If the fuel is frozen, that will be a large piece or several, how many tanks?
The idea is that the tanks are made from aluminium which burns quite lovely during reentry so if there is any frozen fuel it will unfreeze and explode.
That's one idea, but frozen propellants are immense reservoirs for sucking up heat as they thaw and then transport heat away from the hot forward skin.
Besides, haven't you ever boiled water in a paper 'Dixie Cup'? The paper survives the fire very very nicely, while there's water left.
It's a great deal of fun, in an immensely frustrating sort of way, to try to solder plumbing pipes together while there's still a bit of water in them. The water just laughs in the face of the flame of three torches.
In what way? Have you heard of Apollo-Soyuz?
I don't have any problem understanding what he was referring to.
Any such shoot-down could be received by Russian as 'aggression' or violation of their property or showing off US might in space (you can do it, we can't), etc, etc.
Obviously the US wouldn't do that without Russian prompting. If the Russians asked the Americans to shoot it down, how could the Russians would take that as an act of aggression?
Obviously the US wouldn't do that without Russian prompting. If the Russians asked the Americans to shoot it down, how could the Russians would take that as an act of aggression?
History is not on your side, they will not ask...
Obviously the US wouldn't do that without Russian prompting. If the Russians asked the Americans to shoot it down, how could the Russians would take that as an act of aggression?
History is not on your side, they will not ask...
Actually I believe then-Soviet history would show that outside help is asked for only when it is too late. That way the outside help can be blamed.
However, I don't believe near-term Russian history shows the same trend - although I would like to be educated if it has.
However, I don't believe near-term Russian history shows the same trend - although I would like to be educated if it has.
They will never ask because this implies a weakness on their part, that they can't do something, that they are no longer a super-power, they are exteremly sensitive to such subliminal messages specially in front of their own people. If they asked it would have been such a colossal change in their attitude that they might have as well dropped all objections to anti-balistic defenses planned in Europe, etc, etc. People who even for a second believe they will ask live in some sort of fantasy land or never really understood how Russians operate. Yes, if they were Canadians, British or French they would most likely asked but they are not.
They will never ask because this implies a weakness on their part, that they can't do something, that they are no longer a super-power,...
Not asking is an even more obvious sign of weakness.
Let's try and keep it on the spacecraft guys. If no announcement is the way they want to do things, that's their business. This isn't about being a superpower or not.
Look this:
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/12/03/61414605.htmlThe title says "Attempt at manual control of Phobos-Grunt". The picture shows the whole s/c intact with the lander engines firing. If I suppose that the article is not just bogus, then I have to assume that they want to raise orbit by the lander engine, instead of the Fregat-derived stage. The last paragraph:
"According to European experts, there is now no chance that the "Phobos-Grunt Probe" will reach Mars. Now specialists are only attempting to save the very station itself."
I am not sure if "manual control" means anything in this context. Maybe, it means that they are going to improvise as they have nothing to lose...
Uh, OK…
(Which way was up again..?)
According to this article from Ria Novosti (Google translated), Russian operators may attempt to start the main engine and fly the craft blindly. Not withstanding a bad Google translation, isn't that like driving a car blind-folded down a busy freeway? Does the potential exist for Phobos Grunt to inadvertently be boosted into the orbital path of other space objects?
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fria.ru%2Fscience%2F20111202%2F504901731.html
That happened a few days ago. Check about 10 pages back - it didn't work. No communications were available to send the command. And, yes, it did seem kind-of desparate to me.
The way I read this article it looks like something the Russian controllers are going to try this weekend without the assistance of ESA.
And now we wait.
From Heavens-Above:
Orbit: 208 x 304 km, 51.4° (Epoch Dec 2)
207 x 302 km, 51.4° (Epoch Dec 3)
Does the potential exist for Phobos Grunt to inadvertently be boosted into the orbital path of other space objects?
A sensible thing to do if firing blindly would be to fire in such a moment when engines are pointing in the direction of the flight to achieve a slowdown and to speed up the demise of the probe in the atmosphere. That would be the most responsible thing to do. But it assumes knowing the approximate orientation of the probe, etc. I agree with you that raising the orbit (without the full escape) would be the worst outcome. But frankly I don't think for a moment that any firing will happen.
