Am I the only one who thinks it’s neat that it worked?
Hell yeah! Kablooey! Pew pew pew! PFPFHHTTPKKKKCHHROOOOOOOOMMM!!!!!!!11111
*ahem*

>>the picture-perfect send-off of Curiosity can only add the sting of bitterness to their injured morale. >>Oh, what a world…what a world…
Ah, they’re Russian. They’ll get over it.
Also this. If stuff went for too long without sucking, they’d get suspicious that something was up

Plenty of people, some of them who know a lot about such matters professionally.

Me? I really don’t care one way or the other. A test is a test. Data is data. Was there any real reason to be all bashful with USA193 when we are pretty straightforward about all our other intercept testing? Cripes, for a while it seemed they were launching something monthly out of Vandenberg and reporting on the intercept results.

And why can’t *both* reasons can’t be true? They shot it down due to the hydrazine risk, and chose the location as a good demonstration to anyone who might be watching.

Am I the only one who thinks it’s neat that it worked?

————-

Though they are without a doubt happy for their American counterparts,

Well, maybe.

the picture-perfect send-off of Curiosity can only add the sting of bitterness to their injured morale. Oh, what a world…what a world…

Ah, they’re Russian. They’ll get over it.

This is a serious point of contention however, and in all fairness it is incorrect to suggest that everybody with some insight doubts the official reason for the USA 193 destruction.
Some noted space analysts, like Jim Oberg, maintain that the official reason was indeed the true reason and relegade any other notions to the domain of conspiracy theories. Opinions are clearly thoroughly divided on this one.

Phooey. Reality had to go burst my idealistic nerd bubble.

Early January.

There are other objects in orbit, like valuable satellites or the ISS. PB has enough fuel to become a risk to any of them, if shot in the wrong direction. Dodging it around by a kid with a joystick does not convince me as responsible actions.

Anyway, as I remember one of the problems is to get it in operating distance of your antenna system. And to do this for a time long enough for meaningful “discussion”. It is not just a matter of trying hard and sending the correct codes by chance.

After that all programs had terminal case of Proxmiring ;-/

It’s strange that the Russians (former Soviet Union) have had such rotten luck with their Mars missions, whilst their Venus probes and landers have enjoyed far more success. Kind of weird they succeeded with Venus so often, given that such a cold-climate nation with its vast Siberian steppes, which routinely launches rockets under weather conditions that would give NASA engineers permanent ulcers, is rather akin to Mars.

Though they are without a doubt happy for their American counterparts, the picture-perfect send-off of Curiosity can only add the sting of bitterness to their injured morale. Oh, what a world…what a world…

Satellites in low orbit have been re-entering and burning up for decades. With the exception of Skylab, hardly anyone paid attention.

These same propellants are also widely used by the upper stages of the rockets that launched them into orbit. The second stage of the Delta II, still a US space program workhorse, carries *six tonnes* of Aerozine-50 and nitrogen tetroxide. (Aerozine-50 is a 50-50 mix of straight hydrazine and unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine).

The Chinese one did, but USA193 was shot down at a low enough orbit that most of the debris re-entered within a couple weeks.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/11/chinese_space_litter_threatens.php

Via Greg Laden’s blog for more info on that last sentence.

The BA has posted this on the destruction of USA-193 :

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/28/spysat-update/

which has more informative links off that and notes :

only 17 pieces were being tracked

Whilst Wikipedia’s article on the USA-193 “Operation Burnt Frost” :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-193#Destruction

observes the different scenarios here :

The Chinese test destroyed a target in a high, stable orbit, leaving a large amount of space debris in orbit, while the destruction of USA-193 in a much lower orbit would create debris that would likely deorbit within weeks. … 328 objects had deorbited (controlled and uncontrolled) in the previous 5-year period.

Guess shooting down PHobos-Grunt would probably be more like the USA-193 case than the Chinese one so could work but don’t think they’re going to do so and don’t think we’ll have any major problem from its demise.

Fobos-Grunt contains 7 tons of fuel, which is quite an order of a magnitude more. So there is a point, if the shootdown of USA 193 had any valid point in it.

Which as has been mentioned already eg. by ^ puppygod is questionable at least.

Note that parts of Fobos-Grunt almost certainly will survive. It is a very large object. And the sample return capsule for example, was designed with a reentry in mind.

Ah, of course. Good point – thanks.

Destroying Fobos-Grunt at 200 km altitude will eliminate the risk of the fuel tanks reaching earth surface, ..

Wouldn’t the fuel tanks most likely explode and burn when subjected to the heating and shocks caused by atmospheric re-entry? I’d have assumed so but I may be mistaken naturally.

…as well as large pieces of hardware reaching earth surface. Both the long and short term space debris hazard of such an exercise is minimal: most debris will reenter and burn up within hours and very little of it will be at altitudes where it is a danger to any spacecraft anyway. Again, USA 193 in 2008 is your analogue.

