Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Satellites Collide In Orbit

Posted by samzenpus on from the starpocalypse dept.

DrEnter writes "According to this story on Yahoo, two communications satellites collided in orbit, resulting in two large clouds of debris. The new threat from these debris clouds hasn't been fully determined yet. From the article, 'The collision involved an Iridium commercial satellite, which was launched in 1997, and a Russian satellite launched in 1993 and believed to be nonfunctioning. Each satellite weighed well over 1,000 pounds.' This is the fifth spacecraft/satellite collision to occur in space, but the other four were all fairly minor by comparison."

130 of 456 comments (clear)

  1. First collision by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm just waiting for one of those things to crash through some suburban American family's house.

    1. Re:First collision by Choad+Namath · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, the thought of that happening is pretty much the only thing keeping me from putting my house in orbit.

    2. Re:First collision by joocemann · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That would probably be better than all the debris spreading out and remaining in orbit. That debris, now hundreds of individual pieces, is now able to cause trouble to anything trying to pass through its 'air space', including more satellites, etc.

      Some say that the day we have combat/war in space is the last day we will enter space because the debris will block exit/entry.

    3. Re:First collision by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know they can FEEL endless when you're in them, but suburbs do not actually take up most of the earth's surface. The chances of that happening are fairly low.

    4. Re:First collision by Fnord666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Some say that the day we have combat/war in space is the last day we will enter space because the debris will block exit/entry.

      That's why you fire two shots from the ion cannon first to clear a lane!

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    5. Re:First collision by merreborn · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm just waiting for one of those things to crash through some suburban American family's house.

      Rocks the size of these satellites enter earth's atmosphere all the time. Fortunately, we have an atmosphere that does a pretty good job of destroying most smaller objects that enter it. And humans only inhabit a tiny fraction of the earth's surface, so whatever does make it through the atmosphere usually lands in the ocean, or uninhabited areas.

    6. Re:First collision by jd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Some of the early proposals for satellite phones would have put enough in orbit that if any two had collided, the rest would have smashed into the debris field, again resulting in a complete block to launch.

      Remember, one of the early space shuttles was hit by a fleck of paint in orbit. The impact nearly smashed a hole through the windshield. A fragment the size of a dried pea would not necessarily be visible from ground stations on Earth but might easily be expected to punch through any space vehicle in its path, along with anyone inside.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    7. Re:First collision by jd · · Score: 5, Funny

      On the other hand, there was a case a few years back where a meteorite smashed into some Australian guy's house and demolished the sofa he'd only just got up from.

      Why it had to pick on him, rather than Haliburton, I don't know.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    8. Re:First collision by catchblue22 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I vaguely remember a prediction with accompanying animation that at some point, there would be so many satellites that they would start to collide, creating a chain reaction that would damage or destroy many satellites. In the end you would have a sphere of debris that would make the particular orbit uninhabitable for new satellites. I doubt this will be the result from the current collision, but this is still worth thinking about.

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    9. Re:First collision by khallow · · Score: 5, Funny

      No. By some quirk of reality, most suburbs are not covered by ocean.

    10. Re:First collision by jamesh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The irony will be that all the pollution you are campaigning against will actually cushion the planet from such impacts and any resulting fragment will be no bigger than a chihuahua's head!

    11. Re:First collision by niw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fortunately, we have an atmosphere

      Not for much longer, if we have anything to do with it!

      It composition may become not very useful to us but its not going to escape the gravity well anytime soon.

    12. Re:First collision by TriezGamer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unless they're in New Orleans.

    13. Re:First collision by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      Some say that the day we have combat/war in space is the last day we will enter space because the debris will block exit/entry.

      That's why you fire two shots from the ion cannon first to clear a lane!

      "Gentlemen, let's plow the road!"

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    14. Re:First collision by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously though ... this might be the impetus to develop force shields a la Star Trek. It makes sense, when enough space junk builds up, deflector shields will be the only way to safely escape Earth orbit.

      Well, there will have to be some major breakthroughs in physics for that to happen. Electromagnetics won't help much, because a lot of that junk is non-ferrous.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    15. Re:First collision by Rakishi · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield/

      Small things won't necessarily damage a spacecraft although there's a limit to how much you can protect it and protection does increase the mass.

    16. Re:First collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, joke retires YOU.

    17. Re:First collision by j-turkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Some say that the day we have combat/war in space is the last day we will enter space because the debris will block exit/entry.

      That's why you fire two shots from the ion cannon first to clear a lane!

      Why use an ion cannon when Mega-Maid can easily clean up the whole debris cloud? ;)

      --

      -Turkey

    18. Re:First collision by Ozan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, there will have to be some major breakthroughs in physics for that to happen. Electromagnetics won't help much, because a lot of that junk is non-ferrous.

      If I punch you, the force of the blow will be transfered from my fist to your body by nothing else than electromagnetism. You don't need to be ferromagnetic for this to work. The outer electrons of the outer atoms of your body will be repelled by the outer electrons of the outer atoms of my fist.

      Outside of atoms, there are no forces other than gravity and electromagnetism.

    19. Re:First collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, that's an electrostatic force, not electromagnetic, and the force of matter interacting with other matter is not only comprised of that force alone. Making it act over more than a few millimeters against a non-charged object (such as random space junk) is, at this point, not possible.

      In other words, your retort about punching reveals that you have a total lack of understanding of physics and are an ignorant smart-ass.

    20. Re:First collision by Ozan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, that's an electrostatic force, not electromagnetic, and the force of matter interacting with other matter is not only comprised of that force alone.

      And the difference between electrostatic and electromagnetic forces would be what? There is no reason to keep them apart, it's the same phenomenon. And what would that other force be that matter is interacting with outside of atoms, other than gravity?

