Launch News (Failure) Phobos-Grunt and YingHuo-1 atop Zenit-2 on November 8/9, 2011

[Artlav]

Its like the first submarines, which had been just small boats, that can sink for a while.

So when are we?
17th, 18th century?
19th more likely - we have dreams about spacecraft, we have some chemical puffers to reach low orbit, and we made some PR stunts - Moon and ISS.

Hopefully, just like technology accumulated into 20th century to make a practical submarine, it would also accumulate over the coming centuries to make a practical spacecraft.
Also, [/offtopic]

 

[Urwumpe]

So when are we?
17th, 18th century?
19th more likely - we have dreams about spacecraft, we have some chemical puffers to reach low orbit, and we made some PR stunts - Moon and ISS.

Hopefully, just like technology accumulated into 20th century to make a practical submarine, it would also accumulate over the coming centuries to make a practical spacecraft.
Also, [/offtopic]

(offtopic, maybe we can continue this in a new thread about "Space Culture pessimism")

we could be much further into space, if we would have more visionary people in spaceflight. The ISS is a good start, but no real outpost.

I would call something a real outpost of humanity into space, if it would be the last point of civilization and infrastructure, before the unexplored wilderness begins. We could use the ISS like that, sure, but it isn't made for it. If we would have something that has twice the crew of the ISS as permanent crew and at any time around the same number of visiting astronauts before departure to more distant places, it would be an outpost to me. We could assemble real interplanetary spacecraft there, instead of wondering how to stuff them into the payload fairing of a HLV.

But not this underperformance that is currently sold as the frontier of technology. It is only the frontier of budgets. We are ruled by MBAs in space.

---------- Post added at 09:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:26 PM ----------

Not sure if already posted, a German blog post about Fobos-Grunt:

http://www.bernd-leitenberger.de/blog/2011/11/24/ein-nachruf-auf-phobos-grunt/

 

[SiberianTiger]

On this topic I wonder if it's used up all it's attitude fuel in trying to maintain a sun centric attitude?

I wonder, how can that be evaluated? The RCS works on the same propellants that is the primary reserve of the cruise stage. That sums up to:
fuel = 185.6 kg
oxidizer = 343.4 kg

This is too much to be expended in 14 days, I think.

But also, there's a helium or nitrogen reserve required for RCS' function, though. This quantity is not known. I think it's possible that pressured gas might be expended in constant fighting against the gravity gradient torque.

 

[DaveS]

I wonder, how can that be evaluated? The RCS works on the same propellants that is the primary reserve of the cruise stage. That sums up to:
fuel = 185.6 kg
oxidizer = 343.4 kg

This is too much to be expended in 14 days, I think.

Is it? Let's say that following separation from the Zenit second stage the chemical batteries failed to activate and the spacecraft suffered a complete power outage.
As the launch was in darkness, the spacecraft only deployed the solar arrays when it first saw orbital daylight and then proceeded to reorient to a solar-inertial(SI) attitude to charge up the rechargeable batteries.

And as the command to activate the chemical batteries only got sent a few days ago, that means that every time the spacecraft entered orbital night, it died and started to drift from the SI attitude, that is until it saw sunlight again and once again corrected its attitude expending more propellant.

Now this unfortunate process kept repeating itself at least 15 times a day for the next 5-10(?) days so the attitude control system propellant levels kept getting lower and lower until the tanks were depleted leading to a slow tumble.

This scenario explains the Ralf Vandebergh photos, that the spacecraft is not in a SI attitude despite being in orbital day. It also explains the weird altitude creep experienced the first few days, cross-coupling from the thruster firings to get back into the SI attitude. All the firings introduced slight translational components which lead to the altitude creep observed in the TLEs. It also explains why it stopped after a few days: the re-orientations stopped as the propellant was depleted.

 

[SiberianTiger]

Can you estimate how much fuel is required for turning and stabilizing such a spacecraft?
Or at least, a power budget in terms of required torque moments.

 

[orb]

Aviation Week: Prospects Dim For Stranded Russian Mars Probe

 

[RGClark]

Interesting suggestion in the comments section here:

Phobos-Grunt Mars probe remains silent in Earth orbit.
BY STEPHEN CLARK
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: November 11, 2011
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1111/11phobosgrunt/

The idea would be to use the X-37B currently in orbit to communicate with the satellite. It certainly could at least photograph it.

Bob Clark

[FONT=Courier, Monospaced]Note that NASA has recently put out an RFI for robotic, satellite servicing spacecraft:

NASA Releases RFI for On-Orbit Robotic Spacecraft Servicing.
Posted by Doug Messier on November 4, 2011, at 5:37 am in News
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/11/04/nasa-releases-rfi-for-on-orbit-robotic-spacecraft-servicing/


Then Boeing would have an incentive to want to test the capabilities of the X-37b in this case to showcase its capabilities for the satellite servicing role.
I did a preliminary calculation for a rendezvous that estimated the delta-V as around 1,300 m/s. But the DoD might not want it to be known what the delta-V capabilities of the X-37b are. But a flyby would require much reduced delta-V for brief communications to be sent to Phobos-Grunt. This then would not reveal what the capabilities of the X-37b are.

