-
#820 by Moskit on 02 Dec, 2011 14:21
-
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.
Sadly Fobos-Grunt seems to be doing pretty bad even executing emergency mode :-( -
#821 by M_Puckett on 02 Dec, 2011 14:25
-
Quote
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.
Phobos-G was launched weeks before Curiosity. How could it have interfered with Phobos-G?
-
#822 by kevin-rf on 02 Dec, 2011 14:34
-
Ted Molczan just posted "Fobos-Grunt: new pieces catalogued by USSTRATCOM"
http://satobs.org/seesat/Dec-2011/0015.html
Also didn't all the communications occur before Phobos stopped it's odd orbital dance?
-
#823 by Moskit on 02 Dec, 2011 14:48
-
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?
Now I don't get you :-/
I did not write that I consider people who do not agree with me paranoid, as you seem to imply in your post.
Technically it would have been possible to interfere with the satellite (send a strong signal in the right band, or an EMP), just very unlikely. Even if that happened we would probably not learn about it until 50 years later. Meanwhile people are free to make their own assumptions. Some say it was an American interference, some say it was a UFO, others say it was sabotage, many that it was a malfunction/design issue.
Once again - accusation was made by the military guy in the first interview. As you probably know any important event makes journalists search for anyone who provides the most sensational statements they can find. And they found that guy who was convinced that USA could have done it and was willing to tell them that.
I bet that after 11Sep there were just as many loonies in USA claiming it was UFO or Russian interference, and they got quoted in some of American press too. If I were to make my opinion on Americans based on such articles, it wouldn't be a good one ;-)
This last interview was a bit different - another journalist was asking another source whether it was possible, and he replied that based on his past experience it was possible. Unlikely, yes, very, but still - remotely possible. When people read it as "accusation that USA borked the spacecraft" it seems incorrect.
If you asked me if it is probable that JimO is a Russian secret agent, I would say that yes, it is probable. Probability would be extremely close to 0, but non-zero. From a technical point of view this is correct. However if based on that journalist wrote "expert claims JimO could be a Russian agent", then someone read it and said "this guy accuses JimO of being an agent", he would be making incorrect assumptions. I hope you see the logic that leads astray?Quote from: M_PuckettPhobos-G was launched weeks before Curiosity. How could it have interfered with Phobos-G?
As launches were separate I don't see it either - you would need to ask the gentleman who gave the interview
The way I read it was that this could cause problems later on, when both were already on their way. I suspect that once again it could have been a conditional answer and bad interpretation by the journalist, instead of accusation.
People - please do not read too much into articles such as those quoted. This is not scientific at all by both sides and only leads to more confusion. This is not hard data at all, and even with lack of almost any data we should not take such articles as "all Russians think that" or "all Americans think else". -
#824 by DFSL on 02 Dec, 2011 15:43
-
The post above could be possibly the most reasonable thing I've read in the last few pages, including opinions of space "experts".
-
#825 by bolun on 02 Dec, 2011 15:49
-
From http://twitter.com/#!/esaoperationsQuote
esaoperations ESA Operations
We share full understanding in this v. diff situation with our Russian colleagues #phobosgrunt
27 minutes ago
ESA Operations
esaoperations ESA Operations
ESA ground teams remain #available to assist the #PhobosGrunt mission if indicated by any change in situation #estrack
1 hour ago
ESA Operations
esaoperations ESA Operations
In consultation and agreement with #PhobosGrunt mission controllers, ESA engineers will end #ESTRACK ground station support today
1 hour ago
-
#826 by Apollo-phill on 02 Dec, 2011 15:56
-
Slightly ironic that Russia would appear to be 'giving-up' on Fobos-Grunt today (see previous item in this forum fom ESA Operations twitter) when today - 40 years ago - saw the Soviet Union's Mars-3 probe go into Mars orbit !!
A-P -
#827 by robertross on 02 Dec, 2011 15:56
-
From http://twitter.com/#!/esaoperations
Quoteesaoperations ESA Operations
We share full understanding in this v. diff situation with our Russian colleagues #phobosgrunt
27 minutes ago
ESA Operations
esaoperations ESA Operations
ESA ground teams remain #available to assist the #PhobosGrunt mission if indicated by any change in situation #estrack
1 hour ago
ESA Operations
esaoperations ESA Operations
In consultation and agreement with #PhobosGrunt mission controllers, ESA engineers will end #ESTRACK ground station support today
1 hour ago
Well, that seems to seal it then. -
#828 by Ben the Space Brit on 02 Dec, 2011 15:56
-
From http://twitter.com/#!/esaoperations
QuoteESA Operations
esaoperations ESA Operations
In consultation and agreement with #PhobosGrunt mission controllers, ESA engineers will end #ESTRACK ground station support today
1 hour ago
IMHO, that last one was as close to a confirmation to "it's dead, Jim" as we're likely to get.
So... Now we have a spacecraft which may or may not still have active attitude control but cannot communicate that has a very large amount of hydrazine and nitrogen tetraoxide propellent and even some small radioative sources in its instruments that is likely to carry out an uncontrolled re-entry in about five to six weeks' time. -
#829 by rcoppola on 02 Dec, 2011 16:04
-
OK, so I'm going on the idea that it's done.
