Slashdot Mirror


Geostationary GPS Satellite Galaxy 15 Out of Control

Bruce Perens writes "The Galaxy 15 commercial satellite has not responded to commands since solar flares fried its CPU in April, and it won't turn off. Intelsat controllers moved all commercial payloads to other birds except for WAAS, a system that adds accuracy to GPS for landing aircraft and finding wayward geocaches. Since the satellite runs in 'bent pipe' mode, amplifying wide bands of RF that are beamed up to it, it is likely to interfere with other satellites as it crosses their orbital slots on its way to an earth-sun Lagrange point, the natural final destination of a geostationary satellite without maneuvering power." (More below.) Bruce continues: "The only payload that is still deliberately active on the satellite is its WAAS repeater. An attempt to overload the satellite and shut it down on May 3 caused a Notice to Airmen regarding the unavailability of WAAS for an hour. Unsaid is what will happen to WAAS, and for how long, when the satellite eventually loses its sun-pointing capability, expected later this year, and stops repeating the GPS correction signal. Other satellites can be moved into Galaxy 15's orbital slot, but it is yet unannounced whether the candidates bear the WAAS payload."

379 comments

  1. Bastard by oldhack · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nuke the rogue satellite in the orbit.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:Bastard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      It's the only way to be sure

    2. Re:Bastard by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Funny

          That shouldn't be very hard. You do know what the unofficial government payload is on those satellites, right? Titanium cased nukes. The launch is easy. Just aim and give it a little shove. Then it detonates at the appropriate altitude. It's so much more efficient to already have your nukes up there, than to have to launch them from the surface and wait for them to come back down.

          You really don't want to just pop one in orbit though. It'll leave one heck of a mess up there. It's not just debris, it's radioactive debris.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:Bastard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But if it's boosting everything RF, can't we use it to, like, make nice wireless P2P network or something?

    4. Re:Bastard by wooferhound · · Score: 1

      Yeah all the equipment on the satellite is stuck in the On position, so I could send a signal to it and start the first Pirate Satellite Television Network . . .

      --
      We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
    5. Re:Bastard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope. sorry. bruce willis only does rogue asteroids.

    6. Re:Bastard by HTRednek · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can't we just strap Tommy Lee Jones to it and fly it to the moon?

    7. Re:Bastard by MrZilla · · Score: 4, Informative

          You really don't want to just pop one in orbit though. It'll leave one heck of a mess up there. It's not just debris, it's radioactive debris.

      Not only that, but the blast itself will fry more satellites, which will have to be nuked in turn.

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

      --
      mov ax, 4c00h
      int 21h
    8. Re:Bastard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They must have used Extreme Programming on their satellites (http://www.lionframework.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/extreme-programming.gif)

      Let's just chuck this "big up-front design" in the bin, with all it's stupid requirements and contingencies rubbish. Watchdog timer? You Aren't Going To Need It! All we need is a story, like this: "One day Jack and Jill went up the hill and used their GPS to find it". Now start coding!

    9. Re:Bastard by Inner_Child · · Score: 1

      Hey, anything that gives us the opportunity to get rid of Ben Affleck can't be all bad, can it?

      --
      Today is red jello day - all workers must eat all of their red jello. Failure to comply will result in five demerits.
    10. Re:Bastard by English+French+Man · · Score: 1

      No it won't, nearest satellite is almost a thousand miles away!

      --
      If I'm wrong, please correct me ; learning is better than being right.
    11. Re:Bastard by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

      Several countries have Anti-Satellite (ASAT) weapons available or in development. Satellites are relatively fragile and conventional explosive should be effective. "Nuking" is not required. The debris field would be an issue.

      Perhaps it would be possible to destroy or incapacitate the transmitter antenna with an aircraft mounted laser? Aiming it would be non-trivial. On the plus side, we could make popcorn.

      Insert arbitrary joke about sharks and lasers here.

    12. Re:Bastard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wondering how much of the debris from a nuke wouldn't have escape velocity? I'd presume that the radioactive crap that couldn't escape would be ionized gas that would be susceptible to magnetic fields/solar winds and would mostly just blow away.

      The main problem I see is that a large number of other satellites would become inoperable due to the EMP. leading to an expensive rinse/repeat cycle that cleaned up everything from orbit.

    13. Re:Bastard by RY · · Score: 1

      If it is an Indian nuclear satellite the yes nuke it!

    14. Re:Bastard by oldstrat · · Score: 1

      Nuke the rogue satellite in the orbit.

      Clearly you're delusional. This situation calls for Diplomacy and sanctions. Actually what is needed are robotic limpets that attach a retro and drop this kind of trash out of orbit.

  2. Target practice? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Funny

    Haven't the military got some super satellite-busting weapon they've been dying to test?

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Target practice? by peragrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am thinking that the X-37b with the ABL (big laser) would work wonders for just this sort of thing.

      though one would want to take really really careful aim. If you hit a large spinning mirror you could fry someone else.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Target practice? by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... because a big debris cloud in orbit is a whole lot safer than one satellite in a known orbit.

