Fobos-Grunt EOM Re-Entry Latest

[edkyle99]

No one cares about such reentries.
The probabilities are so small that they don't count at least not in aviation. The risk associated with being on any flight is inherently about million times larger than the risk associated with such reentry. In other words I would for example be much more concerned about your pilots not screwing anything up.

Looking back, I see that the FAA does typically issue NOTAMs for pending reentries of large satellites, etc.  There will probably be one for Fobos-Grunt in a day or two, if past history is a guide.

 - Ed Kyle

[olasek]

I see that the FAA does typically issue NOTAMs for pending reentries of large satellites, etc.

I doubt anybody act on it.

[edkyle99]

I see that the FAA does typically issue NOTAMs for pending reentries of large satellites, etc.

I doubt anybody act on it.

The liability risk is small, but not zero.  There is one level of risk to stand in place within a zone subject to falling debris.  It is something else entirely to drive an aircraft loaded with several hundred passengers at Mach 0.7, or whatever, through that debris cloud. 

 - Ed Kyle

[Michael J]

Latest official update from Roscomos website (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%2Fwww.federalspace.ru%2Fmain.php%3Fid%3D2%26nid%3D18542&act=url

[Antares]

Do the predicted ground tracks include nodal regression from the epochal orbit due to drag/decay/stronger gravitational field distortions/etc?

[olasek]

The liability risk is small, but not zero. 

Indeed non zero, life is full of such non zero risks. So is the risk that the roof in my workplace will suddenly collapse but I doubt either the building owner or the insurer lose sleep over it. Those space debris NOTAMs are so full of generalities, so poorly defined that they are a constant source of jokes among pilots.

[ChileVerde]

Do the predicted ground tracks include nodal regression from the epochal orbit due to drag/decay/stronger gravitational field distortions/etc?

All prediction methods that produce the estimates we're seeing take those factors into account to some extent. Some are more detailed than others, but all are subject to inherent uncertainties in factors such as future atmospheric density and rotation and the orientation of the satellite.

I think we're good to within a day at this point, but wouldn't want to bet on the hour.

[olasek]

I think we're good to within a day at this point,

And within a day still leaves us with practically the whole range of latitudes from 51N to 51S exposed to potential debris, in other words we have only slightly better idea than say a month ago.

[ChileVerde]

I think we're good to within a day at this point,

And within a day still leaves us with practically the whole range of latitudes from 51N to 51S exposed to potential debris, in other words we have only slightly better idea than say a month ago.

Consider longitudes.

[olasek]

Consider longitudes.

Yes, some gaps in longitudes are visible. For example Caracas or Rio de Janeiro look like relatively safe spots, Chicago not so good however  . Still plenty of unknown remain.

[edkyle99]

The liability risk is small, but not zero. 

Indeed non zero, life is full of such non zero risks. So is the risk that the roof in my workplace will suddenly collapse but I doubt either the building owner or the insurer lose sleep over it. Those space debris NOTAMs are so full of generalities, so poorly defined that they are a constant source of jokes among pilots.

But there is a difference, at least from a liability perspective (especially in a litigious country).  The airline would have been warned, via the FAA NOTAM, and would have chosen to ignore the warning.  There would be no warning about the roof, etc.  Once warned, the responsibility is transferred - and the lawyers work would be easy. 

 - Ed Kyle

[iamlucky13]

The headlines are overtly sensationalized, as Popovkin worded his thoughts very carefully, yet the headlines represent him as making the accusation.

The headlines are indeed over-sensationalized, and while his actually words are far less accusative than the media makes them out to be, he certainly could have been more in clear in his representation of the facts.

Such as, "There has been some speculation that foreign influence may be a factor in some of these failures, but lacking any evidence of any such malicious activities, and in view of the international support for the mission both leading up to and after it's launch, we see no reason to suggest those accusations bear any credibility, or to believe that the reason failures tend to occur out of our telemetry range is due to anything but our very limited coverage and the tight timing constraints of many critical events."

Moving on, from Mr. Zak's updates:

Also, the most problematic part of the project and a likely culprit in its ultimate demise -- the flight control system, BKU -- was a result of engineering and management incompetence rather than funding.

I think it would be wise not to so readily distinguish engineering and management competence from funding.

Funding most immediately affects the number of man-hours engineers can devote to identifying potential issues, refining designs, and setting up bench tests, etc.

It also affects the quality of the engineers you can hire and the retention rate of experienced engineers. Wasn't it Mr. Zak himself who mentioned that space agency engineers made 1/2 as much or less than their counterparts in other government funded programs?

Without intending to dismiss the competence of individual engineers involved, such a big pay discrepancy certainly limits the interested candidates you can hire from to those willing to make substantial sacrifices to their financial security in order to contribute to the space program. There may well be some competent applicants left, but not nearly as many to choose from. And as the novelty of any job wears off and the economic realities of life grow more acute, the value of the subject is bound to diminish, leading to a low retention rate.

[olasek]

Once warned, the responsibility is transferred - and the lawyers work would be easy. 

I don't think it would be easy. The key is how much is known how much in advance and wheter airline's action was 'reasonable'. You could shut down the whole traffic for 24 hrs but I doubt it would be deemed reasonable by any lawyer representing any side. Any specific entry info that could be acted upon is known so late into the game that aircraft would have no chance to move away therefore everyone simply ignores it. And by the way, there are satellites falling to Earth quite often and some of their debris reaches ground, PG is not some sort of extraordinary event, only its size is a bit larger. (BTW, per international law the brunt of responsibility is on the satellite owner who is legally responsible for any damages)

[Antares]

Do the predicted ground tracks include nodal regression from the epochal orbit due to drag/decay/stronger gravitational field distortions/etc?

All prediction methods that produce the estimates we're seeing take those factors into account to some extent. Some are more detailed than others, but all are subject to inherent uncertainties in factors such as future atmospheric density and rotation and the orientation of the satellite.

Right, just wondering what cities are on the ground tracks.  IIRC, one of the previous big ones moved quite a bit in the last couple of days.  Unlike hurricanes, entering spacecraft seem to follow the line pretty well (little aerodynamic cross-range).

[sdsds]

I have always assumed such NOTAMs were essentially requests for observation reports from properly alerted pilots.

[olasek]

The headlines are overtly sensationalized, as Popovkin worded his thoughts very carefully

It was very unprofessional to mention this at all for a guy at this level to have his name side by side with this B-S. It was good for tabloid journalism. It was clearly done for internal political consumption and all the fine print will be lost on the wider Russian populace. (and I have seen versions of his interview where somehow all this careful wording was missing)

I think it would be wise not to so readily distinguish engineering and management competence from funding.

Their industrial problems run very deep, and funding, salaries are just a tip of the iceberg. The country that wants to send probe to Mars yet can't really put together a refrigirator, copying machine, car or an airliner that would meet world standards. Yes, they do display occasional brillance in design or engineering in niche areas yet even a whole colony of super brilliant engineers will be powerless in the face of general ineptitude that permeates their industrial base.

[Silmfeanor]

On tonights Colbert Report, there was a short segment on Phobos-Grunt.

It might be not totally accurate, but it was funny and is related, I guess..

http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/wed-january-11-2012-george-stephanopoulos

Around 10 minutes in - features a trampoline hat.

[elmarko]

Who cares if it's accurate? It's Comedy Central, and Colbert is hilarious.

[SimonShuttle]

Probably best we don't infect this thread with that unfunny comedian.

[ugordan]

Probably best we don't infect this thread with that unfunny comedian.

...or statements about personal taste.