Moscow...we have a problem.

On Nov 8, 11:44 pm, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in ...

http://www.space.com/13554-russia-ma...t-failure.html

Hoping for best.
Ken

Aww. So the Great Martian Ghoul got cheated out of a Russian dinner....

Well something is not playing nice-nice...check this out...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15684192

says "NEWS GRIM", it's deaf and dumb.
I've looked at the Rusky Program and they've had a long history of 3rd
stage non-starts.
Sure hope they're try again, but they need a specialist.
Ken

In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 09:38:33 -0500, Jeff Findley
wrote:
I call B.S. on this. The Russians only have a few days before the
orbit
decays. When Columbia's TPS was damaged, NASA couldn't have launched a
rescue mission in time to save them, and they had many more days of
consumables than the Russians have days before their probe's orbit
decays.

I think the CAIB determined a Shuttle rescue mission for STS-107 was
possible, but was right at the razor's edge of being possible. Does
anyone really not think the folks at KSC, JSC, and MSFC would have
moved heaven and earth to get Atlantis off the pad in time? They would
have even had retired Shuttle engineeers and techs coming to the gates
volunteering to help.

NASA would have worked day and night doing only what was necessary for
the rescue mission in an effort to save the lives of Columbia's
astronauts. The US would never have gone to such extremes to rescue an
unmanned Russian exploration vehicle.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Nov 10, 7:38*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 0ea3c5d9-2e7f-491a-9454-84328e02c238
@j19g2000pro.googlegroups.com, says...







On Nov 9, 10:33*am, Rick Jones wrote:
Val Kraut wrote:
It's scary - one article said that the Russian tracking system is
limited and they needed help from amateur astronomers in South
America to help them locate the spacecraft. Sounds like something
out of a juvinile Science Fiction Novel - Tom Swift and his Fabulous
Telescope Saves the Russian Space Probe.

Doesn't China have an up-and-coming tracking system? *They just added
(or it was just announced they would add) a node in Australia, and
this article:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Ch...pace_tracking_....

suggests they have one in Chile. *Perhaps the Chinese can assist in
saving their hitchhiker? *Assuming the Russians are unable to address
the problems with the probe, how long before we hear "Hit the grunt,
the Russians are coming?" as it comes back to Earth?

Sigh. If only Shuttle were still flying. This would have made a
fabulous rescue mission, if the Russians flight controllers could use
the thrusters on the spacecraft itself to keep it in orbit for about 6
months while astronauts and cosmonauts train for the rescue and the
equipment and procedures are put together like was done with the
LEASAT F3 during STS-51-I in August of 1985 after that satellite was
stranded in April of that same year.
-Mike

I call B.S. on this. *The Russians only have a few days before the orbit
decays. *When Columbia's TPS was damaged, NASA couldn't have launched a
rescue mission in time to save them, and they had many more days of
consumables than the Russians have days before their probe's orbit
decays.

You can't turn the shuttle into some mythical vehicle that could do
anything it wanted to. *The fact is it took NASA a long time to process
a shuttle and launch it.

I call B.S. on your calling B.S.. When you look what the Shuttle
accomplished back during the pre-Challenger days, and even during the
early years of the post-Challenger timeframe, rescuing Phobos-Grunt
would not be too entirely out of the question. The STS-51-I mission is
a perfect example of that; rescuing a completely dead satellite in
less than 5 months after it's loss on a prior shuttle flight. Then
look at STS-49, which was just as spectacular, especially how the
astronauts improvised the Intelsat VI rescue when things went wrong.
So it's not like we don't have any precedent for setting up such a
rescue flight.

Also another thing; my wistful speculation also depends on the
Russians regaining enough control of the spacecraft to use reaction
control thrusters to keep the Phobos-Grunt stack in orbit until a
Shuttle mission could be flown. I doubt a mission could be flown
within the time constraints of the launch window, and so recovery for
relaunch would be necessary.
-Mike

On Nov 10, 9:38 pm, Mike DiCenso wrote:
On Nov 10, 7:38 am, Jeff Findley wrote:



In article 0ea3c5d9-2e7f-491a-9454-84328e02c238
@j19g2000pro.googlegroups.com, says...

