Fobos-Grunt EOM Re-Entry Latest

[Steven Pietrobon]

Thanks Jim. If I understood the translation correctly, the transistors failed because they used aluminium in the contacts instead of gold, as a cost saving measure. You can download a data sheet of the 2T312 transistors that were used here.

[kevin-rf]

I did not interpret the transistors in question as being part of Phobos-Grunt, but instead being part of an earlier set of mars probes (Mars 4-7).

I assume to list 6 US failures one needs to count Mars Polar Lander sub probes[\b] as one and not two... Very odd line, then it should be 7 failures out of 22, or would it be 24 due to Viking containing an orbiter and a lander, or maybe 25 if you include Mars Path Finder Rover...

Nice summary of Russian missions to date though.

[olasek]

Is it this article? -- an amazing story, highly recommended:

No, the link I attached above (novosti-kos...) is the link that has a story about possibly shoddy electronics parts acquired from some Asian suppliers for this P-G mission. By the way (not in this article) the main computers in this mission were Russian made by the company called Tekhkom, nothing can be found about this company, when they look for shoddy parts I would also be looking close to home.

[Kaputnik]

I did not interpret the transistors in question as being part of Phobos-Grunt, but instead being part of an earlier set of mars probes (Mars 4-7).

I assume to list 6 US failures one needs to count Mars Polar Lander sub probes as one and not two... Very odd line, then it should be 7 failures out of 22, or would it be 24 due to Viking containing an orbiter and a lander, or maybe 25 if you include Mars Path Finder Rover...

Nice summary of Russian missions to date though.

If you count Sojourner as part of MPF, and DS2 and 3 as part of MPL, you get a total of twenty missions, as stated in the article. But then you can only count five as having failed (Mariner 3 and 8, Mars Observer, MPL, MCO).

[JimO]

My manuscript linked TO the map by Bob Christy but I did NOT authorize the editor to use a copy of the map in the article, I didn't have permission. I apologize to Bob for the editorial error and have asked that it be fixed, unless the editor asked and received permission on his own.

Did Phobos-Grunt Debris Fall on Land? Op-Ed By James Oberg
January 29th, 2012
http://www.txchnologist.com/2012/did-phobos-grunt-debris-fall-on-land-op-ed-by-james-oberg

Last week, the European Space Agency released its report on the crash of Russia’s ill-fated Phobos-Grunt probe on Jan. 15. In it, the ESA came to the same conclusion as the other major space players: all pieces of the probe, which was bound for one of Mars’s moons, fell safely into the Pacific Ocean.

But this consensus isn’t reasonable at all.

Instead, a sound analysis of the data by space debris experts suggests that although most of the debris did plunge into the Pacific Ocean, other debris may have fallen onto regions of Chile and possibly Argentina.

[baldusi]

Instead, a sound analysis of the data by space debris experts suggests that although most of the debris did plunge into the Pacific Ocean, other debris may have fallen onto regions of Chile and possibly Argentina.

Does anyone have a zoomed map? It would seem to pass over Neuquen and Mendoza. Those mountains on the Andes are upto 7000m high. I don't know what height would the debris have at that height, though.
And it's a place of heavy raining and wind on parts. But again, without an estimated path, ideally with a 95% bracket to each side, it's very difficult to make any assessment.

[jcm]

My manuscript linked TO the map by Bob Christy but I did NOT authorize the editor to use a copy of the map in the article, I didn't have permission. I apologize to Bob for the editorial error and have asked that it be fixed, unless the editor asked and received permission on his own.

Did Phobos-Grunt Debris Fall on Land? Op-Ed By James Oberg
January 29th, 2012
http://www.txchnologist.com/2012/did-phobos-grunt-debris-fall-on-land-op-ed-by-james-oberg

Last week, the European Space Agency released its report on the crash of Russia’s ill-fated Phobos-Grunt probe on Jan. 15. In it, the ESA came to the same conclusion as the other major space players: all pieces of the probe, which was bound for one of Mars’s moons, fell safely into the Pacific Ocean.

But this consensus isn’t reasonable at all.

Instead, a sound analysis of the data by space debris experts suggests that although most of the debris did plunge into the Pacific Ocean, other debris may have fallen onto regions of Chile and possibly Argentina.

Hi Jim, I looked at the difference between your conclusions and mine.
I realized that if I use the final TLE set for FG, the SpaceTrack quoted LOCATION corresponds to a ground-track TIME of 1746:40 UTC (not
1746:00 UTC)
- and that extra 40 seconds is enough to change the conclusions.
If I take my 1-sigma range to be 1745:40 to 1747:40 UTC
then I get a similar result to you - the 800 to 1200 km range for heavy
debris is over Chile.  It still seems unlikely to me that there would be significant debris beyond 1200 km downrange of the 80 km point - so at the 1-sigma level, nothing in Argentina. Of course, one time in three things are outside the 1-sigma range (even if you believed that the error bars were both accurate and Gaussian) so even Argentina is certainly possible.
I'm not sure I would say *likely*, though - I think my best guess is still
that it all fell in the sea.

[JimO]

Thanks, Jonathan, we are all talking about the densest pieces here, so most of it in the water remains the consensus conclusion. But I want to urge folks to be aware stuff like the return capsule might well be worth keeping an eye out for, now and in years to come. Most junk-looking stuff we turn out to be 'ordinary' junk -- all of it, perhaps. But once and awhile we get lucky.