      Making it act over more than a few millimeters against a non-charged object (such as random space junk) is, at this point, not possible.

      That is correct of course, as of now, but the parent poster made it look like it would be fundamentally impossible.

    21. Re:First collision by NCG_Mike · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or the lost city of Atlanta.

    22. Re:First collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was a bit skeptical about this, but I did the math. A large grain of sand (0.03g) would have the same kinetic energy of a 9mm slug at roughly 5.8km/s.

      Orbital velocity at 10K km is 4.93km/s, so it's a reasonable value - and the relative velocity could be doubled if the objects collided head-on.

      Now, I'm sure the shuttle could take shots from a 9mm fine and that much of the energy wouldn't be deposited - it would vaporize the much less massive object, after all. Of course, all of the energy would be concentrated in a very small area and could do a lot of damage...

      Really fascinating. I should be sleeping at 3am, however, rather than calculating orbital impact energies on the back of an envelope...

    23. Re:First collision by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That was in fact my friends house. It was in New Zealand Auckland. It took me a while to believe her.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    24. Re:First collision by irae · · Score: 3, Informative

      Better to use a laser cannon, an ion cannon would just disable electronics. Sir, hand over your geek card please.

    25. Re:First collision by bytesex · · Score: 2, Funny

      in Soviet Russia, your sentence ends YOU. With a full stop.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    26. Re:First collision by Dan541 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who would have thought that simply discarding waste would ever become a problem?

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    27. Re:First collision by deimtee · · Score: 3, Funny

      If your ion cannon only disables electronics then you're not using enough ions.

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    28. Re:First collision by Ash+Vince · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Totally, utterly wrong. I'm not going to explain it, because you're obviously too self-righteous. Go ask your year 10 science teacher.

      News flash: Your year 10 science teach was lying to you.

      Just did a bit of digging on wikipedia to confirm the lectures I failed to attend while on my Physics degree :)

      There are 4 fundamental forces as follows: Electromagnetic, Strong, Weak and Gravity.

      Not sure what this electrostatic force everyone keeps going on about but it is not something I have heard of. Your separation of electromagnetism into separate forces is also incorrect though.

      As to deflector shields, before you can discount it entirely you have to decide what you are discounting. What happens to a particle that comes into contact with the field? Is it vaporised or deflected (ie - repelled, anti gravity)

      I am not saying they are possible, I am saying they are impossible. What I am saying is that the layman's (ie - you) knowledge of physics is so far away from where modern physics research is so it has become impossible to speculate what is possible from a laymans perspective.

      When I studied physics to degree level I was told that the previous years classes were junk so many times I found it frustrating. In the case of Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity were are getting conflicting views that were only an hour or so apart.

      The reason I mentioned gravity above is that it is the fundamental force we experience every day, but are unable to model accurately for more than two bodies of approximately the same mass. In my mind that means we don't know enough about it to discount antigravity being just around the corner. Surely that could be used to produce a deflector shield of some kind although it would be very different to ones we see in the movies as it would act over greater distances and its effects would be far more gradual.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    29. Re:First collision by The_Wilschon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IAAParticle Physicist, working on the Collider Detector at Fermilab, looking for the Higgs boson. Am I sufficiently credentialed for you, or will you "call my bluff" like the poor AC below? Electrostatic forces are an effect of the electromagnetic (or to go even further, the electroweak) interaction. GP is correct, P is incorrect.

      Usually, the four fundamental interactions are given as gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak and strong nuclear interactions. At high enough energies, electromagnetism and the weak nuclear interaction turn out to be the same thing. At even higher energies, maybe the others will merge in as well.

      Except gravity, these interactions have pretty well understood quantum field theoretic descriptions, motivated by particular symmetries (and their breaking sometimes), involving the exchange of momentum and other quantum numbers via various particles (the gauge bosons). The gauge boson responsible for the electromagnetic interaction is the well known photon.

      But you don't have to take my word for it. Please run down to your local library and pick up a copy of John David Jackson's _Classical Electrodynamics_, and a copy of Peskin and Shroeder's _Quantum Field Theory_. These are the standard graduate textbooks for their respective fields, and will provide all the detail you might wish to find.

      Also, in the future, please look these things up before spouting off what you remember from your "year 10 science" class. You probably don't remember it correctly, if today is any indication.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    30. Re:First collision by jd · · Score: 3, Funny

      *begs forgiveness for confusing Australia and New Zealand. I know how much the two countries hate it, and I really don't want the All Blacks scrunching me up and using me for a practice rugger ball in retaliation*

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    31. Re:First collision by JeanPaulBob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And what would that other force be that matter is interacting with outside of atoms, other than gravity?

      I believe the fundamental forces are magnetic, electrostatic, gravity, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. Any quantum physicists in the house may feel free to prompt me if I'm forgetting any.

      The particle physicist above (The_Wilschon) forgot to clarify one point. The GP was right when he only listed two forces by which matter interacts outside of atoms. Strong and weak nuclear forces do exist, but they pretty much stick to the inside of an atom's nucleus.

    32. Re:First collision by zeropointburn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      not to break into a perfectly good argument, but why not do it this way?

      An object does not need to be ferromagnetic to acquire a STATIC charge. Lob a stream of electrons into the debris field, and some of them will stick... to ANYTHING. The objects will develop a static, negative charge.

      The objects with their newfound negative charge will now repel each other. The force is not likely to be large, but it does not have to be. The debris field will scatter over time, and even small destabilizations of their orbits will lead to a large divergence in position over successive orbits.

      Now on your launch vehicle, you have two options. Maintain a static, negative charge on the nose; this will force further scattering and prevent impact with material within a certain range of relative velocities. Maintain a magnetic field extending in front of the vehicle; this will induce motion in the charged debris, forcing it out of the way. This also has a limit on the maximum relative velocities of the vehicle and the debris.

