Slashdot Mirror


Collided Satellite Debris Coming Down?

Jamie found this Bad Astronomy blog on the many reports beginning about 7 hours ago of one or more fireballs in the sky across Texas. That blog's proprietor first doubted that the phenomena could be due to the satellites that collided in orbit last week, but later left the possibility open. The National Weather Service for Jackson, KY put out an announcement about possible explosions and earthquakes across the area and blamed the defunct satellites. "These pieces of debris have been causing sonic booms...resulting in the vibrations being felt by some residents...as well as flashes of light across the sky. The cloud of debris is likely the result of the recent in orbit collision of two satellites on Tuesday...February 10th when Kosmos 2251 crashed into Iridium 33." An Austin TV station has more reports.

155 comments

  1. nice view by Criliric · · Score: 4, Interesting

    now this would be a cool sight to see, i'm hoping nobody gets hurt from all of this

    1. Re:nice view by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Funny

      Troll? Why is that marked troll? He muses what an impressive show it must be an then expresses concern for his fellow man.

      Finally! Incontrovertible proof that the Slashdot moderators are secretly encouraging members to express their disdain and apathy towards their kin thus creating an antisocial and disjointed population which would increase their control over them and facilitate the establishment of their New Global Order! Wake up sheeple! The Slashdot mods are taking over!

      What? What do you mean I have to lower my morphine dose?

      --
      I hate printers.
    2. Re:nice view by eltaco · · Score: 5, Funny

      Insightful? Why is that marked insightful? He muses what an impressive show it must be an then expresses concern for his fellow man.

      etc etc.

      --
      It's not about fate, it's about character.
      there be no shelter here, the frontline is everywhere!
    3. Re:nice view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Getting hit by a meteorite is pretty unlikely. The only well documented case happened in 1954, and it only resulted in a bruise.

      There are many times more natural meteorites than artificial ones, so it's unlikely that anyone will be hurt by space debris meteorites.

    4. Re:nice view by zebslash · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He's a troll because he wrote a first post sensible and intelligent!

    5. Re:nice view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bitty.

    6. Re:nice view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny? Why is that marked funny? He muses what an impressive show it must be and then expresses concern for his fellow man.

      etc etc.

    7. Re:nice view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      He's marked Troll because of how stupid it is to worry about someone getting hurt from this. Or do you worry that every time you exhale it could cause a storm somewhere that kills someone?

    8. Re:nice view by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm thinking the appropriate response while watching it would be "Goodness gracious, great balls of fire!"

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    9. Re:nice view by indi0144 · · Score: 1

      DUH falling stuf from the sky is dangerous in so many levels, power lines shut down, hazardous materials into water reservoirs, any piece of metal at several meter per second can hit you very hard, just kidding, it just can cut you in half and thats not an issue nowadays with this Mind freak dude. Sure theres nothing to worry about.

  2. earthquakes? by thermian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From a few tons of colliding satellite? Seriously?

    Oh dear, someone doesn't have a well tuned sense of scale methinks.

    --
    A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    1. Re:earthquakes? by fyoder · · Score: 4, Funny

      Shhh, it's really the end times, earthquakes and fireballs in the sky and all that, but they don't want to alarm anybody. At least until the dead all rise and walk again by which point it should be obvious what's going on.

      --
      Loose lips lose spit.
    2. Re:earthquakes? by falken0905 · · Score: 5, Informative

      RTFA carefully. Citizens are reporting sounds and vibrations they -think- are earthquakes etc. but authorities are saying it is just caused by the sonic booms of stuff (whatever it is) entering the atmosphere and exploding.

    3. Re:earthquakes? by SpazmodeusG · · Score: 5, Informative

      Seismometers detect things like sonic booms and lightning strikes from quite large distances away.
      So if it created a sonic boom coming down through the atmosphere it could have been detected as seismic activity.

    4. Re:earthquakes? by Bandman · · Score: 5, Funny

      So wait, there are going to be zombies?

      Finally!

      I mean..uhh..damn...yea...I'm not excited at all...

      /breaks out the cricket bat

    5. Re:earthquakes? by PNutts · · Score: 0

      In addition to the other comments, depending on where they live I'm not sure how many people know what a "sonic boom" is. Growing up I remember scraping the cat off the ceiling while wondering what hit the house. I'm wondering if "earthquake" is the only description that has broad understanding. Of course, it KY so instead of reports of "earthquakes" they could have been "stills falling over" or "family members knocked off their sister".

    6. Re:earthquakes? by Laser_iCE · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, we were warned...

      ZOMBIES AHEAD!

    7. Re:earthquakes? by dougisfunny · · Score: 2, Informative

      Giant subterranean worms moving through the bedrock, and they cover it up.

      It's the only explanation.

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
    8. Re:earthquakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time for a -1: Gears of War 2 mod...

    9. Re:earthquakes? by nizo · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm such a moron for buying an electric chainsaw. I KNEW there was a reason I should have bought a gas one instead.

    10. Re:earthquakes? by kftrendy · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be Tremors more than GoW2? I'd say Dune, but it's pretty well established that sandworms can't tunnel through rock.

    11. Re:earthquakes? by evilviper · · Score: 0, Redundant

      At least until the dead all rise and walk again by which point it should be obvious what's going on.

      Nah. Just a pharmaceutical company testing a new drug... one which works even AFTER the disease has killed the individual.

      Move along.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    12. Re:earthquakes? by Greventls · · Score: 1

      Earth has too much moisture to support sandworms. It would have to be Tremors.

    13. Re:earthquakes? by CTalkobt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Gah, not the rapture. My wife wants the stupid bathroom to be finished remodeling before anyone else makes alterations...