Okay, fair enough, thanks.

Must admit I thought that the USA193 shoot down – as well as the Chinese one – had created quite a bit of space junk? Including some the ISS has had to dodge fairly recently.

USA 193 was shot down in 2008 because 450 kg of fuel onboard was deemed too much of a risk.

Nope. It was a lame excuse to show off satellite interception capability.

Was anyone actually convinced by that argument?

Well, I guess some of the less educated voters…

USA 193 was shot down in 2008 because 450 kg of fuel onboard was deemed too much of a risk.

Was anyone actually convinced by that argument?

@Pikoro:

I think what they should do is release the frequencies and any kind of encryption codes or access protocols in the open. Let the amateurs give it a shot if it’s already written off.

Wouldn’t fly, if nothing else than for the liability issues if anything goes wrong…

Heh, open source space exploration. I love it!!
I agree. Even though it’s unlikely in the extreme that an outsider could pull something off that the Russian space agency couldn’t, ya never know. Maybe one of the engineers who worked on one of the components at the manufacturing stage will have a midnight Eureka moment. Stranger things have happened. The worst thing someone could do would be to make it re-enter, which it’s going to do anyway, right?
(Just you watch – knowing both the evilness and ingenuity of the collective internet, someone will figure out how to draw giant dicks in the sky with the rocket exhaust, or something)

Well, at least you’d be the first human to visit Mars

Sending a crew to repair Phobos-Grunt would be roughly the equivalent of:

1) Pull pin on hand grenade
2) Release handle
3) Repair grenade

Repairing a rocket with 7 tons of fuel that was supposed to ignite, but hasn’t yet, seems a bit risky.

“If the tanks are chilled for a couple of months in space, tonnes of oxidizer will freeze solid. There is then every expectation taht the frozen boulders will survive re-entry and shatter at ground impact. Hello… Battle of Ypres, downwind.”

Wrong again. The Fregat tanks are exposed, unlike USA 193. USA 193′s higher-melting-point fuel was shielded by _at_least_ two layers of spacecraft metal or carbon fiber (without including insulation), and thus had a reasonable chance of making it to low altitudes. (Whether it was frozen is another issue, dependent on circumstances and plain ol’ luck.)

Phobos-Grunt/Fregat, on the other hand, has exposed tanks. In addition, the centroid of the stack will cause it to reenter tanks-first… especially since we know the solar arrays have deployed, shifting the CP. The stack has formed a textbook drag shape; Fregat’s unusual design also creates a stagnation “hot spot” between all tanks. Thus, the reentry will, at minimum, melt the frozen fuel (nitrogen oxides are, relatively, less toxic than UDMH) and will likely breach the tank skins. Even short of a direct aeroheating breach, both hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide will spontaneously decompose above a certain temperature, bursting their tanks on their own. Oh, and this is without any of the helium tanks turning to shrapnel.

Even that was assuming that the propellants were frozen. As orbital decay takes numerous close passes, the skims just prior to full reentry will likely thaw any exposed tanks, as Fregat uses.

What is it with you flying off the handle, after botching spacecraft engineering?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/10/14/u-s-air-force-is-opening-up-rocket-contracts-for-competition/#comment-429142

At least it wouldn’t be a total loss if someone else can control it. Heck, release all the information needed to contact GRUNT and put a stipulation in the information release that if contacted, a certain set of instructions needs to be sent and then contact information should be forwarded to a certain address / agency…

Just a thought.

Note that parts of Fobos-Grunt almost certainly will survive. It is a very large object. And the sample return capsule for example, was designed with a reentry in mind.

Destroying Fobos-Grunt at 200 km altitude will eliminate the risk of the fuel tanks reaching earth surface, as well as large pieces of hardware reaching earth surface. Both the long and short term space debris hazard of such an exercise is minimal: most debris will reenter and burn up within hours and very little of it will be at altitudes where it is a danger to any spacecraft anyway. Again, USA 193 in 2008 is your analogue.

Yet I don’t see it happen. The Russians made quite a negative fuzz about the USA 193 intercept in 2008, so knocking their own probe out of the sky now would cause some serious egg on their face (apart from the question whether they have the means for it). And I don’t see the USA knock out a Russian satellite without Russian consent.

Hopefully Phobos-Grunt does not have an RTG (radioisotope thermal generator). Because burned up (oxidized) plutonium is pretty much worse than metallic plutonium.

… no it’s not. The main oxide form – PuO2 – is in fact the most stable and insoluble form of the element, which in turn means that it’s the form least taken up by the body.
(Besides, the fuel pellets used in RTGs are plutonium dioxide already.)

Inhaled Pu-238 is pretty nasty in any form though, and fine particles are worse than coarse ones. So there’s a whole bunch of cladding to prevent the fuel from dispersing in the atmosphere, should the worst come to pass – including cladding around each individual pellet.

Oh, and Fobos-Grunt doesn’t have an RTG. It’s solar-powered.