-
#980 by JimO on 08 Dec, 2011 18:04
-
This very long article in Moskovskiy Kosmolets is getting some factual criticism on the NK site -- so take it with some caution...
Покорение Марса: миссия невыполнима
http://www.mk.ru/incident/article/2011/12/08/651184-pokorenie-marsa-missiya-nevyipolnima.html -
#981 by Moskit on 08 Dec, 2011 18:12
-
http://www.mk.ru/incident/article/2011/12/08/651184-pokorenie-marsa-missiya-nevyipolnima.html
Again, a rough translation of a few bits. Source is not named by the journalist.Quote670 seconds after launch F-G separated from the rocket. It worked correctly, but afterwards F-G survived only two hours.
When station "saw" Sun it should move "head" towards it. This means two onboard Sun detectors worked correctly. One hour later sunny zone ended, and those two detectors stopped working. Shadow lasted for 30 minutes, and unexpectedly F-G came out of it facing away. We did not expect it, F-G should have kept Sun orientation while in the shadow. Detectors saw Sun again, and started rotating F-G once again, but soon link was lost.
It seems that star detectors, that so many blamed failure on, never got a chance to operate. They should have been turned on 4 minutes after link was lost, but F-G stop giving sings of life earlier.
Star detectors found on F-G are reliable, they work on 20 space objects for 10-12 years.
....
F-G was not ready for the flight. Many saw that, and many told to the management that flight control system made by Lavotchkin was not ready. Specialists simply did not have enough time to complete complex software running the mission.
People blame youngsters at Lavotchkin, but this is unfair - they did not have a chance to learn. 15 years ago when Mars-96 was launched, it was assembled in -5C (with -20C outside) in Baikonur, in a room with broken windows. These were not conditions... there was not even toilets. Spaceship failed right after launch due to booster malfunction - completely logical final.
Today we see a birth of Russian space program practically from ashes, with all the growing pains. You should have seen glowing eyes of the young people working on F-G... they only recently began to be paid decently.
If there will be repressions, all will be lost again. -
#982 by Blackstar on 08 Dec, 2011 19:11
-
It's good to know the programs under NASA's watch are well funded and properly managed....like JWST
Or like Hubble
Okay, so if you want to play that game, please list every NASA space science mission launched since 1990. Then list which ones were successes and which ones were failures and which ones had programmatic problems.
We'll wait for your list. -
#983 by Chris Bergin on 08 Dec, 2011 20:39
-
Or a new thread on that could be started (as much as it'll be a fail), given people are coming to this thread for F-G updates.
-
#984 by robertross on 08 Dec, 2011 20:47
-
It's good to know the programs under NASA's watch are well funded and properly managed....like JWST
Or like Hubble
Okay, so if you want to play that game, please list every NASA space science mission launched since 1990. Then list which ones were successes and which ones were failures and which ones had programmatic problems.
We'll wait for your list.
Well I guess I started it, so I'll finish (or clarify) my statement:
How can we blame Russian workers for the failure of F-G, or for poor management of a program, when it is clear that there are political-level events controlling these things like funding cutbacks & time constraints(like JWST).
Russia's track record speaks for itself, as does NASA's; and throwing money at a problem doesn't always solve it either.
That was my point on the situation. -
#985 by olasek on 08 Dec, 2011 20:53
-
Okay, so if you want to play that game,
Is it directed at me? I took a stab at robertross's post to show how cost-overruns, and 'poorly-managed' missions ultimately lead to greatness (say, on the NASA side). And examples range from Apollo through STS and the Hubble, with JWST jury is still out. Not in a nanosecond I meant to criticize NASA. Perhaps my point was too indirect and too covert that lead to this misunderstanding. Sorry. -
#986 by Michael J on 09 Dec, 2011 11:11
-
My take from the latest Ria Novosti article (Google translated): According to U.S. Strategic Command's Joint Space Operations Center, Phobos Grunt is predicted to reenter the atmosphere on January 9, 2012. Roscosmos officials reiterate that the fuel is not expected to survive, but some components from the engines could.