      Geesh... To hear her whine and complain about how long I've taken - I can just hear it now, "You waited so long the rapture occurred... "

      --
      There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
    14. Re:earthquakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Holding "Control" and "Shift" on the roadsign control panel while typing in "DIPY" will reset the sign to the default access password, "DOTS".

    15. Re:earthquakes? by andy_t_roo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      yep - just a little overrated.
      Objects in low earth orbit have 32.1 to 38.6 MJ/kg energy. Assuming that the collision between 2 1000kg satellites leaves 1/2 the energy left over, there's potentially 3.8e10J of energy. 1g of TNT is defined as 4184J therefore the left over energy is equal to 9.2T of tnt, minus what is lost as objects pass through the atmosphere, what was used to break the satellite up, etc...

      To put this into scale, if all this energy was to go off at one point in an earthquake, to cause the rumblings in TFA, it would be around mangitude 2.7 or so, of which there are about a thousand per day and are generally not felt.

      This is discounting that the satellite broke into quite a few pieces which will gradually enter the atmosphere over the next while.

    16. Re:earthquakes? by db32 · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you said this as I was about to. There have been some pretty amusing stories of people reporting sonic booms as other things. From what I gather there were more than a few frantic calls about Russian attacks during the earlier days of super sonic aircraft since people thought there were bombs going off somewhere.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    17. Re:earthquakes? by rastilin · · Score: 1

      That is quite possibly the best quote I've read so far this month, mind if I use it as a sig?

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    18. Re:earthquakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its not obvious until... brains... brains...

    19. Re:earthquakes? by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      I've been training for that all weekend ever since I purchased Left 4 Dead, the Army's Zombie murder simulator designed to train young soldiers to pull the trigger on a Z without hesitating.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    20. Re:earthquakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are aware there are limits to the length of sigs? Yours current one reads "Please. What do you suggest as the reason why someone would respect RMS? His good looks? His impeccable cleanliness? His"

    21. Re:earthquakes? by vikstar · · Score: 1

      so it's not really an earthquake, more like an airquake.

      --
      The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
    22. Re:earthquakes? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Because no one could mistake a sonic boom from a piece of space job speeding through the atmosphere for an earthquake.

      We are talking about people who call the national weather service to report such a thing, rather than say the USGS. That they would interpret something they have never experienced before incorrectly doesn't seem strange, to me at least.

    23. Re:earthquakes? by galaxia26 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Uhm... You've got red on you.

    24. Re:earthquakes? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Shhh, it's really the end times, earthquakes and fireballs in the sky and all that, but they don't want to alarm anybody. At least until the dead all rise and walk again by which point it should be obvious what's going on.

      Nobody steps on a church in my town!

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    25. Re:earthquakes? by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      Seismometers detect things like sonic booms and lightning strikes from quite large distances away.

      So if it created a sonic boom coming down through the atmosphere it could have been detected as seismic activity.

      Detect, yes, but in a different way. Your ears can detect both cars and hummingbirds, but you have no problem differentiating between the two. The seismometers also detect the sonic booms, but they know that it's not seismic activity.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    26. Re:earthquakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well this IS texas, they may just actually think its the beginning of the apocalypse.

    27. Re:earthquakes? by Goffee71 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, cricket bat or baseball bat? In the face of a zombie horde, who would do better, Brits or our American cousins?

      While I like the idea of the extra surface area of the cricket bat (more stopping power - assuming you hit them with the face), I think the baseball bat would have better melee appeal (better swinging power) as you could continue to swing more easily through the stroke after contact and you don't have to realign the bat for the next swing.

      Well, that's my Monday sorted - off to Umbrella Labs high-security quarantine zone with a range of implements... hey what's that alarm?

      --
      If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
    28. Re:earthquakes? by sgbett · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You wouldnt necessarily have to align a cricket bat, the 'edge' could come in handy for dismemberment.

      --
      Invaders must die
    29. Re:earthquakes? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      From a few tons of colliding satellite? Seriously?

      Well, a passing truck causes the ground to vibrate, which is technically an earthquake, for some definitions of earthquake. For that matter, an ant crawling causes a tiny earthquake every time it lowers one of its legs.

      Oh dear, someone doesn't have a well tuned sense of scale methinks.

      Luckily, any mistake can be corrected by liberal use of pedantry and redefinition of words ;).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    30. Re:earthquakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like AirQuake? :)

    31. Re:earthquakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It gets better in the article:

      If it is a shooting star it is big, at least a yard or two across to make that much of a spectacle.â

      Hessel expects if it was a star, it would have exploded and there will be debris found.

      So we have stars falling from the sky, causing earthquakes. Hmm, that sounds like something I read at the end of a big leather-bound book...

    32. Re:earthquakes? by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Gah, not the rapture. My wife wants the stupid bathroom to be finished remodeling before anyone else makes alterations...

      Geesh... To hear her whine and complain about how long I've taken - I can just hear it now, "You waited so long the rapture occurred... "

      Just make sure she leads a good, Christian life (and you don't) - and you will never hear that from her.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    33. Re:earthquakes? by MadUndergrad · · Score: 1

      Ooh, I'm really looking forward to the Rapture. The world will be so much more sane a place with all the religious nuts gone.

    34. Re:earthquakes? by ImOnlySleeping · · Score: 1

      Maybe the submitter could RTFA.

      --
      Everybody seems to think I'm lazy I don't mind, I think they're crazy
    35. Re:earthquakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA carefully. Citizens are reporting sounds and vibrations they -think- are earthquakes etc. but authorities are saying it is just caused by the sonic booms of stuff (whatever it is) entering the atmosphere and exploding.