The Soviet coat-of-arms medallions from an early Venus probe, stuck in parking orbit by an engine malfunction, is the best example I'm aware of.  Falling to Earth at random, found by someone who recognized their strangeness and turned them over to proper specialists, they were returned to the factory of origin as part of a dramatic celebration.

It can happen because it already HAS happened.

[Prober]

Thanks, Jonathan, we are all talking about the densest pieces here, so most of it in the water remains the consensus conclusion. But I want to urge folks to be aware stuff like the return capsule might well be worth keeping an eye out for, now and in years to come. Most junk-looking stuff we turn out to be 'ordinary' junk -- all of it, perhaps. But once and awhile we get lucky.

The Soviet coat-of-arms medallions from an early Venus probe, stuck in parking orbit by an engine malfunction, is the best example I'm aware of.  Falling to Earth at random, found by someone who recognized their strangeness and turned them over to proper specialists, they were returned to the factory of origin as part of a dramatic celebration.

It can happen because it already HAS happened.

Wouldn’t an infrared Sat pic of the land area pick up heat sources?     Is it possible any sources would have done this after the entry?

[kevin-rf]

Wouldn’t an infrared Sat pic of the land area pick up heat sources?     Is it possible any sources would have done this after the entry?

The people who have those resources no longer directly share the data.

Though I believe it is part of what goes into the SpaceTrack reentry times that come out after the fact. Also any such IR camera will only pick up the reentry during the reentry, there is still time between that and the debris still having forward motion before it crashes to earth.

[JimO]

The need for real “rocket science” to solve Russian spaceflight setbacks
by James Oberg // The Space Review // Monday, January 30, 2012// 20:02 gmt
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2016/1
   Whenever something looks too complicated for everyday life, it’s humorously referred to as “rocket science”. But when a real spaceflight mystery—for example, the true story of the doomed Russian probe “Phobos-Grunt”—sparks controversy and confusion, the only way through the complicated mystery may be to apply real “rocket science” to the puzzles, and see if it provides insights and answers not reachable by any other means.

[DFSL]

The big mistery to me is why this thread is still located in the "Live Event Section" when the object of interest is defunct and the only recent content are speculations, while sucessful missions are promptly archived.

[aga]

today anatoly zak published some more information about FG on his web pointing to software problems and lack of integration testing...
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/phobos_grunt_aftermath.html

and according to more info on his twitter (https://twitter.com/RussianSpaceWeb) there were more problems, such as never properly tested interface between FG and the chinese probe, or short time for computer checks...

[JimO]

I know Zak is much more fluent in deriving good info from the Russian blogs, and he's got good judgment on the conflicting engineering claims -- so in my book, he owns the diagnosis story. Me, I do orbital stuff, and then wander around peeking over walls and kicking down doors for the detail-guys to follow, as they always do, to all of our benefit.

[Chris Bergin]

The big mistery to me is why this thread is still located in the "Live Event Section" when the object of interest is defunct and the only recent content are speculations, while sucessful missions are promptly archived.

Because we forgot to move it..........

Will move it shortly.

[kevin-rf]

New claim being picked up by the popular media:

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-blames-radiation-space-probe-failure-104112347.html

[JimO]

RIA Novosti:  Space Radiation Blamed for Phobos-Grunt Crash
14:52 31/01/2012  //  http://en.ria.ru/science/20120131/171047665.html

TASS: Phobos-Grunt chips supposedly were counterfeit
http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c32/330734.html


Natalya Vedeneyeva report in Moskovskiy Kosmolets: 'They lie to us about Phobos-Grunt' says that experts have established that Russian specialists are to blame for failure of the space craft Phobos-Grunt
http://www.mk.ru/science/interview/2012/01/30/665712-nam-vrut-pro-fobosgrunt.html

[Prober]

The big mistery to me is why this thread is still located in the "Live Event Section" when the object of interest is defunct and the only recent content are speculations, while sucessful missions are promptly archived.

Because we forgot to move it..........

Will move it shortly.

this is sad to say but you could have kept this "live" under PG the blame game.  How sad.

[Danderman]

RIA Novosti:  Space Radiation Blamed for Phobos-Grunt Crash
14:52 31/01/2012  //  http://en.ria.ru/science/20120131/171047665.html

TASS: Phobos-Grunt chips supposedly were counterfeit
http://www.itar-tass.com/en/c32/330734.html


Natalya Vedeneyeva report in Moskovskiy Kosmolets: 'They lie to us about Phobos-Grunt' says that experts have established that Russian specialists are to blame for failure of the space craft Phobos-Grunt
http://www.mk.ru/science/interview/2012/01/30/665712-nam-vrut-pro-fobosgrunt.html

This is all very well and good, but the reality is that the Phobos-Grunt spacecraft was a composite of the Fregat and Navigator busses, and the mostly likely explanation for the failure is that the interfaces between the two busses were not properly tested.

Fregat and Navigator work just fine in LEO as separate busses.

[baldusi]

Fregat and Navigator work just fine in LEO as separate busses.

Doesn't navigator also works quite well upto GSO? And whatever the Spekr-R is doing now?