      It may be more effective to use positive ions instead of electrons. In that case, you reverse the charge on the cone. The magnetic method would not require changes. All of this works under the inverse square law, so the force of the effect increases as ship and debris get closer.

      --
      -1 raving lunatic; +6 subGenius... Things even out...
    33. Re:First collision by jd · · Score: 2, Informative

      Catastrophic collision? Hmmm. Actually, that probably is about right. Even the ISS is pretty much guaranteed to be destroyed in a catastrophic collision within the next 5-10 years, and that's in a relatively safe place.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  2. This was bound to happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    These satellites were Iridium33 (24946) and K-2251 (22675). Now they are pieces of debris from bowling ball sized pieces to vapor.

    A nice little animation of the collision is placed here:

    http://i39.tinypic.com/2vbk75z.gif

    This was bound to happen and will happen again. The interesting question is how come they didn't maneuver one of them out of the way. I don't know if 22675 is an active payload that still has power but Iridium33 certainly has the capability of moving. This one was avoidable. Even my non rocket science brain can take the TLEs and figure out that they were passing way too close to each other (I put it at about 500 meters with the latest elements).

    Unfortunately, this didn't create 2 'clouds' of debris. This created one huge field of debris that will continue to expand over time. Many of the pieces will be tracked but the very small pieces cannot be.

    It would have been way cool to observe the collision!

    1. Re:This was bound to happen. by OpenSourceOfAllEvil · · Score: 5, Funny

      IIRC from Driver's Ed, the vehicle to the right has the right of way.

    2. Re:This was bound to happen. by djupedal · · Score: 5, Funny

      Except in Oregon, where the first one to exhibit politeness in a manner consistent with their last four stops gets to wait on the other, regardless of left, right or weaponry. Chevy Suburbans are excluded, as usual, and get to go thru without stopping, signaling or giving a healthy shit.

      Token MS reference: Investing in MS is risking having your own money used against you in the marketplace.

    3. Re:This was bound to happen. by darinfp · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nope. It's not a road.
      The Russian Satellite should have been transmitting "starboard, you arsehole", or the robotic Russian equivalent.

    4. Re:This was bound to happen. by erroneus · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Space Chicken!"

    5. Re:This was bound to happen. by Stanislav_J · · Score: 4, Funny

      IIRC from Driver's Ed, the vehicle to the right has the right of way.

      The Russian satellite had lights and siren going, so the Iridium was supposed to pull over.

      --
      "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
    6. Re:This was bound to happen. by MarkRose · · Score: 4, Funny

      The interesting question is how come they didn't maneuver one of them out of the way.

      They couldn't talk to each other because someone took out a communication satellite. Obviously.

      --
      Be relentless!
    7. Re:This was bound to happen. by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Russian Sat was not functioning.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:This was bound to happen. by windsurfer619 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Starboard is to the right!

    9. Re:This was bound to happen. by PhaseChange · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, you got iridium in my K-2251 (22675)!

      No, you got K-2251 (22675) in my iridium!

      Time for a new tasty treat....

    10. Re:This was bound to happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It would have been way cool to observe the collision!

      If a man sees a satellite collision in space and there is no woman there to witness it, is he still wrong?

    11. Re:This was bound to happen. by Capt.Slant.Eye · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sounds good... Can I only buy it in outer space? Or will it be crashing and burning at stores near me?

    12. Re:This was bound to happen. by slashtivus · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I guess I'll put this in this thread since the others were nothing but attempts at "Funny" mod points:

      Are not the Iridium (and I will assume the Russian satellite as well) very low-orbiting satellites? This would mean the orbits will decay rather rapidly making this really not that big of a deal over the long term?

      Some of the pieces will have gained orbital momentum and go higher, but really most of it should be getting some atmospheric drag and decay quickly.

    13. Re:This was bound to happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      A: "Change your couse"

      B: "No. You change your course."

      A: "We insist that you change your course."

      B: "We must protest. Change your course."

      A: "This is a warship. Change your course."

      B: "This is a lighthouse. Your call."

      I'm sure this exchange fits into this whole thing somewhere....

    14. Re:This was bound to happen. by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2, Informative

      That would depend on whether you're facing the bow or the stern. Left and right are relative to the observer, whereas port and starboard are relative to the main axis of the ship. Starboard is to the right when facing the bow.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    15. Re:This was bound to happen. by tweak13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, these were in what would be considered low earth orbit. How much of a problem this is going to be depends on how many other objects are in nearby orbits that may collide with part of this cloud. The thing about atmospheric drag is that the atmosphere isn't really all that uniform. How a chunk of wrecked satellite with an unknown shape and size is going to react can be predicted, but only to a certain extent. Yes, everything will eventually fall down, even the stuff in a "higher orbit." Those orbits were just made more elliptical, and will eventually come down to about the same altitude the collision happened at. It's going to take awhile though, and those pieces that are too small to track are going to spread over wider and wider areas until they finally reenter. People will be furiously calculating probabilities of collisions for a long time. Decaying 'quickly' is relative I guess, while there is drag to bring them down, pieces will still be up there for years.

    16. Re:This was bound to happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      No. Not very low.

      Iridiums orbit at 776 x 779 km, 86.4. The ISS is 350 x 362 km, 51.6.

      The problem is that when these objects collided, all the pieces flew in every different direction possible. Up, down etc. Yes, many of these pieces will now have much larger 'drag' because the orbits will have a much greater eccentric orbit. Yes, this will cause the pieces to decay sooner.

      The big problem is this cloud of debris will now jeopardize things in pretty much all orbits.

