Is there life after Phobos-Grunt?
In an interesting article on this server “Phobos-Grunt. Lessons for those who have remained on Earth ”is considered the“ official ”version of the malfunction of the AMC“ Phobos-Grunt ”. It seems to me that the author and the participants gladly rushed to discuss technical issues (so beloved by them), forgetting to check first of all, and how plausible is the hypothesis about the effect of heavy charged particles (HRTD)? How does this version explain the known facts of a short flight, which everyone seems to have already forgotten?
1. If computers went into safe mode, then who gave the commands to start the engines in the first 2 weeks to raise the orbit? Let me remind you that during the first 2 weeks the device raised its perigee, thus extending the life in orbit. http://www.ria.ru/science/20111115/489200400.html
2. What objects were separated from the apparatus and descended to Earth? This happened in late November and early December 2011, as recorded by STRATKOM radars.
3. NGO them. Lavochkina created and launched in 2011. very successful satellite of the Earth "Radioastron". Everyone is confident that he will fly for at least 5 years (in a high orbit, outside the protection of the earth's magnetosphere). Are there other chips on there?
4. What is the probability of this event - the TZCH at the LEO on the 2nd turn, flashing 2 key chips?
5. The telemetry from the board was not received, how did you know the exact cause of the failure (up to a specific chip)? Is this just a guess, a simulation result?
6. How many more experts agreed with the official version?
This is only part of the questions, the list goes on. I would venture to suggest two, in my opinion, more plausible, compared to the official version. About one I read somewhere on the Internet, and the second conspiracy.
The rise of perigee must be somehow explained, and the computer in safe mode is no good here. The small, 2 km per day lifts of perigee are in good agreement with the work of several of the 16 low thrust 11 D457F engines with a load of 5.5 kgf each, which were based on a sustainer propulsion system (MDU), and the launch of which precedes the inclusion of 4 11 D458F correction engines 39 kgf each. This is necessary to create a small prestarting overload so that the bubbles of the pressurized gas are separated from the fuel and do not get into the fuel path. This solution is always used to start the engine in zero gravity, when the gas and liquid media in the fuel tanks are not separated by a membrane. Something prevented the inclusion of the MDU correction engines (this should have happened over South America, outside the radio visibility range of the Russian ground-based measuring points), after the engines of fuel draft turned on. Maybe a software error, which did not allow to work out the regular cyclogram? When it came time to turn on the MDU, the team did not pass and the board remained in the parking orbit, but the computer did not switch to safe mode, but tried to execute the program and fly off to Mars, for which the engines of fuel draft first turned on, but the command to turn on 4 engines was big traction did not pass and everything was repeated in a circle. This may explain the unusual behavior of the device in the first 2 weeks.
')
This behavior of the device in the Conclusion of the Interdepartmental Commission states the use of: "The constant impact on the orbit of the spacecraft could be due to the work of the orientation engines in the" PSO "mode." However, such an impact would have multidirectional character, and the rise of perigee and reduction of apogee are in good agreement with small impulses of thrust against the motion vector at apogee, which leads to a rise of perigee, and deceleration in the atmosphere at the lowest point leads to a decrease in apogee — the orbit of the apparatus becomes less elliptical.
As a curiosity, attempts can be made to explain this by the operation of solar cells as wings in a discharged atmosphere of the Earth.
Igor Marinin, the editor-in-chief of the magazine “Astronautics News”, tried to explain the rise of the perigee http://lenta.ru/conf/marinin/ , when he was asked this question.
“So while he (Phobos-Grunt) was alive, he had some kind of program to maintain his orbit, orientation, and so on. Unfortunately, we don’t manage to get into the program itself, we don’t know how it works, we don’t know the flowchart of this program, what was envisaged there. Most likely, it provided automatic corrections for maintaining the orbit. ”
Do you feel the grotesque situation? This is not a ship of aliens, in the country live its developers, who probably know what will happen to the board in this case and, nevertheless, we listen to "hypotheses" from the academic cosmonautics, who knows no better than us business
About the separation of some objects from the main office in the Commission's Report says with reference to STRATCOM: “By November 29, the reserves of AB and HIT PM were exhausted, the“ minimum voltage ”mode in the SES was Umin2 (supposedly on November 27) , HIT PM depressurization occurred, the consequences in the form of two fragments separated from the spacecraft, which were observed by STRATCOM (USA). ” How voltage loss affects depressurization and separation of fragments does not say in the Conclusion.
The objects were registered in the STRATKOM database under the numbers 37940 (falling November 29, 2011) and 37947 (December 2, 2011). For object 37940, there are only 2 TLIs (Two Line Element), which means it existed in orbit for less than one day.
The same Marinin assumes explosions and is sure that no parts of the apparatus descended to Earth.
"... the object was separated from Phobos, but there was no descent, it burned down in the atmosphere. As for the object, unfortunately, there was no telemetry, so it is impossible to determine what it is and what happened. Apparently, it happened from the heat an explosion of some kind of tank. At the same time, some sort of debris, which was fixed by means of control of outer space, flew away. But, I repeat, there was no telemetry, so it’s impossible to determine exactly what this piece of debris was. ”
The fact that there was no information is true. What then pushes the academic cosmonautics to the conclusion that “there was no descent, it burned down in the atmosphere”? But I know one detail that could easily go down to Earth safely. This is a bent apparatus. In one English-language article it was said that if it falls on the land, then its location would be very desirable, since on it travel biological objects that have never flown into space and their study on Earth would be very valuable. Isn’t it so that this small descent vehicle returned to Earth at the end of November? Let me remind you that Marinin kept silent about. For descent on the same day (object 37940), a braking impulse of about 150 m / s is needed, and I have no idea what could explode on board, so that a rather large piece would get that speed in a strictly defined direction against the motion vector of the vehicle. Again, aren't there too many coincidences?
Well, for a snack, the promised conspiracy version. But first, a little history.
As you probably know, Mars was not very friendly to the Soviet apparatus. Although the USSR specialists made the first soft landing of the AMC on the Red Planet, it was not possible to transfer the video information from there. Mars is generally very difficult for a soft landing, because it happens fully automatically, and almost no atmosphere on Earth or Venus. The failure pursued the joint US-Russian mission of Mars Polar Lander, which did not remove the primarish. The difficulty of a soft landing on Mars is also indicated by the failure of the European Beagle-2 probe.
But the Americans seem to have found their happiness on Mars, because their AMCs, one by one, are safely lowered and rovers travel around the planet. And this despite the fact that nothing like NASA does not show on other planets. Especially in this regard, the moon is indicative. In 2004, the Mars rovers "Spirit" and "Opportunity" landed on Mars. Devices with a resource of 90 days were able to travel there for one 6 years, and the other is still working! Who is familiar with the theory of reliability, tell me how likely it is? In the same year, we learned that the color in photos from Mars is incorrect. The sky there should not be red, but blue. If someone is interested in the problem of incorrect color rendition from the Martian rovers, there is a good article “Martian Chronicles, or What color is the Red Planet?” A gnomon accidentally caught in a frame produces a distortion of colors. However, I do not share the conclusions of the author at the end of the article.
An interesting question: “Why should the sky on Mars generally have a color?” On Earth, at altitudes corresponding to Martian atmospheric pressure (35km), the color of the earth's sky is black, why should Mars be different? Now a new rover “Curiosity” is flying to Mars with a completely new landing system. I have no doubt that the device will successfully land on the Red Planet, and this mission will be the next triumph of American science and technology. However, curious and skeptical people were able to notice problems in the organization of this mission.
Considering all the above, how much is NASA interested in independently verifying its Martian exploits? January 9, 2012 An amazing statement was made from the mouth of the space chief: “Frequent failures with our vehicles are also incomprehensible at a time when they fly over the shady side of the Earth for Russia — where we don’t see the telemetry. I do not want to blame anyone, but today there are very powerful means of influencing spacecraft, the use of which cannot be ruled out. ” Http://www.izvestia.ru/news/511258 If this is not a direct accusation of Americans for sabotage, what is it? However, I do not consider the version with a radar justified. In Russia at the present time, for a small amount of money, you can bribe one or more saboteurs who will do everything much more reliably.
And for those who believe that this is pure conspiracy, Americans are great guys and always play by the rules, I will give a few quotes from a person who can hardly be counted among conspiracologists - the director of the Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry. V.I. Vernadsky, Academician Erik Mikhailovich Galimov, ACADEMICIAN ERIK GALIMOV: WHO NEEDS LUNAR STONES?
“Americans knit us, push us into dead ends.” The agreement "Gore - Chernomyrdin" was signed, and we, they say, are obliged to comply with it! Why do it if the project is meaningless? Again politics comes to the fore.
- No, I just wanted to comment on the conversation that happened to me with the head of NASA. I asked him about their program of work on the moon. He replied: “We have no plans for the Moon!” - and explained that there are more important projects both on Mars and in outer space. And the moon, they say, is not very interesting ... However, a year later, NASA sent two vehicles to the moon and continued lunar explorations.
- In 1998, we were told that there was no money for both the Moon and Phobos, and therefore we will be engaged in only one project - Phobos-Grunt. And at the same time, huge funds were allocated to Spectra, which (then it was already clear!) Would not fly ... But there was pressure from Europe and America, and therefore other projects were rejected ...