      Spaceweather.com says that these may be meteors.
      Today's article in Spaceweather says that these fireballs are entering the atmosphere too fast to be debris.
      And that the collision debris would not cause sonic booms on re-entry.
      Other Fireballs were also photographed in Italy ( the country )and Kentucky, USA, over the weekend.

      from Spaceweather.com - Feb 17th, 2009.

    36. Re:earthquakes? by Akral · · Score: 1

      Informative?

      I totally love this Slashdot moderators' "meta-joking".
      Can we mod the mod actions with "+5 Funny"?

      And there is still something wrong with curly quotes on Slashdot.

      --
      Don't worry, be happy!
  3. After seeing the video he says its a meteor by bitcastle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "I can now state unequivocally that this is not the result of the satellite collision. The meteor is moving far too quickly for that; satellite collision debris would fall at perhaps 10 km/sec max, while incoming meteoroids are moving at 11km/sec at a minimum, and this thing is screaming across the sky at several dozen km/sec (assuming itâ(TM)s at a typical meteor height of 50 or more km). So I was probably right in the first place, and what we have here is almost certainly a single object, perhaps a meter or two across, and it came from deep space"

    1. Re:After seeing the video he says its a meteor by daemonburrito · · Score: 4, Interesting
    2. Re:After seeing the video he says its a meteor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's the blob!

    3. Re:After seeing the video he says its a meteor by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Oh, no. It doesn't look very large being a meter or two across. I also doubt it is binary, since only one object felt into earth. If you had a pair of gravitationally coupled objects, both should fall together.

    4. Re:After seeing the video he says its a meteor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was just plain silly. If you watch that Fox video you can see the first started right at the edge of the road. The burned area is tear drop shaped with the tiny end pointing up wind and the tip of the point is at a road. Probably a cigarette or a spark. You see these kinds of fires all the time.

    5. Re:After seeing the video he says its a meteor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm... What? Are you sure you posted to the right thread?

  4. it figures... by yodleboy · · Score: 1, Interesting

    just like columbia, i slept through the whole thing. need to come up with a business plan for notifying people in the event of space debris showers...

    1. Re:it figures... by JustOK · · Score: 5, Funny

      call it spacebook

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:it figures... by bumchick · · Score: 0

      at least it looks better than myface...

    3. Re:it figures... by swahebrumaf · · Score: 2, Funny

      call it spacebook

      I think spitter is a better name for this event.

  5. I warned about this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I warned that when we allow the Italians to use our space they would use it to attack us with their Italian bombs. Didn't I warn you all, and you just laughed. But who is laughing now? Not I. As a Patriot I mourn for America and our God-given freedoms. The nefarious Italians are snickering at us from their "moon" base! I can hear their rascall;y singsong voices saying "mammamia!" and "inboccaallupo!" Well not for long they wont. Real Americans will rise to their fatherland's call, even if the President may be a secret Italian agent, we are still Americans one hundred and five percent and we out our pants on one leg at a time and speak American, not Mexican or whatever language they speak in those heathen lands that the Italian ingrates hail from.

  6. Nah, it's the martians arriving. by Keramos · · Score: 4, Funny

    My understanding was that the satellites were in an orbit high enough that the debris would float around for several thousand years before being caught by the atmosphere. I suppose a few bits might have had the energy to move closer in, but all in all it sounds more like the Martians have arrived. Might be a good idea to go make some bacteria bombs before they finish building those tripedal walkers.

    1. Re:Nah, it's the martians arriving. by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      They were in a 667km orbit. That's the low end of LEO.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Nah, it's the martians arriving. by Narpak · · Score: 1

      Might be a good idea to go make some bacteria bombs before they finish building those tripedal walkers.

      Check. I'll go down to the local kindergarten and start collection specimens; you begin assembling the deliver mechanism (though I reckon just holding up a kid a making it sneeze should do the trick).

    3. Re:Nah, it's the martians arriving. by bcwright · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's far from the lowest LEO. The International Space Station (ISS) orbits at about 358km.

    4. Re:Nah, it's the martians arriving. by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

      LEO is between 160 and 2000 km.. therefore 600 is in the low end of LEO.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:Nah, it's the martians arriving. by bcwright · · Score: 1

      It's still high enough that it's unlikely that significant debris from the collision could de-orbit that quickly - which was the point. A few miscellaneous chunks of debris would not make a trail visible from the ground - you'd need a significant mass in a single chunk or at least in a cloud that all de-orbited together.

    6. Re:Nah, it's the martians arriving. by bcwright · · Score: 1

      Every single event is unique and unprecedented, by definition - but that's no reason to throw out basic principles like the conservation of momentum.

      I'm not sure why you seem to think I'm attacking you - it's just that it's very unlikely that enough debris from those satellites could be de-orbiting that quickly and also sufficiently simultaneously that the event would actually be visible from the ground. The odd tiny chunk of metal, perhaps, but that would almost certainly not make a visible display. The expectation is that the vast bulk of the debris will not even intersect with the altitude of the much lower ISS orbit for decades if not centuries.

    7. Re:Nah, it's the martians arriving. by mysticgoat · · Score: 1

      Until someone tells me why it would not be the case, I would expect the initial vectors of the debris to form the usual cone shape of ballistic collisions. That being so, it is quite possible that a portion of that cone would hit the atmosphere fairly quickly.

      The people who fuss about satellites don't care about that portion, they tend to focus on the rest of the spatter cone, since that is what is going to be a long term risk to their satellites.

    8. Re:Nah, it's the martians arriving. by ultranova · · Score: 1

      It's still high enough that it's unlikely that significant debris from the collision could de-orbit that quickly - which was the point.

