Russian Phobos-Grunt window closed -- Martian Moon Probe has no hope, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times
Topic started on 29-11-2011 @ 11:08 AM by Frira
This morning it was reported that the Phobos-Grunt Martian probe to study and return samples back to earth from the Martian moon, Phobos, has again gone silent. Launched weeks ago, the package has been stuck in Earth orbit since the engines to place it on a trajectory to Mars did not fire.

Lost Martian probe Phobos-Grunt has gone back to its silent orbiting again, remaining unresponsive to Russian space agency attempts to contact it on Monday night.

Roscosmos was trying to order the module to raise its orbit, but the probe didn't respond, state news agency RIA Novosti reported.

"The sessions, which have been taken to issue commands to increase the altitude of the probe, did not lead to positive results," a Roscosmos spokesperson said.

He added that the agency would double its efforts.

The boffins want to lift Phobos-Grunt's orbit because it would increase the window of opportunity during which earth-to-space communication centres can reach it.

Source ("boffins"-- really? Ha!)

The window of opportunity to reach Mars (and ultimately, its moon, Phobos) has closed, so even if able to establish communication with the craft, the original mission is now impossible.

Two alternatives exists.

1) If the craft does not respond to signals and fire its rocket, the orbit will eventually decay, bringing it into a fiery and uncontrolled reentry over Earth-- probably in December or early January.

2) If communication can be reestablished, the Russians are hopeful of redirecting the probe to carry out a similar mission to another target-- perhaps the Earth's moon.

edit on 29-11-2011 by Frira because: (no reason given)
edit on 29-11-2011 by Frira because: typo



reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 12:31 PM by Frira
Originally posted by apacheman
So much for the roboticists' "further, faster, cheaper" mantra.

Robots aren't cheaper than manned missions when you factor in their failure rates.

Screw robots, I mean they have a place, but nothing replaces a human being for on-the-spot fixes.

Want to explore Mars?

Train and send humans, not robots, and you'll get thousands of times more return on the investment.


Interesting point. But, on the other hand, the US is doing very well. I can hardly wait until August.

Nine months there, nine months back, and all of the food, water, oxygen, books, and beer that would be required for me to agree-- that would get expensive. And that is very long time for the "No Smoking" light to be on-- I like my cigars. And if adding another person, you more than double the necessities (and would need to supply me with a tranquilizer dart gun if the other talked too much!)

My real gripe about robots is that the human experience is important. I really think there is something important and "more" which effects all of us in a real but unseen way.

As for the Russians being "snake bit" -- I am reminded of their trouble with our own moon. The Luna probe, if I recall, that was sent to attempt to beat Apollo 11 to retrieve a lunar soil sample-- they lost contact with that one and it crashed instead of landed.

Then the ISS resupply mission a few months ago-- and its failure was very similar-- a rocket was supposed to fire but an errant command shut it down instead.

All of this suggests that much is done in the Russian space program that is done to too-tight deadlines and ineffective quality control, or both.


reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 12:43 PM by apacheman
reply to post by Frira


The US robotic failure rate is fairly high, too: several Mars probes crashed or went missing.

Sending people is expensive only if you don't consider the return on investment: sending people to the Moon rather than robots is what engendered the computer age and much of the tech we take for granted now.

People need to feel a genuine connection to science and exploration that robots can never, ever, provide. Nobody really gives a crap about a robot's fate except its designers. For all the good science they have provided, they have failed utterly to engage humanity's imagination as human exploration has and will.

We've been riding on the laurels of the Apollo program for too long, and need to put humans back into the space exploration business.

Luna City, where the hell are you when we need you?
edit on 29-11-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 29-11-2011 @ 06:59 PM by Aliensun
Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by Frira


The US robotic failure rate is fairly high, too: several Mars probes crashed or went missing.



Surely you jest?
If not, you need to go on line and look at the records of both countries.

The Soviets/Russians have had not ONE fully successful mission to Mars. Not one! It has been a no-contest "race."

We on the other hand sent the twin Vikings in the late 70s and they returned so much data that some of it, such as the positive results from the "search for life experiments" was denied, and some of the telling details we found on Phobos are still ignored--but those are another story.


reply posted on 30-11-2011 @ 01:31 AM by apacheman
reply to post by Aliensun


About a third of the missions to Mars have been failures: some never made it and some crashed while attempting to land.

Yes we've gotten some great science from the successful ones, but I'd wager the first manned expedition will deliver more good science than all the robots put together, and fire the imagination of humanity to want to do more, see more, know more.

About all the robots do in that realm is to generate a few "cool pics" comments, or "that's interesting" assessments of new data. They don't inspire, they don't engage, they don't excite.

Only humans facing real dangers in the unknown spark such emotions in people, those emotions are necessary to garner the popular support a proper space program needs.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^