OK, The “Grunt heard round the world” is no more, apparently burning up over the Pacific. Russia’s Defense Ministry said the probe and what fragments made it through the atmosphere fell about 775 miles west of Wellington Island.
In looking at Google News, I found this was the highlighted story from the BBC. While it is factually correct in words, it has a visual lie, probably due to the correspondent and/or editors inability to understand that radar imaging does not see color. Note the “fiery” red image.
Now here is the fun part, not only is the false color radar image visually misleading (it is of the intact spacecraft, not the fiery re-entry), it is also a FIVE DAY OLD image. Observe, from the source:
BBC apparently couldn’t be bothered to check their own photo source.
And, per the BBC caption “The German TIRA (Tracking and Imaging Radar) facility caught this image of Phobos-Grunt” the image wasn’t “caught” (implied with the re-entry), it was a planned photo though careful tracking.
If the radar image looked like this, without the false color added….
…do you think the BBC (or the Daily Mail, see update below) would have used it with the re-entry story?
UPDATE: WUWT gets results, BBC has changed the image!
My error. They’ve changed the position of the radar image, moving it further down and substituting a new one in the original position. Thanks to reader JJ for noticing.
They did change the caption though to:
“The German Tira (Tracking and Imaging Radar) facility saw Phobos-Grunt during its last days”.
This implies they realized the original image and caption was misleading.
Plus, there are other material changes to the article. Note that the time stamp for “last updated” has not changed from the original story (13:31). Seems pointless to have a “last updated” time stamp if you don’t use it to advise readers of changes. – Anthony
UPDATE: Monday: 9AM PST The Daily Mail gets it even wronger than the BBC. It seems that my concern about reporters misinterpreting and using a “fiery” radar false color image with the re-entry story isn’t an exclusive misstep of the BBC. If readers see any other misuse/miscaption of the radar image, please point it out in comments. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@ur momisugly Interstellar Bill says: January 15, 2012 at 12:17 pm
“Not to excuse the Beeb, but this is a public who never cares that not a single movie set in space ever shows constellations or the Milky Way, nothing but tiny paint splats. Why would such info-slobs care what the BBC does?”
In addition to the fact that space is a vacuum. You wouldn’t hear laser blasts and ships exploding because there is nothing to carry the sound.
Well – it’s the new science correspondent’s first day on the job….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16538129
Scroll down to the clean room… not like any clean room I’ve ever come across…..
The devil is in the detail – it is not nerdism or anorakery – they didn’t have to say clean room – just equipment being prepared or somesuch – but nope – that’s a clean room… sigh….
“You have not acknowledged that (as I pointed out in my previous post) the image had been used to illustrate Phobos-Grunt story for at least 24 hours before the spacecraft plunged to Earth.”
Why does that matter? It was used on OTHER stories; its use on THIS story is the question. Do you think people are more likely to look at the most recent story, or the previous stories?
What really bothers me about Amos is that he is always bashing the Russians, he seems to love it when something goes wrong with a manned or unmanned craft. At least the Russians have the balls to take on space, not like the Brits that seem to pussyfoot around space.
Rob Crawford:
Why does that matter?
It undercuts the already poorly supported assertion that the use of the image was intended to decieve. The actual progression seems to be: BBC publishes story on the impending fall of PGMP, uses FHR radar image like everybody else. PGMP crashes. BBC updates story to report that PGMP has crashed, keeping previously used images (including FHR radar image). Anthony Watts views BBC story thru global warming colored glasses, has a cow, accuses BBC of telling “visual lie”.
Meanwhile, the Daily Mail uses the same image to illustrate the same story, and (unlike the BBC) they actually do what Anthony falsely accuses the BBC of. The Daily Mail uses that radar image, and adds a caption stating that it is a picture of the SV burning red hot. See here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2085869/Russian-Phobos-Grunt-Mars-probe-expected-hit-Earth-hours.html
BBC does not do what Anthony complains about, gets slammed. Daily Mail does do what Anthony complains about … and thus far gets a free pass.
BBC is certainly biased in their “global warming” reporting. WUWT appears to be similarly biased in its BBC reporting.