    17. Re:This was bound to happen. by palndrumm · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://www.snopes.com/military/lighthouse.asp

    18. Re:This was bound to happen. by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Funny

      And in Arkansas it is little old ladies in giant land boat 4 doors like Lincolns or Cadillacs. One quickly learns to get out of their way or be dragged REALLY SLOWLY for several miles. They are also immune to all honking or screams of agony due to their lack of hearing. But one can spot and thus avoid the danger by looking for the warning signs, which consist of a car being driven by only a pair of knuckles and a tuft of white hair.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    19. Re:This was bound to happen. by mollymoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This was bound to happen and will happen again. The interesting question is how come they didn't maneuver one of them out of the way. I don't know if 22675 is an active payload that still has power but Iridium33 certainly has the capability of moving. This one was avoidable.

      I find it a little suspicious myself. China shows off satellite takedown capability. Not long after that the USA shows off satellite takedown capability. Not long after that a "dead" Russian satellite has an "accident" and takes down a satellite. It may just be that Iridium got a warning and played it too close to save fuel or because an insurance payout would make for a handy cash injection, but the timing and the fact that it involves a satellite from the only superpower not to have demonstrated a satellite takedown capability is quite some coincidence.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    20. Re:This was bound to happen. by johannesg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Even my non rocket science brain can take the TLEs and figure out that they were passing way too close to each other (I put it at about 500 meters with the latest elements).

      I'd put it at about 0.000 meters actually. You can tell from the size of the debris field...

    21. Re:This was bound to happen. by captainpanic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One big satellite has relatively little drag-to-weight ratio. Many small pieces have a much larger drag-to-weight ratio because the surface area has greatly increased, but the total mass is still the same.

      therefore, it will come down faster than when there was no crash. In any case, within the foreseeable future.

  3. Satellite smoke by BorgCopyeditor · · Score: 5, Funny

    Satellite smoke. Don't breathe this.

    --
    Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
    1. Re:Satellite smoke by Requiem18th · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure, here: http://www.willitblend.com/

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    2. Re:Satellite smoke by MarkRose · · Score: 2, Funny

      It should be pretty though. Iridium comes from the greek word for rainbow, iris: think of all the pretty shiny bits strewn across the sky.

      It's a shame it was Iridium-33 that got pummelled. If it were Iridium-192, it would have decayed into platinum and made that rainbow so much more beautiful.

      --
      Be relentless!
  4. When Satellites Collide! by AJ+Mexico · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Too bad orbital tracking didn't give enough warning for Iridium to get their bird out of the way. I guess no one is cross checking the orbits of all satellites? I know it is done for the shuttle and space station. (The space station *has* maneuvered to keep away from space junk.)

    --
    Computers obey me.
  5. In Soviet Outer Space by microbee · · Score: 2, Funny

    The satellites collide YOU!

    1. Re:In Soviet Outer Space by cashman73 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Um, if you RTFA, this WAS in Russian [Soviet] space, you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:In Soviet Outer Space by Coder4Life · · Score: 4, Funny

      The Russian satellite was launched in 1993. At that point it was no longer "Soviet", you insensitive clod!

      --
      Once upon a time in a mythical land called Soviet Russia, a hot bowl of grits had Natalie Portman.
  6. Expanding debris cloud by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hopefully the wreckage from this one doesn't end up causing any unpleasant chain reactions. Not only are satellites really expensive, we currently have no especially good way of ridding ourselves of orbital debris. It would suck to fill our good bits of orbit with trash.

    1. Re:Expanding debris cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      We currently have no especially good way of ridding ourselves of orbital debris.

      That's why we need Debris Section

    2. Re:Expanding debris cloud by Dripdry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm going to play devil's advocate for a second here:

      What if it isn't a bad thing? What if the debris cloud does start some sort of slow chain reaction that knocks out a lot of satellites in orbit and rings earth with debris?

      Although it would be expensive to clean up it would definitely put peoples' minds back on space technology if they suddenly couldn't get tv, phone, internet, gps, or other critical services. It could spur development to clean things up, avoid the problem in the future, and get more nations/people/viable technology in space.

      In our "convenience at any cost" age, perhaps this sort of inconvenience is the kind of thing to slap some sense into us.

      --
      -
    3. Re:Expanding debris cloud by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That seems suspiciously close to "the broken window fallacy" in space. It would cost an enormous amount of money, time, resources, and R&D to clear up a significant orbital debris field. All those resources would(with the exception of any spinoff tech) be squandered, spent just to get us back to where we were before.

      Also, I suspect that such an outcome would be as likely to spur regression as it would expansion. Space is extremely useful, for satellite mapping, GPS, astronomy, and the like; but it isn't necessary. If the costs of exploiting it rise, as they would, drastically, if satellites were constantly knocked out by debris fields; you'd likely see a scaling back of space exploration. Military surveillance and location stuff would probably make the cut; but you could forget about "nonessentials" like orbital telescopes, cheap satellite photography, and the like.

    4. Re:Expanding debris cloud by Snowblindeye · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hopefully the wreckage from this one doesn't end up causing any unpleasant chain reactions. Not only are satellites really expensive, we currently have no especially good way of ridding ourselves of orbital debris.

      There is a scifi story by Ken MacLeod where the orbit around earth is filled with so many satellites that when a war erupts and some of them get destroyed, it starts a chain reaction that ends up shredding all the equipment in orbit and creating a high speed debris belt that prevents space travel for several centuries.

      I've always wondered if that scenario is realistic, but from a physics point of view it sounds like it could be.

    5. Re:Expanding debris cloud by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_Syndrome

    6. Re:Expanding debris cloud by midicase · · Score: 2, Funny

      "It could spur development to clean things up"

      Are you vying for a part of the stimulus package?

    7. Re:Expanding debris cloud by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Informative

      we currently have no especially good way of ridding ourselves of orbital debris.

      Gravity? Granted its slow, but it works. Everything in orbit now will be gone in, ooh, a century or so.

      No. Everything low enough to exprience atmospheric drag will be gone in a century. Anything above 1000km will last thousands of years in orbit. Objects in geosynchronous orbit will last indefinitely because they can slide into valleys in the Earths gravitational field and stay there. Arthur C Clarke liked to point out that one of these places is right above Sri Lanka.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    8. Re:Expanding debris cloud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's still no plan in place to clean up the Great Pacific Garbage Patch which is at least an order of magnitude easier than cleaning up all usable orbits. It costs half a billion dollars to launch the space shuttle, how many trips do you think it would take to clean up a huge 3 dimensional space with more surface area than the earth itself?

    9. Re:Expanding debris cloud by psychcf · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...or the cloud could reflect sunlight back into space, which would slow down global warming...

    10. Re:Expanding debris cloud by adavies42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      ablation cascade

      --
      Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
      -kfg
    11. Re:Expanding debris cloud by danlip · · Score: 2, Funny

      It would cost an enormous amount of money, time, resources, and R&D to clear up a significant orbital debris field. All those resources would(with the exception of any spinoff tech) be squandered, spent just to get us back to where we were before.

      Naw, we can just shoot a black hole from the large hadron collider into orbit. Problem solved.

    12. Re:Expanding debris cloud by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      oh good to know - i'll let the ten of thousands of fishermen and the families that depend on them, that their not as important to the future of their nation as a couple of satellites.

      I get the impression you disagree for some reason. But this is true.

      And i'll let the shipping companies know that they are no longer the main method of transporting goods and as such the protection and conservation of their medium of travel (teh oceans) aren't worth it anymore. Turns out i missed the story

      Protection and conservation of the oceans actually interferes with the shippers' business since they're the ones doing the majority of the littering. And litter doesn't significantly interfere with shipping.

      Its not as if thats a big industry or anything - or as if the oceans cover more than half of the world (and increasing) that we currently live on.

      The thing to remember is that space is a lot bigger than the oceans. It has more stuff. For humans to even travel in such a medium requires knowledge at the cutting edge of what we can do. OTOH, travel on the oceans requires something that floats. It no longer challenges us in any meaningful way.

  7. Better get Geico by NFN_NLN · · Score: 3, Funny

    Did Russia have Geico? 15% off public liability insurance for satellites...

  8. Re:Obama's first test from Putin? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't have the probabilities off hand but it is more likely than one might think at first glance. The set altitudes that are useful is not that large, especially for satellites that have the same job (in this case, communication). Furthermore, satellites are circling repeatedly so there are many opportunities where orbits will cross paths. That said, if I were the owners of the Iridium satellite I'd be pissed off right now. They've just lost a very expensive piece of equipment in what should be a preventable mishap. Somebody is going to get fired.

  9. Was this really bound to happen? by funky49 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Was this really bound to happen? I always assumed that when nations put stuff in space, they always included a way to make it de-orbit and burn up in the atmosphere. Littering space is dumb. Can someone please be less politically correct and put some blame on the non-operational Russian sat? Iridium Satellite should file a claim against the Russians. How come a "conjunction analysis" isn't done for all of the objects they're tracking in space? Does there need to be a "Tracking@Home" app for the ps3? In any case, I have a new development idea for the techno-thriller I'm writing... in the future nobody has satellites because of space terrorism. Or maybe I'll start an orbital mechanics company whose job it is to clean up debris and old crap around Earth.

    Funny, I kinda wrote about this in my song "Starblazer"...

    earthlings, knee deep in things
    in orbit there's garbage rings

    --
    --- rapper/producer/bachelorette party stripper
    1. Re:Was this really bound to happen? by geekoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      One of the Sat.s was a non funtioning sat. When the whole thing fails, you can't really deorbit it..cause it failed.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Was this really bound to happen? by Cliff+Stoll · · Score: 4, Informative

      When a satellite fails, often it cannot be de-orbited. Several failure modes will cause this - the most common is the malfunction of the controller, communications unit, or onboard power system. When any of these fail, there's no way to command the retro-rocket to fire.

      Then, too, you need the satellite to be pointed in the correct direction (meaning that its stationkeeping rockets are working), and for it to have enough hydrazine (or whatever) to be deorbited. Near the end of a spacecraft's life, consumables are limited.

      And, of course, it takes a lot of energy to de-orbit many satellites. A geostationary comsat needs one heck of a kick motor to get it down. Usually they are not brought down to burnup in the atmosphere. Instead, they are moved a few dozen (hundred?) kilometers inwards from their geostationary slot. This puts 'em well away from the main circle of geostationary satellites.

      It's like consumer goods ... manufacturers work to make them last long enough to complete their mission; few think about how to get rid of 'em once their purpose has expired.

    3. Re:Was this really bound to happen? by Zak3056 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Iridium Satellite should file a claim against the Russians.

      Typically, when it comes to right of way, the less maneuverable vehicle has the right of way (for example, a balloon has the right of way over a glider, which has the right of way over an airship, which has the right of way over an airplane. Similar rules apply to seaborne vessels.) Taking at face value the summary's statement that the Russian satellite was non-functional, it was clearly the duty of the operators of the Iridium satellite to take action. If you want to talk claims/liability, I'd say that the Iridium folks are on the hook for huge damages--through negligence they've created a massive hazard to navigation that will be a problem for... what, centuries?

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    4. Re:Was this really bound to happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Iridium Satellite should file a claim against the Russians.

      Most likely the Russians would not object to American lawyers being sent to Siberia to file whatever they would like. Most Americans would probably even donate money for leasing jets to get them there, especially if they could be assured of no empty seats.

    5. Re:Was this really bound to happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Informative post but just one correction, at end of life the birds in geo RAISE their orbit. Decay takes so long that the graveyard orbits are stable over pretty much everyone's planning horizon (centuries+). If collisions occur up there then relative velocities are hopefully small enough to limit the debris field.

    6. Re:Was this really bound to happen? by kelnos · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you were told in advance that the satellite was going to fall into the exact location where your car was sitting, and that no one could change the satellite's trajectory because it was dead, and you nevertheless left your car there, then, yes, I'd say you're at fault.

      Try fleshing out the analogy so it actually makes sense next time.

      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
    7. Re:Was this really bound to happen? by phulegart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it was your job to track satellites, because you were part of the department that launched the satellite that fell on your car.. then YES, it would be your fault that you did not move your car out of the way.

      Now, since the people who owned the Iridium Satellite were ALSO in charge of maintaining it... which includes knowing it's position in the sky... they were responsible for making sure that it did not collide with anything. In a perfect world (or above it) there would have been people closely monitoring both trajectories, with the ability to adjust each satellite.

      So either no one was watching at Iridium, which means someone needs to be sacked for not properly monitoring the unit... or those who were watching assumed that the Russian satellite was going to be the one that moved, and someone needs to be sacked for THAT decision.

      But if you want an analogy that involves cars...
      Two cars head for the same parking spot. If one of those cars has no driver, and is just rolling in that direction (the dead Russian satellite that was probably identified long before the collision) and you did NOTHING after identifying that there was no one behind the wheel, then it would be your fault when that car collided with you.

      Still want a car analogy? Ok. You are in a car, heading to cross railroad tracks. You can see quite a bit of the road ahead, and you can see a train coming. You can even tell that you are going to cross the tracks just in time to get hit by that train. Now... why would you assume that the other guy is going to move? In this case, it can't. It won't even be able to slow down in time. You are the one with maneuverability. Thus, if you do collide with that train, it will be your fault.

      Yeah, maybe they did not KNOW that the Russian Satellite was dead. So you assume the conversation went like this?
      "Hey, our satellite is gonna hit a Russian bird."
      "Hmmm... they had better alter that orbit"
      "Why don't we alter our orbit?"
      "What? That's crazy talk. No reason OUR orbit should be altered. Let them move theirs." ... time passes...
      "They didn't change their orbit."
      "Well, we aren't altering ours."

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    8. Re:Was this really bound to happen? by Geirzinho · · Score: 2, Informative

      Space Mission Analysis and Design has tabulated some orbit life times. For high-ballistic coefficient satellites (high mass to drag ratio), some altitudes and lifetimes are:

      100km: 0.06 days
      450km (roughly ISS altitude): 2 years
      1000km: 1 million years
      above: no loss of altitude

  10. Haven't you ever seen Space Cowboys? by Digitus1337 · · Score: 2, Funny

    a Russian satellite launched in 1993 and believed to be nonfunctioning.

    It's a cover-up, Soviet nukes are falling from space, run for your lives!

  11. Re:Obama's first test from Putin? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does anyone know what these particular satellites were each being tasked to do? (prior to one of them becoming a single-use kinetic energy space-based weapon system projectile)

    Now, I do wear my tin-foil hat a lot, so I'll try to answer your question.

    What are the chances that a satellite was launched in 1993 so that it would collide with a satellite launched in 1997, in 2009? As an attempt by Putin to test Obama?

    I don't know the exact numbers, but I'd suggest that it might be more profitable to put your entire savings into Powerball tickets.

    --
    Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  12. Re:Obama's first test from Putin? by tobiah · · Score: 4, Informative

    from the article: "Iridium Holdings LLC has a system of 65 active satellites which relay calls from portable phones that are about twice the size of a regular mobile phone. It has more than 300,000 subscribers. The U.S. Department of Defense is one of its largest customers." The collision occurred over Siberia.

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
  13. A good question.... by reality-bytes · · Score: 3, Interesting

    TFA says that they knew this would happen 'sooner or later' but doesn't mention anything specific.

    The question is, did anyone have any specific knowledge of the likelihood of this specific collision prior to the event?

    I'm assuming just now there wasn't orbital information of sufficient precision to predict this.

    --
    Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
    1. Re:A good question.... by NFN_NLN · · Score: 4, Funny

      The question is, did anyone have any specific knowledge of the likelihood of this specific collision prior to the event?

      Maybe they're like slashdot dupes. Everyone knows they're coming, they just can't be certain when.

  14. High Perigees LEOs Should be Reserved by Baldrson · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This is a good example of why circular, indeed any high-perigee orbit should be reserved for applications like tether propulsion such as HASTOL Rotovators.

    Low perigee orbits, orbits that dip into upper atmosphere, naturally decay to reentry. If collisions occur, the pieces will naturally decay to reentry.

    Rotovators are highly valuable and actually need to operate in LEO to throw things out of LEO, both up and down -- and Rotovators are quite vulnerable to debris.

    500 mile perigee is way to high. It is a nighmare orbit for debris proliferation.

    --
    Seastead this.
    1. Re:High Perigees LEOs Should be Reserved by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Informative

      Rotovators are highly valuable and actually need to operate in LEO to throw things out of LEO, both up and down -- and Rotovators are quite vulnerable to debris.

      Blah, blah, blah. Rotovators are "valuable" the same way unicorns and genies are "valuable", which is to say they are valuable in theory, but since we don't have any nor do we have any prospect of acquiring any anytime soon, it would be completely ridiculous to make expensive financial concessions based on this imaginary "value".

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  15. Don't worry... by denzacar · · Score: 3, Funny

    James Bond has safely crashed that Iridium satellite into the Russian cold war doomsday device satellite somewhere over Siberia.

    After that, he has as usual returned to having sex with female scientists that look like supermodels.
    All is well with the world once more.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  16. 5th collision?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know of 3 previous collisions.

    1991-12-23 COSMOS vs. COSMOS DEB (discovered in 2005)
    1996-07-24 CERISE vs. Ariane R/B
    2005-01-17 Thor Burner vs. CZ-4 DEB

    What's the 4th previous??

    1. Re:5th collision?? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How about the progress freighter which hit Mir because it had the incorrect mass information loaded?

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
  17. Planetes by Bonker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Planetes is a japenese cartoon about this very subject, and other unpleasant realities of space travel including space-radiation induced cancer, the birth problems of people living on the moon, and the long delay involved in inter-planetary travel.

    The main character, 'Hachimaki', is basically a space garbage collector.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    1. Re:Planetes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      As much as you think it is, Planetes is a rather on-topic example for this story. It's not like he said, "Oh, remember that scene in Wall-E that was like this?" or some other vaguely-linked show, movie, or book.

    2. Re:Planetes by Logic+and+Reason · · Score: 4, Informative

      A garbage-collecting ship like the Toy Box is not likely to be feasible for anything other than the largest debris pieces. You would have to expend huge amounts of energy to match velocities with each little group of debris, and you wouldn't get much useful scrap from them. The wiki page you mention actually discusses this briefly.

  18. Metre vs Meter. by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny
    Many of the pieces will be tracked but the very small pieces cannot be.

    As for pieces the size of micrometers, the count will likely be in the thousands.

    These guys sell micrometers that can measure things as large as five feet across and ones that can only measure up to an inch across. It seems to me that something is the size of a micrometer is somewhat vague.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Metre vs Meter. by phantomcircuit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Way to purposely confuse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro- Meter with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micrometer

    2. Re:Metre vs Meter. by plus_M · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not really, micro is an SI prefix meaning 10^-6. One micrometer = 1*10^-6 meters. Once you get 1000 micrometers you start calling it 1 millimeter. Therefore, I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that you can consider "micrometer" sized particles are going to be between 1*10^-6 and 1*10^-3 meters in diameter.

    3. Re:Metre vs Meter. by ColaMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's why using the European spelling makes it easier to differentiate.
      Anyway, I'm pretty sure the SI unit is spelled metre, not meter.

      Micrometre / Micrometer.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
  19. YES, they are! by mangu · · Score: 4, Informative

    I guess no one is cross checking the orbits of all satellites?

    Yes, of course, they certainly ARE watching all satellites! You see, these birds cost something in the order of $100 million each, don't you think someone is being paid to take care of them?

    Well, of course, if it's something between a broken satellite that never reached its intended orbit, and a satellite from a bankrupt company that never had any profit, that's different. It's not as if they were true operating satellites, is it?

    1. Re:YES, they are! by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Iridium satellites most certainly are operating satellites, and they no longer belong to the original company.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:YES, they are! by Darkk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not anymore.. Now it's just a pile of space junk.

    3. Re:YES, they are! by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Iridium constellation consists of 66 satellites plus spares, one of which will be moved into position to replace this one. They've lost satellites before.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    4. Re:YES, they are! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      There you go. Collusion to commit insurance fraud.

      Irridium: Um yeah, you know those $100 million satellites? Well two of them crashed. What you don't believe us? Ask the Russians.

      Russia: Yeah, they crashed. What you don't believe us? Maybe you go up there and check.

  20. That settles it..... by john_anderson_ii · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's time for MegaMaid. Get NASA started on that Spaceball-1 project STAT.

    --
    Be Safe! Sleep with a Marine. Semper Fi!
    1. Re:That settles it..... by saxoholic · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's time for MegaMaid. Get NASA started on that Spaceball-1 project STAT.

      This thread just went from suck to blow.

  21. Cause? Tractor beam from Alien Craft by BrentRJones · · Score: 2, Funny

    The US Air Force has posted the video evidence on YouTube. The Soviets are going to the World Court to seek damages for infringement of copyright of said video.

    --
    Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
  22. Re:Obama's first test from Putin? by Anachragnome · · Score: 2, Funny

    As soon as I realized that one of the satellites was Russian, a flag went up.

    Could it be worth $100 million to take out one of their satellites, then blame it on an "accident"? Maybe the Iridium was basically just what you said, a weapon, in disguise the whole time.

    I wonder if tinfoil hats protect oneself from falling space debris as well...

  23. What would be the odds by capebretonsux · · Score: 5, Funny

    if it collided with a $100,000 toolbag....

  24. Re:Obama's first test from Putin? by Plekto · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now, I do wear my tin-foil hat a lot, so I'll try to answer your question.

    Tinfoil won't work. It needs to be lead.

  25. Re:Obama's first test from Putin? by MadnessASAP · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Probably not preventable, the Russian one was inactive so they couldn't communicate with it and I don't know if the Iridium one has any maneuvering capabilities. Furthermore there's only so far in advance you can predict collisions before the random fluctuations become to great. Iridium knew the risk when they put the satellite up their and they have redundancy in their system

    --
    I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
  26. Re:Obama's first test from Putin? by Smallpond · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not to troll or to dwell into politics here, But does anyone here know any numbers for the *actual* chances/probabilities that satellite A will collide with satellite B in orbit around the Earth?

    Yes. The actual probability is 1.

  27. Zap it! by madcat2c · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just use that big 747 we have with the giant laser mounted in it to start zapping the debris. I'm sure they need the target practice. Start by going after the 50 most annoying bits of junk.