However, the question of why for almost 40 years of the USSR and then Russia have not sent a single AMC towards the Moon deserves separate consideration. The fact that I am not the only one to doubt the official conclusion of the commission can be seen by reading the comments on the article mentioned at the beginning of this text. Question 6. You can repeat: "How many more professionals do not share the official version?"
1. If computers went into safe mode, then who gave the commands to start the engines in the first 2 weeks to raise the orbit? Let me remind you that during the first 2 weeks the device raised its perigee, thus extending the life in orbit. http://www.ria.ru/science/20111115/489200400.html
2. What objects were separated from the apparatus and descended to Earth? This happened in late November and early December 2011, as recorded by STRATKOM radars.
3. NGO them. Lavochkina created and launched in 2011. very successful satellite of the Earth "Radioastron". Everyone is confident that he will fly for at least 5 years (in a high orbit, outside the protection of the earth's magnetosphere). Are there other chips on there?
4. What is the probability of this event - the TZCH at the LEO on the 2nd turn, flashing 2 key chips?
5. The telemetry from the board was not received, how did you know the exact cause of the failure (up to a specific chip)? Is this just a guess, a simulation result?
6. How many more experts agreed with the official version?
This is only part of the questions, the list goes on. I would venture to suggest two, in my opinion, more plausible, compared to the official version. About one I read somewhere on the Internet, and the second conspiracy.
The rise of perigee must be somehow explained, and the computer in safe mode is no good here. The small, 2 km per day lifts of perigee are in good agreement with the work of several of the 16 low thrust 11 D457F engines with a load of 5.5 kgf each, which were based on a sustainer propulsion system (MDU), and the launch of which precedes the inclusion of 4 11 D458F correction engines 39 kgf each. This is necessary to create a small prestarting overload so that the bubbles of the pressurized gas are separated from the fuel and do not get into the fuel path. This solution is always used to start the engine in zero gravity, when the gas and liquid media in the fuel tanks are not separated by a membrane. Something prevented the inclusion of the MDU correction engines (this should have happened over South America, outside the radio visibility range of the Russian ground-based measuring points), after the engines of fuel draft turned on. Maybe a software error, which did not allow to work out the regular cyclogram? When it came time to turn on the MDU, the team did not pass and the board remained in the parking orbit, but the computer did not switch to safe mode, but tried to execute the program and fly off to Mars, for which the engines of fuel draft first turned on, but the command to turn on 4 engines was big traction did not pass and everything was repeated in a circle. This may explain the unusual behavior of the device in the first 2 weeks.
')
This behavior of the device in the Conclusion of the Interdepartmental Commission states the use of: "The constant impact on the orbit of the spacecraft could be due to the work of the orientation engines in the" PSO "mode." However, such an impact would have multidirectional character, and the rise of perigee and reduction of apogee are in good agreement with small impulses of thrust against the motion vector at apogee, which leads to a rise of perigee, and deceleration in the atmosphere at the lowest point leads to a decrease in apogee — the orbit of the apparatus becomes less elliptical.
As a curiosity, attempts can be made to explain this by the operation of solar cells as wings in a discharged atmosphere of the Earth.
Igor Marinin, the editor-in-chief of the magazine “Astronautics News”, tried to explain the rise of the perigee http://lenta.ru/conf/marinin/ , when he was asked this question.
“So while he (Phobos-Grunt) was alive, he had some kind of program to maintain his orbit, orientation, and so on. Unfortunately, we don’t manage to get into the program itself, we don’t know how it works, we don’t know the flowchart of this program, what was envisaged there. Most likely, it provided automatic corrections for maintaining the orbit. ”
Do you feel the grotesque situation? This is not a ship of aliens, in the country live its developers, who probably know what will happen to the board in this case and, nevertheless, we listen to "hypotheses" from the academic cosmonautics, who knows no better than us business
About the separation of some objects from the main office in the Commission's Report says with reference to STRATCOM: “By November 29, the reserves of AB and HIT PM were exhausted, the“ minimum voltage ”mode in the SES was Umin2 (supposedly on November 27) , HIT PM depressurization occurred, the consequences in the form of two fragments separated from the spacecraft, which were observed by STRATCOM (USA). ” How voltage loss affects depressurization and separation of fragments does not say in the Conclusion.
The objects were registered in the STRATKOM database under the numbers 37940 (falling November 29, 2011) and 37947 (December 2, 2011). For object 37940, there are only 2 TLIs (Two Line Element), which means it existed in orbit for less than one day.
The same Marinin assumes explosions and is sure that no parts of the apparatus descended to Earth.
