Slashdot Mirror
Astra 1K Communications Satellite now Space Junk
bachelor#3 writes "Astra 1K, which was to replace 3 other satellites, didn't make it. Launch services were being provided by International Launch Services. Here's a timeline, from T-minus 30 minutes onwards."
Seeing as it was made by Alcatel Space and Alcatel just axed another 10,000 jobs yesterday (or the day before?) Do you think it was a sign? I'm just a conspiracy nut.
(ddaadaataaday! wee! look at me, I'm waiting for my 2-minute-filter to wear! ladeedaa)
HURD - Hurd's Under Research & Development
Every time we stick something up there in space (yes, this one didn't even make it that far), we put another obstacle in orbit for future generations to evade in their spaceshots. Likewise, we are detracting from the natural beauty of the skies by putting reflective crap like this up there.
When future generations look at the stars, do we want them to dream about soaring like gods to other planets, or do we want them to think that space is just a place we put all of our shit?
"Both the satellite and the booster will after a while fall back to Earth. Both will burn with maybe small bits reaching the Earth's surface, depending on what materials the satellite was made of," Kreidenko said. "But there is no danger."
This guy Kreidenko doesn't even know what the ingredients are and says there's no danger. I wonder if he'll feel the same way when the nuclear reactor lands in his front yard and makes a big brown spot in his lawn.
"It is essential that justice be done
I'm interested in the statistical projections for shuttle failures. The figure I've heard for catastrophic failure -- loss of vehicle and crew -- is around 1-in-300. Of course, lesser but nonetheless dramatic failures of the Apollo 13 sort are also a possibility. Finally, the shuttle fleet is getting old, and being a reusable craft the duty cycles might bring unpleasant surprises. Here's a recent article that made the rounds. (note the silver lining noted by the welder :)
If/when there is a failure, will the statisticians go, "Yup, that's about what we expected?" If the shuttle beats or falls short of its reliability prediction, does that make it a good or bad craft? I'm talking about perceptions here, not objectivity. It's a lot easier to be sober about failures of unmanned rockets.
It looks like we'll be talking seriously about what's going to replace the shuttle in just a few years. This could be good or bad for reliability -- while we've learned a lot, we have to admire the track record of the boring old Soyuz.
>1) The space shuttle fleet is fully booked for the foreseeable future, mostly on space station stuff.
Columbia is sitting at KSC without anything to do. It has one mission left on the books, then they're not sure what to do with it. It is too heavy to make it to the space station with any useful cargo.
However, it would still be highly inadvisable to go chasing this satellite for the rest of the reasons you mentioned. That third stage is essentially an undetonated bomb, poking and proding it during an EVA would be unwise.
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
If somebody else went up and fixed it, who would own the satellite?
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us