-
#800 by JimO on 01 Dec, 2011 16:32
-
From: James E Oberg [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 10:51 AM
To: Jacobs, Bob (HQ-NA000)
Subject: NASA assistence to Fobos-Grunt rescue
Bob:
Any truth to this rumor that the China law prohibits NASA assistence
to Russia re 'Fobos-Grunt'?
From: Jacobs, Bob (HQ-NA000)
To: '[email protected]'
Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: NASA assistence to Fobos-Grunt rescue
None. NASA has provided assistance and resources. Some of the resources and personnel had to be diverted to support MSL. But NASA, along with other space agencies, continues to work with Russia is its efforts to reestablish communications with Phobos-Grunt.
Feel free to quote me if you need to.
Best,
Bob
-
#801 by MarsInMyLifetime on 01 Dec, 2011 17:16
-
And why had no one seen it yet?
Indeed. As I squint at the approach phase image from several feet away (as artists do to see past the brush-level artifacts in their paintings), I seem to clearly see the dark fronts of both panels extended--at 10:00 and 4:00 around the lander's bright bus. If that is the case, a more vexing question is why the return module's panel is not equally as visible on top of the lander, midway between those "panels." Considering how marginal these images are anyway, at best we can suggest interpretations, but should run with them only as far as clear evidence can support. I don't think the evidence indicates a missing or folded panel just yet. -
#802 by anik on 01 Dec, 2011 18:53
-
http://twitter.com/#!/esaoperations
No results seen following 2 command uplink passes today from ESA's #Maspalomas station
ESA teams will send commands up - 4 slots available tonight via #Perth station & 2 more 02.12 via #Maspalomas
ESA #Perth station passes tonight not optimum: 1 in eclipse, 1 w/only little Sunlight, 2 w/Sunlight but not best pointing -
#803 by alk3997 on 01 Dec, 2011 19:51
-
And why had no one seen it yet?
Indeed. As I squint at the approach phase image from several feet away (as artists do to see past the brush-level artifacts in their paintings), I seem to clearly see the dark fronts of both panels extended--at 10:00 and 4:00 around the lander's bright bus. If that is the case, a more vexing question is why the return module's panel is not equally as visible on top of the lander, midway between those "panels." Considering how marginal these images are anyway, at best we can suggest interpretations, but should run with them only as far as clear evidence can support. I don't think the evidence indicates a missing or folded panel just yet.
OK, now you've made me take out the drawing tools :-)
In the attached image (PG-Speculation1.jpg), the yellow outline is the deployed array. The red part is what I believe *may be* an undeployed array. The downward grey "bar" is what I'm basing this idea on. There is also a small upward part that appears on that side of the spacecraft that isn't on the other. Notice that the downward grey bar only appears on that side of the spacecraft. If it were shadowed then I believe nothing would appear there.
Also, if you believe the part in yellow is the deployed array, it is the same shade as the part going downwards on the other side of the spacecraft.
Purely speculation, of course, since there isn't close to enough resolution and plenty of blur in the image to provide a definitive explanation.
-
#804 by hop on 01 Dec, 2011 20:20
-
Purely speculation, of course, since there isn't close to enough resolution and plenty of blur in the image to provide a definitive explanation.
Some of Ralfs images of Soyuz and Progress (roughly comparable size to PG, but with larger solar arrays) should serve as a cautionary note:
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/6135/progressm04m10062702184.jpg
http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/3052/progressm06m100630seta.jpg
http://freeimagehosting.nl/pics/209702e67b83500fbd68ee5e32db1900.jpg
http://freeimagehosting.nl/pics/82a93f3e8516490b83f9cbfc00fe6944.jpg
http://freeimagehosting.nl/pics/26f0e0ee0790cab9264516cbf0415e63.jpg
-
#805 by Michael J on 01 Dec, 2011 20:32
-
A full cover ground-view from Ralf posted in Space Safety Magazine: http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/2011/12/01/fphobos-grunt/
-
#806 by John Duncan on 01 Dec, 2011 21:26
-
I think those images of Progress, etc., shows that we can't really tell anything. At best your getting half of the object and we tend to see what we want to see.