      If two satellites collide in orbit and turn into an expanding cloud of debris, then a significant part of that debris - a bit under half, actually - is going to hit the Earth soon, on the account of expanding into the atmosphere. The part of the cloud expanding backwards relative to the direction of the orbit is also going to at least lower its orbit if not fall outright, since it has essentially lost orbital speed. The part expanding upwards has entered a highly elliptical orbit which may or may not intersect the atmosphere at its lowest point (which is lower than the original orbit of the satellite(s)). The only parts of the cloud that are pretty much guaranteed to not hit the Earth anytime soon are the parts expanding forward and to the sides.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    9. Re:Nah, it's the martians arriving. by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 1

      LEO is between 160 and 2000 km.. therefore 600 is in the low end of LEO.

      I disagree. When dealing with values that have such huge ranges, and get really interesting at the small values, it is better to think in logarithmic terms, and on that basis, 600 is squarely in the middle.

      Anyway, you're just picking a fight. Most of the really interesting LEO stuff is below 600. Manned spaceflight, Hubble, etc.

      (not to say I don't usually enjoy the fights you pick! :) )

  7. It was not from the satellite collision by The+Bad+Astronomer · · Score: 5, Informative

    As someone noted above, I'm now very sure this was a natural piece of cosmic debris, a chunk of asteroid or something similar. I posted a wrapup with my thoughts.

    --
    *** Phil Plait, aka The Bad Astronomer http://www.badastronomy.com
    1. Re:It was not from the satellite collision by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      As someone noted above, I'm now very sure this was a natural piece of cosmic debris, a chunk of asteroid or something similar.

      Natural, huh? From all of that activity happening up there, one can only conclude that we're under attack. Don't try to cover it up.

      First GW Bush, now this!

      Aliens!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:It was not from the satellite collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's the proof:

      If you still have Windows 2000/XP:

      1) Open Notepad
      2) type in "nasa hid the facts" (without the quote marks)
      3) save the file.
      4) Close and reopen it

    3. Re:It was not from the satellite collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'll believe it when a good astronomer weighs in k thx.

  8. First wave by nurb432 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    They are coming.. Good thing we had secret killer satellites to shoot down the alien's ships.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  9. You don't undertstand orbital physics by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Informative

    Staying in orbit requires a the right velocity. The results of a collision will have different velocities and some of that will de-orbit.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:You don't undertstand orbital physics by bcwright · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is obviously true, but it usually takes a while for debris to de-orbit especially if it's not in very low orbit (where it will encounter more atmospheric drag). Offhand the only way I see for this to be likely to happen so quickly would be if the satellites had been moving in opposite directions (a head-on collision, in other words) - that ought to result in at least some debris having a markedly different orbital energy from that of either of the two satellites before the collision. But most satellites orbit in either an easterly direction (it takes less energy to launch them in that direction because you get an energy boost from the Earth's rotation) or in a polar orbit (which is useful because even though it requires more energy the satellite can pass over all of the Earth's surface) - so head-on collisions are relatively unlikely.

    2. Re:You don't undertstand orbital physics by cathector · · Score: 1

      agreed that the variance in outgoing velocities will be maximal when the bodies have a head-on collision and minimal when they have a "collision" while moving nearly parallel. so these two bodies were moving more or less perpendicularly, which to me leaves plenty of room for specular collision to produce debris heading straight down. think of how the velocities of two billiard balls can be wildly different from their velocities before collision, all the while maintaining the total momentum of the system.

    3. Re:You don't undertstand orbital physics by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      What about the bits which flew in to the earth, or at that kind of angle as opposed to out in to space.

      Its not like they collide and all the debris magically flies away from the earth.
      A awful lot would go downwards, while some would go away.

    4. Re:You don't undertstand orbital physics by bcwright · · Score: 1

      There might well be some fragments heading "straight down" (as you put it) - but that would mean that other pieces would need to be kicked into a higher orbit in order to conserve momentum. Probably most of the debris cloud would remain at approximately the same altitude but in a somewhat different orbit. Most small orbital objects (on the order of a few grams or less) reentering the atmosphere just don't produce much of a display; you need more mass - a whole intact satellite, for example. I just don't see this as a likely outcome, certainly not that quickly.

    5. Re:You don't undertstand orbital physics by sjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A head on collision IS extremely unlikely, which is why you can have some parts re-enter so soon. Imagine a glancing collision where one satellite strikes the upper half of the other. The result can be a highly eccentric path that intersects the atmosphere. An additional factor could be if a pressurization tank bursts in the collision.

    6. Re:You don't undertstand orbital physics by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Most small orbital objects (on the order of a few grams or less) reentering the atmosphere just don't produce much of a display; you need more mass - a whole intact satellite, for example.

      The two satellites weren't vaporized. Their pieces aren't going to be a few grams or less. The combined weight of the two satellites was over a ton, and I don't think they shred into literally a million one gram pieces. If they shred into two thousand pieces, the average piece would weigh a pound. Now, it could be there are many more pieces than that, with a smaller average, but it would be highly surprising if this collision did not generate literally thousands of pieces of debris that WILL be easily visible on reentry.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    7. Re:You don't undertstand orbital physics by Biogenesis · · Score: 1

      I don't have the link handy, but there was a gif posted in the original article about the collision which showed that the satellites were traveling roughly orthogonally to each other.

    8. Re:You don't undertstand orbital physics by bcwright · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There might well be a few fragments of several kilograms, but the fragments most likely to have a sufficient change in momentum to be able to deorbit that quickly could hardly be very large: The total sum of the momentum of all of the pieces before and after the event needs to remain constant; most of that debris is still going to be traveling at orbital velocities.

      This event was visible in broad daylight, at 11:00 in the morning. Whatever it was, it must have been a pretty good-sized object.

    9. Re:You don't undertstand orbital physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but that would mean that other pieces would need to be kicked into a higher orbit in order to conserve momentum.