[/FONT][FONT=Courier, Monospaced]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Courier, Monospaced] Bob Clark [/FONT]

 

[Krikkit]

Phobos-Grunt imaged by amateur

http://www.space.com/13774-skywatcher-photos-russian-phobos-grunt-probe.html

 

[orb]

ESA:
ESA suspends tracking support to Russian Mars mission

2 December 2011

In consultation and agreement with Phobos-Grunt mission managers, ESA engineers will end tracking support today. Efforts in the past week to send commands to and receive data from the Russian Mars mission via ESA ground stations have not succeeded; no response has been seen from the satellite. ESA teams remain available to assist the Phobos-Grunt mission if indicated by any change in the situation.

{...}



RIA Novosti: ESA halts attempts to contact Russian Mars moon probe

Parabolic Arc: ESA Calls It Quits on Phobos-Grunt Rescue

Aviation Week: ESA Ends Support For Russian Mars Probe

The Planetary Society Blog: ESA is ending ground station support for Phobos-Grunt

SPACE.com: Is Phobos-Grunt Dead? Troubled Russian Probe Still Unresponsive

Universe Today: Astrophotographers Capture Phobos-Grunt; ESA Ends Tracking the Russian Probe

Phobos-Grunt image taken from ground, on Nov. 29, 2011 by amateur astronomer Ralf Vandebergh from The Netherlands.​

 

[SiberianTiger]

I think, the failure of the mission will be declared Monday, the next day after State Duma (Russian parliament) election is over.

 

[Dive]

http://lenta.ru/news/2011/12/05/fobos/

Phobos Grunt began to breaking apart. Two unknown peaces of PG separeted at 29 nov. , and one of them deorbited at 30 nov. Size of the object can be up to 0.15m and mass up to 0.7 kg.
Current PeA is 207 km, ApA is 299 km.

I have no time for full clear translation, sry.
It looks like PG agony begins
What could it be ? Solar arrays ? Sample capsule ?

 

[SiberianTiger]

http://satobs.org/seesat/Dec-2011/0015.html

Reading the discussion on NK this morning, I learned that 11065G / 37940 has been catalogued. I quickly checked Space
Track and found two elsets of epoch 11333.19339001. I also found seven TLEs of 11065H / 37947, between 11334.59151271
and 11335.20762860. Both objects were decaying rapidly. I am busy with other matters right now, but hope to analyze and
report any findings later today.

Ted Molczan

http://satobs.org/seesat/Dec-2011/0036.html

I have determined that object 11065H / 37947 separated and from Fobos-Grunt on Nov 29, roughly mid-day UTC. I have not
estimated the velocity of separation, but it appears to have been fairly gradual, more likely something that came loose
and drifted away, than exploded away.

Using STOAG, I estimate that it's A/m was about 0.022 m^2/kg, assuming Cd=2.2, and using actual space weather. It
decayed from orbit on Dec 01 UTC.

Here is the plot of evolution of mean altitude:

http://satobs.org/seesat_ref/phsrm/11065H_orbit_evolution_v1.pdf

Although much less dense than its parent body, the object was fairly dense. Its areal density (m/A) was about 45 kg/m^2.
USSTRATCOM has published its RCS value (radar-cross section area), which indicates it was fairly small in size. Very
roughly, it could have been about 10 cm across. Applying the A/m, its mass was roughly 0.5 kg.

Before anyone invests too much effort into trying to guess the identity of the object, it would be useful to have the
results of at least a couple other independent estimates of A/m.

Ted Molczan

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=851106#851106

Liss:

Tu sum it up, objects 37940 and 37947 has really been found (and catalogued in the public section) on Nov 29th and Nov 30th, respectfully.

The first one had a very unlikely orbit with inclination 51.31° and height about 239x271 km, and its fate is unknown.

The second one had inc differing from PhG's by less than 0.01°, first known altitude was about 193x260 km, orbital planes were aligned. It's practically undoubted that it separated from PhG on Nov 29th. (It's yet possible, but not likely, that both numbers refer to the same physical object). Object 37947 has reentered on December 1st, and, according to Molczan, was dense enough (A/m = 0.022 m2/kg). It can't be a piece of heat insulation. Something more important fell off our bird.

 

[Keatah]

Maybe this is a good thing. We won't be bringing back Phobia bugs or anything that could damage the ecosphere. Who knows what the hell is out there?!? Nothing to fear now.

 

[Izack]

I seriously regret my attitude at the beginning of this thread.

 

[Ghostrider]

What could it be ? Solar arrays ? Sample capsule ?

None of them. It's deploying its main weapon and beginning orbital bombardment.

We're all gonna die.

 

[Cosmic Penguin]

None of them. It's deploying its main weapon and beginning orbital bombardment.

We're all gonna die.

Hmm... maybe it's Putin's secret weapon disguised as a broken Mars probe.... :rofl:

Seriously, maybe the spacecraft never regained attitude control after the second orbit, and with the extreme temperature variations some big parts are falling off... (solar panels?)

 

[Ghostrider]

Hmm... maybe it's Putin's secret weapon disguised as a broken Mars probe.... :rofl:

We'll have to wait until the next Ravenstar reconnaissance mission over Severnaya.

 

[Codz]

Maybe this is a good thing. We won't be bringing back Phobia bugs or anything that could damage the ecosphere. Who knows what the hell is out there?!? Nothing to fear now.

I really doubt any lifeform could survive on Phobos.

 

[T.Neo]

Maybe this is a good thing. We won't be bringing back Phobia bugs or anything that could damage the ecosphere. Who knows what the hell is out there?!? Nothing to fear now.

:facepalm:

This is reality, not a badly made science fiction horror film...

 

[orb]

NASASpaceflight: Hope lost for Fobos-Grunt – likely to re-entry early in New Year