    3. Re:Target practice? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Well, in this case, maybe it is. With a projected path that sends it in the way of a major TV carrying satellite, and furthermore the transmission payload still blasting out signal at the same frequencies, this could knock many networks off many cable systems at the same time. That's pretty high on the "avoid this" list.

    4. Re:Target practice? by Howitzer86 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I thought it would just fry the electronics with intense heat. Just how much debris would that create? Can't be much.

    5. Re:Target practice? by Entropius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ... and nothing of value would be lost.

      (Besides, losing a few cable channels for a little while isn't much compared to actually losing satellites from debris hits. People can do without Fox News for a few days.)

    6. Re:Target practice? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      How does a laser that would heat up the transmitters so that they would stop transmitting causing interference which is what they are worried about create more debris?

      think before you type. The ABL doesn't make missiles go boom either. It heats up and the shorts out the guidance systems, making the missiles fall off target and hopefully out of the sky.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    7. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't the military got some super satellite-busting weapon they've been dying to test?

      The problem is it's designed to shoot down targets that cost a tenth what the missile cost.

    8. Re:Target practice? by quanticle · · Score: 1

      That would be pretty bad, but its still better than scattering a debris field across an entire set of orbital trajectories. At least with this, they can maneuver satellites out of the way until a deorbit strategy can be made. If you blow it up in place, you'll have to wait until the pieces fall out due to the minuscule drag that exists in high orbit.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    9. Re:Target practice? by MadCow42 · · Score: 1

      Why can't anti-satellite systems hit the target from ABOVE, and direct debrit towards re-entry?

      Madcow

      --
      I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
    10. Re:Target practice? by thms · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Too high.

      The recent anti-sat missiles which China and the USA tested just took out satellites which were in low earth orbit, 400km max. This satellite is in a geosynchronous orbit, which is about 36,000 km high (and for reference, the moon is 380,000 km away, so a moon-earth Lagrange point would make a little more sense).

      And these anti-sat missiles don't even have to reach a 400 km orbit, an epileptic orbit which would intersect with earth again (but happens to intersect with another satellite first) is sufficient, that is why they could be launched from a warship. Not that taking down a geostationary sat would be impossible - since they don't zip overhead with 25,000 km/h it could actually be easier, but these weapons are not build for it and would need another booster base.

    11. Re:Target practice? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 4, Informative
      *MORBOR*: That is not how orbital mechanics works!

      You want to hit the satellite away from the direction it's orbiting in, so that it loses enough orbital velocity to descend into the top-most part of the atmosphere where drag will slow it down even further and pull it down.

    12. Re:Target practice? by EdIII · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am thinking that the X-37b with the ABL (big laser) would work wonders for just this sort of thing.

      though one would want to take really really careful aim. If you hit a large spinning mirror you could fry someone else.

      Or we could just send a couple of GLG20's into the mountainous regions at the border of Afghanistan and the Soviet Union to smash a SatScram terminal with a rock, save the day, and have sex with a super cute Russian soldier, while she strangely looks like a supermodel, and another hot GLG20 sent in with you.

      Oh wait...... this isn't a movie :)

    13. Re:Target practice? by Khyber · · Score: 5, Funny

      "epileptic orbit"

      I'd love to see an orbit do that!

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    14. Re:Target practice? by Macrat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People can do without Fox News for a few days.

      People will have to get their unfounded BS the old fashioned way.

    15. Re:Target practice? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Except that the debris could just as easily take those same networks off the system even longer if they strike the relevant satellite.

    16. Re:Target practice? by sznupi · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't know, personally I shudder to see something like that.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    17. Re:Target practice? by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Everyone (apart from the Chinese) is very hesitant to gratuitously blow stuff up in orbit, because the debris stays in orbit and makes space missions more dangerous and difficult.

    18. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Several thousand (and more) little bullets zooming around.

    19. Re:Target practice? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      "epileptic orbit"

      I'd love to see an orbit do that!

      I've got one of them. Tegretol fixed it right up (again). Its just that if I get a logjam in my liver I lose track of what is up and what is down.

    20. Re:Target practice? by kcitren · · Score: 2, Informative

      apart from the Chinese

      Well, the US did it. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-193]

    21. Re:Target practice? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Think before you type.

      The YAL-1 doesn't "heat up and short out guidance systems", it and the NC-135 used a laser to burn through the missile's wall and causes a structural failure.

    22. Re:Target practice? by MrLint · · Score: 1

      It'll suck the paint off your house and give your family a permanent orange afro.

    23. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *MORBOR*: That is not how orbital mechanics works!

      You want to hit the satellite away from the direction it's orbiting in, so that it loses enough orbital velocity to descend into the top-most part of the atmosphere where drag will slow it down even further and pull it down.

      *MORBOR*: That is not how orbital mechanics works!

      You want to hit the satellite away from the direction it's orbiting in, so that it loses enough orbital velocity to descend into the top-most part of the atmosphere where drag will slow it down even further and pull it down.

      thanks ankara nakliyat

    24. Re:Target practice? by Thaddeaus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Slashdot?



      (I kid, I kid)

    25. Re:Target practice? by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 2, Funny

      When I saw "Epileptic Orbit" all I could think was Seizures in Circles...