On Nov 9, 10:33 am, Rick Jones wrote:
Val Kraut wrote:
It's scary - one article said that the Russian tracking system is
limited and they needed help from amateur astronomers in South
America to help them locate the spacecraft. Sounds like something
out of a juvinile Science Fiction Novel - Tom Swift and his Fabulous
Telescope Saves the Russian Space Probe.

Doesn't China have an up-and-coming tracking system? They just added
(or it was just announced they would add) a node in Australia, and
this article:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Ch...pace_tracking_...

suggests they have one in Chile. Perhaps the Chinese can assist in
saving their hitchhiker? Assuming the Russians are unable to address
the problems with the probe, how long before we hear "Hit the grunt,
the Russians are coming?" as it comes back to Earth?

Sigh. If only Shuttle were still flying. This would have made a
fabulous rescue mission, if the Russians flight controllers could use
the thrusters on the spacecraft itself to keep it in orbit for about 6
months while astronauts and cosmonauts train for the rescue and the
equipment and procedures are put together like was done with the
LEASAT F3 during STS-51-I in August of 1985 after that satellite was
stranded in April of that same year.
-Mike

I call B.S. on this. The Russians only have a few days before the orbit
decays. When Columbia's TPS was damaged, NASA couldn't have launched a
rescue mission in time to save them, and they had many more days of
consumables than the Russians have days before their probe's orbit
decays.

You can't turn the shuttle into some mythical vehicle that could do
anything it wanted to. The fact is it took NASA a long time to process
a shuttle and launch it.

I call B.S. on your calling B.S.. When you look what the Shuttle
accomplished back during the pre-Challenger days, and even during the
early years of the post-Challenger timeframe, rescuing Phobos-Grunt
would not be too entirely out of the question. The STS-51-I mission is
a perfect example of that; rescuing a completely dead satellite in
less than 5 months after it's loss on a prior shuttle flight. Then
look at STS-49, which was just as spectacular, especially how the
astronauts improvised the Intelsat VI rescue when things went wrong.
So it's not like we don't have any precedent for setting up such a
rescue flight.

Also another thing; my wistful speculation also depends on the
Russians regaining enough control of the spacecraft to use reaction
control thrusters to keep the Phobos-Grunt stack in orbit until a
Shuttle mission could be flown. I doubt a mission could be flown
within the time constraints of the launch window, and so recovery for
relaunch would be necessary.
-Mike

Mike you're borderline silly. The units ~10 tons of hygolics has an
order to fire - caught somewhere in software - bang it with a hammer
and it might light up!
Would you capture that thing for placement in a Shuttle?
If so try a rocket powered motorcycle into the Grand Canyon ;-).
Ken

In article 932c2f1a-167d-4973-873b-
, says...

On Nov 10, 7:38*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 0ea3c5d9-2e7f-491a-9454-84328e02c238
@j19g2000pro.googlegroups.com, says...







On Nov 9, 10:33*am, Rick Jones wrote:
Val Kraut wrote:
It's scary - one article said that the Russian tracking system is
limited and they needed help from amateur astronomers in South
America to help them locate the spacecraft. Sounds like something
out of a juvinile Science Fiction Novel - Tom Swift and his Fabulous
Telescope Saves the Russian Space Probe.

Doesn't China have an up-and-coming tracking system? *They just added
(or it was just announced they would add) a node in Australia, and
this article:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Ch...pace_tracking_...

suggests they have one in Chile. *Perhaps the Chinese can assist in
saving their hitchhiker? *Assuming the Russians are unable to address
the problems with the probe, how long before we hear "Hit the grunt,
the Russians are coming?" as it comes back to Earth?

Sigh. If only Shuttle were still flying. This would have made a
fabulous rescue mission, if the Russians flight controllers could use
the thrusters on the spacecraft itself to keep it in orbit for about 6
months while astronauts and cosmonauts train for the rescue and the
equipment and procedures are put together like was done with the
LEASAT F3 during STS-51-I in August of 1985 after that satellite was
stranded in April of that same year.
-Mike

I call B.S. on this. *The Russians only have a few days before the orbit
decays. *When Columbia's TPS was damaged, NASA couldn't have launched a
rescue mission in time to save them, and they had many more days of
consumables than the Russians have days before their probe's orbit
decays.

You can't turn the shuttle into some mythical vehicle that could do
anything it wanted to. *The fact is it took NASA a long time to process
a shuttle and launch it.

I call B.S. on your calling B.S.. When you look what the Shuttle
accomplished back during the pre-Challenger days, and even during the
early years of the post-Challenger timeframe, rescuing Phobos-Grunt
would not be too entirely out of the question. The STS-51-I mission is
a perfect example of that; rescuing a completely dead satellite in
less than 5 months after it's loss on a prior shuttle flight. Then
look at STS-49, which was just as spectacular, especially how the
astronauts improvised the Intelsat VI rescue when things went wrong.
So it's not like we don't have any precedent for setting up such a
rescue flight.

Also another thing; my wistful speculation also depends on the
Russians regaining enough control of the spacecraft to use reaction
control thrusters to keep the Phobos-Grunt stack in orbit until a
Shuttle mission could be flown. I doubt a mission could be flown
within the time constraints of the launch window, and so recovery for
relaunch would be necessary.

What was the smallest turn-around time for a shuttle? My guess is that
it was the Spacelab mission that was re-flown because the first attempt
was cut short due to fuel cell problems.

http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts83.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts84.htm

STS-83 returned on April 8.

STS-84 launched on May 17.

That's more than a month, and this was definitely a special case since
it was essentially a reflight of an aborted mission. Typical turn-
around times were quite a bit longer than this.

Sorry, but the shuttle was not a fast turn-around vehicle. In a
situation like this, where there is a "need" to launch in only a few
days, the shuttle simply could not accommodate this requirement. LEASAT
F3 rescue mission took several months to plan and fly. In this case,
the Russians don't have months to spare, they have only a few days.

The only possible exception to this would have been a Columbia rescue
mission. In a case where astronauts lives are at stake, the rule book
would have been thrown out of the window and management would have
accepted risks they would *never* accepted for an unmanned satellite or
unmanned probe's "rescue mission".

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:49:12 -0500, Jeff Findley
wrote:


What was the smallest turn-around time for a shuttle? My guess is that
it was the Spacelab mission that was re-flown because the first attempt
was cut short due to fuel cell problems.

http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts83.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts84.htm

STS-83 returned on April 8.

STS-84 launched on May 17.

That's more than a month, and this was definitely a special case since
it was essentially a reflight of an aborted mission. Typical turn-
around times were quite a bit longer than this.

STS-84 was not the reflight of STS-83. That was STS-94, launched July
1, 1997, 74 days.

The shortest turnaround was Atlantis between STS-51J and STS-61B in
1985, 55 days.

The briefest interval between two Shuttle flights was 6 days between
the landing of STS-71 and the launch of STS-70 in 1995.

I'm not sure how turnaround time plays into this. If there was some
method of retrieving Phobos-Grunt and returning it to Earth,
refurbishment and fixing whatever it is that went wrong would
certainly bump the relaunch into the next Mars opporunity 26 months
later.

Brian

In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:49:12 -0500, Jeff Findley
wrote:


What was the smallest turn-around time for a shuttle? My guess is that
it was the Spacelab mission that was re-flown because the first attempt
was cut short due to fuel cell problems.

http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts83.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts84.htm

STS-83 returned on April 8.

STS-84 launched on May 17.

That's more than a month, and this was definitely a special case since
it was essentially a reflight of an aborted mission. Typical turn-
around times were quite a bit longer than this.

STS-84 was not the reflight of STS-83. That was STS-94, launched July
1, 1997, 74 days.

You're right. Cut and paste error on my part. :-(

The shortest turnaround was Atlantis between STS-51J and STS-61B in
1985, 55 days.

The briefest interval between two Shuttle flights was 6 days between
the landing of STS-71 and the launch of STS-70 in 1995.

I'm not sure how turnaround time plays into this. If there was some
method of retrieving Phobos-Grunt and returning it to Earth,
refurbishment and fixing whatever it is that went wrong would
certainly bump the relaunch into the next Mars opporunity 26 months
later.

Even if the shuttle were flying, it wouldn't be possible. Even if a
shuttle was on the pad and ready to fly, it would have to be rolled back
to the VAB and configured for the retrieval mission. It would take time
to reconfigure a shuttle for such a mission so that it had the proper
payload mounts in the bay to accept the satellite.

For a Russian satellite, such mounts most likely don't even exist.
Therefore, in this case, it simply would not have been possible to pull
off such a shuttle mission in time to save it from the fiery death of an
earth reentry.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Nov 11, 1:06*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...







On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 08:49:12 -0500, Jeff Findley
wrote:

What was the smallest turn-around time for a shuttle? *My guess is that
it was the Spacelab mission that was re-flown because the first attempt
was cut short due to fuel cell problems.

http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts83.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts84.htm

STS-83 returned on April 8.

STS-84 launched on May 17.

That's more than a month, and this was definitely a special case since
it was essentially a reflight of an aborted mission. *Typical turn-
around times were quite a bit longer than this.

STS-84 was not the reflight of STS-83. That was STS-94, launched July
1, 1997, 74 days.

You're right. *Cut and paste error on my part. *:-(

The shortest turnaround was Atlantis between STS-51J and STS-61B in
1985, 55 days.

The briefest interval between two Shuttle flights was 6 days between
the landing of STS-71 and the launch of STS-70 in 1995.

I'm not sure how turnaround time plays into this. If there was some
method of retrieving Phobos-Grunt and returning it to Earth,
refurbishment and fixing whatever it is that went wrong would
certainly bump the relaunch into the next Mars opporunity 26 months
later.

Even if the shuttle were flying, it wouldn't be possible. *Even if a
shuttle was on the pad and ready to fly, it would have to be rolled back
to the VAB and configured for the retrieval mission. *It would take time
to reconfigure a shuttle for such a mission so that it had the proper
payload mounts in the bay to accept the satellite.

For a Russian satellite, such mounts most likely don't even exist.
Therefore, in this case, it simply would not have been possible to pull
off such a shuttle mission in time to save it from the fiery death of an
earth reentry.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

all sats and probes should have a universal dock mount.

a space tug could dock with whatever sat failed and send it on its
way.

just think of how many times such a system could be used?

relocate a derelict sat in geo centric orbit.
move a out of control hazardous sat to a safe storage orbit or send it
on a death dive into the pacific
reloate a sat thats low on fuel to a new place or just provide long
term station keeping'
move a failed sat to LEO space dock for repairs....

this sat could drop into a city with fully fueled hydrazine and other
nasties.......

On 11/11/2011 07:49 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article932c2f1a-167d-4973-873b-
, says...

Also another thing; my wistful speculation also depends on the
Russians regaining enough control of the spacecraft to use reaction
control thrusters to keep the Phobos-Grunt stack in orbit until a
Shuttle mission could be flown. I doubt a mission could be flown
within the time constraints of the launch window, and so recovery for
relaunch would be necessary.

What was the smallest turn-around time for a shuttle? My guess is that
it was the Spacelab mission that was re-flown because the first attempt
was cut short due to fuel cell problems.

http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts83.htm
http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts84.htm

STS-83 returned on April 8.

STS-84 launched on May 17.

That's more than a month, and this was definitely a special case since
it was essentially a reflight of an aborted mission. Typical turn-
around times were quite a bit longer than this.

Sorry, but the shuttle was not a fast turn-around vehicle. In a
situation like this, where there is a "need" to launch in only a few
days, the shuttle simply could not accommodate this requirement. LEASAT
F3 rescue mission took several months to plan and fly. In this case,
the Russians don't have months to spare, they have only a few days.