So what happens now:
1. Blow it out of orbit now?
2. Wait to see where it may re-enter and then decide?
3. Who will be tasked with destroying it, if that is the outcome? -
#830 by Ben the Space Brit on 02 Dec, 2011 16:08
-
OK, so I'm going on the idea that it's done.
So what happens now:
1. Blow it out of orbit now?
2. Wait to see where it may re-enter and then decide?
3. Who will be tasked with destroying it, if that is the outcome?
Option (2) is most likely to be chosen. As for 'who', only the Chinese and the US have proven ASAT capability at this time. -
#831 by bolun on 02 Dec, 2011 16:13
-
ESA suspends tracking support to Russian Mars mission
2 December 2011
In consultation and agreement with Phobos-Grunt mission managers, ESA engineers will end tracking support today. Efforts in the past week to send commands to and receive data from the Russian Mars mission via ESA ground stations have not succeeded; no response has been seen from the satellite. ESA teams remain available to assist the Phobos-Grunt mission if indicated by any change in the situation.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Operations/SEMNEO2XFVG_0.html -
#832 by kevin-rf on 02 Dec, 2011 16:21
-
Option (2) is most likely to be chosen. As for 'who', only the Chinese and the US have proven ASAT capability at this time.
Have recently demonstrated in controlled conditions. Nether has declared it has an "Operational" system or a "Deployed" such systems. The US claimed the recent test was a one off. I myself chalk all the ASAT talk up there with the claim's of the US disabling it.
I vote there will be much hand wringing waiting for an uncontrolled reentry. -
#833 by Lee Jay on 02 Dec, 2011 16:25
-
2. Wait to see where it may re-enter and then decide?
Decide what? We won't have a good idea where it's going to reenter until perhaps an hour before it does. In fact, it might not be until a few days after reentry. -
#834 by rcoppola on 02 Dec, 2011 16:26
-
Option (2) is most likely to be chosen. As for 'who', only the Chinese and the US have proven ASAT capability at this time.
Have recently demonstrated in controlled conditions. Nether has declared it has an "Operational" system or a "Deployed" such systems. The US claimed the recent test was a one off. I myself chalk all the ASAT talk up there with the claim's of the US disabling it.
I vote there will be much hand wringing waiting for an uncontrolled reentry.
I suspect one-off or not, operational or not, if it's tracked to populated areas, any nation that has the potential capability has the obligation to try. -
#835 by rcoppola on 02 Dec, 2011 16:28
-
That is the question isn't it. So if we are unable to do so in meaningful timeframe, then one would think your answer would be option 1? Take it out now?2. Wait to see where it may re-enter and then decide?
Decide what? We won't have a good idea where it's going to reenter until perhaps an hour before it does. In fact, it might not be until a few days after reentry. -
#836 by Lee Jay on 02 Dec, 2011 16:41
-
That is the question isn't it. So if we are unable to do so in meaningful timeframe, then one would think your answer would be option 1? Take it out now?2. Wait to see where it may re-enter and then decide?
Decide what? We won't have a good idea where it's going to reenter until perhaps an hour before it does. In fact, it might not be until a few days after reentry.
I'm not sure anyone has that capability. If someone does and it isn't the Russians, who would pay for such a large effort? And they'd likely have to get started right away. Remember, the USA 193 thing took many weeks/months of planning and work. -
#837 by Comga on 02 Dec, 2011 16:41
-
2. Wait to see where it may re-enter and then decide?
Decide what? We won't have a good idea where it's going to reenter until perhaps an hour before it does. In fact, it might not be until a few days after reentry.
And now we wait.
From Heavens-Above:
Orbit: 208 x 304 km, 51.4° (Epoch Dec 2) -
#838 by alk3997 on 02 Dec, 2011 16:43
-
Well, two ways to read the ESA blurb -
1) Russia has given up and told ESA to stand-down. Too many rubles have been spent trying to wake-up a spacecraft that will never head to Mars. Or something happened very recently (the "G" object) that changed the opinions about the rehabilitation of the spacecraft.
2) Russia has decided that ESA is too open about attempts and is making Roscosmos look bad (or maybe a better term would be "worse"). So all future attempts will be made out of Baikonur and ESA's help is no longer wanted.
I think either intepretation ends up with the spacecraft re-entering in January, unless a minor miracle occurs and the spacecraft starts raising its orbit again.
-
#839 by aero on 02 Dec, 2011 17:21
-
Do we know anything about the construction of F-G? On re-entry it will break up so how many pieces will reach the ground (probably). How large will the big pieces be? If the fuel is frozen, that will be a large piece or several, how many tanks?
A point- wouldn't it be futile to distroy the vehicle as the big pieces would still re-enter, just with more uncertainty as to where?
The way I read it was that this could cause problems later on, when both were already on their way. I suspect that once again it could have been a conditional answer and bad interpretation by the journalist, instead of accusation.