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fria.ru%2Fscience%2F20111209%2F511137422.html&act=url -
#987 by kevin-rf on 09 Dec, 2011 12:36
-
I am really glad to see in the article that they are saying they can not predict the actual reentry location a few hours before the actual reentry. They also expect the reentry vehicle to survive.
-
#988 by rdale on 09 Dec, 2011 12:40
-
I am really glad to see in the article that they are saying they can not predict the actual reentry location a few hours before the actual reentry.
Hmmm... The translation using the link above says it CAN be predicted a few hours before. What are you using? -
#989 by kevin-rf on 09 Dec, 2011 13:08
-
Typo my part, saying they cannot predict the reentry location until a few hours before. Which is a complete 180 from previous Russian statements on other reentries where they give the reentry down to the minute weeks before the actual event.
I am glad to see they are saying they do not know exactly know where it will come down and really won't know much in advance. This is a complete 180 from previous statements on other reentries! -
#990 by JimO on 09 Dec, 2011 21:43
-
Good essay by Yuri Karsdh about, 'Did Secrecy Doom the Probe?",
here:
Помешала ли излишняя секретность спасти «Фобос-Грунт»?
Утаивание критически важной информации может губить людей и технику
Юрий Караш | Москва // Пятница, 09 декабря 2011
http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Fobos-Grunt-Space-2011-12-09-135331678.html
Also, speculation on replacement missions, here:
Российские ученые подумывают о новом проекте по изучению Фобоса
Параллельно они пытаются определить возможное место падения межпланетной станции «Фобос-Грунт».
10.12 // 00:09
http://mir24.tv/news/Science/4508997
I appreciate moskit's partial translation but I really think people aren't paying enough attention to the information revealed in yesterdays MK story, here:
http://www.mk.ru/incident/article/2011/12/08/651184-pokorenie-marsa-missiya-nevyipolnima.html
It describes a very early in flight malfunction that was observed to occur while telemetry was flowing, following an unexpected and unpleasantly surprising loss of attitude hold during the first shadow pass, and that comm then suddenly failed DURING the second comm period, not at the end of it.
If this attitude loss, followed by sunrise and then turning of the probe back towards the sun, repeated again and again and again over the following days, it could account for the phantom thrusting. And it could explain why the thrusting abruptly stopped.
-
#991 by olasek on 10 Dec, 2011 07:23
-
And it could explain why the thrusting abruptly stopped.
Ok, why did it stop then?
-
#992 by DaveS on 10 Dec, 2011 08:14
-
Ran out of propellant.And it could explain why the thrusting abruptly stopped.
Ok, why did it stop then? -
#993 by JimO on 10 Dec, 2011 11:08
-
Nearly direct overhead Phobos-Grunt pass now occurring here in Houston -- with 100% cloud cover. Rats!
-
#994 by Michael J on 10 Dec, 2011 11:41
-
Synopsis from Ria Novosti: Communications attempts to continue; engineers trying to determine what might survive reentry; concerns amongst Russian officials about Cobalt-57? (Google translation)
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fria.ru%2Fscience%2F20111210%2F511847238.html -
#995 by Moskit on 12 Dec, 2011 01:04
-
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/12/11/its-dead-jim-roscosmos-begins-investigation-of-phobos-grunt-failure-preps-for-reentry/
(letter quoted as this is supposed to be public, not copyrighted content)QuoteDecember 8, 2011
Dear Colleagues,
As you may already know, the launch of the Phobos-Soil spacecraft was a failure. On November 8, 2011 the spacecraft was put into the near Earth orbit, however, the booster did not turn on, and, therefore, the spacecraft did not manage to change this initial orbit and transfer to the interplanetary trajectory. The reason of this failure has not been determined yet.