      Not necessarily so, as the pieces need not be of uniform size. I could be that downward momentum is imparted to a relatively small piece, giving it a high downward velocity, while the corresponding upward momentum is imparted to a much more massive piece, which barely moves at all.

    10. Re:You don't undertstand orbital physics by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      Staying in orbit also requires that there be no air resistance from the atmosphere. At the 700km or so that they were orbiting, the resistance would naturally bring it down in a couple of years. Fragments from the impact were probably sent off in all directions, but I have no idea whether the larger chunks would tend to continue in much the same orbit or be wildly deflected. Any significant deflection should bring the pieces down a lot faster.

    11. Re:You don't undertstand orbital physics by Thaelon · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the animated collision .gif I viewed on the last slashdot story showed them colliding at approximately right angles. And since they're satellites they were probably maintaining a constant altitude. Given that they collided, they had to be in the same altitude. Given the same altitude, and being satellites you can reasonably conclude that they had the same velocity.

      Given this information, I would imagine the collision this would send debris in all kinds of directions with the center of mass moving off somewhere in the ~270 degree arc at reduced velocities, leading to orbital decay and lots of little pieces getting all sorts of exciting new orbits for a while.

      --

      Question everything

  10. NOTAM was issued yesterday by daemonburrito · · Score: 5, Informative

    The FAA issued a Notice To Airmen yesterday predicting debris and asking pilots to report.

    I think there may be some conflict between the FAA's safety concerns and NORAD's secrecy. NORAD will weigh in eventually (when they're sure what they can and can't say), but there no reason to throw away the FAA's opinion, even though they are not the "go to" agency.

    1. Re:NOTAM was issued yesterday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would the FAA have access to information independent of NORAD?

      That's a straight question. I don't know who has detailed tracking, and how access is channeled.

      Like is there a standing order for agencies with information of incoming to advise the FAA when and what will be entering its jurisdiction? Is the protocol a direct technician channel, or a release via PR/EA dept?

    2. Re:NOTAM was issued yesterday by daemonburrito · · Score: 1

      I'm not an expert, but there are other organizations tracking orbiting debris, like ESA. I think "where did the FAA get their information yesterday?" is an excellent question.

      I'm totally sure there is someone reading this thread that works in right building to answer your second and third questions.

      I'm a little hesitant to speculate about what happened in the past couple of days. However, I will know if I was right or wrong in the coming week, thanks to thousands of amateur astronomers that watch birds that don't exist.

    3. Re:NOTAM was issued yesterday by daemonburrito · · Score: 1

      Lame second post, sorry...

      According to this wikipedia article, SAC catalogues data from a lot of different sources (and sends it up to NORAD?), including ground based radar and telescopes. Maybe one of these sources contacted FAA.

    4. Re:NOTAM was issued yesterday by mail2345 · · Score: 1

      All they find is Santa returning from a strip club...

  11. Bad summary by rpp3po · · Score: 1

    There is no mention of "possible explosions" in the original article. The debris has also not been "blamed" for earthquakes, but it says that people may have mistaken the the phenomenon for them.

    1. Re:Bad summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The debris has also not been "blamed" for earthquakes, but it says that people may have mistaken the the phenomenon for them.

      These days I expect many Americans are not familiar with the sonic boom, likewise earthquakes. I know I don't have much familiarity with them myself.

      The only earthquake I ever knowingly felt was in south-east Indiana in '87 or '88 in the New Madrid fault zone. The house shifted for a split second or so. I felt the displacement and saw the water in the toilet sloshing.

      The only sonic boom I can personally recall hearing is from the shuttle Columbia breakup. I was inside my house north of Dallas and even so it was a very audible boom and made the house rattle a bit.

  12. helmets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will the FSF be marketing an official helmet to protect against sat debris, assuming their tinfoil hats would be sadly insufficient against this new vector?

  13. Debris or Meteor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was interviewed by a local tv station, if one of these bodies were to reach the ground local residents could feel vibrations. Video is here:
    [link]http://www.wlextv.com/global/video/popup/pop_playerLaunch.asp?vt1=v&clipFormat=flv&clipId1=3449701&at1=News&h1=LEX 18 News at 11- February 14, 2009

  14. Re:Goddamn commies ruin another party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stupid kid. This IS hell.

  15. Video Footage of Of Entry by topherama · · Score: 1

    http://www.news8austin.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=232081 Halfway down the page, video titled "sky is falling". Also, slow-mo footage of runners highlights bounciness.

  16. Damn elements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2251? My that is a large element, know the source? Nice name too.

    No wonder it caused a flippin Earthquake, surprised it never wiped us all off the face of the planet.

  17. sonic booms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    not sure if this is related or not but I live in SW Florida and over the past week there's been tons of sonic booms. Like one every hour or so for half the day and then again the next day. No clue if it's related but I've been trying to figure out why and saw this article and thought maybe...

    1. Re:sonic booms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shhhh. You'll spoil the surprise for Fidel and Raul.

  18. The sky is falling! by defiek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It can only stay up there so long. I read somewhere that they estimated a bulk of the debris will stay in orbit for 10,000 years.

  19. space debris by dukeofurl01 · · Score: 1

    A while ago I saw a google earth version of all the satellites in orbit, and I had no idea there were so many. If even 25% of them are dead, I think it would be great if they came down. I'm surprised anyone can get a space ship through that.

    1. Re:space debris by FireFury03 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.

    2. Re:space debris by Hordeking · · Score: 1

      A while ago I saw a google earth version of all the satellites in orbit, and I had no idea there were so many. If even 25% of them are dead, I think it would be great if they came down.

      Here's your broom and dustpan. Welcome to Hell, now get to work...

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
  20. the objects coming down are.... by cybvapor · · Score: 0

    ....not from the colided satellites.

