Talk:Fobos-Grunt/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Old talk

Grunt is not russian word for soil. Grunt is variation of latin word - "ground"...

Go learn Russian :)! Or put the word грунт (grunt in russian letters) into this translater, choose russian to english and see for yourself ;-). --Bricktop 14:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


RE: "Grunt is not russian word for soil..."
A resource for the nomenclature I acquired it from must then be incorrect. At this time I am not sure where I actually found this, but if I come across it, I will post it in this discussion. I was curious as to why it was actually called "Phobos-Grunt" (although "Phobos" was obvious). Thus I explored and that was what I came up with. I will admit my Russian is bad, :). I have editted the page to say that it is in reference to the ground. Marsbound2024 17:08, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Phobos is not Mars - Phobos is one of Mars' two satellites/moons EFletcher (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Грунт is ground. soil is почва --Юе Артеміс (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I suggest that the Phobos-Grunt article should be findable by entering Fobos or Fobos-Grunt on the left 82.163.24.100 (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Launch delayed to 2011?

"The launch of Phobos-Grunt was scheduled to take place this October, but it now seems likely the launch date will be pushed back to 2011 at the earliest." Sources: [1], [2]

This is already in the article. The rumours were later denied by Roscosmos and Lavochkin.[3][4]. Offliner (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Also see this: [5]. Offliner (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
After the talk at the EPSC in Potsdam on the September 16. I asked the people if launch is still 2009 and they said yes. Today they were talking about that the delay is now offically anounced. So lets wait for 2011 than a lot of stuff will launch!--Stone (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen any official announcement yet. Do you have a link? Offliner (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Offical? As offical as personal e-mail can be. What their source is is unknown to me, but they are talking about 2011 now. None of the scientists involved in the programm looked that conviced on wendsday last week, but they had to deliver a talk with the launch fdate of 09. The module is still in Moscow, but the picture shown on wendsday looked like nearly ready for transport.
Never mind, I found a link to official delay announcement: [6]. It's pity, it seems they almost made it, but not quite. Offliner (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The spacecraft needed the tests they would have skiped due to the october launch. Most of the scientists are happy to have the time to work on the improvement a launch at that point would have been political driven and not science wise. I like the idea that this thing might work and bring saome grains of Phobos to earth.--Stone (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yevpatoria is in Ukraine

Since the Soyuz programme also mentioned (rightly so) "Soyuz vehicles are launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan" I just included in this article that Yevpatoria is in Ukraine. Since this is newsworthy and you can't expect all readers of this article to double click on each link to "check" if the places mentioned in this article are in Russia. If NASA should start launching rockets from Canada that would be newsworthy too! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 12:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

MetNet

The article on MetNet states that the plan to send the MetNet landers along with this mission have been dropped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.222.204.14 (talk) 05:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Sorry, forgot the sig.

Launch delayed to 2014 ?

  • Early October, Aviation Week suggests another 26-month delay is possible. Hektor (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Now fueled for Nov 9 launch. [7]. - Rod57 (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
They should have delayed the launch. The head of the Russian Federal Space Agency, Vladimir Popovkin, said 90% of Phobos Grunt is new and untested. For such a complex mission they should have thoroughly tested everything to prevent a failure. A failure of a minor part could terminate the mission. I think it is irresponsible to send untested equipment on such a complex mission. They are asking for trouble. --Mschribr (talk) 16:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Images out of date

The image used top right in the article does not match the more detailed Russian video on YouTube or the photos here. Should we change the image or comment on the video ?

Yes, the old ESA image doesn't seem to be accurate anymore. I have uploaded a fair use photograph and switched to it instead. We really should try to get a free-use permission from Roscosmos, then we could use more than just one photo. Nanobear (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

References

  • Zelenyi, L. M.; Zakharov, A. V. (2010). "Phobos-Grunt project: Devices for scientific studies". Solar System Research. 44 (5): 359. doi:10.1134/S0038094610050011.
  • Rodionov, D. S.; Klingelhoefer, G.; Evlanov, E. N.; Blumers, M.; Bernhardt, B.; Gironés, J.; Maul, J.; Fleischer, I.; Prilutskii, O. F. (2010). "The miniaturized Möessbauer spectrometer MIMOS II for the Phobos-Grunt mission". Solar System Research. 44 (5): 362. doi:10.1134/S0038094610050023.
  • Moskaleva, L. P.; Mityugov, A. G.; Dunchenko, A. G.; Smirnov, G. G. (2010). "Gamma-Spectrometer for the Phobos-Grunt mission". Solar System Research. 44 (5): 371. doi:10.1134/S0038094610050035.
  • Managadze, G. G.; Wurz, P.; Sagdeev, R. Z.; Chumikov, A. E.; Tuley, M.; Yakovleva, M.; Managadze, N. G.; Bondarenko, A. L. (2010). "Study of the main geochemical characteristics of Phobos' regolith using laser time-of-flight mass spectrometry". Solar System Research. 44 (5): 376. doi:10.1134/S0038094610050047.
  • Managadze, G. G.; Sagdeev, R. Z.; Chumikov, A. E.; Cherepin, V. T.; Saralidze, G. Z. (2010). "Determination of the surface-averaged composition of the regolith of phobos by measurements of the secondary ion flux during the Phobos-Grunt mission in the MANAGA-F experiment". Solar System Research. 44 (5): 385. doi:10.1134/S0038094610050059.
  • Marov, M. Ya.; Kolesnichenko, A. V.; Manuilov, K. K.; Osipov, V. P. (2010). "The thermophob experiment: Direct investigations of the thermophysical properties of the regolith of phobos". Solar System Research. 44 (5): 393. doi:10.1134/S0038094610050060.
  • Korablev, O. I.; Bondarenko, A. V.; Dokuchaev, I. V.; Ivanov, A. Yu.; Kozlov, O. E.; Kottsov, V. A.; Kiselev, A. B.; Bibring, J. -P.; Fourmond, J. -J. (2010). "Microscope spectrometer for the Phobos-Grunt mission". Solar System Research. 44 (5): 403. doi:10.1134/S0038094610050072.
  • Khavroshkin, O. B.; Tsyplakov, V. V. (2010). "Seismology of Phobos: From geophysics to cosmogony". Solar System Research. 44 (5): 409. doi:10.1134/S0038094610050084.
  • Manukin, A. B.; Gorshkov, A. N.; Shlyk, A. F. (2010). "GRAS-F seismogravimeter for measuring gravity-inertial fields on the surface of Phobos". Solar System Research. 44 (5): 417. doi:10.1134/S0038094610050096.
  • Smirnov, V. M.; Marchuk, V. N.; Yushkova, O. V.; Abramov, V. V.; Bazhanov, A. S.; Lifantsev, B. S. (2010). "Long-wave planetary radar: Radar sounding of the soil of Phobos in the Phobos-Grunt project". Solar System Research. 44 (5): 423. doi:10.1134/S0038094610050102.
  • Andreev, O. N.; Antonenko, S. A.; Gotlib, V. M.; Zakharkin, G. V.; Linkin, V. M.; Lipatov, A. N.; Makarov, V. S.; Khairulin, B. K.; Khlyustova, L. I. (2010). "Libration celestial mechanics experiment". Solar System Research. 44 (5): 438. doi:10.1134/S0038094610050114.
  • Avanesov, G. A.; Gordeev, R. V.; Grishin, V. A.; Zhukov, B. S.; Zhukov, S. B.; Kolomeets, E. V.; Krasnopevtseva, E. B.; Kudelin, M. I.; Krupin, A. A. (2010). "TV system for navigation and guidance". Solar System Research. 44 (5): 444. doi:10.1134/S0038094610050126.
  • Kozlov, O. E.; Aleksashkin, S. N.; Ivanov, A. V.; Kozlova, T. O.; Sutugin, S. E. (2010). "Manipulator system of the sampling complex of the Phobos-Grunt spacecraft". Solar System Research. 44 (5): 451. doi:10.1134/S0038094610050138.
  • Vaisberg, O. L.; Koinash, G. V.; Moiseev, P. P.; Avanov, L. A.; Smirnov, V. N.; Letunovskii, V. V.; Myagkikh, V. D.; Ton’Shev, A. K.; Leibov, A. V. (2010). "DI-aries panoramic energy-mass spectrometer of ions for the Phobos-Grunt project". Solar System Research. 44 (5): 456. doi:10.1134/S003809461005014X.
  • Avanesov, G. A.; Belov, V. Yu.; Drozdova, T. Yu.; Katasonov, I. Yu.; Kudelin, M. I.; Murav’Ev, V. M.; Forsh, A. A. (2010). "System for scientific payload information support for the Phobos-Grunt project". Solar System Research. 44 (5): 468. doi:10.1134/S0038094610050151.
  • Marov, M. Ya. (2010). "Phobos-Soil space project: A new stage of the Russian planetary program". Solar System Research. 44: 1. doi:10.1134/S0038094610010016.
  • Zelenyi, L. M.; Zakharov, A. V.; Polischuk, G. M.; Martynov, M. B. (2010). "Project of the mission to Phobos". Solar System Research. 44: 15. doi:10.1134/S003809461001003X.
  • Akim, E. L.; Zaslavsky, G. S.; Morskoy, I. M.; Ruzsky, E. G.; Stepaniants, V. A.; Tuchin, A. G. (2010). "Primeval substance delivery from Phobos to the Earth—the Phobos-Soil project: Ballistics, navigation, and flight control". Solar System Research. 44: 26. doi:10.1134/S0038094610010041.
  • Basilevsky, A. T.; Shingareva, T. V. (2010). "The selection and characterization of the Phobos-Soil landing sites". Solar System Research. 44: 38. doi:10.1134/S0038094610010053.

