Two Part Question—Phobos-Grunt Mission, (Fobos-Grunt).

First part: Does Russia or the US arsenal have such a missile that can safely be launched (meaning non-nuclear ICBM) that could reach, successfully track, and destroy the what apparently is an ill fated spacecraft in a deteriorating orbit?

Second part: Would it prevent/destroy the volatiles from reentry assembled on the spacecraft?

Serous question here, I don't think US Navy SM-3s can reach orbit, and I'm not sure they could site and hit something that far up going 17,000 mph and possibly faster.

Intercepting the satellite at about 130 nautical miles altitude will reduce the risk of debris in space. Once the satellite is hit, officials hope 50 percent of the debris will come to Earth in the first two orbits and the rest shortly thereafter, Cartwright said.

Navy.mil

Last I heard the Fobos-Grunt (using the Russian translation out of respect, the name Fobos-Grunt, “Фобос-Грунт” in Russian, means “Phobos Soil”) is in an elliptical orbit at 207 by 347 kilometers, that is 128.6 by 215.6 miles, NASA defines 122 kilometers for re-entry altitude, and that is just 75.8 miles, so one would clearly think by distance alone the US Navy can blow it up.

I would like thoughts on destroying the spacecraft in orbit as apposed to black Navy tech claims kept from public knowledge and other alternative scenarios and focus on the idea that it may be both possible and prudent to blast the thing ASAP.


It has been discussed on several threads here with some professional insight on the craft, its orbit, and the problems since it's launch, and it doesn't appear that the spacecraft can even be electronically contacted anymore while its battery life on board is at a tenuously deteriorating state of non use. It doesn't appear the craft can be saved from reentry.

Thanks for thoughts as you can see I didn't put a whole lot of time and referencing in this thread, you can read what I had to say in the other threads about this mission disaster.

Third idea would be a rendezvous in orbit to somehow strap a rocket to launch it to escape velocity, a difficult and costly if not technologically impossible mission to undertake, would be a perfect scenario unless a manned EVA can fix the craft to go because the launch window will close this month to fulfill it's mission, NASA's Curiosity Mars Science Laboratory is being launched later this month, and the last Mars launch window was back in 2009, when Fobos-Grunt was originally slated to have been launched.

Nov. 9th Planetary Society link on the mission staus

I'll tell ya what....If no one has such a thing, perhaps this is the first area of focus for some international cooperation in space. The ISS was an example, but this one would matter. It does seem logical to develop a kill system to destroy wayward probes and missions that go wrong.

My first thought for this behemoth would be nukes...but that is obviously impossible while IN Earth orbit, isn't it? There are a few hundred other satellites that really don't want to be blown into deep space as fragments. So, how indeed? China has it's Sat-Killers as do the U.S. and Russia..but just to fragment, not to outright erase something from existence.

Time to break out those drawing boards and the best rocket scientists Earth can offer for a whole new project. We need a new weapon! This time, it's a weapon to save, not kill. It should give those military types indigestion, but the rest of the population will sit back and appreciate the finished product.

Yes, the US has the capability. In 2008 the satellite USA-193 was shot down by an SM-3 at an altitude of 247 km. The circumstances were similar, a spacecraft loaded with hydrazine posing a real danger.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Phage


Phage I believed I linked that as an example but was that satellite in an elliptical orbit as the Fobos-Grunt is, and that to me (and should to you) suggest a higher orbital speed, perhaps a fluctuating orbital speed, of which I believe you are quite familiar with that area of study.

So now, would you pull a trigger to blast it apart?

Apparently, it is in the Navy or even Army or Air Force's ability. I may add they said the SM-3(s) were 'modified', three of them to have backups, should targeting go awry.

Should we let the Russians do it instead? It is after all their cheap space probe, ahem, *clears throat*, their liability. I'm sure they could, one would think. SR-71 Blackbird retirement might suggest that they can. I think but not certain that Russian missile tech advancements deemed the Blackbird defenseless, quite a while ago.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Actually the earth is still feeling the effects of orbital nuclear explosions in LEO experiments I believe in the early 70's. I'm sure you could find more about "nuc detonations in orbit' if you Googled it, I myself use Dogpile because less garbage appears there than Google searches. It is not advised to set off nucs in our ionosphere, or above that or below that, and even launching space probes with plutonium-238 decay power is strictly monitored, and hazardous.

Thankfully a Mars probe can use solar array energy for sufficient power, unprecedentedly the NASA JUNO probe will also use solar array power further than any other space probe ever to Jupiter, but apparently that is the limit of distance from the sun because JUNO has 3 very large solar arrays for the minimal operational power that far away. Kind of another first.

reply to post by Illustronic

There is not a great deal of variation in the orbital velocity of an object in low Earth orbit. It's all pretty close to 17,000 mph. The targeting solution is not really very different.

It's Russia's bird so they are responsible for it. It is also up to them what to do about it. I don't know if they have the capability of hitting it, they seem a lot more concerned about our anti-missle capability than we do of theirs.

Fobos-Grunt is carrying a lot more hydrazine than USA-193 was. There may be U.S. pressure on Russia to "help" with the problem but I would think that unilateral action would be out of the question politically. It was bad enough when we shot down our own.

reply to post by Phage


OK thanks, I was under the impression that such an elliptical orbit would have varying orbital velocities, not that our math couldn't target, but possibly put it to question.








(BTW, I learned where I work not to mention the Army or Air Force rocket science to the Navy guys, and visa versa, unless you like to introduce unnecessary friction in client relations).

There is a video on Youtube with new information on Phobos-Grunt. Supposedly an organization called Killmars co-funded the mission. The video asks more questions, than it answers, but it is kinda intriguing. Does anyone have more info on this?

The video is here: www.youtube.com...

Respecto, Arkibal

Originally posted by Arkibal
There is a video on Youtube with new information on Phobos-Grunt. Supposedly an organization called Killmars co-funded the mission. The video asks more questions, than it answers, but it is kinda intriguing. Does anyone have more info on this?

The video is here: www.youtube.com...

Respecto, Arkibal

Cool video, but the photoshop views of the prodigy with 'powerful people' are rather lame.

Also, when you read "Comments are disabled for this video." you should
suspect it's to suppress the mockery and taunting that the hoax deserves.