REPLY: Oh please. JJ you posted the note about Daily Mail at 12:14AM PST – I happened to be sleeping then. I’ve added it to the post this morning when I became aware of it.
I’m not allowed to sleep? I have to be on 24/7 and respond immediately to any criticism or update and if I don’t that makes me biased?
The fact that the Daily Mail reporter made the same mistake that I suggested the BBC made strengthens my argument – these science reporters don’t know what a radar image is and that it has no intrinsic color. The image in grey scales would likely never have risen to media attention to use with the re-entry story.
-Anthony
“Why does that matter? It was used on OTHER stories; its use on THIS story is the question. Do you think people are more likely to look at the most recent story, or the previous stories?”
Mr Watt’s posting states “While it is factually correct in words, it has a visual lie, probably due to the correspondent and/or editors inability to understand that radar imaging does not see color. Note the “fiery” red image.”
The accusation of Mr Watts’ posting is that the BBC (and Amos in particular) thought this image showed the “fiery re-entry” of the spacecraft. Given that this story, not another story, but this story i.e. the imminent re-entry of the spacecraft at least 24 hours prior to the actual re-entry was illustrated by the same image this cannot be the case.
REPLY: So you are saying it is impossible for anyone to be mislead by the juxtaposition of the headline and the image and the 13:31 timestamp within the window of re-entry? Seems as if the Daily Mail reporter made the same dumb mistake. See the update. I’m sure thousands of readers of the BBC couldn’t make the distinction either after being lead on by media.
Had BBC not changed the position of image and the caption after I made my criticism, you might have a point. – Anthony
TomO says:
January 16, 2012 at 7:30 am
What’s the betting Shukman’s DNA is evidence for life in Lake Ellsworth? 🙂
Mr Watts replied to me –
“Yet, they changed the image from above the fold position of prominence and changed the caption when it was pointed out that it was misleading.”
Pointed out by whom? Did someone email Jonathan Amos to point out this alleged error? Or are you suggesting that Amos or other BBC staffers cruise these pages ready to correct “errors” on the BBC website pointed out here? If such an “error” was pointed out would it not have been better to have removed the image entirely as you initially though they had done? I see no reason to assume that this is not simply a case of shuffling the images about as news comes in on a developing story.
The timeline of event are as JJ pointed out above:
1. BBC publishes story on the impending fall of PGMP, uses FHR radar image like everybody else.
2. PGMP crashes. BBC updates story to report that PGMP has crashed, keeping previously used images (including FHR radar image).
3. Anthony Watts views BBC story and accuses BBC of telling “visual lie”.
4. BBC update the story further with more information and a timeline box. They add a new image showing what the spacecraft looked like and shuffle the previously highlighted image to further down the page.
“When they have a timestamp of 13:31 (GMT/UTC), and that’s within the re-entry window. (Space-track.org’s current estimate of the reentry window is 15JAN12 1326Z-15JAN12 2302Z) and they have a title that says “Phobos-Grunt: Failed probe ‘falls over Pacific’” with a picture of what looks like a fiery re-entry with no caveat of any kind, I’m quite comfortable with my criticism. – Anthony”
Looks like a fiery re-entry to whom? Clearly you suspected that it could be interpreted as a fiery re-entry and you implied that it was either intentionally (as a deception) or mistakenly (as a misunderstanding of false colour on radar images) intended to be interpreted as a fiery re-entry. But as the BBC were using the same image on the same page before any actual re-entry (fiery or otherwise) this could not possibly be the case.
Jim
REPLY: And of course, no reader visiting the BBC story for the first time, after re-entry, looking for news of Phobo-Grunt, such as the Google News highlight, could possibly know all this looking at it, unless they did detailed research as you and I have done. BBC doesn’t show the previous incarnation of the story.
So on the face of it, the presentation was seriously misleading, BBC recognized this (perhaps after reading my criticism, BBC writers and thousands of people in the UK read WUWT) and made a change.
Meanwhile, the Daily Mail makes an even worse mistake, misinterpreting the image exactly as I argue, perhaps following BBC’s lead (having worked in a newsroom 25 years, I can tell you with certainty that reporters routinely look at other news outlets, then play follow the leader), and somehow I’m the bad guy for pointing all this out?
My point remains – its a false color image, it was misinterpreted and placed next to headlines on the re-entry, poorly and misleadingly captioned, and reporters very likely have no clue that radar echoes don’t see color.
Tough noogies if you don’t like my report, but that’s the way it is.
-Anthony
While the Daily Mail’s caption is unforgivable, I can believe the BBC’s was an honest mistake, Mr Watts. The author probably didn’t realize the implications of the picture when it was used and the editors misinterpreted what they were seeing.
You have to allow for some error as long as it is corrected later.
Anthony,
REPLY: Oh please. JJ posted the note about Daily Mail at 12:14AM PST – I happened to be sleeping then. I’ve added it to the post this morning when I became aware of it.
That is why I said “thus far” – I figured that you would eventually respond in some manner, but you had not as of that time. And as of that time, you had already updated today’s WUWT with a fresh Mann climategate post, and had already replied to a comment on this thread that was made after my comment about the Daily Mail. I did not jump on you for sleeping.
“The fact that the Daily Mail reporter made the same mistake that I suggested the BBC made strengthens my argument – these science reporters don’t know what a radar image is and that it has no color.”
Well, it strengthens your argument against the Daily Mail, now that you are making that argument.
The fact remains however, that the BBC did not make the same mistake. They made no claim that the radar image was of the SV on reentry. The fact that they made no such claim and were using that same image the day before the crash to illustrate the same story indicates that they knew that the image was not of the reentry. So they did not try to deceive anyone with their use of that image, and they were not themselves confused by it. You should retract this post, and apologize to BBC for misleading your readers into thinking those things about the BBC.
REPLY: So now you are taking issue with my priority of updates in the morning.
Post stands. As I said earlier, if the BBC hadn’t moved the image out of prominence, and changed the caption to reflect it was a days old image not relevant to the re-entry title, you’d have a point. But they did, they reacted, either from my post or from self-realization of the error. No way of getting around that, especially when the Daily Mail made an error of interpretation also, exactly as I described the issue of interpretation. Having worked in newsrooms, I’ve seen many errors propagate from “follow the leader” reporting. The Daily Mail story emerged almost two hours after the BBC, at 15:15 UTC. It seems likely that DM repeated the error based on the misleading juxtaposition from the BBC story. Note no American media (at least none I’ve found) seem to have made this mistake. If I had not seen this sort of sloppy science reporting myself in my own experience, and watched it propagate from one single bad news source, I wouldn’t suggest it.
If the BBC had moved the image down when they changed the story the first time (rather than the second), and given some notice, then I’d have no leg to stand on. The issue presented itself due to the sloppy way BBC was updating the story. They failed to notice until later (either by notice from WUWT or self realization), just how misleading the fiery red radar image was. I’m still waiting for DM to fix theirs. I’ve sent a comment, but they have not published it. If you were really interested in truth in reporting, rather than bashing me for pointing it out, you’d notify them too.
That’s the way it is, sorry you don’t like it, I’m not going to waste any more time on your objections. – Anthony
“My point remains – its a false color image, it was misinterpreted and placed next to headlines on the re-entry, poorly and misleadingly captioned, and reporters very likely have no clue that radar echoes don’t see color.”
It was misinterpreted by whom? If you are implying that it was misinterpreted by the BBC staff member (Jonathan Amos’s name appears on the story) who edited the page you cannot possible be right as the image was being used at least 24 hours before re-entry. Incidentally I did not do any detailed research, I simply happened to read the story on the website (illustrated by the same image) on Saturday lunchtime UK time.
The headline to this posting “Phobos-Grunt demise shows BBC’s (and Daily Mail’s) bad science tendency” does not align with the facts (let’s leave aside the Daily Mail). I am bemused by your reluctance to accept this.
REPLY: As I said earlier, if the BBC hadn’t moved the image out of prominence, and changed the caption to reflect it was a days old image, you’d have a point. But they did, they reacted, either from my post or from self-realization of the error. I am bemused by your reluctance to accept this. – Anthony
the supposed “landing” area is attributed to an official Russian agency (Zolotukhin said the deserted ocean area is where Russia guides its discarded space cargo ships serving the International Space Station.) implying they had some sort of control over the spacecraft but it seems there are others (RIA Novosti news agency) who beg to differ with where it hit…
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/russian-space-probe-crash-earth-hours-15364707
So in Tom L’s link to the article, “Russian Space Probe Crashes Into Pacific,” they are saying the remains should be over S. America? And they guide them there?
OK So then why does the spaceweather.com this morning tell us over around New Zealand ,Austrialia region?
I did save that page this morning over at the spaceweather.com, before the headline, “PHOBOS-GRUNT DESTROYED: According to the Russian space agency and the U.S. Space Command..” got bumped by an incoming aurora and a CME alert for Venus today over at the spaceweather.com.
Tom L says:
January 16, 2012 at 11:02 am
the supposed “landing” area is attributed to an official Russian agency (Zolotukhin said the deserted ocean area is where Russia guides its discarded space cargo ships serving the International Space Station.) implying they had some sort of control over the spacecraft but it seems there are others (RIA Novosti news agency) who beg to differ with where it hit…
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/russian-space-probe-crash-earth-hours-15364707
Carla says:
January 16, 2012 at 5:11 am
And now the Group W, would like to know where the body is?
http://www.spaceweather.com reports this morning,
PHOBOS-GRUNT DESTROYED: According to the Russian space agency and the U.S. Space Command, the Phobos-Grunt spacecraft re-entered Earth’s atmosphere on Jan. 15th shortly before 1 p.m. EST. So far, no photographs of the fireball or other debris have been submitted to spaceweather.com. Initial estimates of the final ground track suggest a re-entry in the south Pacific in the broad vicinity of Australia and New Zealand..
Our slavic Russian brothers can be so much fun. Why didn’t they just bring er down right north of Japan. Some capsule supposed to survive reentry. Group W says, “bravo..bravo..good show..”
This is my probably pointless final word on this subject.
You say – “But they did, they reacted, either from my post or from self-realization of the error. ”
The initial assertion was that the BBC’s article contained a “visual lie”. To whit your implication was that an image was used in order to deliberately suggest an a “fiery re-entry” by using a red coloured image. As the image was posted to the page before re-entry your accusation is unequivocally false. The use of the word lie rather than mistake here implied deliberate act.
You now appear to be suggesting when someone updated that page after the spacecraft fell to earth in that they didn’t remove the image or make the caption clear enough that the image was not of a “fiery re-entry”. Your also saying that a later change to the page confirms that a “mistake” was noted and someone at the BBC changed the page because they were either informed or thought for themselves that the image might suggest a “fiery re-entry” to the uninformed. If that is the case, what of it? How does this qualify as “bad science”? It doesn’t.
To sum up – Your post is based upon a mistake made by you and not the BBC. You thought an image was being used to illustrate a “fiery re-entry” when it wasn’t. It was an image sourced and used by the BBC some days before the re-entry.
Jim.
REPLY: Sorry, wrong again. I said the image was misleading in juxtaposition with the title, and it obviously was. Combined they constitute a “visual lie”. Otherwise, they wouldn’t need to change it now would they? They are just as inept by not changing the image after updating the page (with no notice mind you) as they would be using the image firsthand with the re-entry story without any update.
Bottom line, no matter how you slice it, before/after the juxtaposition of the headline with the image is misleading. Clearly the BBC recognized fixed the issue, brought on by their update. If there was no issue, there would be no need to update it and change the caption now would there?
The bad science comes from the fact that they didn’t inform the reader of the meaning of the radar image, of the intact spacecraft from days ago, which clearly DOESN’T belong in a story after the spacecraft burned up. Obviously, the image was misleading enough for another media outlet to make the same mistake.
We disagree, move on – Anthony
This is a story that appeared on a so called ‘progressive’ news blog that features Bill McKibben and his ilk.
Russia’s Radioactive Phobos-Grunt Space Probe Fell to Earth Sunday
by Karl Grossman
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/15-7
excerpt:
Russia’s Phobos-Grunt space probe, with 22 pounds of radioactive Cobalt-57 on board, fell to Earth Sunday.
Note: it only had about 10 micrograms on board.
Lying with images, misusing information…This will bring a tear to Pat’s eyes 😉
Anthony,
“Post stands”
What exactly does it stand on? Or for? What was your point, and what is it now? Was (is?) it:
1) That BBC was intentionally misleading its readers with that image? Or :
2) That BBC misunderstood that image itself?
Note that both cannot be true in this instance, and yet your readers have taken both messages away from your post – largely due to what you said an how you said it. In fact, the facts show that neither of these interpretations is accurate.
The fact is, the BBC made no claim that the image was one of the SV on reentry. So, they weren’t trying to fool anyone. One wonders exactly what nefarious conclusion they would have been trying to foist on the unsuspecting public if they were trying to fool them …
Nor was BBC misunderstanding the nature of the image itself. They had used that image for the 24 hours prior to the crash – clearly they understood that it wasnt an image of the reentry.
The parsimonious explanation is that they simply carried over the images from the initial report of the pending reentry into the the update announcing the reentry. That is it.
“As I said earlier, if the BBC hadn’t moved the image out of prominence, and changed the caption to reflect it was an days old image not relevant to the re-entry title, you’d have a point.”
Absolute Nonsense. That they updated their article changes nothing with respect to the substance of the issue. Again, it is unclear exactly what your point was (is?) – so condsider both alternatives.
1) If they were trying to fool people (again, to what end?) then why would they change the post? They had made no false claim for which they could be held accountable. If purposeful deception is your claim, then you are saying that BBC developed this cleverly constructed “juxtaposition ruse” to provide themselves plausible deniability, and then didn’t use it.
2) How does updating the post negate the fact that they had used the same image for at least a day prior to the reetnry, and thus obviously understood that it was not an image of the reentry? Rhetorical question – of course it does not. If your claim is that BBC was ignorant of the nature of the image, you need to account for this.
Returning to the parsimonious explanation, we find that it is consistent with all of the facts:
They published a report on the pending reentry, more than a day before the event. They used an image provided by FHR, and did not alter it from the original. Later, they updated the post to announce the reentry event, carrying over the previous images, including . Later yet, they updated again. They updated the text of the article, they added a timeline of the Phobos Grunt program, and they added a snazzy photo of the intact SV. And again, they carried over the balance of the text and images from before the update. This included the original FHR image, with an updated caption.
Why did they update the caption? One of two reasons:
1) It was simply part of the update, much as they freshened the text, etc. or
2) They realized, as a result of either their own internal review or by having been made aware by an external source such as WUWT, that some of their readers might misinterpret the content of the image, so they updated the caption to reduce the potential for confusion.
Please note that 2) does not demonstrate either of the two points that your post seems to be making (and has made to your readers, intended or otherwise). Demonstrating that some of BBC’s readers might misinterpret the image does not demonstrate that BBC misinterpreted the image (and the fact of their prior use of that image does demonstrate the contrary). Too, if BBC was nefariously trying to deceive its readers, then upon learning of the fact that some readers had in fact been deceived, they would have clasped their hands and said “BUWAHAHAAHA, juuuuuust as we intended!” If anything, changing the caption at that point goes against the claim of deliberate decption – it certainly does nothing at all to establish it.
The parimonious explanation, and the only one currently on the table that comports with all the facts, is that BBC understood the nature of the image that they were using, and presented it correctly. Over the course of updating the story, they inadvertantly created a circumstance that uninformed or … contrary …. individuals might misinterpret. They corrrected this situation, either equally inadvertantly as a consequence of the updating process, or intentionally or upon becoming aware of the problem.
Nothing in that most likely course of events warrants this post. To the contrary, that is pretty good behaviour for a media outlet (and perhaps somewhat uncharacteristic of the “Ho ho” BBC).” You owe BBC an apology for this.
That’s the way it is, sorry you don’t like it, I’m not going to waste any more time on your objections. – Anthony.
Fingers-in-ears refusal to discuss is an aspect of the Team that you should be countering, not emulating. Please reconsider your position.
REPLY: I haven’t got “fingers in ears” as I’ve engaged you, I simply don’t agree with your assertions. Post stands. Further discussions are indeed a waste of time. – Anthony
Mr Watts. This display of an unwillingness to concede an error does not flatter you or your website. I find myself reminded of a dispute with Mr Andy Schlafly of Conservapedia.
REPLY: There’s nothing to concede. My opinion is that the image used in conjunction with the headline was misleading, end of story. I’m not going to concede nor apologize for having an opinion on the matter rooted in my years of media experience, when in fact BBC made a correction after I pointed it out. And this isn’t Conservapedia, Wikipedia, or any pedia at all, so your comparison is moot. I’m sorry we disagree. – Anthony
The BBC is seriously biased re AGW/Climate Change but the Daily Mail is not. It has been taking an increasingly sceptical line in recent years and positively blasts the windpower/solar power madness. When a pro-AGW article or paper is reported a dissenting reply is usually included at the end.
[snip. Enough with the nitpicking. The editorial decision has been made. ~dbs, mod.]
Jim Cornelius,
Maybe you haven’t been following the disingenuous fiddling with colors that has been going on with not only the BBC, but with government propagandists. Red is their favorite color, and the scarier the better.
Here is an example of their work. Notice that the temperatures are exactly the same, only the color has changed – to red, of course.
If you don’t see this as an attempt to manipulate the public’s perception, that’s simply being credulous. The BBC does this type of stuff all the time, so I am not inclined to give them them benefit of the doubt. Why would I? Why would anyone?
Around and around she goes, where it dropped, nobody knows???
Details Of Phobos-Grunt Re-entry Uncertain
Jan 17, 2012 By Amy Svitak svitak@aviationweek.com
PARIS
..IADC member agencies include NASA, Roscosmos, the European Space Agency, European national agencies and the space agencies of Canada, China, India, Japan and Ukraine. The group used orbit data provided mainly by the U.S. Space Surveillance Network and the Russian Space Surveillance System to forecast Phobos-Grunt’s predicted path. European radars based in Germany and France also provided orbit calculations. But the predictions differed wildly due to the large number of uncertainties in the spacecraft’s orbit and the space environment affecting the satellite (Aerospace DAILY, Jan. 16).
Although details of Phobos-Grunt’s return to Earth may not be known for some time, IADC says it intends to use results from the re-entry campaign to improve prediction models and make future forecasts more accurate.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=AviationWeek.com&id=news/awx/2012/01/17/awx_01_17_2012_p0-415314.xml&headline=Details%20Of%20Phobos-Grunt%20Re-entry%20Uncertain
Russia: we’re not sure where Phobos-Grunt crashed
Dennis Bodzash, Space News Examiner
January 17, 2012
..Now, two days later, Russia is declaring that it really doesn’t know with any certainty where Phobos-Grunt fell, stating that the earlier report was based on calculations and that there were no eyewitnesses to either the fireball or an impact.
Yesterday, a day after the re-entry, one Russian source broadcast that the wayward space probe had actually crashed to Earth somewhere over Brazil, at least according to an unnamed ballistics expert. Later that same day, another report surfaced, this one coming from Russia’ Space Agency, Rocosmos, that Phobos-Grunt came down over the Pacific, as initially reported.
So, two days after the fact, the world still doesn’t know where Phobos-Grunt really came down. However, sometime today, the European Space Agency (ESA), which tried in vain to raise Phobos-Grunt and that continued to track Russia’s wayward spacecraft, will hold its own press conference, which will hopefully shed light on just where Phobos-Grunt crashed to Earth..
http://www.examiner.com/space-news-in-national/russia-we-re-not-sure-where-phobos-grunt-crashed
H o u s t o n.. think there’s a problem?
And the plot thickens.. Now why would the the US military remove information about the Phobos Grunt reentry from their website? We don’t know where or if the Grunt landed and they don’t want us to know?
Is the US Military Hiding Data on Dead Russian Mars Probe?
SPACE.com StaffDate: 18 January 2012 Time: 05:58 PM ET
In the latest twist in what has become an increasingly mysterious saga, the U.S. military appears to have removed links from a public website for tracking data on a dead Russian Mars probe ..
..Breaking with standard practice, the military removed links from the Space Track website, which is operated by U.S. Strategic Command, to information on the defunct Russian Phobos-Grunt spacecraft’s predicted re-entry, and did not publish any confirmation of the probe’s fall, reported Aviation Week.
