Fobos-Grunt Troubleshooting Latest (Part 2)

• #760 by Moskit on 30 Nov, 2011 12:13
• http://www.vz.ru/news/2011/11/30/542857.html
  

  Quote

  F-B continues to lose altitude. Orbit is now 209x307km, while it was 209x342km after the launch. Orbit time is 20-30s faster.
  Last night three attempts to communicate with F-B (from Canaries) , as well as 3 attempts to send command to raise orbit (from Australia) all failed.
  
• #761 by JohnFornaro on 30 Nov, 2011 12:33
• Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 30 Nov, 2011 05:44

  OK, I've enlarged an enhanced the photo of PG.

  
  Whoah.  It's clearly "passive cooperative"!
• #762 by John Duncan on 30 Nov, 2011 12:58
• Looking at the fine job of photomanipulation there, I'd say the extra tanks are gone.  Maybe we'll get a better image from a different sun angle.
  
  
• #763 by Moskit on 30 Nov, 2011 13:05
• Two new frames, and more information (in English) from Ralf Vandebergh in thread below (scroll to bottom):
  http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=10631&start=10635
• #764 by ChileVerde on 30 Nov, 2011 13:10
• Quote from: JimO on 30 Nov, 2011 11:00

  Latest predicted entry date last week in December
  http://satobs.org/seesat/Nov-2011/0381.html
  

  
  
  That may be due to a glitch in the data: Space Track had just issued two TLEs with an identical epoch but noticeably different mean motions and eccentricities.  I suspect that confused SatEvo, which had been holding pretty steady on mid-January for several days. We'll see over the next day or two.
• #765 by JimO on 30 Nov, 2011 13:16
• Quote from: Moskit on 30 Nov, 2011 11:35

  Is this the right link? This one is a history of Plesetsk and Angara program, not weapons...
  http://www.russianspaceweb.com/angara.html
  

  
  My bad -- here it is:
  http://vpk-news.ru/articles/8388
• #766 by JimO on 30 Nov, 2011 13:21
• Quote from: John Duncan on 30 Nov, 2011 12:58

  Looking at the fine job of photomanipulation there, I'd say the extra tanks are gone. 

  
  Don't be too sure --
  
  1. They really are fairly small and flush against the bottom.
  
  2. If not attached, where ELSE could they be? No indications of any objects in nearby orbits.
  
  
• #767 by HIPAR on 30 Nov, 2011 13:27
• Quote from: 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....
  

  
  Wow, that's fantastic work.  I see artifacts of every major part of the spacecraft .. the toroidal aft structure, solar panels,  the truss, spherical tanks ...
  
  It's obvious this mission was proceeding as scheduled before it sustained a major systems failure. 
  
  ---  CHAS
• #768 by Moskit on 30 Nov, 2011 14:10
• http://www.1prime.ru/news/0/%7BE1C430D1-1C10-4B90-9E73-772B2898272B%7D.uif
  

  Quote

  Based on photos by Ralf it seems that F-B does not keep Sun orientation. This would explain lack of contact unless sun panels get in good position to recharge batteries, a source says.
  
• #769 by savuporo on 30 Nov, 2011 14:27
• One would have thought that Russians have some of their own military assets to image this thing , either from ground or from orbit.
• #770 by Ben the Space Brit on 30 Nov, 2011 14:33
• Quote from: savuporo on 30 Nov, 2011 14:27

  One would have thought that Russians have some of their own military assets to image this thing , either from ground or from orbit.
  

  
  They probably have and both the assets and the resulting images are probably classified at least 'Secret' if not 'Top Secret'.  The photos might have been delivered to those with a need to know but there is no compelling reason for the Russian Federation to expose its orbital imaging capabilities by releasing them to the public.
• #771 by savuporo on 30 Nov, 2011 14:37
• Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 30 Nov, 2011 14:33

  The photos might have been delivered to those with a need to know but there is no compelling reason for the Russian Federation to expose its orbital imaging capabilities by releasing them to the public.
  

  Sure, would not have expected to see them posted on the intertubes, but at least one would have expected some more coherent resulting communications coming out of Roscosmos.
• #772 by Ben the Space Brit on 30 Nov, 2011 14:44
• Quote from: savuporo on 30 Nov, 2011 14:37

  Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 30 Nov, 2011 14:33

  The photos might have been delivered to those with a need to know but there is no compelling reason for the Russian Federation to expose its orbital imaging capabilities by releasing them to the public.
  

  
  Sure, would not have expected to see them posted on the intertubes, but at least one would have expected some more coherent resulting communications coming out of Roscosmos.
  

  
  FWIW, I think it is as much a mistake to assume that Roscosmos is a single, coherent entity as it is with NASA.  There are probably various departments, internal factions and power blocs, all of which are either running CYA protocols, trying to fix this problem as best as they can or trying to use it to attack their rivals.  Add to that an agency that has not been historically keen on blow-by-blow commentaries on missions for any reason and the reason for the current confused situation becomes a bit clearer.
• #773 by Moskit on 30 Nov, 2011 14:54
• They might have, just we do not hear anything about such efforts due to way Russian agencies work. Just look at communication so far with much simpler things. Most comes from ESA...
  