"... the object was separated from Phobos, but there was no descent, it burned down in the atmosphere. As for the object, unfortunately, there was no telemetry, so it is impossible to determine what it is and what happened. Apparently, it happened from the heat an explosion of some kind of tank. At the same time, some sort of debris, which was fixed by means of control of outer space, flew away. But, I repeat, there was no telemetry, so it’s impossible to determine exactly what this piece of debris was. ”
The fact that there was no information is true. What then pushes the academic cosmonautics to the conclusion that “there was no descent, it burned down in the atmosphere”? But I know one detail that could easily go down to Earth safely. This is a bent apparatus. In one English-language article it was said that if it falls on the land, then its location would be very desirable, since on it travel biological objects that have never flown into space and their study on Earth would be very valuable. Isn’t it so that this small descent vehicle returned to Earth at the end of November? Let me remind you that Marinin kept silent about. For descent on the same day (object 37940), a braking impulse of about 150 m / s is needed, and I have no idea what could explode on board, so that a rather large piece would get that speed in a strictly defined direction against the motion vector of the vehicle. Again, aren't there too many coincidences?
Well, for a snack, the promised conspiracy version. But first, a little history.
As you probably know, Mars was not very friendly to the Soviet apparatus. Although the USSR specialists made the first soft landing of the AMC on the Red Planet, it was not possible to transfer the video information from there. Mars is generally very difficult for a soft landing, because it happens fully automatically, and almost no atmosphere on Earth or Venus. The failure pursued the joint US-Russian mission of Mars Polar Lander, which did not remove the primarish. The difficulty of a soft landing on Mars is also indicated by the failure of the European Beagle-2 probe.
But the Americans seem to have found their happiness on Mars, because their AMCs, one by one, are safely lowered and rovers travel around the planet. And this despite the fact that nothing like NASA does not show on other planets. Especially in this regard, the moon is indicative. In 2004, the Mars rovers "Spirit" and "Opportunity" landed on Mars. Devices with a resource of 90 days were able to travel there for one 6 years, and the other is still working! Who is familiar with the theory of reliability, tell me how likely it is? In the same year, we learned that the color in photos from Mars is incorrect. The sky there should not be red, but blue. If someone is interested in the problem of incorrect color rendition from the Martian rovers, there is a good article “Martian Chronicles, or What color is the Red Planet?” A gnomon accidentally caught in a frame produces a distortion of colors. However, I do not share the conclusions of the author at the end of the article.
An interesting question: “Why should the sky on Mars generally have a color?” On Earth, at altitudes corresponding to Martian atmospheric pressure (35km), the color of the earth's sky is black, why should Mars be different? Now a new rover “Curiosity” is flying to Mars with a completely new landing system. I have no doubt that the device will successfully land on the Red Planet, and this mission will be the next triumph of American science and technology. However, curious and skeptical people were able to notice problems in the organization of this mission.
Considering all the above, how much is NASA interested in independently verifying its Martian exploits? January 9, 2012 An amazing statement was made from the mouth of the space chief: “Frequent failures with our vehicles are also incomprehensible at a time when they fly over the shady side of the Earth for Russia — where we don’t see the telemetry. I do not want to blame anyone, but today there are very powerful means of influencing spacecraft, the use of which cannot be ruled out. ” Http://www.izvestia.ru/news/511258 If this is not a direct accusation of Americans for sabotage, what is it? However, I do not consider the version with a radar justified. In Russia at the present time, for a small amount of money, you can bribe one or more saboteurs who will do everything much more reliably.
And for those who believe that this is pure conspiracy, Americans are great guys and always play by the rules, I will give a few quotes from a person who can hardly be counted among conspiracologists - the director of the Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry. V.I. Vernadsky, Academician Erik Mikhailovich Galimov, ACADEMICIAN ERIK GALIMOV: WHO NEEDS LUNAR STONES?
“Americans knit us, push us into dead ends.” The agreement "Gore - Chernomyrdin" was signed, and we, they say, are obliged to comply with it! Why do it if the project is meaningless? Again politics comes to the fore.
- No, I just wanted to comment on the conversation that happened to me with the head of NASA. I asked him about their program of work on the moon. He replied: “We have no plans for the Moon!” - and explained that there are more important projects both on Mars and in outer space. And the moon, they say, is not very interesting ... However, a year later, NASA sent two vehicles to the moon and continued lunar explorations.
- In 1998, we were told that there was no money for both the Moon and Phobos, and therefore we will be engaged in only one project - Phobos-Grunt. And at the same time, huge funds were allocated to Spectra, which (then it was already clear!) Would not fly ... But there was pressure from Europe and America, and therefore other projects were rejected ...
However, the question of why for almost 40 years of the USSR and then Russia have not sent a single AMC towards the Moon deserves separate consideration. The fact that I am not the only one to doubt the official conclusion of the commission can be seen by reading the comments on the article mentioned at the beginning of this text. Question 6. You can repeat: "How many more professionals do not share the official version?"
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/140752/
All Articles