-
#740
by
Comga
on 29 Nov, 2011 20:33
-
Isn't that the original link embedded in the address: http://ria.ru/science/20111129/501636996.html ?
I can't verify because foreign sites are blocked here.
Yes, that is how it works. Since that is blocked hope this is ok with Chris. will put up some of the translation from that page:
What I meant was that it is blocked at my facility for internet security reasons. Others should be able to do so.
-
#741
by
olasek
on 29 Nov, 2011 20:40
-
If the top of the spacecraft is bottom left, then the arrays are open - otherwise there shouldn't be the faint bluish glow there.
Faint bluish glow would be (could be) there even with arrays closed, I say the resolution of the photo is simply insufficient to form any opinion on the state of those arrays.
-
#742
by
Prober
on 29 Nov, 2011 21:23
-
-
#743
by
scpc
on 29 Nov, 2011 21:24
-
It is wonderful to have an image, kudos to Ralf Vandebergh. However, even though the resolution is poor, I’m sure it will be of use to those with the ability and experience to work out the spacecrafts orientation. However, from my untrained eye, if the top of the spacecraft is bottom left in the image, it does appear that something has separated, perhaps the external tank (image top right), or it could just be tricks of light and shadow. I hope we will know more soon.
-
#744
by
ChileVerde
on 29 Nov, 2011 21:47
-
One of the things that occurred to me watching MSL was that it had a video feed all the way up past TMI so that they could watch spacecraft sep; I doubt that would have been possible without TDRSS.
That wasn't through TDRSS, but a ground station.
Diego Garcia, If I understood the commentary correctly.
-
#745
by
hop
on 29 Nov, 2011 21:54
-
However, from my untrained eye, if the top of the spacecraft is bottom left in the image, it does appear that something has separated, perhaps the external tank (image top right), or it could be tricks of light and shadow. I hope we will know more soon.
Keep in mind that parts of the spacecraft in shadow will almost certainly not show up at all, while small, highly reflective parts may appear even though they are too small to resolve. (edit: and atmospheric distortion can be significant too)
If the solar arrays are deployed, a substantial part of the rest of the vehicle may be shadowed. In that case, the odd thing hanging off the
left right may just be a part that happens to escape the shadow.
A rough 3d model with appropriate lighting could be helpful. The approximate sun-spacecraft-observer geometry ought to be easy to work out. One should be able to get reasonable dimensions from
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/nk/forum-pic/FG/Phobos-Grunt-hi.gifedit:
Here's an interpretation on Anatoly Zak's site
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/images/spacecraft/planetary/mars/phobos_grunt/flight/ground_rv_1.jpg (the image is Ralfs, but I'm not sure if the interpretation is his)
-
#746
by
kevin-rf
on 30 Nov, 2011 00:02
-
-
#747
by
alk3997
on 30 Nov, 2011 01:55
-
How about the left array (in the picture) still folded and the right array deployed? The left array is the "downward" appendage while the right array isn't visible because it is deployed (or it's shadowed).
Half-power situation.
-
#748
by
Sparky
on 30 Nov, 2011 02:39
-
Don't know if this is accurate, but according to
https://twitter.com/#!/PhG_ReentryNASA associated radio telescopes, according to policy, are unable to assist with Phobos-Grunt as it contains a Chinese sub-satellite.
Does anyone know if this is true?
-
#749
by
Steven Pietrobon
on 30 Nov, 2011 05:44
-
OK, I've enlarged an enhanced the photo of PG. I believe the two round bumps to the right of the image are the extra tanks added to the modified Fregat stage. The light blob to the right of this might be a portion of the toroidal tank. The middle and left are hard to work out. The central portion looks like the lander, but then where are the solar arrays? I've also attached a rotated photo of PG on the ground which is very roughly in the right orientation.
-
#750
by
rweede
on 30 Nov, 2011 06:08
-
OK, I've enlarged an enhanced the photo of PG. I believe the two round bumps to the right of the image are the extra tanks added to the modified Fregat stage. The light blob to the right of this might be a portion of the toroidal tank. The middle and left are hard to work out. The central portion looks like the lander, but then where are the solar arrays? I've also attached a rotated photo of PG on the ground which is very roughly in the right orientation.
Is it possible the solar arrays are the two light grey blobs, one at the very left of the picture and the other to the lower right of that? The first extends "into" the picture and away from the camera and the second extends in the direction of the camera.