If the image is mirrored and copied across you might get a sense of the complete object.
-
#807 by Sparky on 01 Dec, 2011 23:57
-
I have an idea that is admittedly silly, but I thought I'd give it a shot.
I realize that there are no relay sats in Earth orbit that can relay Ph-G's signal. My (probably dumb) question is, are there any deep space probes, especially at or approaching Mars that can transmit in Ph-G's frequency in X-band? (MSL, MRO, Mars Express, etc) And if so, would they be strong enough for Ph-G to pick up when reaching Earth? -
#808 by Jim on 02 Dec, 2011 00:56
-
I have an idea that is admittedly silly, but I thought I'd give it a shot.
I realize that there are no relay sats in Earth orbit that can relay Ph-G's signal. My (probably dumb) question is, are there any deep space probes, especially at or approaching Mars that can transmit in Ph-G's frequency in X-band? (MSL, MRO, Mars Express, etc) And if so, would they be strong enough for Ph-G to pick up when reaching Earth?
Even if it was yes and yes, the spacecraft cant relay commands for PG. Non comsat spacecraft only transmit data, data from instruments and health and status data. -
#809 by Sparky on 02 Dec, 2011 01:12
-
I was under the impression that Odyssey, MRO, Mars Express, and now defunct Mars Global Surveyor were already acting as relays for the MERs.
Even if it was yes and yes, the spacecraft cant relay commands for PG. Non comsat spacecraft only transmit data, data from instruments and health and status data. -
#810 by Jim on 02 Dec, 2011 01:19
-
I was under the impression that Odyssey, MRO, Mars Express, and now defunct Mars Global Surveyor were already acting as relays for the MERs.
Even if it was yes and yes, the spacecraft cant relay commands for PG. Non comsat spacecraft only transmit data, data from instruments and health and status data.
In the UHF frequencies -
#811 by HIPAR on 02 Dec, 2011 01:41
-
I was under the impression that Odyssey, MRO, Mars Express, and now defunct Mars Global Surveyor were already acting as relays for the MERs.
Even if it was yes and yes, the spacecraft cant relay commands for PG. Non comsat spacecraft only transmit data, data from instruments and health and status data.
They do relay data. But don't forget Mars orbiters are hundreds of millions miles distant. Receiving their signals requires really huge dish antennas operated by the Deep Space Network. Obviously the Phobos probe isn't equipped with that kind of antenna.
And even if signals from Mars orbiters were strong enough, the question would be if it were possible to remotely tune the transmitters to the proper X Band frequency.
--- CHAS -
#812 by bolun on 02 Dec, 2011 10:43
-
From http://twitter.com/#!/esaoperationsQuote
esaoperations ESA Operations
ESA's #Maspalomas station will use slots at 12:40GMT&14:13GMT to send Russian commands to #PhobosGrunt. Details later.
1 hour ago -
#813 by JimO on 02 Dec, 2011 12:14
-
Interesting sites:
Engineers struggling to re-contact Phobos Grunt
December 2, 2011
http://www.spaceflight101.com/phobos-grunt-mission-updates.html
Latest RIA-Novosti [0840 gmt today]:
http://www.ria.ru/science/20111202/504385809.html
Bizarre 'Pravda' article with comments, from Nov 30,
that I had overlooked:
"Фобос-Грунт" мешал американскому марсоходу?
Светлана Сметанина // 30.11.11 11:24
http://www.pravda.ru/society/fashion/couture/30-11-2011/1100351-Fobos-0/
-
#814 by spectre9 on 02 Dec, 2011 12:50
-
So I'm guessing it's ran out of power by this point?
-
#815 by Moskit on 02 Dec, 2011 13:08
-
Quote
Bizarre 'Pravda' article with comments, from Nov 30,
Article is an interview with a former soldier from "Space Forces", who later worked in a construction bureau.
that I had overlooked:
http://www.pravda.ru/society/fashion/couture/30-11-2011/1100351-Fobos-0/
Main themes:
- if Russia had the same space communication network (ships) like in the past, they could have known reasons of mishap, including whether there was interference from third parties.