--Stone (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Budget comparison

Regarding this edit by an anonymous IP editor: the budget comparison (US$163 million for Fobos-Grunt, $8.5 billion for NASA's planned Mars sample return mission) is made directly in the source,[8] therefore I think it's notable and relevant. Even if the Mars sample return mission is more difficult, it still shows how much more expensive the American missions are, and this is exactly the point the source wants to make. Nanobear (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is relevant and I'm neutral on the question of returning that to the article, but 1) Mars sample return must be way more difficult considering the gravitation scale 2) In PPP terms, Russian budget in fact is likely to be 1.5 times higher 3) Space launching in Russia is generally cheaper than in the U.S. I believe if we retain the comparison, we should add at least the note #1. GreyHood Talk 23:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Phobos-Regolith

It seems to me that regolith, though an uncommon word, is the most accurate English translation of the word грунт in the name of the mission. The word грунт is a technical geological term that refers to any multicomponent systems such as soil, sand, rocks, etc. on the surface of the Earth or any other planet. It is not exactly "soil" or "ground". --Itinerant1 (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia says that regolith is the proper general term for the matter that covers surfaces of the Moon and Mars (Lunar soil, Lunar surface#Regolith), (Martian soil), though the word "soil" is applied somewhat imprecisely to its fine fraction. --Itinerant1 (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
What do reliable sources say? --GW… 01:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism section

"However, as stated by Fobos-Grunt Chief Designer Maxim Martynov, the estimates by mission specialists yield much lower probability of reaching the surface of Mars than what is required for Category III of target body/mission type assigned to Fobos-Grunt and defined by COSPAR Planetary protection policy (according to Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty).[37][38]"

I don't find that paragraph very clear on a casual reading. Anyone able to unpack it? +|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I rephrased it. I hope it is clearer now.Bomazi (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Launch Vehicle

According to the photographs taken before launch the Zenit is a Zenit 2FG. 212.114.159.142 (talk) 13:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  • That is a non-standard designation refering to the specific modifications made for this launch only (i.e. Zenit-2 Fobos-Grunt). It is a Zenit-2SB41, which is basically a Zenit-2M with a different fairing and PAF. --GW… 16:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Bad Phrasing

The second to last para contains the following non sequitur:

"with ignoring unmanned character of vehicle."Zedshort (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I'm afraid some English speaking people pronounce "grunt" as the synonym of "infantryman". In Russian, it is pronounced as "groont". Same thing as Sputnik which in Russian is "spootnik" not "spatnik" like the Americans say. Can someone please please write an IPA pronunciation guide at the top of the article? Zeev.tarantov (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Status

The article is not at all clear about the status of the probe. Is it still stranded in Earth orbit or did it manage to leave for Mars ? Bomazi (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Still in Earth orbit, engineers have got about two weeks to get it on its way before it reenters. --GW… 12:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Ok. I have clarified the intro a little.Bomazi (talk) 13:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Two weeks? Every other news article says three days. Associated Press, Reuters, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.149.232 (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I have heard both figures, three days is for the spacecraft's battery life, whilst two weeks is for the lifetime of its current orbit. I think three days is assuming that it cannot generate power through its solar arrays (either by lack of deployment or orientation). It remains to be seen which is the case --GW… 13:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
        • From what I read, two weeks is the remaining duration of the launch window. Reentry is not expected before at least a month. Bomazi (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Current predictions are reentry on 26 November --GW… 01:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Consideration of vehicle survival

The Russian Space Federation should consider dumping attitude-adjustment hydrazine from the payload to buy more time, as well as activating the momentum wheels. Deploying the solar arrays was a bold move due to the solar-cycle and its effect on the payload's 2-card-element-set B-Star component. -- Mike Cronis (Satellite engineer) 13 Nov 2011

  • There is no uplink, so they cannot command it to do that. Solar array deployment was presumably automatic. -GW… 09:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Have they considered inverting the ground-system's myplexes on the cryptos? I had that problem with a DSP launch about 5 years ago. -- Mike C. 16 Nov 2011

I wonder if they can communicate with the chinese probe? and if there's a link between the chinese probe and the russian one that could be used... 70.24.248.23 (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if they've considered timing the command transmisions from Perth to the rate of tumble? It's unlikely any onboard omni-directional antenna is going to receive it, unless Perth can increase their HPA output to maximum once a main-beam is established. (Mike Cronis 10 Dec 2011)

Post-launch section graphic is bizarre

The graphic in the post-launch section shows the orbital tracks as viewed from below the south pole of Earth. This is a very rare way of showing things. This viewpoint can be inferred from the direction of the orbits. Fobos-Grunt was placed in a Prograde orbit around Earth (like all other satellites) to take advantage of Earth's rotational velocity at launch. This means the direction arrows you see on the diagram are in the same direction as the rotation of the Earth. This means we are viewing Earth from below. I don't have graphical editing capability, but I would suggest someone alter the image to be a mirror of what it currently is (without mirroring the text, of course). This would show the orbits as seen from above the north pole; the usual way orbital tracks are shown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sephalon1 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"Not failed yet"

It is failed. It cannot reach Mars or Phobos anymore even if it is rescued due to the unfavorable planetary configuration from now on. Colchicum (talk) 23:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

There is now a clearly sourced statement in the lede that claims the "window of opportunity" is now closed. I think that ought to do it. N2e (talk) 14:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

potential conflict of information ... clarification or correction needed

From Portal:Current events/2011 November 23 ...

From Fobos-Grunt#Contact ... "Roscosmos officials have said that a window of opportunity to salvage Fobos-Grunt would close in early December.[35]"

And from Fobos-Grunt#Post-launch ... "If the probe is not restarted by late November, it will miss the launch window and it will be no longer possible for it to reach the Martian system (the probe is not expected to survive until the next launch window, which will open in two years). Roscosmos spokesman admitted on November 22nd that chances of rescuing the mission were very slim.[32]"

99.56.121.98 (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The window for the original planned mission to Phobos closed on the 21st of November (two days before the 23rd, the date of the first quote), principally because any later than that and there would be no time for the return capsule to be released at Phobos before its own window back to Earth closed. There's nothing stopping the return capsule being returned to Earth at a later opportunity and Fobos-Grunt can get to Phobos any time til early December. ChiZeroOne (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Both Fobos-Grunt and Curiosity are going to Mars, and Curiosity's launch window will end 18 December 2011. Has Fobos-Grunt the same window or is Atlas V-541 a more powerful rocket? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
They have different planned trajectories. MSL is on a direct trajectory which requires more delta V, but as you say provided for by the more powerful Atlas V-541. What matters with windows is not necessarily where you are going but how you want to get there. ChiZeroOne (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the enlightenment ChiZeroOne. Nice to know. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

BREAKING NEWS!!!!--Fobos-Grunt Fails to leave orbit--stranded in orbit around earth!!!

AMERICAN 1 ENGINEER (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

We know. Calm down. Article has already been updated. People are working to save the mission, and there's still a good chance it will work. Nanobear (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
There's a Russian claim that says HAARP caused the failure of the probe due to its excessively intense radio emissions. (Scientific American;Alaska Dispatch;) -- 76.65.128.198 (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Reentry

So according to this Universe Today article, there can be some scientific returns, in validating the reentry capsule and the LIFE experiment, since it is probably to survive... 76.65.128.198 (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Fobos/Phobos?

Which is correct? Phobos is the name of the moon, and the name of the mission is Phobos-Grunt everywhere else...--Lord Aro (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You might be right. Solar System Research Volume 34 / 2000 - Volume 45 / 2011 does tot use the F-word but goes with the Ph-word --Stone (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
"Everywhere else" are clearly using a simple romanisation of the Russian name, hence "grunt" not ground, they just have incorrectly used the English name of the moon instead of romanising the Russian version too. Wikipedia uses the romanisation of Russian guideline, which after learning Russian myself seems standard practise to me. I can honestly say I have yet to see Ф romanised as ph, always f. I think Wikipedia's more technically correct version is better. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses WP:COMMONNAME; if English sources use "ph" more then "f" in connection with this mission the article should be renamed. Whatever and whoever Russians call this mission... it does not matter... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 17:37, 17 February 2011

Have a look at the foreign names section of WP:COMMONNAME, particularly those in different scripts. This is a clear case of an incorrect transliteration, and we are not doomed to repeat it. ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you support a the name change of the wikipedia article Kiev into Kyiv also... I'm getting a bit fed up that the explaining of how WP:COMMONNAME should be interpreted is always with a nationalistic POV in mind... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME does not apply. Per that guideline, "ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". That is clearly the case with the "ph" version, where half of the name has been translated and the other half has not. --GW… 18:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I can live with that GW. That sound non-WP:ILIKEIT — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

So, Fobos or Phobos?--Lord Aro (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Fobos-Grunt is correct. As detailed above, there is no way to get "Phobos-Grunt" from "Фобос-Грунт" with a consistent conversion process. You'd either get "Fobos-Grunt" (which is correct), or "Phobos-Ground". --GW… 14:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Very well. I'll change it wherever else i find the mission name spelt 'ph' (unless you can set a bot up to do it, i don't know much about bots...)--Lord Aro (talk) 07:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I just referenced a set of mission slides done by the FEDERAL SPACE AGENCY OF RUSSIAN FEDERATION - LAVOCHKIN ASSOCIATION, and they use the title "PHOBOS-GRUNT" PROJECT . It is located at ms2010.cosmos.ru/pres/4/martynov.ppt. --RSStockdale (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that both are being used, but "Fobos" is the correct spelling. There are documents on the same site as the one you've presented which use the "F" spelling. At the end of the day, "Ph" just seems to be a translation error. --GW… 14:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Russian spacecraft are normally transliterated, like "Soyuz-Fregat" - not Soyuz-Frigate like the monstrosity Phobos-Grunt. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Both "phobos" and "fobos" are equally correct transliterations of "Фобос"; they are pronounced identically. The former has the advantage of being more familiar to English readers, and (in case you care about facts) more widely used in English media in reference to this topic. - ~----
No, "Fobos" is correct English transliteration of "Фобос" (see Romanization of Russian#Transliteration table), while "Phobos" is English translation of "Фобос". Similar is "Phobos-Soil" English translation, and "Fobos-Grunt" is English transliteration. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to be a devil's advocate. The craft is named after the moon of Mars, which, in turn, is named after the Greek god Phobos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_%28mythology%29. Russian and Greek happen to use the same letter, but if a university professor of mine is right, the pronunciation is different, with the ancient green pronunciation being like a p and an h concatenated together. In that case, Phobos would be the correct transliteration, not Fobos. I don't think any modern person, with the possible exception of geeks like my professor, actually pronounce Phobos that way, but I throw this out there anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Engel (talk • contribs) 21:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I understand his position, but it does not conform with modern transliteration of the Cyrillic letter Ф, which corresponds to the Latin letter "F". --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 22:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Right, but should the transliteration be from Cyrillic or from Greek? Victor Engel (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The spacecraft's name is Фобос-Грунт, not Φόβος-Εδάφους. You wouldn't be able to transliterate "Грунт" from Greek. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 08:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps this article needs to be renamed, too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tschaikovsky Victor Engel (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

NYT resource

99.181.131.214 (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

  • That's been doing the rounds for the last day or two. The remark has been taken completely out of context, and is dubious at best. He was just saying that they weren't ruling anything out, although it does look like he was trying to make excuses for the large number of failures Russia has been having recently. In the original article he also discussed the cause of the failure, and stated that it was probably the flight control system that failed. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 01:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Reentry conflict

Media reports are saying that Phobos was somewhere between New Zealand and South America at 1 PM ET when it re-entered the atmosphere.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16491457 http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/phobos-grunt-failed-russian-mars-probe-falls-earth/story?id=15366151

But the tracking site n2y0 realtime orbital plot was indicating that Phobos would have been over Spain at that time (1 pm ET) and wouldn't have been at the projected re-entry point until well after 2 PM ET.

http://www.n2yo.com/?s=37872

This indicates that a cover-up of some sort is being performed to give the impression that Phobos re-entered over open ocean and not over land. There are quite significant consequences for the space industry if orbital debris is reported to fall over land, as this opens up the possibility of legal action (real or fraudulent) and has implications for higher insurance costs for the industry in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.91.239 (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That, or you're not allowing for atmospheric drag and a decaying orbit. Stop synthesising conspiracy theories, and come back when you have some reliable sources. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 22:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
The n2yo.com site was reporting that the sattelite should be over the pacific around 17:40 UTC, so it is consistent with the reentry point. However, they were projecting far beyond the probable entry point (they did not take into account the decay while plotting the map), and you probable saw another future pass around that zone. Razvan Socol (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Put back section Folklore and Rumors

Put back the section Folklore and Rumors by Wladik Derevianko. The section does not say the rumors are fact. However, it says that the Russian media reports rumors about Phobos Grunt as facts. This is appropriate for the Wikipedia article about Phobos Grunt. Are there any objections? --Mschribr (talk) 16:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a rumour mill. Also, to quote WP:NOT, "speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content". --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 17:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Again, we are not making rumors. We are reporting the Russian media is reporting rumors about Phobos grunt. Can you see the difference between making a rumor and saying someone is making a rumor? The article says the U.S. Strategic Command never made the announcement reported in the Russian media. --Mschribr (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
No, but surely that is trivial, we don't need a section for every single press release and media report on the spacecraft. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 20:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Phobos grunt is a Russian space mission and Russian media is reporting rumors about their own space mission. That is important. If the Russian media cannot be trusted then that says something important about Russia. This also says something about the Russian space program and specifically Phobos grunt. That there is a lot of fabrication and deception in Russia. It explains why Phobos grunt and many Russian space missions failed. The Russian engineers lied when then said the Phobos grunt is ready for launch, thinking everybody is lying. --Mschribr (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
It sounds to me like you are trying to push a point of view by including this otherwise non-notable report. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 21:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with you and so does Wladik Derevianko. You are in the minority. If there are no other objections, I will return the section to the article. --Mschribr (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Could you post some links to the articles you refer to, I'd like to offer comments as to whether they are notable sources or not, if you have sources and links, it can't be too hard to work out. Penyulap talk 03:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Having reviewed this edit by WDGraham, I support his removal of that content, as it offers nothing of significance to the article at this time. It could however be incorporated in the form of "Initial reports suggested the probe would fall on South western Afghanistan, eventually the probe re-entered and hit "some geographic location" " something like that, and those refs are good for such statements. Penyulap talk 04:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Also, a better translation of "Folklore and rumors" would be "Re-entry predictions" if you would like assistance polishing up and translating this text into English please contact me on my talkpage. Penyulap talk 04:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe you missed the point of the Folklore and rumors section. There really was no initial report the probe would fall on Southwestern Afghanistan. The Russian source fabricated a report. The Russian source is the Russian International News Agency (RIA Novosti), a Russian government owned news agency. The same Russian government is responsible for the Russian space program including Phobos Grunt. Reporting the Russian rumors shows the massive fabrication and deception in Russia and is a reason for the Phobos Grunt disaster. --Mschribr (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
W.D.Graham, there is a question of consistency. What about articles in Category:Moon landing conspiracy theories? And more generally, reflection of other kinds of public deceits in Wikipedia, like Category:Ufology or Category:Religion? Are the topics of those articles principally different from the rumors of RIA Novosti? Or they are present in Wikipedia by mistake?Wladik Derevianko (talk) 08:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
There is also a question of notability. While I personally believe that Ufology and the Moon landing conspiracy theories are a load of crap, they have been covered extensively in the media and popular culture. I'm not even going to start on how religion is notable. Your "conspiracy" theory about Fobos-Grunt is based on your interpretation of a single news report, and you provided no sources to suggest that the claims were even false, let alone part of a conspiracy. Therefore, I would suggest that the inclusion of this material would violate WP:FRINGE, WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 12:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Here are two articles which mention the news story from RIA Novosti: MSNBC and Universe Today. Both have contacted StratCom to verify the story; they obtained no confirmation, but no denial either. Razvan Socol (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Nobody insinuated there was a conspiracy to destroy Phobos grunt. Each deception by itself may not jeopardize Phobos grunt. However, the preponderance of deceit condemned Phobos grunt to fail. 3 editors think this is notable. 2 editors think this is not notable. If there are no more objections, the section should be returned. --Mschribr (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Who's talking about a conspiracy to destroy it? To quote your justification for including this: "That there is a lot of fabrication and deception in Russia. It explains why Phobos grunt [sic] and many Russian space missions failed. The Russian engineers lied when then said the Phobos grunt [sic] is ready for launch, thinking everybody is lying". That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me, regardless of its aim. Secondly, this is not a vote, so stop quoting how many people are supporting each position as if it mattered. We need to establish consensus on the matter, and at the moment it is clear that no consensus has been reached. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 00:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
If people do not plan an action as a group then there is no conspiracy. I never suggested there was a conspiracy about Phobos grunt. I only wish to say the Russian news agency, RIA Novosti, reported that The U.S. Strategic Command said the spacecraft would enter the atmosphere at 2.22 a.m. Moscow time (22.27 GMT) and fall somewhere between 30.7 Degrees North and 62.3 Degrees East in southwestern Afghanistan near the city of Mirabad. However, the U.S. Strategic Command never made this statement. This is notable for 2 reasons. RIA Novosti is the Russian state-owned news agency. Where Phobos grunt will crash will have consequence because of its size, amount of rocket fuel and nuclear fuel. --Mschribr (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
"Nuclear fuel"? What the hell are you talking about? And with regards to the accuracy of the RIA Novosti article, we don't need to report every little mistake made by a major news agency. Accidents happen, and unless it is covered elsewhere it is trivial. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 09:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I mean radioactive material cobalt-57. The Mössbauer Spectrometer on Phobos-Grunt carries radioactive cobalt-57. See space.com http://www.space.com/14056-doomed-mars-probe-phobos-grunt-falling-debris.html , Space flight 101 http://www.spaceflight101.com/phobos-grunt-mission-updates.html and space safety magazine http://www.spacesafetymagazine.com/2011/11/13/russian-controllers-unable-reestablish-contact-ailing-phobos-grunt/ . RIA Novosti is not any major news agency. RIA Novosti is the Russian state-owned news agency. The same Russian state built Phobos-Grunt. RIA Novosti is not making a small mistake. This is not a small bit in an article. This is the headline of the RIA Novosti article. The RIA Novosti headline is “Russia’s lost Phobos-Grunt to fall in Afghanistan – U.S. military”. RIA Novosti does not consider this an accident or mistake because there is no correction. See the RIA Novosti article http://en.rian.ru/russia/20111226/170500780.html --Mschribr (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
You are still reading far too much into their refusal to retract the story. What I suspect they have done is printed a raw prediction, ignoring the uncertainties in the calculations. For a satellite decay that far in advance, the error bars would be quite significant, so the prediction is unreliable but appears accurate. That explains the inconsistency, and is far more likely than your story about deliberate misinformation. As for the cobalt, it is an insignificant trace quantity that isn't even worth discussing. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 18:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Who cares what you suspect? Stick to the facts. The U.S. Strategic Command never said the spacecraft would enter the atmosphere at 2.22 a.m. Moscow time and fall near the city of Mirabad, Afghanistan. The Russian state-owned news agency made a false report and never corrected it. --Mschribr (talk) 00:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not advocating putting that into the article, I'm just pointing out that your claims are fanciful and wrong. Now since you agree that "what you [or I] suspect" should not be included, and that we should "stick to the facts", let's have a discussion on the "facts" that support the notability of this news report. There are none. People make mistakes, there has been little or no third-party coverage, and it is just a news report, regardless of the source, so it is not notable. Your entire case for including it is based on what you suspect, so by your own admission it should not be included. QED. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 09:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
What claims are fanciful and wrong? I only want Wikipedia to say the RIA Novosti report was false and not corrected. It is notable for three reasons (facts). The Russian state wrote the news article and built Phobos-Grunt. The RIA Novosti (Russian state) article talks about the crash, which could be the most toxic crashing satellite ever. Two sources mention the RIA Novosti news story: MSNBC and Universe Today. The Russian news agency article is not a mistake because it was not corrected. I do not want to include that the pervasive lying by the Russian state condemned the Phobos-Grunt to fail. That requires a longer section and more sources. --Mschribr (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Mschribr, please note that the two sources (MSNBC and Universe Today) do not claim the RIA Novosti story is false. The U.S. Strategic Command did not deny the information (they only said "no comment"). For all we know, the information may be true, but it was an internal information, not released to the public. Razvan Socol (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Razvan Socol, incorrect. Have you checked what the United States Strategic Command says? The United States Strategic Command says, “When an object appears to be re-entering within seven days, orbital analysts in the JSpOC will increase sensor tasking (monitoring) and begin to project a refined re-entry time and location”. That means they begin to predict reentry 7 days before reentry. Not 3 weeks before reentry on December 26, as RIA Novosti said. See for yourself at http://www.stratcom.mil/factsheets/USSTRATCOM_Space_Control_and_Space_Surveillance/ . The RIA Novosti said in December 26 that Russia’s lost Phobos-Grunt to fall in Afghanistan – U.S. military. The RIA Novosti said on December 26, “Russia’s Phobos-Grunt spacecraft bound for Mars and stuck in an orbit around Earth will fall in southwestern Afghanistan on January 14, the U.S. Strategic Command said on Monday”. The United States Strategic Command never said that. The RIA Novosti lied because they never corrected it. See what the RIA Novosti said at http://en.rian.ru/russia/20111226/170500780.html --Mschribr (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Dictionary.com defines a lie as being "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive". You are yet to prove, or provide any evidence to suggest, that the spurious information in the story was included intentionally. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 22:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If it was not to deceive then why have they not corrected the “mistake”? --Mschribr (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
It is not for me to speculate - they might not have noticed it, or maybe they don't believe it is wrong, or they are going to stick with it until they get better evidence, maybe they just don't want to print an apology. Claiming that it must be deliberate because it hasn't been corrected is an argument from ignorance, since you are not providing any evidence to suggest that they are actually lying, and rather asking me to disprove it. In any case, since you are yet to provide a single reference for your claims of deliberate deceit, they cannot be considered verifiable, and cannot be included in the article, and since your argument that the news report is notable enough to include is based on your accusations that RIA Novosti are lying, unless you can provide an affirmative citation to prove that they are deliberately lying the material should clearly not be re-added. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 00:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we have a misunderstanding. I said I only want the Phobos grunt Wikipedia article to say the RIA Novosti story was a mistake and not corrected. I do not want the Phobos grunt Wikipedia article to say RIA Novosti was lying. I am not saying the RIA Novosti story is notable because RIA Novosti was lying. This RIA Novosti story is notable for three facts. The Russian state wrote the news article and built Phobos-Grunt. The RIA Novosti (Russian state) article talks about the crash, which could be the most toxic crashing satellite ever. Two sources mention the RIA Novosti news story: MSNBC and Universe Today. Anything else I said requires more sources and therefore not to be included in the Phobos grunt Wikipedia article. Anything else I said is not to show the RIA Novosti story is notable. --Mschribr (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for clearing that up. That said, the claim that it "could be the most toxic crashing satellite ever" is dubious; it is highly unlikely that the propellant will survive reentry, even if it does it will probably reenter over the sea (spacecraft are statistically more likely to reenter over seas because most of the Earth's surface is covered in water). Unfortunately the mass media seem to see fit to sensationalise every large satellite reentry, and whilst this one is slightly more dangerous than ROSAT or UARS, it is still marginal. Also, describing it as a "crash" is wrong; it will disintegrate and burn. A small amount of debris might reach the ground, but not much. There was an incident involving about the same amount of propellant in Siberia a couple of weeks ago when Meridian 5 failed to reach orbit, but it was hardly noticed. I can't remember how many Protons have fallen in Kazakhstan over the years, but they are far more "toxic" than Fobos-Grunt. Secondly, I don't think that two references in other media are enough to make it notable in the long term, and finally, since the article has been discredited I don't think we should use it as a source, even about itself. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 08:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
NASA veteran Oberg said it could be the most toxic crashing satellite ever because the propellant maybe frozen and therefore survive the heat of reentry. Roscosmos said it is highly unlikely that the propellant will survive reentry. We know Roscosmos has credibility problems. There is a 25% chance it will reenter over land. This is a threat. Meridian 5 was destined only for earth orbit. Phobos grunt was destined to leave earth orbit, fly to mars, orbit Phobos, land on Phobos, blast off Phobos, leave mars orbit and fly to Earth. How can Phobos grunt have about the same amount of propellant as Meridian 5? The complete outcome of Meridian 5 is unknown as it crashed in Siberia, Russia. The Russian reports are not creditable. The same for the Proton rockets as it was destined for earth orbit and crashed in the Kazakhstan, which was part of the Soviet Union. The notability guidelines do not apply to article content. The notability guidelines are whether a topic can have its own article. The RIA Novosti news story has been discredited and is therefore a source for “mistakes” made by the Russia press about Phobos grunt. --Mschribr (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
What do we do now? --Mschribr (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Another article from MSNBC, unrelated to the RIA Novosti story: "Satellite-watcher Ted Molczan said his analysis of decay data from the U.S. Strategic Command suggested that the fall would come early Jan. 16, with an estimated uncertainty of plus or minus two days.". So the U.S. Strategic Command does release data, but we don't know if they make official predictions. In my opinion, the RIA Novosti story is incomplete (it is missing the uncertainty part), inaccurate (it attributes the prediction to US Stratcom, although only the decay data may originate from them), but not completely false. Therefore we should not use the story in the article (because we have more credible information now), but we should not draw any conclusions about deliberate misinformation, either. Razvan Socol (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree fully. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 08:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Razvan Socol said, “the RIA Novosti story is incomplete, inaccurate”. I agree. Put that in the article. --Mschribr (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
How the hell do you get that from "Therefore we should not use the story in the article"? Anyway, that is Razvan's opinion, not a matter of fact, and in any case an inaccurate news report that has not been covered extensively is simply not notable. We don't need to include information on every detail that a single media report gets wrong. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 17:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
W. D. Graham: Simple, the story is not a source for Phobos-Grunt. The story is a source for how the Russian press is reporting Phobos-Grunt. You said, “I agree fully” with Razvan Socol. The story does not need to be covered extensively to be included in Wikipedia. The story is covered in MSNBC and Universe Today. The story should receive its fair share of coverage in Wikipedia. --Mschribr (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
No, but it isn't notable. It is one insignificant mistake. It certainly doesn't warrant its own section. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 20:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The notability guidelines do not apply to article content. The notability guidelines are whether a topic can have its own article. It is significant because the Russian state, which built Phobos Grunt, reported incomplete and inaccurate information on the subject of Phobos Grunt. It would be appropriate in the Project history section. --Mschribr (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Fine, if you object to the language in my comment, then let's call it trivial rather than non-notable. It means the same thing. RIA Novosti may be owned by the Russian government, but it is still a news agency, so any errors that it might contain would likely be made by its editorial team, and hence would not be representative of the Russian government (unless you are implying that RIA Novosti articles are written and edited by Russian politicians), so I am still yet to see any evidence of it being important enough to warrant inclusion. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 21:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The story is important. MSNBC and Universe Today wrote about the story. The story should receive its fair share of coverage in Wikipedia. The Russian state is one organization encompassing many parts. One part is a space agency. One part is a news agency. The government sets the direction, priorities and tone for both agencies. Ultimately, the Russian state is responsible for each agency. --Mschribr (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Three news articles isn't really significant coverage, a small mistake is a small mistake, and there is no evidence that it was anything else. Perhaps this might belong in an article on the accuracy of RIA Novosti articles, but we don't have one; it is not significant to the Fobos-Grunt mission. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 00:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I asked for assistance from the Dispute resolution notice board. --Mschribr (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
There is some comment at http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/Misc/PhobosGrunt4.php It seems that Razvan Socol has correct assumption - some time ago http://www.space-track.org was releasing predictions and RIA Novosti have fancied their own interpretation of the data.Wladik Derevianko (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree. We have a third source that RIA Novosti made mistakes. The mistakes should get appropriate coverage in the Phobos Grunt article. --Mschribr (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought this matter was closed. You took it to dispute resolution, and agreed with TransporterMan's analysis that "Unless there is some strong significance to the mistake other than it merely being a mistake, it is insignificant", so why are you now trying to restart the dispute? --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 09:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Your apology is accepted. Wow, do you work at the Russian state owned news agency? You make up stories just like Russian state owned news agency. I never said I agreed with TransporterMan's analysis. I said, “I see there are not enough sources for me to continue with this matter”. Now I see another source. If there are enough sources then this should get its fair share of appropriate coverage. The sources reported it, so the sources think it is significant. If circumstances changes then the matter should be brought up. --Mschribr (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
One more source changes absolutely nothing. You were the one who requested dispute resolution, you can't just go back to making the same arguments just because you don't like the response you got. And the attacks against me aren't helping, if you aren't going to remain civil I don't see any reason to waste my time on this discussion. You know my position, so you can take my opposition to the inclusion of this crap as read. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 17:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Then how many sources changes things? Do we need 5, 5,000 or 5,000,000 sources? How do you know how many sources is enough? If the number of sources becomes significant then it should get its fair share of appropriate coverage. Where did I attack you? You attacked me by attributing a statement to me, which I never said. --Mschribr (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Sarcastically "accepting" my "apology" wasn't exactly very civil, and I considered your remark "Wow, do you work at the Russian state owned news agency? You make up stories just like Russian state owned news agency." to be a borderline attack - it was certainly ad hominem. As for why I believed that you agreed with TransporterMan's comments, your reply "TransporterMan thank you for the explanation and your help. This has been educational for me." did imply that you agreed with him. And it's not a case of how many sources we need, but the fact that it simply isn't important or relevant to the mission that a Russian news agency made one little slip. Unless the matter gains significant coverage, it is simply trivial, and not worth polluting the article with. This is an article about a spacecraft, not inadequacies in the media. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 22:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I was not being sarcastic. How is accepting an apology being anything but civil. On the contrary, not accepting an apology is being not civil. I was not attacking you. I was defending myself from your attack when you said I agreed with TransporterMan's analysis. I was merely pointing that your statement about me was false. There is no basis for your implication that I agreed with TransporterMan's analysis. I thanked TransporterMan for explaining to me that I needed better sources. Once we have better sources then we can add this information to the article, which you seem to agree with when you say, “Unless the matter gains significant coverage ….” Implying that when the matter gains significant coverage is may be added. --Mschribr (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Since it wasn't an apology, but a figure of speech, your comment came across as sarcastic. Now, I am sorry if I misinterpreted your comment, but if we had not reached a long term solution then you should have stated that in your reply to TM, so it could have been dealt with before the DR was closed. Prior to the dispute resolution I did believe that it might be worth including if it gained more significant coverage, but my position has shifted thanks to TransporterMan's comment, and I now believe that it would not be significant enough to include regardless of how well sourced or covered. In any case, you can hardly call three websites "significant" coverage. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 08:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Decay predicions

Given that the stated error in the decay prediction is ±16 hours, the spacecraft could fall anywhere under its ground track over that time. Yet again, the media are ignoring the error bars and claiming to know the exact point of decay. Given the error in the time of decay, there is absolutely no guarantee that the spacecraft will fall into the Indian Ocean. That's just where it will decay if it comes down right in the middle of the decay window. Best to wait until the estimates are down to a few minutes before predicting the location. --W. D. Graham (previously GW) 19:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I dropped that part of the prediction. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Even better, maybe we should just wait until it arrives. Estimates, which are useful in some situations, are useless here when even a small difference in input could result in a very different outcome. We could say that it is expected to come down in a broad period of time, and that its orbital track takes it over X, Y, and Z.   Will Beback  talk  01:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Or better yet, explain in the article why location prediction is not reliable yet, just as WDGraham did in the first place. Keep up the good work! P.S. X, Y, and Z is cool idea. --Petar Petrov (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
X, Y, and Z standing in for "Indian Ocean, South Pacific, South Atlantic, Australia, etc." However it'll be down so soon that it's not worth arguing over how to predict its landing point.   Will Beback  talk  17:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Anyone have any idea why the predictions at http://celestrak.com/events/reentry/phobos-grunt.asp are so different from the ones at http://www.spaceflight101.com/phobos-grunt-re-entry-information.html ? At this date, such a large discrepancy is surprising.Victor Engel (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Judging by the epilogue on the current version of the first page, the product was an experiment one that apparently needs some tweaking.Victor Engel (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the recent edits should be reversed, but I don't know how to undo multiple edits. The article cited appears to refer to a re-entry time that has not yet elapsed, so it's incorrect to say re-entry occurred based upon that article. I don't know Russian, though, so I could be wrong. Other sources seem to agree on a future re-entry time, though. So I think the article should be reversed. Victor Engel (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I take it back. They've mostly been updated now.Victor Engel (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Final fate of Phobos-Grunt project

The project website hosted on a web server of Russian Space Research Institute (phobos.cosmos.ru) is now subjected to uncertainity whether it will stay on after the probe's end. It is likely to be taken down sometime in the future. And furthermore, the team was disbanded after they were condemned and punished and is now being hunted down and defeated by the government. 115.133.220.22 (talk) 14:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. This should definitely be in the Phobos Grunt article. --Mschribr (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I've already put them in the article. Do not remove them. 115.133.217.17 (talk) 10:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
And, I've removed the uncited stuff again. Please only insert claims supported by reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. -84user (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

With Roscosmos taking a significant role in ExoMars owning to budgetary cuts to NASA's 2013 budget, Phobos-Grunt-2 is now unlikely and impossible. 119.40.118.34 (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

An IP user keeps adding information about the status of the project website (which is only marginally relevant, and completely non-notable), apparently as a front to add unreferenced synthesis about future missions. I am naturally suspicious of any editor who shouts "DO NOT REVERT" in their edit summary, and given the nature of this editing, and the editor's failure to follow WP:BRD, I am beginning to believe they are being intentionally disruptive. --W. D. Graham 15:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Each time I see unsupported claims added I remove those claims. If claims are added with supporting cites I leave those claims in the article. I do not think we should allow unsupported original research to remain. -84user (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed, but I'm not going to start an edit war. It is obviously the same user editing from multiple IPs, so if he does it again I'll request semi-protection. --W. D. Graham 16:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
With Roscosmos now participating in ExoMars, there will be no attempt to repeat the Fobos-Grunt mission. 115.133.209.32 (talk) 18:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
{{citation needed}} --W. D. Graham 19:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
"Russia's participation in the "ExoMars" does not cancel the plans for the "Phobos-Grunt-2"". RIA Novosti. 20 March 2012. Retrieved 3 April 2012. 115.133.210.221 (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
According to an article Russia Explores New Phobos-Grunt Mission to Mars, a repeat mission, called Fobos-Grunt-2 as proposed by director of the Russian Academy of Science's Space Research Institute (IKI) Lev Zelenyi, would be improved and simplified and would use a Soyuz Fregat booster rather than the Zenit booster of the original craft. But RSA chief Popovkin had said that this all depends on ExoMars; however, now with Roscosmos taking a significant role in that program mid-March, Fobos-Grunt 2 indeed was off the table. Is it true? 115.135.147.21 (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
There is still no direct evidence that the programme has been cancelled. --W. D. Graham 13:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
That explains the reason why the project homepage for Fobos-Grunt hosted on the web server of IKI is still online even after the reentry of the probe. But I'm telling you it is so. The programme you (Graham) are refering to is Fobos-Grunt 2, a repeat sample return mission as proposed by IKI. It really depends on ExoMars according to Popovkin that if Russia does not reach with an agreement with ESA it would consider repeating the mission. However, since Roscosmos did indeed take an significant role in that program, this proposal is off the table. According to that article: "When budget cuts last year led to a reduction in U.S. participation in the project, Russia was invited to join in and perhaps provide launchers as well as instruments. Discussions are expected to be concluded this month; if Russia takes a significant role, then Phobos-Grunt-2 will be off the table." However, it is possible that Fobos-Grunt will be repeatable after 2018 using an improved and, but I think it may end up like the proposed repeat mission for 2002's CONTOUR comet flyby for the urgent New Horizons Pluto Flyby. I think it may best the repeat mission plans to be uncertain for the time being. Add back the "Uncertain plans" section. 115.135.147.21 (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The operative words in that are "I think". Wikipedia is not a place for thoughts and speculation, we want facts. And at the moment, facts say that the proposal is still under consideration. Most of your edits to date have been explicitly stating that the mission was cancelled. --W. D. Graham 16:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I know it. I'm not explicitly stating that the mission was cancelled, but the repeat mission is off the table at the moment due to Russia's participation in ExoMars starting in March 15. According to an article I've said earlier "Russia Explores New Phobos-Grunt Mission to Mars" by Daniel Clery: "Lev Zelenyi, director of the Russian Academy of Science's Space Research Institute (IKI), said at a 1 February press conference that the team behind the mission was keen to try again. A repeat would only cost half as much as the first time round, he noted, because the infrastructure for the mission is already in place. Zelenyi told Science that this is still just an IKI proposal and is not yet funded. Phobos-Grunt-2 would be "improved and simplified," he says, and would use a Soyuz Fregat booster rather than the Zenit booster of the original craft. But RSA chief Popovkin told the press yesterday that this all depends on ExoMars. Originally an ESA-only lander mission, it was merged with NASA plans in 2009 and ended up as a two-craft mission: the first in 2016 will be an orbiter devoted to atmospheric sampling, followed by a large lander in 2018 which would have the capability to dig below the surface. When budget cuts last year led to a reduction in U.S. participation in the project, Russia was invited to join in and perhaps provide launchers as well as instruments. Discussions are expected to be concluded this month; if Russia takes a significant role, then Phobos-Grunt-2 will be off the table." 115.132.186.180 (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I add in the details of Phobos-Grunt 2 as long as I don't add statements explictly saying that the mission was cancelled?115.133.208.237 (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that we discuss it here, and find a mutually satisfactory way of wording it. --W. D. Graham 16:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Fine. Why not? How about this, I would expand what Fobos-Grunt-2 is all about. It is an improved and simplified version of the original, and its launcher will be the Soyuz-Fregat launch vehicle instead of the Zenit 2. Its cost is about half of its predecesor. But the status is uncertain due to the need for lunar projects such as Luna-Glob, Venera-D and ExoMars, and financial among the other things. 115.133.209.67 (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
There is little to discuss other than you need to cite reliable references to your edits. Please. Thankyou. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Apparently I was not clear enough to user 115.133.209.67. You are required quote statements actually presented by the cited references. Please. Thankyou. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Given that this is still continuing, I have now requested semi-protection. --W. D. Graham 12:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I have at last verified that Fobos-Grunt-2 isn't canceled despite Russia's participation in ExoMars, and possible ESA collaboration on it. That's an amazing sight. 115.133.220.33 (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
You have at last verified of inserting false statements in front of whatever reference. Your latest edit is the opinion and "regret" of a scientist, he also stated: "At the same time, he added, as a whole a question about the future of project “thus far was suspended”."
I can't wait for the protection log to take effect so we can better control user 115.133.220.33 with his personal WP:POV and disruptive campaign. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Cause of failure

This article should discuss the reasons for the failure. And I don't mean the conspiracy theories spouted by Russian officials, but the real causes, that led many outside Russia to consider that the mission had no chance of success. In no particular order:

  1. A ridiculously low budget, that guaranteed that the probe couldn't be tested adequately. There is a quote somewhere along the line of "90% of the new tech wasn't tested".
  2. An over-ambitious mission that doesn't match current Russian capabilities nor the budget.
  3. The fact that they made the same mistake as with Mars96, i.e. the idea that if you fly a complex mission once every 15 years, you'll never learn from your failures. Better to have frequent simple missions, fix things until it works and build from there, like the Indian/Japanese/Chinese do.
  4. Bad management, including last minute software changes, on the pad hardware changes, and generally failure to postpone the launch once more.

