Slashdot Mirror


3.5 Ton Satellite to Crash Back to Earth

DeadBugs writes "CNN is reporting that the NASA Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer could crash back to earth in a matter of days. It's estimated that up to 9 large pieces (4-100 lbs.) of the Satellite could survive re-entry. Unlike the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory that was guided in, this Satellite will be uncontrolled. The EUVE has only been up there since 1992.... I wonder when this sort of thing will start to be a more common event."

22 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. You just know... by AltGrendel · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...that some joker will have a piece of it up for auction on e-bay before the derbis has cooled.

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

  2. Considering there are 7000 objects in orbit by MikeLRoy · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is likely to become far more common. More and more old satellites are being shut down, and people tend to spend their satellite funding on running and using the satellite, not bringing it down safely. Maybe i should start selling insurance....

    --
    -Michael Roy Some people are like Slinkies. Not really useful, but you can't help smiling when you see one tumble down
    1. Re:Considering there are 7000 objects in orbit by interiot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The article mentions that this satellite was designed to be decommisioned this way-- no steering mechanism was included. Is this a common occurance? Can't the designers be held liable if damage occurs?

    2. Re:Considering there are 7000 objects in orbit by Cruciform · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or one of these people?

      In November 1954 a housewife in Alabama was struck by a 3-lb (1.4 kg) meteor that smashed through her roof, bounced off some furniture, and struck her in the hip as she lay sleeping. She received a large bruise but no other harm.

      In October 1992 a 26-lb (12 kg) meteor punched clear through the trunk of an automobile in Peekskill, New York, wrecking the aged Chevrolet (but also turning it into an instant collector's item that sold for over $20,000).

      In June 1994 a man driving near Madrid, Spain suffered a broken finger when a 3-lb (1.4 kg) meteor crashed through his car's windshield and smashed the steering wheel, ending up in the back seat.


      or here.

      Unfortunately I couldn't find the link to the central park jogger that got nailed a few years ago. Although all it did was bounce off him. It made many major newspapers though. Anyone got a reference?

  3. Free Taco? by toupsie · · Score: 5, Funny

    I missed out last time, I suggest this time that Taco Bell uses a target the size of Rhode Island. I really, really want a Taco.

    --
    Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
  4. Re:Insurance? by Leven+Valera · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My homeowner's insurance actually covers impact by falling equipment, meaning telephone poles usually, but I guess satellites could be covered.

    LV

    --
    Woot w00t w007.
  5. Food for thought by Boiling_point_ · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Self-destruct mechanisms as a design feature for all sattelites...

    Could you design a sattelite in such a way that it could be destroyed remotely, ie. blown into small chunks that pose no danger to other spacecraft (are "blasted" towards Earth and therefore certain disintegration), while maintaining stability during launch/operation and not adding too much to the total weight?

    Devil's advocate:

    Who'd enforce it? Corporations won't pay extra for a very unlikely liability problem (until such a time that we're lobbing dozens of big things into space daily)

    What circumstances (other than system failure) would cause you to push the button - and if it had failed, who's to say it's pointed the right way and you won't shoot your comsat into the ISS?
    Sorry - just thinking out loud...IANARS

    --
    "If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
    1. Re:Food for thought by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Blowing a satelite into small pieces is a VERY bad idea, as those pieces will go and run into functional satelites. Those satelites will fragment and soon you have a run-away chain reaction that might keep us out of space for decades.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  6. Incoming! by James1006 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, debris entering the atmosphere (man-made and not) is a common occurrence. Happens everyday on some scale. It isn't just everyday a 3.5 ton one comes down :)

    I believe US Space Command/NASA/NORAD spends a ton of time tracking objects in close orbit, even very small ones the size of your finger.

    After all, anything going 17500 miles per hour hitting something like the space shuttle or Hubble or any other satellite (GPS, communications, spy/defense) wouldn't be pretty.

    Someone who worked for NASA at MSFC told me that they have actually had astronauts on the space shuttle change the shuttle's orbit slightly in order to avoid certain large pieces of debris.

    --

    - Nothing is true, everything is permitted
    1. Re:Incoming! by man_ls · · Score: 5, Informative

      True that. I've been inside NORAD and seen the satellite tracking facility (it's about 50 SGI Indigo and Indigo 2 workstations running a DOD-specific version of IRIX, with a second "hot backup" also used for training with identical hardware but a different room config a few floors down. (all that from only about 5 minutes in the lab...)

      It's pretty cool actually, you can open their anaylisis program and plot x; where x = the chronological number from 1 = Sputnik of the satellite launched, for a bunch of nice apogee/perigee/period/distance/elevation graphs. plot (some number I don't remember, and is probably classified anyway) plotted Mir, and the graphing was so accurate you could literally picture in your mind the space station flying around in closer and closer spirals until perigee=0 and reentry.

      But anyways-yes, they do track the stuff. And yes, they do course correct. A lot more than you might think too.

  7. Re:first post by Y+B+MCSE · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder if they can predict what the "catchment area" of the debris is going to be..

    Not to worry...Taco Bells top scientists are working on it at this moment.

  8. Warning. by Score0,+Overrated · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know there's not a whole lot we can do about it ... but couldn't the media have given us a bit more warning. It's less than 30 hours from the CNN article to the earliest estimated reentry time.

    NASA's original press release was on the 16th Feb.

    Even that is a bit worrying. Did NASA only discover 11 days ago that their 3.5 tonne satellite was going to crash? It's not like they behave erratically, is it?

  9. info by Alien54 · · Score: 5, Informative
    EUVE Archive
    EUVE Home (UCal. Berkeley)

    Info on satellite tracking here. Track the orbit, and place bets on where it will land. (note, the farthest north is someplace in florida.)

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  10. Re:first post by The+Original+Bobski · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not yet. It is falling without thrusters or any way to move itself. Only time will tell it's exact trajectory.

    Oh, great. Time to dust off the old SkyLab Detector hat.

    --
    satire, n: 1) witty language used to convey insults or scorn; 2) a form of humor lost on most slashdot moderators.
  11. They should make a law! by John+Harrison · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Any satellites put into orbit should be required to have the capability of being brought down safely. Maybe this doesn't need to become a requirement for all satellites. Little ones that will burn up totally aren't a problem. However, satellites that have parts that aren't going to burn up nicely on re-entry need to be able to be redirected to the oceans. Imagine the amount of energy the 100 lb. chunck of flaming hot iron from this satellite is packing.

    If they could control this thing and bring it down when and where they wanted they could potentially do some interesting stuff. Like having it streak over the opening ceremonies at the Olympics. Or if the had REALLY fine control they could light the olynpic calderon with it instead of using the torch. That would be even better than the flaming arrow. Or they could drop it on Bin Laden's head. Ok, now I am getting silly.

    ps I am bitter because I submitted this exact article and had it rejected several hours before it appeared.

    1. Re:They should make a law! by nadaou · · Score: 4, Funny

      If they could control this thing and bring it down when and where they wanted they could potentially do some interesting stuff. Like having it streak over the opening ceremonies at the Olympics.

      you've never met Mr. Murphy have you? You see, he's got this law..

      Gives new meaning to a 'messy' PR problem..

      'shotput from god kills thousands' or something for the headline..

      sigh. all too easy.

      --
      ~.~
      I'm a peripheral visionary.
  12. No need for worry by Toomel · · Score: 5, Funny

    Its okay guys..really. Bruce Willis and his buddies are training right now. There is no cause for worry!

  13. Blowing things up just means more pieces by Goldenhawk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >Self-destruct mechanisms as a design feature for all sattelites...

    As afidel wrote above (I'd mod him up if I had any points now), you don't want to do this to a defunct satellite.

    As you point out, it would have to pose no danger to other spacecraft. Well, the only practical way to do that is to ditch it in a controlled fashion. Any explosion involves a release of energy in pretty much all directions. Although some shaping of the charge can control the blast, you still blast some pieces in every direction. Each piece that does not hit the atmosphere enters its own orbit - risking collision with some other satellite.

    The proper solution, employed by almost all responsible satellite designers, is to allow enough extra fuel to deorbit the satellite. Of course, this depends on having CONTROL of the satellite. To guarantee this requires more redundancy - and more weight and fuel and complexity, etc. At the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a pound for launch costs, the designers usually opt for mission-suitable redundancy, and hope (and pray) that all the systems don't fail before they DO deorbit. And if they do start failing unusually fast, they'll deorbit early to avoid this kind of fiasco.

    Kind of ironic - I've seen some griping on /. in the past over deorbiting a still operational satellite. Well, WHY DO YOU THINK THEY DO IT? Purely to avoid this situation.

    You can't have it both ways, folks!

    --
    --Brandon / Split Infinity Music

  14. Hmm. could make wishing hazardous by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... starlight, starbright, first star I see toni ... *thud*

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  15. Can you tell me how much it will rain tomorrow? by roystgnr · · Score: 5, Informative

    Can you tell me where a piece of paper dropped off a skyscraper will land?

    The weather in low earth orbit is just as unpredictable as the weather at the ground, and just as variable. The density of the atmosphere around satellites (and thus the drag force on them) can vary by an order of magnitude. If the satellite loses orientation (which it is essentially certain to as drag forces overcome tidal or powered stabilization) then its coefficient of drag changes as well, and unpredictably when it rotates. It may not even have just drag acting on it; even in orbit an angled surface can produce just as much lift as drag, and when the satellite hits the atmosphere its shape could produce more lift than drag.

    And of course, for every second by which the atmosphere delays reentry, the satellite has moved 5 miles in its orbit. 5 mi/s * 3600 s/hr * 9 hr gives a nice 160,000 mile strip of possible landing sites, crossing around and around the whole globe. If you'd like to gamble about the probability of something being hit by one of the chunks, though, I suggest placing your money on "no".

  16. This already is common. by Performer+Guy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Space junk deorbits all the time. It just doesn't get the same publicity, some of the junk includes upper stage boosters including tons of fuel and a payload. The amount of rock naturally falling out of the sky is still more than the deorbiting garbage but nobody seems to worry about that, despite it destroying the occasional roof or car like these incidents:

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/ pe rseids_shower_sidebar_000809.html

  17. Magic word: disclaimer by BlowCat · · Score: 5, Funny
    This satellite is provided by its designers "as is" and any expressed or implied warranties, including, but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose are disclaimed.

    In no event shall the designers of the satellite be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or consequential damages (including, but not limited to, procurement of substitute goods or services; loss of use, data, or profits; or business interruption; destruction of cities, countries, continents; death of all humans) however caused and on any theory of liability, whether in contract, strict liability, or tort (including negligence or otherwise) arising in any way out of the use of this satellite, even if advised of the possibility of such damage.