- in the past both space countries were informally "attacking" each others spacecrafts with signals, there are examples quoted from 1969 and 1970.
- in the past it was unthinkable to give out codes and commands for a valuable spacecraft mission, as it happened now, when ESA received precise data to communicate with F-G. These were previously guarded secrets. OT: this shows that mindset has changed in Russian program from the old days.
- as both USAan and Russian spacecrafts were launched close to each other (due to window constraints) it might have had influence on communications interfering with each other, especially when they were still close to Earth. This is presented as a possibility, not a statement.
Overall - it is a view on the state of today's space industry in Russia, focusing on inability to provide sufficient resources to fully support missions. Additionally there are musings on whether external influence was possible.
Article might sound bizzare if interpreted as a paranoic "Merkins shot our spacecraft" rambling, which it does not seem to really be. A question whether it were possible was asked by the journalist, not volunteered by the interviewee. He replied to the best of his knowledge on possibilities (which he considers technically doable). Journalists have a talent of asking a theoretical question ("would it be technically possible to remotely disable spacecraft?") and making it a sensational headline ("specialists claim it were possible to remotely disable spacecraft"). Been there, seen way too many such examples :-/
At least that's my take on this article. -
#816 by bolun on 02 Dec, 2011 13:44
-
From http://twitter.com/#!/esaoperationsQuote
esaoperations ESA Operations
No results from uplinking Russian telecommands via ESA's #Perth (01.12) & #Maspalomas (02.12) stations #PhobosGrunt
10 minutes ago -
#817 by Ben the Space Brit on 02 Dec, 2011 13:54
-
From http://twitter.com/#!/esaoperations
Quoteesaoperations ESA Operations
No results from uplinking Russian telecommands via ESA's #Perth (01.12) & #Maspalomas (02.12) stations #PhobosGrunt
10 minutes ago
This complete silence and lack of response has been ongoing for a while now. I think it is safe to assume that something has irrevocably failed, either in the comms subsystem, in the power system or in the main processor. -
#818 by veblen on 02 Dec, 2011 14:14
-
Quote
Bizarre 'Pravda' article with comments, from Nov 30,
Article is an interview with a former soldier from "Space Forces", who later worked in a construction bureau.
that I had overlooked:
http://www.pravda.ru/society/fashion/couture/30-11-2011/1100351-Fobos-0/
Main themes:
- if Russia had the same space communication network (ships) like in the past, they could have known reasons of mishap, including whether there was interference from third parties.
- in the past both space countries were informally "attacking" each others spacecrafts with signals, there are examples quoted from 1969 and 1970.
Additionally there are musings on whether external influence was possible.
Article might sound bizzare if interpreted as a paranoic "Merkins shot our spacecraft" rambling
At least that's my take on this article.
Definition of "bizarre" is strikingly odd. To be "paranoid" is to be suffering from delusions, especially for example delusions of grandeur or PERSECUTION.
To me, accusations that the West somehow interfered with F-G are odd or bizarre. Just because I don't share your view of this old Soviet general's "musings" does not make me paranoid. Think about it, just who is showing elements of paranoia here? -
#819 by alk3997 on 02 Dec, 2011 14:19
-
From http://twitter.com/#!/esaoperations
Quoteesaoperations ESA Operations
No results from uplinking Russian telecommands via ESA's #Perth (01.12) & #Maspalomas (02.12) stations #PhobosGrunt
10 minutes ago
This complete silence and lack of response has been ongoing for a while now. I think it is safe to assume that something has irrevocably failed, either in the comms subsystem, in the power system or in the main processor.
Interesting. Why would you say that now? It took two weeks for the initial communications where conditions were apparently just right. It's less than two weeks since the last communications and there have been no reports of additional failures onboard. Just the same lack of communications that occurred during the first two weeks.
Don't misunderstand me - I don't think there is any reasonable chance of this spacecraft leaving low Earth orbit. But, I also don't see what changed between the first communications a week ago and now that would preclude additional communications.
Andy