To that we can add future prospects, and it doesn't look good:

  1. A report that concerns itself solely with the immediate technical cause, and not with managerial and programmatic errors as NASA reports do.
  2. A dickhead president that threatens engineers with punishment (good solution to the brain drain btw.)
  3. Officials that blame U.S. sabotage
  4. An inability to acknowledge that they no longer are at the forefront of planetary exploration. Their last successes were in the eighties. At this point, they might even be behind India, China and Japan.

All this can be sourced, though I would need help for that. Any thought on this topic ? Bomazi (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not our concern to analyze and interpret the forensic data. The main (initial)hypotheses are included as well as the official conclussion by the investigation commission. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that we engage in any kind of speculation. I simply believe that the official report provides a wholly insufficient explanation of the causes of the failure. Surely you are not suggesting that the "Tiananmen Square protests of 1989" should only quote official Chinese sources ? Bomazi (talk) 16:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Most of the above is clearly POV and I doubt you'll find reliable sources on the subject for it. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I've been humbled by Bomazi's chinese analogy to the degree that I implore all editors to please listen and include the assertions that Elvis sabotaged the spaceship. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
All I am suggesting is that obvious management issues be given a little more weight than the nonsense spouted off by Popovkin, in order to help readers understand why the mission failed. We have this bit already: "risky technical decisions had been made because of limited funding". I think we should expand a bit on that. That this point of view makes me a conspiracy theorist is ...interesting. Bomazi (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Assuming that you are better informed than Popovkin, you'd need to be published first in a reliable media, then we can asses your WP:WEIGHT. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Some useful sources for reference: [9], [10], [11], [12]. Given the level of personal attacks, I won't pursue this further. Bomazi (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Source #1 is all based on Russia's official report.
Source #2 mentions sabotage and QC (already included in this WP article).
Source #3 " " " " ( " " " " " " ).
Source #4 mentions QC ( " " " " " " ).
There is nothing different there but if what you want is to put them together, let's say that although the specific failure was identified, experts suggest it was the culmination of poor quality control, lack of testing and corruption. In Wikipedia we can not give any more WP:WEIGHT than that. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Re-add the link to the Fobos-Grunt project website?

Is it okay for us to re-add the link to the project website of Fobos-Grunt hosted on the web server of Russian Space Research Institute, which is phobos.cosmos.ru back to the External links? I doubt it will last long, and perhaps forever, desipte the probe's fall in January 2012. When it appears to be a dead link, remove it. 115.133.209.67 (talk) 05:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As long as it remains a life link, it should never have been taken out. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of ref from phobos.cosmos.ru ??

The reference link to phobos.cosmos.ru has been removed for a reason - phobos.cosmos.ru is likely to go down sometime in its final days of the near future. 115.133.220.33 (talk) 05:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

That is your WP:POV. Warning: In addition of the semi-protection of this page, I will start an ANI against you. I have plenty of time to deal with yur disruptions. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry. See the apology on Fobos-Grunt for my disruptions. 115.133.212.104 (talk) 11:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Russian language editor help needed

Could any Russian language literate editors review my removal of "disbanding", "possibly recruited" and "disappeared" claims from Alexander V. Zakharov - see Talk:Alexander V. Zakharov#Dubious claims, I suspect those cited sources do not support those speculations. I see the same sources are used here, but in support of quite different claims. Thank you. -84user (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The repeat mission that never happened: Fobos-Grunt-2

I'd like to discuss about the repeat mission that never happened: Fobos-Grunt-2. On the article published recently, at the Mars section, the participation of ExoMars can ease the second possible Phobos mission. There's a sample return mission called Boomerang (in the documents are Fobos-Grunt-2), slated for 2018. But I don't think it will happen. 115.133.212.104 (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Fobos-Grunt will be repeated but not immediately. Check this article here. 115.133.214.6 (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
“The Academy of Sciences believes the Phobos-Grunt project should be tried all over again,” Lev Zelyony said.
I believe there should be world peace, a base in Venus and a hotel in orbit. Please go ahead and make an article of each. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I just included this News update: "We’ve backed it. We agree with their position. This will be reflected in the strategy for space development until 2030,” Roscosmos Chief Vladimir Popovkin said. The new project will not be a simple repeat of Phobos-Grunt 1, Popovkin said..
I ask you kindly to just leave it at that and hold back assumptions (from you or Lev Zelenyi). Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Starkiller, what part of no repeat you do not understand?! Mars-Grunt was proposed years ago. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Although the mission will not be repeated in any form or name, there is a report on RIAN saying that "Fobos-Grunt-2 is proposed for launch in 2020 rather than 2018 - because it is taken by ExoMars rover", as said by Lev Zelenyi. It has been offered to Roscosmos, but I think Roscosmos will drop it anyway, and will not entertain it. From an article: "Phobos-Grunt-2" can be launched in 2020, says the head of IKI:

"We offer Roscosmos repeat mission" Phobos-Grunt "in 2020, not 2018, because at this time to the Red Planet will launch the Russian-European station" ExoMars. "We believe that the project" Phobos-Grunt "must be repeated as its goal the delivery of soil from the Martian satellite Phobos is not closed, other projects, including "ExoMars" - said Zeleny. Starkiller88 (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject or Zeleny's wet dreams. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
ChiZeroOne and Fotaun have helped me get the truth behind the repeat mission's status. I'd like to thank them. 119.40.118.34 (talk) 08:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Dear Starkiller88, I hope now you realize that it will be so much more efficient use of your time to first achieve understanding (or at least stick to the facts) of any subject before attempting to edit it. And please hold back inserting unnecessary overemphasis, it is so very much not needed nor required in any form, name or shape, in the past, present, future or at the moment or inmediate past and/or in the proximity of future moments. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded, you say that Fobos-Grunt will not be repeated in any fashion or name, but yet you revert it. Here's an ref that Lev Zeleny said the future of Fobos-Grunt-2 was suspended: "Russia's participation in the "ExoMars" does not cancel the plans for the "Phobos-Grunt-2"". RIA Novosti. 20 March 2012. Retrieved 3 April 2012. 115.133.216.150 (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

typo

Povokin should be replaced by Popovkin please.

 Done - BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fobos-Grunt/Archive_1&oldid=1110281481"