-
#751
by
iamlucky13
on 30 Nov, 2011 07:02
-
-
#752
by
Archibald
on 30 Nov, 2011 07:15
-
It is a weapon to be used against aliens who have hollowed out Mars's moon, Phobos, to create a space station. Russia has been waging an interplanetary cold war against these aliens for the past 40 years and this explains the incredibly low success rate of the country's missions to Mars - a record of failure so marked that it has been dubbed the 'Mars curse
Slap his forehead - I knew it. I saw rumours on the internet. The exact story is told by Wikipedia
1960: Artificial Phobos hypothesis
In 1960, Singer commented in an article in Astronautics on the hypothesis of Iosif Shklovsky (later mentioned in a 1966 book by Carl Sagan and Shklovsky)[25] that the orbit of the Martian moon Phobos suggests that it is hollow, which implies it is of artificial origin. Singer wrote: "My conclusion there is, and here I back Shklovsky, that if the satellite is indeed spiraling inward as deduced from astronomical observation, then there is little alternative to the hypothesis that it is hollow and therefore martian made. The big "if" lies in the astronomical observations; they may well be in error. Since they are based on several independent sets of measurements taken decades apart by different observers with different instruments, systematic errors may have influenced them.".
-
#753
by
docmordrid
on 30 Nov, 2011 09:32
-
Dunno if this will help at all, but I loaded the P-G image into an editor and boosted the color channels etc. Also boosted the background levels to see if any outlines popped out.
-
#754
by
Galactic Penguin SST
on 30 Nov, 2011 09:43
-
-
#755
by
docmordrid
on 30 Nov, 2011 10:12
-
Took that rotation of a color version, did a Gaussian blur, played with the levels to the minimum where the dish would be visible and got this....
THIS IMAGE IS A SIMULATION, NOT Phobos-Grunt.
-
#756
by
Apollo-phill
on 30 Nov, 2011 10:20
-
esaoperations on twitter has said:-
".....ESA teams at #ESOC will use 15m tracking station at #Maspalomas, Spain, to send Russian commands to #phobosgrunt ~14:30GMT today (Wednesday)....."
A-P
-
#757
by
JimO
on 30 Nov, 2011 11:00
-
-
#758
by
Moskit
on 30 Nov, 2011 11:35
-
Georgiy Grechko on reasons for space failures:
http://kp.ru/online/news/1029895/ and
http://infox.ru/science/universe/2011/11/30/Gryechko__potyerya__.phtml
Main reason: lack of people. Space industry workers are either over 60, or younger than 30, others could not be paid enough to work there. The last time a spacecraft as complicated as F-G was launched here was over 25 years ago. It was a whole generation of people changed and not replaced. There was no continuity. Previously systematic launches done every two years, then a long break from using the technology. All other nations did more, while today Russia has to start from scratch.
LONG bizarre article in a military trade weekly,
The Mission -- To Shoot Down ‘Fobos’: However, Russia Has With its Own Hands Deprived Itself of All Available Anti-Satellite Weapons
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/8421
Is this the right link? This one is a history of Plesetsk and Angara program, not weapons...
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara.html
-
#759
by
Michael J
on 30 Nov, 2011 11:53
-
Georgiy Grechko on reasons for space failures:
http://kp.ru/online/news/1029895/ and
http://infox.ru/science/universe/2011/11/30/Gryechko__potyerya__.phtml
Main reason: lack of people. Space industry workers are either over 60, or younger than 30, others could not be paid enough to work there. The last time a spacecraft as complicated as F-G was launched here was over 25 years ago. It was a whole generation of people changed and not replaced. There was no continuity. Previously systematic launches done every two years, then a long break from using the technology. All other nations did more, while today Russia has to start from scratch.
LONG bizarre article in a military trade weekly,
The Mission -- To Shoot Down ‘Fobos’: However, Russia Has With its Own Hands Deprived Itself of All Available Anti-Satellite Weapons
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/8421
Is this the right link? This one is a history of Plesetsk and Angara program, not weapons...
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara.html
I was just going to post the same thing. Interesting to say the least, but considering all the flak the Russian Federation gave the United States when it intercepted USA-193 it makes sense that they wouldn't start publicly lamenting the fact that they can't do the same for one of their own spacecraft.