently easier since the most complex part with retro-rockets goes away. I think Mars is definitely a lot tougher target, in navigating to it, entering its orbit and soft- landing on it.
True, since it usually requires TPS with parachutes,
and powered descent. Landing on just about anything else usually only requires one or the other.
To be fair, however, many of their failures happened shortly after launch, or after landing on the surface.
-
#635
by
savuporo
on 27 Nov, 2011 06:43
-
Not sure about the 'more challenging' part. Closer to the Sun makes power equation a lot easier, also landing on a dense-atmosphere planet is inherently easier since the most complex part with retro-rockets goes away.
USSR also carried out a series of highly successful robotic and teleoperated lunar missions ( not interplanetary, i know ). In fact, to date, they are still the last ones to actually land on the moon.
So i doubt that the venusian dense atmosphere environment was somehow a factor for Venera's success.
-
#636
by
Kaputnik
on 27 Nov, 2011 10:18
-
Mission duration is the common factor with the Soviet unmanned successes.
-
#637
by
Michael J
on 27 Nov, 2011 11:36
-
But before 1989 (when they were not recovering) their success rate in interplanetary missions was equally bleak..
You forgot the highly successful Venera/Vega series.
Many Venus missions failed and at least six of them was because of problems with the escape stage. Without waving the flag, I can say the United States is fortunate to have a fairly reliable and flexible booster in the Centaur.
-
#638
by
seshagirib
on 27 Nov, 2011 14:09
-
difficult to understand their string of failures with mars, when they succeeded with the much more challenging venus landers...
Not sure about the 'more challenging' part. Closer to the Sun makes power equation a lot easier, also landing on a dense-atmosphere planet is inherently easier since the most complex part with retro-rockets goes away. I think Mars is definitely a lot tougher target, in navigating to it, entering its orbit and soft- landing on it. Many more pieces to go wrong, tougher tolerances.
my understanding is that the temperature & atmospheric pressure makes descent , landing and survival after landing for any length of time a real tough job @ venus.
-
#639
by
seshagirib
on 27 Nov, 2011 14:19
-
Not sure about the 'more challenging' part. Closer to the Sun makes power equation a lot easier, also landing on a dense-atmosphere planet is inherently easier since the most complex part with retro-rockets goes away.
USSR also carried out a series of highly successful robotic and teleoperated lunar missions ( not interplanetary, i know ). In fact, to date, they are still the last ones to actually land on the moon.
So i doubt that the venusian dense atmosphere environment was somehow a factor for Venera's success.
agreed, and the only ones to return lunar samples by automated probes.