On Jan. 12, the Space Track website originally published information on the estimated re-entry track for Phobos-Grunt, a Russian probe that malfunctioned shortly after its November 2011 launch and was stuck in low-Earth orbit for more than two months.
After routine updates and revised estimates over the course of the next two days, the military removed links to these re-entry predictions and did not publish final confirmation data on the spacecraft’s fall on Jan. 15, according to Aviation Week. .
http://www.space.com/14281-russian-mars-probe-military-hiding-data.html
U.S. Program Tracking Orbiting Objects Mysteriously Missing Data on Russia’s Mars Probe
January 18, 2012 at 8:25pm by Liz Klimas
..New Scientists has considered the feasibility of U.S. radar interfering with the probe but the expert it quotes says the likelihood of this happening is slim:
According to Boris Smeds, a former radio engineer at the European Space Agency, it is highly unlikely. Deep space communications, such as those you would expect Phobos-Grunt to use, use different frequencies from those of space-observation radars, and spacecrafts’ receivers are built to filter out unwanted frequencies. It is just conceivable that a badly filtered radio receiver on Phobos-Grunt was damaged by a radar beam from the US military base, but it is extremely unclear how that damage could affect the power system of the spacecraft.
Smeds conceded that it could interfere with radio reception, temporarily “deafening” a spacecraft. Still though, the firing of Phobos-Grunt’s upper stage was supposed to be automatic, pre-programmed into the spacecraft before launch, so would not have relied on receiving a radio signal.
New Scientist reports that the findings from the Russian investigation are due to the public on Jan. 26. Perhaps there will be more answers to what really happened to the probe then.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/u-s-program-tracking-orbiting-objects-mysteriously-missing-data-on-russias-mars-probe/
“”Still though, the firing of Phobos-Grunt’s upper stage was supposed to be automatic, pre-programmed into the spacecraft before launch, so would not have relied on receiving a radio signal.””
With all the communication problems of late for the Russian satellites..
Why wouldn’t they have “”pre-programed”” the whole thing .. With a “”pre-programmed” back up of same??? Now if someone is messing with our communications..NOBODY .. can communicate..lol
All’s well that ends well..
Latest update, Russians site possibility of multiple issues in the demise? of Phobos Grunt.
Possibly next Russian Mars mission will include a collaboration with European Space Agency. That sounds coool..
“Engineering Flaws Cause Russia’s Mars Probe Failure ”
2012-01-19 16:50:15 Xinhua Web Editor: Guo
Engineering flaws were the main cause of a recent failure of Russia’s Mars probe Phobos-Grunt that crashed into the Pacific Ocean, Russia’s Federal Space Agency Roscosmos said Thursday.
Roscosmos chief Vladimir Popovkin told Vesti FM radio station that earlier speculation that the crash was caused by a powerful electromagnetic emission from a US radar was “only one of the causes” for the failure.
“The main causes were the errors during production and test works, as well as the engineering flaws,” Popovkin said.
However, he added that Russia was also expected to test the influence of the U.S. radars on the Phobos-Grunt, which may involve NASA specialists.
According to Popovkin, Roscosmos is preparing to send another interplanetary spacecraft to Mars in cooperation with the European Space Agency (ESA).
“We are now negotiating with the European Space Agency to launch a mission (to Mars) once again by 2016-2018,” Popovkin said.
Roscosmos confirmed in November that the Phobos-Grunt probe carrying China’s Yinghuo-1 satellite, which was launched on Nov. 9, failed to reach the intended orbit. The spacecraft crashed into the Pacific Ocean on Sunday.
http://english.cri.cn/6966/2012/01/19/2743s677127.htm
Group W says ok no body as in where is the Grunts parts pieces. Then no choice..cus no way that comet lovejoy rode the solar wave at 75,000 miles above the solar surface. They now think that maybe the Russians already know how to block such electromagnetic radiation pulses.. Did ya see the trajectories of that comet zinging and zagging its way through the solar coronas magnetic field loops. Then accelertate seeming le right off one of those magnetic field loops..
OK..