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.

40 of 155 comments (clear)

  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 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/
  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 Laser_iCE · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, we were warned...

      ZOMBIES AHEAD!

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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.

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

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

    11. 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
  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
  4. 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 bcwright · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    2. 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. 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!
  6. 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 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.

    3. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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?

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

    call it spacebook

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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".

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. USSTRATCOM rejects connection to satellite debris by Dr+La · · Score: 2, Informative
    --
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
  18. Re:it figures... by swahebrumaf · · Score: 2, Funny

    call it spacebook

    I think spitter is a better name for this event.