Hum Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Scientists grew excited last week as Russia's planned its first interplanetary mission in 15 years. By now, the ambitious mission should be powering through space, toward the Martian moon Phobos. Instead, Russia's space agency spent Friday discussing uncontrolled reentry scenarios. Authorities may be looking for someone to blame after a lengthy string of mission failures. According to an Interfax bulletin, an anonymous source indicated that this may force reform in the Russian space agency, Roscosmos, and "a number of positions of responsible persons" could face jail time. As if that news weren't bad enough, this could be an uncontrolled toxic reentry scenario. Phobos-Grunt -- correctly written "Fobos-Grunt," meaning "Phobos-Soil" or "Phobos-Ground" -- is fully laden with unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide; that's ten tons of fuel and oxidizer. The probe itself weighs in at only three tons. The majority of the fuel will likely vaporize during reentry, but everyone will be hoping for a splash-down in an ocean (which covers two-thirds of Earth, fortunately), as the wreckage will still be hazardous. There's also a small quantity of radioactive cobalt-57 in one of the science missions housed in the probe -- a fact that will most likely cause a media frenzy. more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Growled Member Posted November 13, 2011 Member Share Posted November 13, 2011 If it hits on a populated area, could Russia be charged with a terrorists incident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stetson Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 If it hits on a populated area, could Russia be charged with a terrorists incident? "Terrorist" implies intentional. Not that they couldn't still be held responsible but that seems like the wrong term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japlabot Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 The Voyager probes are powered by Plutonium nuclear reactors, if their mission had failed and caused a radioactive release, would the directors at NASA be held criminally liable too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neoadorable Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 jail time might be a little excessive, i'm sure everyone had the best intentions here, they're just incompetent or really really unlucky. i am crying for Phobos-Grunt, i had such high hope for you my love :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaredFrost Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Russia sure isn't proving itself to be reliable at delivering cargo(maybe people) into space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 The Voyager probes are powered by Plutonium nuclear reactors, if their mission had failed and caused a radioactive release, would the directors at NASA be held criminally liable too? That's not true - the power sources in the Voyager probes, and the upcoming Mars Science Laboratory launching Nov. 25, are not nuclear reactors. They are a different tech called an RTG - radioisotope thermoelectric generator. They passively generate heat which thermocouples turn into reliable electricity. Reactors operate at much higher energies and use different materials. While RTG's do contain Plutonium 238 this is not the Pu isotope used reactors as it is not fissile, meaning no chain reactions possible. It is an emitter of alpha particles (helium nuclei) which are easily shielded (can't even penetrate skin), and you could shoot the container they use with a very big gun without it being released. RTG's have been used for decades to power equipment located in remote locations. The isotopes used in P-G are Cobalt 57 and a bit of Cesium 137, both in very low quantities - roughly 300 smoke detectors - for use in calibrating its instruments. There is about 8 metric tons of hypergolic fuel; monomethyl hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide, which could be a problem if any makes it to the ground. On the other hand, the odds are it won't come down over land and most of the fuel will airburst when the tanks rupture. guru 1 Share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven P. Administrators Posted November 13, 2011 Administrators Share Posted November 13, 2011 It's strange how Russia has failed almost everytime when it comes to Mars exploration; China won't be happy either as they piggy-backed a ride on that launcher! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 In the other thread I posted an editorial by a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences that lists some of the issues, not the least of which are the low quality and radiation hardness of their electronics. There were also design compromises made that limit their ability to independently control the propulsion module of F-G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japlabot Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 That's not true - the power sources in the Voyager probes, and the upcoming Mars Science Laboratory launching Nov. 25, are not nuclear reactors. They are a different tech called an RTG - radioisotope thermoelectric generator. They passively generate heat which thermocouples turn into reliable electricity. Reactors operate at much higher energies and use different materials. While RTG's do contain Plutonium 238 this is not the Pu isotope used reactors as it is not fissile, meaning no chain reactions possible. It is an emitter of alpha particles (helium nuclei) which are easily shielded (can't even penetrate skin), and you could shoot the container they use with a very big gun without it being released. RTG's have been used for decades to power equipment located in remote locations. The isotopes used in P-G are Cobalt 57 and a bit of Cesium 137, both in very low quantities - roughly 300 smoke detectors - for use in calibrating its instruments. There is about 8 metric tons of hypergolic fuel; monomethyl hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide, which could be a problem if any makes it to the ground. On the other hand, the odds are it won't come down over land and most of the fuel will airburst when the tanks rupture. I was using it as an example to say that American space launch failures containing hazardous materials would not result in criminal liability for the individuals responsible for the launch. Maybe a better example would be USA-193, to which the US launched a missile at it, blowing it up in Low Earth Orbit. I am guessing that the Russians are putting a similar plan in place where if the probe misses it's launch window or falls out of orbit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 The SM-3 option may not work well with P-G. Besides the politics of a US Aegis warship shooting down a Russian bird, USA-193 was in a decaying 247 km orbit and its debris would re-enter relatively quickly. P-G is in an elliptical orbit with a 206 km perigee and 339 km apogee as of yesterday, so its debris would be more problematic. P-G is also much larger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muhammad Farrukh Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japlabot Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 The SM-3 option may not work well with P-G. Besides the politics of a US Aegis warship shooting down a Russian bird, USA-193 was in a decaying 247 km orbit and its debris would re-enter relatively quickly. P-G is in an elliptical orbit with a 206 km perigee and 339 km apogee as of yesterday, so its debris would be more problematic. P-G is also much larger. Both Russia and China have ASAT capabilities. I'm sure the rocket scientists can work out the best angle to destroy the probe to minimise debris, if they decide to do this. The US decided that destroy USA-193 to be better safe than sorry, which had 20 times less toxic materials than Fobos-Grunt. What would cost less? Sending an ASAT missile (and the good PR of showing how powerful your technology is while saving the day) or potentially having to pay reparations if it hits a country (and possible human cost and/or bad PR of the 'toxic waste version of Chernobyl') My speculative guess is that they will try the ASAT missile option and miss ;) . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neoadorable Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 let's hope PG still makes it, she's got some fight in her yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Sadly, Roscosmos is now doubtful. Seems they depended heavily on automation and P-G isn't designed to be controlled while in orbit. It was set up to listen only once it was already on its way to Mars, and their ground stations are also short on planning for orbital control. They'll keep trying, but it's not looking good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffrey B. Veteran Posted November 15, 2011 Veteran Share Posted November 15, 2011 Russia is falling on bad times when it comes to space latly. for a while there they could not even get a rocket up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hum Posted November 15, 2011 Author Share Posted November 15, 2011 It's strange how Russia has failed almost everytime when it comes to Mars exploration ... Face it -- Martians just don't like Russians. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocM Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Their problems come down to inferior electronics with low radiation hardness, a large loss of quality control since the 1990's, and in this mission not enough ground testing of a system that is almost 90% new or newly derived. Complicating matters is a poor deep space network (they mothballed their comms ships so no worldwide coverage) and a parochial unwillingness to ask for help from the West's DSN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neoadorable Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 i'm crying for the Russian space program. they're living proof of how devastating brain drain can be. all their best scientists and engineers work for NASA or the ESA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts