Phobos-Grunt |
Phobos-Grunt |
Feb 1 2012, 01:33 AM
Post
#661
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1592 Joined: 14-October 05 From: Vermont Member No.: 530 |
I actually didn't read it as blaming anyone outside Russia. They're blaming whomever used a not rad-hard part, and it sounds like that someone's in Russia. If I poured Evian in my engine block, it wouldn't be an indictment of France if the engine blew up.
I would say that the level of blame being focused on just that issue, though, is scapegoating. There are clearly several fruitful branches on the fault tree. And the rush to promise that heads will roll isn't really mollifying, either. |
|
|
Feb 1 2012, 02:58 AM
Post
#662
|
|
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 5172 Joined: 4-August 05 From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth Member No.: 454 |
All: it sucks that Phobos-Grunt is gone, and that it apparently never had a chance. And given the recent remarks of Russian officials, it's reasonable to suspect that there is some kind of scapegoating or whitewashing going on, and that this is an exceedingly rare situation where conspiracy theories such as those proposed above may have a little bit of merit. But none of this discussion is relevant to the narrow focus of this forum. And conspiracy theory discussions are explicitly banned by rule 1.9. There are several other forums where lively discussions about why Phobos-Grunt failed are taking place and will likely continue for some time, such as this one. But unless someone finds wreckage from the spacecraft, or unless a Phobos-Grunt 2 is actually being built, or unless someone publishes a paper about the planned Phobos-Grunt landing sites (which may happen, which is why I'm not closing this thread), we're probably done discussing Phobos-Grunt at unmannedspaceflight.com. It's over, and it produced no data or any deep-space adventure to discuss.
-------------------- My website - My Patreon - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
|
|
|
Feb 1 2012, 04:23 PM
Post
#663
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 507 Joined: 10-September 08 Member No.: 4338 |
I would like to add just one more insighful article by James Oberg, analyzing potential technical reasons for the Phobos-Grunt loss.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2016/1 |
|
|
Feb 2 2012, 11:26 AM
Post
#664
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3008 Joined: 30-October 04 Member No.: 105 |
Perhaps it's best that the P-G did fail. It was foolish and risky to send active biological samples to Mars.
--Bill -------------------- |
|
|
Feb 2 2012, 11:46 AM
Post
#665
|
|
Senior Member Group: Admin Posts: 3108 Joined: 21-December 05 From: Canberra, Australia Member No.: 615 |
1. Please re-read Emily's comment above.
2. Sorry all, but unless something dramatic occurs, it's time to close this topic. Discussion over. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th September 2024 - 12:05 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |