Phobos-Grunt Options

[tedstryk]

In Astronomy's February issue, they report that Russia has approved funding for the Phobos-Grunt mission. Design work has gone on since 1997, and the new design is scaled down to fly an a Soyuz rocket instead of the larger Proton. The main purpose is similar to Phobos-2, with the addition of a sample return. Also being discussed is the possibility of it carrying a few "meteorological stations" fof Mars itself. Generally, I have written this mission off as "never going to happen," but with the new Russian alliance with ESA, I wonder if they might be able to actually fly this thing. Also, with Putin's increasingly Soviet-style leadership, and with the likelyhood of lunar missions from China and India, Russian pride might drive this mission. If so, I have a concern. This mission sounds really, really ambitious. And the Russians have never even sent a fully successful Mars orbiter, and that is when they launched them in pairs or triplets. Still, if the mission flies, even if it doesn't bring back Phobos soil it might obtain some interesting results. Here is ESA's Phobos-Grunt page:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ESA_Permanent_...IJFW4QWD_0.html

Also, ESA has another page on potential Russian programs, although this seem to be nothing but pipe dreams at the moment. Would be a cool mission though.

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ESA_Permanent_...0LFW4QWD_0.html

And also a page on the only partially realized current Russian project, its program to put instruments on other's spacecraft, such as HEND on Odyssey.

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ESA_Permanent_...HMFW4QWD_0.html

[RNeuhaus]

The Phobos-Grunt spacecraft has a typical Russian design: rustic and simple in order to save useful weigh. That spaceship has a much greater volume proportion for fuel to the rest than any sonda that I have ever seen. The reason is to bring fuel for two ways!

Rodolfo

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

The Phobos-Grunt spacecraft has a typical Russian design: rustic and simple in order to save useful weigh[t].

Well, since it's been quite some time since the Russians have had a successful interplanetary mission, we'll see if they can simply pick up where they left off, with a Phobos sample return no less.

Craig Covault has an interesting piece in this week's issue of AW&ST ("Russians Criticize U.S. on Lunar and Planetary Cooperation") where he states:

"Russia is reenergizing its lunar and planetary program with the planned launch of a sample return mission to the Martian moon Phobos and the launch of an ambitious lunar penetrator mission, the first Russian mission to the Moon in 30 years (AW&ST June 5, p. 20). But Russian managers here said the U.S. has shown little or no interest in Russian overtures for collaboration on these flights."

Translation: The Russians are under no illusions that they don't need partners to make these missions work, which is why, in the absence of any firm collaboration agreements, I remain skeptical that, for example, Phobos-Grunt will ever happen, nice graphics and lofty rhetoric notwithstanding.

[RNeuhaus]

But Russian managers here said the U.S. has shown little or no interest in Russian overtures for collaboration on these flights."[/indent]

Why aren't the Americans much interested to work with Russian's overtures? Let suppose that this cooperation will have many advantages for them and also to our mankind:

1. Saves money.
2. Interchange of knowledge, technology and experience..
3. Shorten the development and launch cycle time.

I must admit that the above reason is just an ideal world. At this time and many centuries, we are still going to live with a country's domain barrier in our minds.

Translation: The Russians are under no illusions that they don't need partners to make these missions work, which is why, in the absence of any firm collaboration agreements, I remain skeptical that, for example, Phobos-Grunt will ever happen, nice graphics and lofty rhetoric notwithstanding.

Watch it out that Russian will probably join with others countries willing to work with him. Are ESA interested to work with Russian in returning its project of Phobos-Grunt?
I have the impression that ESA is at the present time not much interested to join with Russians to work on that project unless ESA is more interested on explorating on any Gallilean Moon: Europa.

Rodolfo

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

Why aren't the Americans much interested to work with Russian's overtures? Let suppose that this cooperation will have many advantages for them and also to our mankind:

1. Saves money.
2. Interchange of knowledge, technology and experience..
3. Shorten the development and launch cycle time.

But unfortunately, I don't think any of these benefits would be seen. Russia would not supply a lot of money, they have almost no technology that NASA needs, and international planning could actually complicate development. ESA has needed Russia (or America) to perform interplanetary launches, but I think they also prefer to do things themselves if they can.

The fact that Russia launched Mars Express and Venus Express does indicate they can perform sophisticated tasks. And their Earth-resource and military satellites perform many of the same kinds of manuevers and sensor readings of a planetary probe.

I wish them luck. To be honest, I think international competition is a good thing, it will excite passion and public support for space exploration.

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

The fact that Russia launched Mars Express and Venus Express does indicate they can perform sophisticated tasks. And their Earth-resource and military satellites perform many of the same kinds of manuevers and sensor readings of a planetary probe.

Unlike the case with interplanetary missions, Russia hasn't experienced a 20-year gap in launches, and no one really questions their launch capability. And I'm not sure that operating civilian earth-monitoring or military satellites is really that great an indicator as to whether they can pull off a Phobos sample return.

This post has been edited by AlexBlackwell: Jun 19 2006, 05:59 PM

[Guest_DonPMitchell_*]

Unlike the case with interplanetary missions, Russia hasn't experienced a 20-year gap in launches, and no one really questions their launch capability. And I'm not sure that operating civilian earth-monitoring or military satellites is really that great an indicator as to whether they can pull off a Phobos sample return.

I'm sure NASA could do it. I'd give Russia or ESA about equal likelihood of being able to pull it off. Military and Earth-resource satellites require technology for precise attitude control and orbital maneuvering, which I think would be relevant to a mission like this.

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

I'm sure NASA could do it. I'd give Russia or ESA about equal likelihood of being able to pull it off. Military and Earth-resource satellites require technology for precise attitude control and orbital maneuvering, which I think would be relevant to a mission like this.

I'm sure it would be relevant, if not critical. I guess I'm looking at Phobos-Grunt in totality, not each individual component, which the Russians may or may not have sucessfully demonstrated in analogous situations. In the early stages, there were many who thought Mars Observer was simply going to be a matter of flying a terrestrial weather satellite to Mars. Or that MPL wasn't really that hard because we had already soft-landed on Mars twenty years before.

[tedstryk]

I'm sure it would be relevant, if not critical. I guess I'm looking at Phobos-Grunt in totality, not each individual component, which the Russians may or may not have sucessfully demonstrated in analogous situations. In the early stages, there were many who thought Mars Observer was simply going to be a matter of flying a terrestrial weather satellite to Mars. Or that MPL wasn't really that hard because we had already soft-landed on Mars twenty years before.

I think there is another thing to look at, in terms of ability to pull this mission off. Alex and Don have made posts concerning the technical aspects. But I think a lot of the debate is whether or not, come 2009, there will actually be a launch, or whether the mission dies on paper. I think there is a reasonable chance of this mission actually launching.

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

I think there is another thing to look at, in terms of ability to pull this mission off. Alex and Don have made posts concerning the technical aspects. But I think a lot of the debate is whether or not, come 2009, there will actually be a launch, or whether the mission dies on paper. I think there is a reasonable chance of this mission actually launching.

I'm not stating absolutely that this mission will never fly. I hope it does. And anything (e.g., the Russians putting together Phobos-Grunt in 36 months) is possible, I guess. However, I need to see a lot more than what has been shown so far before I become a believer. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I've seen the Russians basically chumming the waters for partners with mission concepts and no one has bitten. I don't even think the Russians believe they can pull off the mission alone. If they did, why would they be concerned that, as Covault reports, the U.S. isn't showing enough interest? My fear is that U.S. dollars will be tied up in this effort. I say let the Russians first show they can do it, and if they're successful, then I have no doubt that potential partners will be lining up.