  28. Ablation Cascade: This is how it starts by computersareevil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is one way the theoretical Ablation Cascade could start. At least then we wouldn't have to worry about getting to the Moon. We couldn't.

    Bummer if it happens before the Webb Space Telescope launches...

  29. Re: "... very small pieces cannot be" tracked by asackett · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, any piece large enough to pose a threat to anything we care about can be tracked, and by what counts as ancient technology: the AN/FPS-85 phased array spacetrack radar, for example.

    --

    Warning: This signature may offend some viewers.

  30. Risk adjusted net present value by Baldrson · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The risk adjusted net present value of unicorns is basically 0 because the risk of their not existing is close to 1. Of genies, well that depends on your religion, but for the vast majority of folks making economic decisions with real money, its 0. Of "Rotovators" of the type linked to by you, it is probably higher than space elevators but lower than the HASTOL rotovator type I linked to by quite a lot because the HASTOL rotovator can be constructed with current materials and suborbital launch vehicles now going into commercial operation.

    So a fair comparison has to compare the economies of a HASTOL rotovator, adjusted for the technological risk, to the difference between current high perigee LEO applications and modification of those applications to have perigees low enough to naturally reenter at about the same time the satellite is at the end of its projected useful life.

    The trade-off is not nearly as clear as you make it out to be, and with the value of getting things to and from space being essentially "halfway to anywhere", it is pretty clear that you've got a lot weaker case than you apparently think.

    --
    Seastead this.
  31. Re:How about launching Chalf? by RoboRay · · Score: 2, Funny

    How about building a REALLY big magnet on the ground?

  32. Re:How about launching Chalf? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

    We already have one of those.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  33. Re:Obama's first test from Putin? by tsalmark · · Score: 2, Funny

    soon to be updated: ... a system of 64 active satellites which relay calls from portable phones

  34. cascade scenario by deodiaus2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was watching a PBS show with Michio Kaku call this the cascade scenario. As soon as two satellites collide, the debris field will spread and cause more collisions, until Earth is surrounded by a debris field which will prohibit Earth launched space travel for many years.

  35. Paranoid fail. by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Only on Slashdot could something so paranoid, full of speculation and even illogical when you take the facts into account get modded insightful, not once, but twice.

    I'm not even sure what's so difficult to believe about two satellites colliding when there's so many up there. Even two relatively highly maneuverable manned planes collided in the UK a day or two ago, so it doesn't seem that difficult to think that two much less maneuverable, one of which no longer even active and working, unmanned objects might be able to collide.

    Putin has spent the last few years selling himself in martial arts videos, showing off his ability to shoot tigers, flexing his muscles whilst fishing and many other such show off type things. Don't you think he'd jump at the chance to say "Hey, by the way, Russia just show down a satellite too?". Even if they realised they screwed up by somehow hitting a commercial satellite too don't you think the commercial satellite owners would say something? don't you think the US, China and millions of other people capable of tracking such events would scream at the chance to say "Russia just flung something into space and taken out a civilian satellite"?

    I don't even see what's so coincidental about the timing, what's so special that now, over 2 years after China did it would be a good time for Russia to have a pop at it again too? Is there something special about around 2 years and 3 weeks later that allows it to be defined as coincidental?

    But there's a bigger problem with your theory, ASAT technology isn't even new, the Russians built ASAT kit back in the 60s, 70s and 80s, the US has had F15 launchable ASAT missiles since at least the 80s, possibly the 70s. In fact, looking at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon#USSR.2FRussia) it states Russia has pulled off 23 test launches and has had an operaitonal ASAT system since 1973.

    If anyone's going to show off ASAT capability next it'll be somewhere like Iran or India most likely. I like people who think outside the box and come up with new ideas but come on if we're going to have conspiracy theories and mod them insightful let's at least have them consist of some degree of plausibility and at least make some sense please?

  36. Why no the other way round? by fantomas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Paranoid folks in Russia on the other hand might argue that the US satellite, having power, was directed into the Russian satellite to prove that the USA has the capacity to take out Russian military satellites as and when it wishes, and that it chose to do so in a less confrontational way by taking out a no longer functional satellite. Using a functional commercial satellite clearly shows that the US government and can turn any US company assets to its use so Russia better beware, the US power is greater than it seems.

    If you're paranoid you can argue anything to fit into your world view :-)

  37. Iridium Flares by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Iridium Satellites are not only comm sats, they're the source of a visible phenomenon known as Iridium Flares. They're actually quite cool, and you can freak people out by getting them to watch the patch of sky in which the flare is going to occur and then waving your hand and saying, "Let There Be Light!" or some equally prophetic tripe. You can get predictions Here.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  38. Satellite weight by ckhorne · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Each satellite weighed well over 1,000 pounds"

    Actually, their weight in space is pretty close to 0. Their mass is still relevant, and even more relevant is their velocity.

    1. Re:Satellite weight by KJSwartz · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, they still have "weight", but gravitational attraction at those distances is quite weak. Those satellites' orbits - as well as the debris cloud's orbit - is the result of Earth, Moon & Satellites all falling towards each another. "Weightlessness" is an illusion of moving bodies (Freefall).

      I tried to do a quick-calc on this - don't have the tools tho - to find the "weight" at MEO of 1000 pound satellites (Sea-level, Cape Kennedy FL USA) or the sea-level "weight" of 1000 pound satellites measured at MEO.

      Scientists & Engineers are FAR FAR more ethical than Businessmen & Bankers, so if the press release was from NASA, then I'm comfortable weight can be assumed to be at sea level. However - if TARP bloated Banker CEOs put this out, then satellites the size of Aircraft Carriers collided.

      I, for one, would welcome our new Satellite Colliding Overlords. Any chance this was the Battleship Yamato in a last-ditch effort to save Earth?