Jeff, you're missing Mike's point by a country mile: he explicitly
conditioned the rescue mission on Russia being able to gain enough
control of the spacecraft to boost it into an orbit that would last long
enough that a fast turnaround shuttle mission would *not* be required.
You spent several paragraphs going down the fast-turnaround rabbit hole
without even reading what he wrote. I trimmed his response down to the
relevant paragraph so you can read it (perhaps for the first time).

My point stands, though: NASA would not agree to take the risk of this
mission even if the shuttle were still flying, and even if Phobos-Grunt
were boosted to an altitude where fast turnaround were not required.

On Nov 11, 12:21*am, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Nov 10, 9:38 pm, Mike DiCenso wrote:





On Nov 10, 7:38 am, Jeff Findley wrote:

In article 0ea3c5d9-2e7f-491a-9454-84328e02c238
@j19g2000pro.googlegroups.com, says...

On Nov 9, 10:33 am, Rick Jones wrote:
Val Kraut wrote:
It's scary - one article said that the Russian tracking system is
limited and they needed help from amateur astronomers in South
America to help them locate the spacecraft. Sounds like something
out of a juvinile Science Fiction Novel - Tom Swift and his Fabulous
Telescope Saves the Russian Space Probe.

Doesn't China have an up-and-coming tracking system? *They just added
(or it was just announced they would add) a node in Australia, and
this article:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Ch...pace_tracking_...

suggests they have one in Chile. *Perhaps the Chinese can assist in
saving their hitchhiker? *Assuming the Russians are unable to address
the problems with the probe, how long before we hear "Hit the grunt,
the Russians are coming?" as it comes back to Earth?

Sigh. If only Shuttle were still flying. This would have made a
fabulous rescue mission, if the Russians flight controllers could use
the thrusters on the spacecraft itself to keep it in orbit for about 6
months while astronauts and cosmonauts train for the rescue and the
equipment and procedures are put together like was done with the
LEASAT F3 during STS-51-I in August of 1985 after that satellite was
stranded in April of that same year.
-Mike

I call B.S. on this. *The Russians only have a few days before the orbit
decays. *When Columbia's TPS was damaged, NASA couldn't have launched a
rescue mission in time to save them, and they had many more days of
consumables than the Russians have days before their probe's orbit
decays.

You can't turn the shuttle into some mythical vehicle that could do
anything it wanted to. *The fact is it took NASA a long time to process
a shuttle and launch it.

I call B.S. on your calling B.S.. When you look what the Shuttle
accomplished back during the pre-Challenger days, and even during the
early years of the post-Challenger timeframe, rescuing Phobos-Grunt
would not be too entirely out of the question. The STS-51-I mission is
a perfect example of that; rescuing a completely dead satellite in
less than 5 months after it's loss on a prior shuttle flight. Then
look at STS-49, which was just as spectacular, especially how the
astronauts improvised the Intelsat VI rescue when things went wrong.
So it's not like we don't have any precedent for setting up such a
rescue flight.

Also another thing; my wistful speculation also depends on the
Russians regaining enough control of the spacecraft to use reaction
control thrusters to keep the Phobos-Grunt stack in orbit until a
Shuttle mission could be flown. I doubt a mission could be flown
within the time constraints of the launch window, and so recovery for
relaunch would be necessary.
-Mike

Mike you're borderline silly. The units ~10 tons of hygolics has an
order to fire - caught somewhere in software - bang it with a hammer
and it might light up!
Would you capture that thing for placement in a Shuttle?
If so try a rocket powered motorcycle into the Grand Canyon ;-).
Ken- Hide quoted text -

So? Read my posts more carefully. They did it with the LEASAT/SYNCOM,
which was 15,000 lbs (7 metric tons) of explosive fuel, and that was a
satellite that was just as dead as Phobos-Grunt is now. Even prior to
that on STS-51-A the WESTAR and PALPA satellites, though much smaller,
also had explosive hypergolics, and those were brought back all the
way to Earth for eventual refurbishment and relaunch.
-Mike