Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
On November 8th, Russia launched a probe toward the tiny Martian moon Phobos. The launch was picture-perfect, and the spacecraft, called Phobos–Grunt, soared into the night sky over Kazakhstan.
The good news stops there.
For instead of boosting itself onto a Mars-bound trajectory, Phobos–Grunt has for some reason remained in Earth orbit. Ground controllers are trying to contact the probe in the hopes that they can coax it to fire up its engines. But time is running out.
Details on the mission mishap are scarce, but the head of the Russian space agency has told reporters that Phobos–Grunt has until December to push off for Mars. After that, the planets will be out of alignment and a Mars trajectory will be out of the question.
If mission controllers can't establish contact, Phobos–Grunt's orbit will gradually decay. And soon it will become just the latest spacecraft to fall back to Earth. It's a big one, too, weighing in at about 13 metric tons. So there's a possibility some debris could reach Earth's surface. All the more reason to hope Phobos–Grunt snaps out of it. And soon.
—John Matson
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentIt's an international space exploration effort -- so, if I were the insurance company for the mission, I would be sending up an international "S-O-S": NASA and USAF have the Boeing X-37B with remote control, cameras, cargo bay, and robotic arms: A rescue mission profile fits the X-37B to a "T" - even if just means tugging Phobos-Grunt to a higher orbit. Roscosmos and International Launch Services (ILS) share similar engineering staff - and ILS has offices in Long Beach, CA, to support Sea Launch, who can help facilitate a joint rescue effort thru their knowledge of Russian systems. Here is an ideal instance where international space cooperation could really shine for everyone by saving Phobos-Grunt - In Orbit! Russia's Foreign Ministry should be contacting the US State Dept to explore this option - pronto!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImportant to note the possible outcomes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Mission rescued and Phobos-Grunt makes trans-Mars injection burn.
2. Salvage completed and Phobos-Grunt is parked in a higher orbit for a visit from a future repair mission.
3. On-orbit repair can not be made - a conclusion that requires on orbit-inspection - and Phobos-Grunt can be ditched safely - including a controlled dump of fuel in space.
4. No repair is made - and Phobos-Grunt drops out of orbit, out-of-control, with explosive fuel, over a populated region.
Important to note that Phobos-Grunt includes a reentry vehicle for Phobos soil sample return to Earth, which means that some spacecraft components are designed to survive atmospheric reentry.
Sure, but the whole Phobos-Grunt mission cost $170 million US. A rescue mission would probably cost 10x more. Vastly cheaper to just start over and design a new probe. Yeah, it is too bad the thing failed, but Phobos will still be there and Mars will still be there, and I doubt the Russians will give up. Even if they do there are always agencies willing to plan new missions. I'm sorry to see the mission fail, but it is only a rather small and not even particularly costly mishap in the grand scheme of space exploration.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like your thought. I think this is a great opportunity for international collaboration for a rescue. Roscosmos could open source the project and put out a general request for solutions. International teams could form to make progress and the outcome could be not only a saved mission, but transnational relationships that sustain peace.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTharter is right though about the relative costs... Atlas V launch is priced at $85 million minimum here: http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/atlas5_specs.shtml and that's without the X-37.
I suspect now that the design for the mission is complete a second go round would be cheaper.
But I do think it couldn't hurt to contact the Kremlin and various consulates to lobby for the opportunity of international open source collaboration toward a rescue, be that software fixes, new communications approaches, or some amazingly cheap means of physically diagnosing and repairing the spacecraft that someone might come up with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about the hazardous fuel components; need we humans worry? Should the heaters on board the Mar's moon probe shut down and the fuel solidifies, then what?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand that the fuel is extremely toxic to humans (i.e. one drop is a big problem). If the fuel were to atomize in the atomsphere during re-entry, what long-term ramifications might this imminent threat pose?
If "we" were to "shoot it down", then what space debris would be created as "collateral damage"?
James Oberg, a Nasa veteran who has written books on the Russian space program and who now works as a space consultant, warned, that if controllers failed to bring the Phobos-Grunt back to life, the tons of highly toxic fuel it carries would turn it into the most dangerous spacecraft ever to fall from orbit.