    I work with the people who track and catalog object is earth orbit. This is most likely a meteor shower and not anything coming in.

  21. Space junk falling in other places by Jabbrwokk · · Score: 1

    A bunch of this crap already fell through the skies in Canada and hit the Atlantic Ocean on Friday. And NORAD phoned ahead to warn Calgary it was coming. So the collision might be unprecedented but the falling space junk is not...

    I'm not trying to make a judgment here but the American media frenzy is an interesting contrast to the Canadian "whatever, eh" reaction.

    And the scariest thing here is how bad their math was, predicting it would hit somewhere in Alberta and then having it land off the coast of AFRICA. Someone move a decimal place?

    1. Re:Space junk falling in other places by QuantumG · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to bcwright who is still claiming that satellites in LEO that have just run into each other couldn't possibly fall to Earth "in such a short time". Gravity is a foreign concept to some.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Space junk falling in other places by bcwright · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gravity is a foreign concept to some.

      I hate to break it to you, but I seem to recall that ol' Isaac had a lot to say about momentum as well. If it's going to come to believing your speculations as opposed to Newton and Einstein, well, you're going to lose every time, at least in my book.

      The satellites were pretty much shredded into perhaps tens of thousands of little bits - and the bits and pieces are going to have a variety of orbits and velocities. I don't think I ever said that NONE of it could be deorbiting this quickly, just that it's very unlikely that very MUCH of it could be doing so, and that it requires a fair amount of debris to make a visible display. Moreover given that the pieces almost certainly don't all have exactly the same velocity, it's highly unlikely that very many of them would deorbit simultaneously.

      Gravity is only part of the story.

    3. Re:Space junk falling in other places by dbIII · · Score: 2, Informative
      No, others might just have thought it through a bit more.

      Gravity is fighting against a hell of a lot of orbital momentum, so it takes time for these bits to fall. Also since the satellites were going the same way at roughly the same speed all the bits are going to go at roughly that speed and direction. Think of it as one rear ending the other. The big difference is instead of a few km/h difference in speed it might be closer to km/s.

      I had the advantage of being taught undergraduate supersonic fluid flow and basic orbital mechanics by a guy that designed satellites and the early scamjets. Others know a lot more than I picked up in those few hours but we are not describing a terribly complex system here.

    4. Re:Space junk falling in other places by Alioth · · Score: 1

      The satellites weren't going roughly the same speed and direction - it was more like a "T-bone" collision; they were travelling at paths almost 90 degrees to each other when they collided:

      http://www.obsat.com/images/Ir33coll_top.gif

    5. Re:Space junk falling in other places by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      And the scariest thing here is how bad their math was, predicting it would hit somewhere in Alberta and then having it land off the coast of AFRICA. Someone move a decimal place?

      That or it's because the upper atmosphere is lumpy and bulgy? So you can get a fair difference in atmospheric drag, along with the fun of calculating drag for a tumbling odd-shaped object.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  22. Sky is falling by LingNoi · · Score: 0

    What happened to all the alarmist articles saying that this space debris was going to be up there for 10,000 years?

    It sounded like BS when I read it, now that pieces are coming down it only confirms my suspicions.

    1. Re:Sky is falling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Debris thrown into a higher orbit will last almost indefinitely orbits greater than 1,000km have lifetimes of thousands of years. Debris that is accelerated into a lower orbit has lifespans of day to months, anything less than 100km will last less than a year.

      I was interviewed by lex18 news about this yesterday, I work with the 21m space tracking system at Morehead State University, and have been studying orbital mechanics in advance of the launch of our cubesat KYSAT1

    2. Re:Sky is falling by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Well two things.

      1) If you have ever seen an explosion your BS-o-meter should have alerted you to the fact that some debris would go into a HIGHER orbit... and some would go into a LOWER orbit. Therefore you can have material re-enter the atmosphere AND stay in orbit for thousands of years.

      2) It's not the sattelite debris. It's a coincidence and your suspicions aren't confirmed... and they're wrong.

      Since when has basic newtonian physics been "alarmist"?

  23. Kv by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    =(1/2)mv^2

    If you're near a couple of tons at reentry speed, yeah. I'll bet you'd think it was an earthquake too.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Kv by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you're near a couple of tons at reentry speed, yeah. I'll bet you'd think it was an earthquake too.

      Except that none of the pieces would be anywhere NEAR that size. The iridium satellite was about half a ton, and the Russian satellite weighed in at just under a ton. Even if they had fused into one solid mass on impact, you still wouldn't have enough material to make up "a couple of tons".

    2. Re:Kv by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      It's not the mass that's the important part. An increase in mass results in a linear increase in kinetic energy. Double the mass? Double the kinetic energy.

      It's velocity that's the problem. That term is squared. Double the velocity and you get 4x the energy on impact.

      So even a few pounds moving quick enough will make an impressive kaboom. And these satellites weigh in the neighborhood of a ton or so.

      So I still stand by it - this would make impressive impacts, easily confused with earthquakes I'm sure.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    3. Re:Kv by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's velocity that's the problem. That term is squared. Double the velocity and you get 4x the energy on impact.

      Well, sure, if you're lobbing satellite parts at the moon. The earth has an atmosphere, though. Air resistance doesn't scale linearly. The faster your initial velocity, the greater your loss of velocity due to air resistance. At very high velocities, air resistance increases exponentially. Therefore, double the velocity on de-orbit does not mean double the impact velocity.

      It's not the mass that's the important part.

      A low enough mass won't impact at all - it'll burn up long before it hits the ground.

      So I still stand by it - this would make impressive impacts, easily confused with earthquakes I'm sure.

      It might make an impressive impact. Without knowing the variables, you have no basis for concluding that it would.