  Article that JimO mentioned is a very interesting discussion of how to destroy F-G if it comes to that. Main tone is - Russia could have had multiple nice systems, but they were aborted in 1990s.
  
  First step is to observe F-B, and it can be done using optical and radar facilities in Russia, for example "Window" ("Okno") system.
  Second point is that F-B could be taken off orbit and repaired, either by bringing it back to Earth (think shuttle) or repaired on orbit.
  Third point is how to prevent pieces falling down and causing problems. Article mentions that experts do not agree - Americans say fuel will freeze, arrive to surface and cause ecological disaster. Chinese say their satellite is not dangerous.
  What follows is discussion of IS-MU anti-satellite system, which is currently right where Russian shuttle program is.
  http://www.russianspaceweb.com/is.html
  Another possibility could be A-35M system, but it was taken offline in 1990 and disassembled.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-35_anti-ballistic_missile_system
  One more chance is to use A-135 system, namely A-925 rockets. They were also disbanded with the end of Cold War.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_system
  Remaining capability is to shoot it down using PRS-1 missiles of A-135, but it would only work if F-B fell right on Moscow.
  Other than that, maybe MIG-31D (anti-satellite fighter)? Nope, it was buried too.
  
  Once again, due to end of Cold War, disarmament and universal peace - methods for shooting down satellite in this case are not operational.
  
  F-B should make people think - today a satellite cannot be taken down, what if something else comes from space?
• #774 by rcoppola on 30 Nov, 2011 15:07
• It's "Crazy Question Wednesday" time:
  
  It was recently reported that the X-37B was being kept in-orbit past its' planned return to Earth. We do not know the current capabilities of this technology test-bed, but is it anywhere near PG? Or could it be maneuvered to get there? I wonder if they are using PG to do some test monitoring of some kind or some test maneuvers..etc.?
  
• #775 by Jorge on 30 Nov, 2011 15:11
• Quote from: rcoppola on 30 Nov, 2011 15:07

  It's "Crazy Question Wednesday" time:
  
  It was recently reported that the X-37B was being kept in-orbit past its' planned return to Earth. We do not know the current capabilities of this technology test-bed, but is it anywhere near PG? Or could it be maneuvered to get there? I wonder if they are using PG to do some test monitoring of some kind or some test maneuvers..etc.?
  
  

  
  No and no.
• #776 by Jim on 30 Nov, 2011 15:13
• Quote from: rcoppola on 30 Nov, 2011 15:07

  It's "Crazy Question Wednesday" time:
  
  It was recently reported that the X-37B was being kept in-orbit past its' planned return to Earth. We do not know the current capabilities of this technology test-bed, but is it anywhere near PG? Or could it be maneuvered to get there? I wonder if they are using PG to do some test monitoring of some kind or some test maneuvers..etc.?
  
  

  
  it has been asked many times.  Read the thread. 
  There are many more spacecraft up there, why hasn't anyone asked whether HST, SPOT, or Digitalglobe can do it.  Why X-37?
• #777 by jimvela on 30 Nov, 2011 15:43
• Quote from: Jim on 30 Nov, 2011 15:13

  Quote from: rcoppola on 30 Nov, 2011 15:07

  It's "Crazy Question Wednesday" time:
  
  It was recently reported that the X-37B was being kept in-orbit past its' planned return to Earth. We do not know the current capabilities of this technology test-bed, but is it anywhere near PG? Or could it be maneuvered to get there? I wonder if they are using PG to do some test monitoring of some kind or some test maneuvers..etc.?
  
  

  
  it has been asked many times.  Read the thread. 
  There are many more spacecraft up there, why hasn't anyone asked whether HST, SPOT, or Digitalglobe can do it.  Why X-37?
  

  
  There is a far better operational system than any of those, as far as orbital imaging of spacecraft.
• #778 by Ronsmytheiii on 30 Nov, 2011 15:46
• Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 30 Nov, 2011 14:33

  Quote from: savuporo on 30 Nov, 2011 14:27

  One would have thought that Russians have some of their own military assets to image this thing , either from ground or from orbit.
  

  
  They probably have and both the assets and the resulting images are probably classified at least 'Secret' if not 'Top Secret'.  The photos might have been delivered to those with a need to know but there is no compelling reason for the Russian Federation to expose its orbital imaging capabilities by releasing them to the public.
  

  
  another possibility is simply the lighting conditions, remember that the reason Perth was able to make contact with the spacecraft and not the Russian ground stations was due to lighting conditions when contacted, for imaging the same situation would be likely as one needs to have sunlight on the spacecraft but not on the earth (unless it is extremely bright like ISS)
• #779 by JimO on 30 Nov, 2011 15:49
• The Russian press has found Ralf's photos and is highlighting them:
  http://www.ria.ru/science/20111130/502776332.html
  http://rus.ruvr.ru/2011/11/30/61270518.html
  
  Congratulations to Ralf and the other telescope-camera trackers!!
  
  Also, latest on Canaries Islands tracking...
  http://www.rosbalt.ru/main/2011/11/30/918903.html