"About seven tons of nitrogen teroxide and hydrazine, which could freeze before ultimately entering, will make it the most toxic falling satellite ever," he said. "What was billed as the heaviest interplanetary probe ever may become one of the heaviest space derelicts to ever fall back to Earth out of control."
Oberg said such a crash could cause significantly more damage than the Russian Mars-96 that crashed in the Andes Mountains or the American USA 193 spy satellite that was shot down by a US Navy missile in 2008 to prevent it from splashing its toxic fuel.
Portions of my comment were taken from:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/5939328/Scientists-rush-to-save-Mars-moon-probe
If the satellite impacts within half a kilometer of you, don't go nearer until the fumes dissipate, or that will take you above the 8 hour occupational dose for hydrazine. It won't do serious damage unless you are much closer. 3 tons of hydrazine is nasty, but it isn't Bhopal, the hydrazine will dissipate and oxidize into nitrogen and water, and that will be the end of it. This will not Kill The Planet Forever.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen James Oberg says this could be the most dangerous artificial satellite reentry ever, that is a relative phrase. Most satellites aren't dangerous at all, unless you are directly underneath some falling metal. Chances are, Phobos-Grunt will fall into the ocean. Cities and suburbia are a relatively tiny target.
It is hard to say where a derelict satellite will come down, but with radar tracking we can probably predict the last orbit and the ground track. From the time it reenters we can locate the impact area within a few kilometers. The Earth's surface is 500 million square kilometers, so the chance you will be in the quarter square kilometer where it impacts is pretty slim. Worrying is more dangerous, health-wise.
Thank you for the informed answer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are welcome.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was a little too optimistic. Oberg's online analyses ( www.jamesoberg.com/20080800_mil_satshootdown.html for example) says space activities are designed to cause risks of less than 1 in 10,000 loss of a human life, and this would definitely exceed that. In 2008, the US shot down the derelict 5 ton defense satellite "USA 125" based on similar risks.
7 billion people divided by 500 million km2 is 14/km2. Land density is 50/km2 (excluding the poles), and Manila has 43,000/km2. The risk of hitting Manila or another major city is miniscule, but the potential consequences are unacceptable, and our "average" risk is perhaps a handful of people, more than 0.0001 . Don't tempt Murphy's Law.
The solution might be the same as USA 125; a warhead launched for an intercept over the ocean, to rupture the tanks and make sure the frozen hydrazine glob breaks up and disperses. The Russian military approved of the U.S. 2008 shootdown; they might invite the Americans to join them in a friendly mid-ocean skeet shooting competition.
The world makes 260,000 tons of hydrazine annually, mostly to make foamed polymers (according to wikipedia). It does kill people in industrial accidents, so you can have a nice insulated plastic cup. So, 3 tons of hydrazine won't kill everybody, and is unlikely to harm large groups, but we should make the risk much smaller if we can.
I used to work in a satellite ground station, the radio frequncies used are generally up in the microwave bands, very line of sight, and easily absorbed by intervening metal. I read in an earlier report that they believe the fuel tanks are in the way of the low gain antenna they use to command the craft. They keep trying to command the craft from ground stations, but if the tank is below the antenna, then they can't hit it from the ground no matter how they try, so why don't they try hitting it from space? Seems to me that the International Space Station has an oblique view of it twice on every orbit, as it comes over the horizon or sinks behind it. Multiple orbits should give them multiple angles of attack to try it. Why not try sending a command from there?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo Russia/China admits there is cobalt 57 on board. Why would we (USA) even take a chance of an EMP explosion over our country. Shoot it down...sooner rather than later.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo we don't need to help the Russians in any way, other than helping to minimize or eliminate the re-entry hazard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am glad it failed as I don't support space technology advancement by our enemies. The only downside to the failure the the toxic hazard when it hits earth, that we need to be concerned about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this+I do agree that the solar system is fascinating ... I cant help but believe that we should understand our own planet first then take on the other planets
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDonx505: Studying other planets helps us to better understand our own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChristopherLee: Russia is not our enemy.