  24. So, Texas finally saw Transformers the movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They, for one, welcome their new Decepticon overlords.

    Or perhaps this is a stunt for the second movie?

  25. Not from the satellites by Viadd · · Score: 5, Informative

    (Also posted to Bad Astronomy.)

    A simple orbital analysis using the ground tracks from, e.g. Heavens-Above.com shows that this was not debris form the collision.

    The debris from a collision keeps more or less the same orbit as before, but is spread out along the orbit. (Orbital plane changes require a lot more delta-v than changing the along-track position or altitude, since drift along the orbit accumulates, but displacements across the orbit swing back and forth with each cycle.)

    Looking at the ground tracks of
    Iridium 33 and
    Cosmos 2251

    Just eyeballing the tracks, the North-going leg of the orbit of Iridium 33 crosses the latitude of Texas at around 10 PM local time. For Cosmos 2251, it crosses about 4 PM local.

    An 11 AM fireball could be Iridium debris, but only if it were heading to the south-south-east. The fireball was heading NNE. So this was NOT debris from either satellite.

    1. Re:Not from the satellites by plague911 · · Score: 1

      Well that leads to two possible conclusions. The first most probable one is that those is Texas still have not mastered the concepts of North and South or East and West. Or the US/Russia are involved in a petty eye for an eye battle with spy satellites. (/end conspiracy theory) I personally hope for the latter. Its less frightening to me.

    2. Re:Not from the satellites by velen · · Score: 1

      Is it the decepticons landing on earth?! Say it isn't so!

    3. Re:Not from the satellites by rocketman768 · · Score: 1

      You can't be so sure. I mean, look at the difference in inclination and longitude of ascending nodes between the two orbits. At collision, the relative inclination was nearly 90 degrees! There was therefore a crapload of plane-changing velocity imparted. I think that this would make for a massively unpredictable orbit for the chunks. Eyeballing the tracks is not a good way to get an idea for the path of the debris in such an extreme case.

    4. Re:Not from the satellites by Viadd · · Score: 1

      The collision will not be elastic, since the relative velocity is faster than sound speed in any relevant material. There will be some small stuff spalled out at excess speeds due to shock waves, but anything big enough to cause the Texas fireball is not going to be accelerated by shocks and remain intact.

      Inelastic collisions lose energy (but conserve momentum). So even if you had two pieces smashing together and merging to get a piece with shared momentum and a large plane change to somewhere between the two original orbits, it would then have too little velocity to remain in orbit, and would hit Earth within 45 minutes instead of sticking around for a few days.

  26. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty sure I saw a fireball come down near New York Harbor.

  27. The Day of the Triffids by mqsoh · · Score: 1

    Why has no one mentioned The Day of the Triffids? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_of_the_Triffids Don't look at the lights!

  28. funny by HailSatan · · Score: 0

    a large metal object landed in my backyard today. I assumed it was just another one of those pesky weather balloons, but when I tried to dismantle it with a torch it didn't even get hot to the touch. What I want to know is: What's the deal with all the weird foreign language symbols on it, and why is this other country so darn interested in our weather?

  29. Ogilvy was WRONG by Skiron · · Score: 1

    OURNALIST: No one would have believed, in the last years of the
    nineteenth century, that human affairs were being watched from the timeless worlds
    of space.

    No one could have dreamed we were being scrutinized, as someone with a microscope
    studies creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water. Few men even considered
    the possibility of life on other planets and yet, across the gulf of space, minds
    immeasurably superior to ours regarded this Earth with envious eyes, and slowly and
    surely, they drew their plans against us.

    At midnight on the twelfth of August, a huge mass of luminous gas erupted from Mars
    and sped towards Earth. Across two hundred million miles of void, invisibly hurtling
    towards us, came the first of the missiles that were to bring so much calamity to Earth.
    As I watched, there was another jet of gas. It was another missile, starting on its way.

    And that's how it was for the next ten nights. A flare, spurting out from Mars - bright
    green, drawing a green mist behind it - a beautiful, but somehow disturbing sight. Ogilvy,
    the astronomer, assured me we were in no danger. He was convinced there could be no
    living thing on that remote, forbidding planet.

    EULA!

    1. Re:Ogilvy was WRONG by EvilBenFranklin · · Score: 1

      "The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one," he said.
      "The chances of anything coming from Mars are a million to one,"
      ...But still, THEY COME!

      --
      FOOLS! I will destroy you ALL! ...Ask me how!
  30. USSTRATCOM rejects connection to satellite debris by Dr+La · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
  31. Delta Leonides anyone ??? by yvesdandoy · · Score: 0

    Weird ... that happen just as we enter a period of annual phenomenon.

  32. War in Space? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    This debris obviously isn't from the satellite collision. The trajectory is all wrong. Maybe it's from another satellite? What's going on up there? I believe WWIII will start in space. Whoever owns Earth Orbit owns the planet.

  33. Re:Idiots by spartacus_prime · · Score: 1

    You must be new here; asking people on /. to RTFA is like asking an American car company to build an efficient hybrid. They won't do it, it's not in their nature.

    --
    If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
  34. Now if only... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Now if only...instead of crashing Kosmos 2251 or Iridium 33 they could have crashed say Plutonium 239,
    then we would be in business!

  35. Obama will save us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    President Obama is so perfect and super, he will certainly save us from the fireballs coming from space.

  36. Maybe get astronauts down from space station? by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    Just a thought... if this is a sign that the debris field is increasing, then maybe we ought to be getting our astronauts down from the ISS. We may not be able to, later, if the debris field gets large enough.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  37. Satellite reactions by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    the result of the recent in orbit collision of two satellites on Tuesday...February 10th when Kosmos 2251 crashed into Iridium 33

    Producing Ufonium 2284 ?

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  38. Boom Boom by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

    The satellite
    Was out of sight
    Radioactive though
    It was all right
    When it was high
    But now its very low...

  39. NORAD data is public by mangu · · Score: 1

    There's no sense in trying to keep secret data that anyone with binoculars can track. The military satellites, those that can read your licence plates, are so big and in low orbit that many people and organizations around the world keep track of them.
    You can find that data from independent sites in the internet and try to watch if you can spot them.

    The NORAD tracking data on both active satellites and debris is listed here.

    1. Re:NORAD data is public by daemonburrito · · Score: 1

      The military satellites, those that can read your licence plates, are so big and in low orbit that many people and organizations around the world keep track of them.

      I am aware of that. See this.

      There's no sense in trying to keep secret data that anyone with binoculars can track.

      I agree. That doesn't stop them, though.

      The NORAD tracking data on both active satellites and debris is listed here [celestrak.com].

      Some data is listed there. Unless I'm just not seeing it, the debris that we are concerned with here is not listed (yet?).

    2. Re:NORAD data is public by daemonburrito · · Score: 1

      Another lame second post, sorry again.

      The statement "NORAD data is public" is misleading. All data is not "public", it's just that satellites are plain to see.

      The data on the site that you linked to uses the "civilian" database of two-line GP elements, which is actually maintained by NASA but commonly referred to as the "NORAD two-line elements". This database does not contain anywhere near all of the elements tracked by various agencies and collected by the military.

      More info.

    3. Re:NORAD data is public by mangu · · Score: 1

      The data on the site that you linked to uses the "civilian" database of two-line GP elements, which is actually maintained by NASA but commonly referred to as the "NORAD two-line elements". This database does not contain anywhere near all of the elements tracked by various agencies and collected by the military.

      I work for a company that operates satellites, so this is a subject which I can discuss at length.

      The "two line elements" (TLEs) used by NORAD is a representation of the satellite orbit elements that result from imprecise observations. Normally a satellite's elements are derived from "ranging" measurements performed by the operator that are precise, in the case of commercial satellites, to an order of a few meters. The elements of scientific satellites, such as Lageos are much more precise.

      Now, that's the result of a set of very precise measurements, the ranging that NORAD can do about debris is by radar, which is much less accurate. In the case of individual small parts of a broken satellite, it's very difficult to tell apart which is which, therefore one cannot correlate one measurement to the next.

      You send a radar pulse, "beep", and get ten thousand echos. Send another pulse, "beep", ten thousand more echos. Which echo from the first pulse corresponds to which echo from the second pulse? Without knowing that you cannot calculate velocity. Until the larger parts of the debris field drift apart from each other, NORAD will not publish the TLEs for them, because they haven't been calculated yet.

      Just to give you an idea of how imprecise the TLEs are, before the collision of these two satellites happened, the minimum distance between them, estimated from the TLEs, was 137 meters. And this also shows how extremely improbable this event was. Imagine that both satellites were something like one meter across, and when they passed randomly through a sphere 137 meters in radius, they happened to hit each other.

    4. Re:NORAD data is public by daemonburrito · · Score: 1

      I work for a company that operates satellites, so this is a subject which I can discuss at length.

      Dig it. I love this stuff, and wouldn't mind if you discussed it at even greater length.

      I really like your comment, but I don't think it addresses the specific problem I had with the ambiguity of your earlier comment, which I read as, "NORAD data is public because it's pointless to hide it, and here's where you can access it." That isn't accurate. Classified elements are excluded (even though they are well-known to astronomers), and even unclassified elements require registration for "national security reasons".

    5. Re:NORAD data is public by mangu · · Score: 1

      Classified elements are excluded (even though they are well-known to astronomers), and even unclassified elements require registration for "national security reasons".

      This is a kind of "negative proof" that's very difficult to disprove. How can one prove that a secret document does not exist somewhere? But there is a logical reason why it isn't in anyone's interest to keep some orbital debris secret.

      Suppose some secret space junk is out there somewhere. What's the probability that a terrorist's missile is launched in an orbit that intercepts that junk's orbit? What's the probability that one of the several hundreds of commercial and scientific satellites intercept it? There's a *very* compelling argument that, even assuming with a 100% certainty that a terrorist will launch a missile in that orbit, a commercial or scientific satellite is much more likely to hit the debris.

      It doesn't matter who hits the debris, anything will create thousands of new pieces of scrap that will endanger everything else, including all the military satellites. It only stands to logic that it's in everyone's interest to make public the orbital elements of every little piece of junk in orbit.

    6. Re:NORAD data is public by daemonburrito · · Score: 1

      This is a kind of "negative proof" that's very difficult to disprove. How can one prove that a secret document does not exist somewhere? But there is a logical reason why it isn't in anyone's interest to keep some orbital debris secret.

      No, you're totally wrong. This is nothing like "negative proof". There is a thriving community of people who visually track satellites whose elsets do not appear in spacetrack's database. Spacetrack's data is not public, you have to register and be approved to redistribute it, and even so, it is the "civilian" database and only contains unclassified data.

      I agree, it would be very logical for DoD's data to be public. But it isn't and they aren't.

  40. Seen from central Pennsylvania? by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

    I saw a a large fireball, which I assumed to just be a meteor on my way from State College to York last night. Could that be bits of it? Funny. First 'falling star' I've ever seen, and it was a big'un!

  41. Re:Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be new here; asking people on /. to RTFA is like asking an American car company to build an efficient hybrid. They won't do it, it's not in their nature.

    It's disturbing. This site was a bastion of intellect once. It's just a matter of time before some "expert" will decree something REALLY disastrous and there will be nobody informed enough to counter the point.