-
#940
by
kevin-rf
on 06 Dec, 2011 17:31
-
So you count the Viking 1/2 missions as one each and not one for the orbiter and one for the lander I take, otherwise it is 21 with one more in transit.
Mariner 3
Mariner 4
Mariner 6
Mariner 7
Mariner 8
Mariner 9
Viking 1
Viking 2
Mars Observer
Mars Global Surveyor
Mars Pathfinder
Mars Climate Orbiter
Mars Polar Lander
Mars Odyssey
Mars Exploration Rover - Spirit
Mars Exploration Rover - Opportunity
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
Phoenix Mars Lander
Dawn
-
#941
by
olasek
on 06 Dec, 2011 18:46
-
I think if these had been NASA probes the US would have claimed at least some of these as successes.
This is one of those highly hypothetical questions that can be endlessly debated. Sure Mars 5 was a big success from the Soviet point of view since design life of the spacecraft once in orbit was very short. So on the surface it accomplished what it was designed for. But NASA would never send an orbiter that far to take 60 photos only, they had an equivalent Mariner 9 that took over 7000 photos.
-
#942
by
Moskit
on 06 Dec, 2011 20:20
-
http://www.interfax.ru/news.asp?id=220496Rough summary:
ESA attempted to contact F-G probe again, on a request from Russian side.
This is due to fact that conditions are the same as when the first communication happened.
-
#943
by
Jim
on 06 Dec, 2011 20:27
-
I think if these had been NASA probes the US would have claimed at least some of these as successes.
This is one of those highly hypothetical questions that can be endlessly debated. Sure Mars 5 was a big success from the Soviet point of view since design life of the spacecraft once in orbit was very short. So on the surface it accomplished what it was designed for. But NASA would never send an orbiter that far to take 60 photos only, they had an equivalent Mariner 9 that took over 7000 photos.
But 21 from a flyby is ok?
-
#944
by
jcm
on 06 Dec, 2011 20:59
-
So you count the Viking 1/2 missions as one each and not one for the orbiter and one for the lander I take, otherwise it is 21 with one more in transit.
Right - otherwise we also need to count Mars 2 and Mars 3 as two each.
I think the statement was 'launches' or 'missions' not 'spacecraft'...
for 'spacecraft', you can argue about whether the different hopper landers on Fobos-1/2 get counted separately too...
-
#945
by
jcm
on 06 Dec, 2011 21:09
-
I think if these had been NASA probes the US would have claimed at least some of these as successes.
This is one of those highly hypothetical questions that can be endlessly debated. Sure Mars 5 was a big success from the Soviet point of view since design life of the spacecraft once in orbit was very short. So on the surface it accomplished what it was designed for. But NASA would never send an orbiter that far to take 60 photos only, they had an equivalent Mariner 9 that took over 7000 photos.
But 21 from a flyby is ok?
Jim is of course referring to Mariner 4, always counted as a great success.
This is exactly the point - if you are using the very blunt instrument of 'success' versus 'failure' you inevitably smoosh together timid successes with Fobos-Grunt-like ambitious failures, and simple missions early in space history with complex ones today. Mars-5 would have been an amazing success if the US had done it in the mid-1960s - so your concern is really that the sophistication of Soviet planetary missions lagged US ones, which is true post early 1960s but was not the question being asked.
I would count Russian successes as Mars-2 50%, Mars-3 90%, Mars-5 90%, Mars-6 25%, Fobos-2 25%, whereas all the US missions were pretty much either 0% or 100%. That's the next level of answering the question but still doesn't address olasek's concern - after that, you really need a different metric: gigabits of data, science papers published, percentage change in our scientific knowledge of Mars or in technological capabilities demonstrated... it depends what you care about. But for a simple success/failure listing, I stand by my statement.
-
#946
by
JimO
on 06 Dec, 2011 21:17
-
-
#947
by
JimO
on 06 Dec, 2011 21:48
-
Has ESA issued any tweets or reports on its tracking attempt today?
-
#948
by
olasek
on 06 Dec, 2011 22:19
-
Mars-5 would have been an amazing success if the US had done it in the mid-1960s
I agree. You have to set the mission in its correct historical perspective. You can't compare 1964 mission with a 1973 one and treat it the same. Therefore of course Mariner 4 was a huge success with its flyby 21 photos whereas something 9 years later that goes into orbit (orbital missions are more expensive, more complicated) and sends 60 photos is well ...
-
#949
by
Chris Bergin
on 06 Dec, 2011 22:21
-
Has ESA issued any tweets or reports on its tracking attempt today?
#
Nothing from ESA's main feed. ESAOperations, however, only note:
"ESA teams at #ESOC will use 15m tracking station at #Maspalomas, Spain, to send Russian commands to #phobosgrunt ~14:30GMT today"
Nothing since.
-
#950
by
cneth
on 06 Dec, 2011 22:28
-
ALSO, I don't know how I overlooked this magnificent project history narrative by Anatoly Zak -- it's awesome:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/phobos_grunt_2011.html
And frightening. Last minute reprogramming, resoldering wires on a fueled S/C, etc. Yikes. That article makes it sound like it would have been a miracle if it had managed to leave earth orbit.
-
#951
by
Prober
on 06 Dec, 2011 22:40
-
-
#952
by
robertross
on 07 Dec, 2011 00:49
-
ALSO, I don't know how I overlooked this magnificent project history narrative by Anatoly Zak -- it's awesome:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/phobos_grunt_2011.html
And frightening. Last minute reprogramming, resoldering wires on a fueled S/C, etc. Yikes. That article makes it sound like it would have been a miracle if it had managed to leave earth orbit.
Yikes indeed! Enlightening article.
I'm amazed nobody got killed. UNreal. I'm reminded by the movie K19, and how the pressures of time put many (if not all other) considerations in the back seat.
It's good to know the programs under NASA's watch are well funded and properly managed....like JWST
-
#953
by
alk3997
on 07 Dec, 2011 07:51
-
From Mr. Zak's article linked above,
"Last updates to the programming software had to be added right at the launch site, leaving no time for a new round of tests."
The easiest way to introduce problems to software is to make late changes. This is why anytime we made a late software change on Shuttle, we tested the change and the system beyond what was normally done. So to make a late change to the software and have no additional integrated tests is like begging for a software problem to occur. Hard to believe anyone would do this intentionally.
The most ironic part is that this might not even be *the* problem that kept the spacecraft in low Earth orbit.
Andy
-
#954
by
JimO
on 07 Dec, 2011 10:49
-
My home page has been updated with a lot of news and background on Fobos-Grunt and other space events and trends.
http://www.jamesoberg.com/
-
#955
by
Michael J
on 07 Dec, 2011 11:44
-
-
#956
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 07 Dec, 2011 11:46
-
Phobos Grunt Update: ESA will send a signal today to attempt to start the spacecraft's engine so as to boost its orbit and gain additional time to gain control of the craft.
Are you sure that's new? It sounds almost identican to an update further up-thread from about a week ago.
-
#957
by
Michael J
on 07 Dec, 2011 11:59
-
Phobos Grunt Update: ESA will send a signal today to attempt to start the spacecraft's engine so as to boost its orbit and gain additional time to gain control of the craft.
Are you sure that's new? It sounds almost identican to an update further up-thread from about a week ago.
I check Ria Novosti everyday and verify the date before I tweet to my followers and post here. ESA seems to be committing the resources at no expense in anticipation of calling in a marker for Exo Mars.
-
#958
by
Rocket Science
on 07 Dec, 2011 12:04
-
My home page has been updated with a lot of news and background on Fobos-Grunt and other space events and trends.
http://www.jamesoberg.com/
Great site, BTW Jim… Awesome rant!
Robert
-
#959
by
cneth
on 07 Dec, 2011 12:30
-
From Mr. Zak's article linked above,
"Last updates to the programming software had to be added right at the launch site, leaving no time for a new round of tests."
The easiest way to introduce problems to software is to make late changes. This is why anytime we made a late software change on Shuttle, we tested the change and the system beyond what was normally done. So to make a late change to the software and have no additional integrated tests is like begging for a software problem to occur. Hard to believe anyone would do this intentionally.
The most ironic part is that this might not even be *the* problem that kept the spacecraft in low Earth orbit.
Andy
Late,untested software changes are what happens when you have immature software developers and/or practices, coupled with schedule pressure. Sadly, this is not a problem unique to this project. Those of us in the software business see it time, and time, and time again. The stakes are just usually not quite so high.
It's pretty clear they had massive schedule pressure. Missing the launch window and waiting until the next conjunction seems clearly not to have been an option.
I feel very bad for all the engineers who likely spent countless hours on a project doomed by budget/project management issues, because that's what this was. I know there are comments up thread about poorly paid engineers, etc, but in my experience, even in failing efforts, the engineers almost always do their best and often brilliant work. But that alone cannot overcome a poorly planned and budgeted project.