According to this article from Ria Novosti (Google translated), Russian operators may attempt to start the main engine and fly the craft blindly. Not withstanding a bad Google translation, isn't that like driving a car blind-folded down a busy freeway? Does the potential exist for Phobos Grunt to inadvertently be boosted into the orbital path of other space objects?
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fria.ru%2Fscience%2F20111202%2F504901731.html
That happened a few days ago. Check about 10 pages back - it didn't work. No communications were available to send the command. And, yes, it did seem kind of desperate to me.
But wasn't that an attempt go send the orbit raising command through the ESA station in Perth?
This was in the article:
"Another participant in the teleconference, Manfred Warhaut, head of the ESA Space Operations, explained that the purpose was to raise "Phobos-Grunt" to a greater altitude, to buy time for further searching for solutions."
I would agree that this would be irresponsible. "into the orbital path of other space objects" is the defining characteristic of space debris. If all they can do is fire the engine, they should deorbit the spacecraft.
If, big if, the craft is sufficiently functional to orient to the Sun, then some small interval before it goes into eclipse the spacecraft is horizontal. Looking at an illustration of the orbit, this now occurs at high latitude, which may come into sight of the Russian ground stations for one or more orbits a day. The engine would be pointing close to the velocity vector. If, another big if, they could turn on the engine at that point, it would tend to reduce the orbit, possibly leading to deorbit. The track then would go over the Indian Ocean, Australia, or the Pacific. That's a mostly empty target for a blind shot.
edit: What olasek said!
Does the potential exist for Phobos Grunt to inadvertently be boosted into the orbital path of other space objects?
A sensible thing to do if firing blindly would be to fire in such a moment when engines are pointing in the direction of the flight to achieve a slowdown and to speed up the demise of the probe in the atmosphere. That would be the most responsible thing to do. But it assumes knowing the approximate orientation of the probe, etc. I agree with you that raising the orbit (without the full escape) would be the worst outcome. But frankly I don't think for a moment that any firing will happen.
That doesn't make sense. If you're firing blindly to slow it down, you still have no idea where it'll come down, so the risk is at least as high as doing nothing at all. If you fire blindly to raise the orbit, you have a slightly greater chance of reestablishing better communications with the probe, allowing the possibility of either a controlled reentry (i.e. hello Pacific Ocean) or some sort of "Hail Mary" mission save.
Does the potential exist for Phobos Grunt to inadvertently be boosted into the orbital path of other space objects?
A sensible thing to do if firing blindly would be to fire in such a moment when engines are pointing in the direction of the flight to achieve a slowdown and to speed up the demise of the probe in the atmosphere. That would be the most responsible thing to do. But it assumes knowing the approximate orientation of the probe, etc. I agree with you that raising the orbit (without the full escape) would be the worst outcome. But frankly I don't think for a moment that any firing will happen.
That doesn't make sense. If you're firing blindly to slow it down, you still have no idea where it'll come down, so the risk is at least as high as doing nothing at all. If you fire blindly to raise the orbit, you have a slightly greater chance of reestablishing better communications with the probe, allowing the possibility of either a controlled reentry (i.e. hello Pacific Ocean) or some sort of "Hail Mary" mission save.
I think it DOES make sense.
IF P-G is maintaining orientation to the Sun, the firing is not totally blind, and the probability of it deorbiting into the ocean could be increased. Plus, it would decrease the amount of hydrazine onboard.
Does the If you're firing blindly to slow it down, you still have no idea where it'll come down,
Strongly disagree. The Pacific is vast, if you start firing at certain locations you are pretty damn sure it would still come down in the Pacific regardless how long the engine fires( assuming minimum delta-v of 80 m/s). But like always we are wasting words, no firing will ever occur, I could bet my house on it, this whole discussion is just about as constructive and academic as discussing when an asteroid will hit the Earth. I think more fun is to start taking bets when it will actually come down and when.