Immediately after this unpredictable event all forces of the mission control team were concentrated in order to attempt to establish communication with the spacecraft. Several foreign organizations, in particular, ESOC-ESA, DSN-JPL-NASA, NORAD-STRATCOM, numerous amateur observers tracked the spacecraft to establish communication with it and determine parameters of the orbit, its orientation and attitude. However, despite people being at work 24 / 7 since the launch, all these attempts have not yield any satisfactory results. We are grateful to our foreign colleagues, who provided us with every list of information about the spacecraft which was crucial at the time.
Currently, the spacecraft is rotating [tumbling] at the near Earth orbit, lowering every day, and we expect that it is to entry the atmosphere in several weeks. Lavochkin Association specialists will continue their attempts to establish connection with the spacecraft and send commands until the very end of its existence. We are working nevertheless on the issue of re-entry and probability of where and which fragments may hit the ground (if any). There is a sensitive matter that one of the scientific instruments (Messbauer spectrometer) contains radioactive material Co-57. However, the amount of Co-57 is about few (less than 10) micrograms, so that, according to our evaluations, no significant problems are is anticipated.
At present, the next steps of the Russian space science program on the Solar system exploration are being discussed. In accordance with the current plans, the next missions are Luna-Glob and Luna-Resource. As another possible additional step, at the moment ROSCOSMOS, ESA and NASA are discussing the collaboration on the ExoMars and Russian Mars-NET missions. Moreover, the Russian Academy of Sciences would like to prepare a new mission to Phobos. However, no decision has not been taken yet.
We would like to express our deep gratitude to You and all the scientists and specialists for collaboration on the Phobos-Soil Mission, preparation of scientific instruments and provision of ground support. We are deeply sorry about the failure of the Phobos-Soil Mission. We hope in future to continue our collaboration on space science projects.
Academician Lev Zelenyi
Director, Space Research Institute
Chair, Solar system exploration Board
The Russian Academy of Sciences -
#996 by Chris Bergin on 12 Dec, 2011 01:09
-
(letter quoted as this is supposed to be public, not copyrighted content)
Concur. Thanks for finding that.
-
#997 by docmordrid on 12 Dec, 2011 07:37
-
Official: It's dead, Jim.
-
#998 by Michael J on 12 Dec, 2011 18:46
-
From Ria Novosti: Roscosmos requests ESA make two more contact attempts on Tuesday to activate engine on Phobos Grunt; telemetry no longer being sought (Google translated).
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fria.ru%2Fscience%2F20111212%2F515245298.html&act=url -
#999 by iamlucky13 on 12 Dec, 2011 19:06
-
I appreciate moskit's partial translation but I really think people aren't paying enough attention to the information revealed in yesterdays MK story, here:
http://www.mk.ru/incident/article/2011/12/08/651184-pokorenie-marsa-missiya-nevyipolnima.html
It describes a very early in flight malfunction that was observed to occur while telemetry was flowing, following an unexpected and unpleasantly surprising loss of attitude hold during the first shadow pass, and that comm then suddenly failed DURING the second comm period, not at the end of it.
If this attitude loss, followed by sunrise and then turning of the probe back towards the sun, repeated again and again and again over the following days, it could account for the phantom thrusting. And it could explain why the thrusting abruptly stopped.
Yes. That or a similar theory would fit pretty well with the observations - to repeat in summary for others: orbital perturbations that ended about the same time that observer reports started to suggest it may be tumbling. As someone else calculated at your previous request, the magnitude of the perigee rise was within the scope of what F-G was believed to have carried for the RCS system.
Going back to a previous post, the perigee increase appears to have ended Nov 21 or 22, so we would presume it ran out of fuel then.
However, contact was made on Nov 23rd. I find that part interesting, and still think it may be explained if the fuel tank really was blocking the signal, and the loss of altitude control allowed it to be in a position, at least temporarily, where communication was possible. That may then have been followed by some additional failure related to loss of attitude control, like complete loss of power or overheating.