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    26. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think before you type.

      The YAL-1 doesn't "heat up and short out guidance systems", it and the NC-135 used a laser to burn through the missile's wall and causes a structural failure.

      Think before you type.

      It doesn't burn through anything. It heats up the skin, and the stresses at high velocities in the atmosphere destroy the missiles. Just because it is a big frickin' laser doesn't mean that we have to pretend that it uses Star Wars physics. It seems to me that this type of weapon in an anti-satellite role would optimally target solar panels and radiators. Nothing needs to be blown up. Just don't focus on the control propellant and you should be fine.

    27. Re:Target practice? by deniable · · Score: 1

      That's one way to fix MTV.

    28. Re:Target practice? by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have to remember even a pebble at the kinds of speeds you can get up there can be catastrophic. This is why we the people of this planet really need to be working on a strategy for cleaning all the crap leftover from dead and broken sats. As you can see here just the amount of useless dangerous shit DARPA is tracking is just unreal, and that don't count all the tiny fragments that can tear through you like a bullet.

      So while blowing it up would be a spectacularly bad idea, we do need to have a way to deal with dead crap in space. As we get more and more sats, and have to deal with more solar flares and other unexpected problems, this problem is only gonna get worse. Perhaps we need to offer a couple of billion dollar bounty for the one that solves this problem?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    29. Re:Target practice? by frist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Think before you type.

      Think before typing? You realize this is Slashdot, right?

    30. Re:Target practice? by tagno25 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Planetes is a good example of what could happen if we leave space trash.

    31. Re:Target practice? by tagno25 · · Score: 1

      I am thinking that the X-37b with the ABL (big laser) would work wonders for just this sort of thing.

      though one would want to take really really careful aim. If you hit a large spinning mirror you could fry someone else.

      better is using the X-304 and it's big laser

    32. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well played

    33. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Or better yet the Corrupt News Network.

    34. Re:Target practice? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 0

      That would be pretty bad, but its still better than scattering a debris field across an entire set of orbital trajectories. At least with this, they can maneuver satellites out of the way until a deorbit strategy can be made. If you blow it up in place, you'll have to wait until the pieces fall out due to the minuscule drag that exists in high orbit.

      In geosynchronous orbit some objects may never decay because hills and valleys in the Earths gravitational field create stable points in the orbit.

    35. Re:Target practice? by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 2, Funny

      We could always send up a mission to retrieve the dead satellites with the space shutt- Never mind.

      --
      Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
    36. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Morbo is not spelled that way!" - Morbo

    37. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a precise hit with a conventional weapon would be enough to destroy it's transmitter

      i don't understand why everything must be sensational, oh wait i forgot, something has to generate nerd rage

    38. Re:Target practice? by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      That'd be prohibitively expensive. Makes more sense to do it with robotics, and give them a nudge back into the atmosphere. You could probably send up dozens of these robots up on one rocket, or deploy them from the ISS.

      Besides, it's the tiny, hard-to-track pieces that you have to worry about. I honestly don't know if we have a remotely workable solution to deal with these.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    39. Re:Target practice? by Xiterion · · Score: 1

      True. However, in the case of a satellite in geostationary orbit, doesn't it actually require less energy to push it a little bit faster so it goes to away?

    40. Re:Target practice? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      A hit satellite could be moved back into place rather quickly, ground control just has to notice and fire thrusters. If a satellite is hit and broken, an in-orbit spare can be brought into use and a new spare one launched with little disruption.

      The threat here is a non-responsive full-power bird moving too close to the victim satellite and staying there for 3 weeks. You can't move anybody new into this slot, they'd be equally jammed too. Something's going to have to give, or we're going to see a full satellite's load have to move elsewhere, and that's going to create a traffic jam on the other satellites. Suddenly your late local news is having it's reporter phone-in because they can't get link.

    41. Re:Target practice? by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      True - according to official sources, though, the debris entered a decaying orbit.

      The current sattelite is high enough to drift to a Lagrange point on its own. Any debris it leaves will probably accumulate there too. Once it's there, it'll remain practically forever thanks to the net zero gravity.

    42. Re:Target practice? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      How do these stable points overcome energy losses caused by drag?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    43. Re:Target practice? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      "epileptic orbit" I'd love to see an orbit do that!

      I know some 1997 Java applets that did that.

    44. Re:Target practice? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      At least he didn't say it was exponential. It literally makes my blood boil when people misuse that word.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    45. Re:Target practice? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Fuck. That's what I get for typing out a response too fast =)

    46. Re:Target practice? by ooshna · · Score: 1

      ... and nothing of value would be lost.

      (Besides, losing a few cable channels for a little while isn't much compared to actually losing satellites from debris hits. People should do without Fox News for a few days.)

      There fixed that for you.

    47. Re:Target practice? by ooshna · · Score: 1

      I don't think there is drag in the vacuum of space.

    48. Re:Target practice? by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's thought it may be a problem for 3 days (not weeks) and most of the communications that might be disrupted can be switched to alternates for the duration.

      After that encounter, they will have a good while to retry inducing a system fault to trip it offline.

      Do you REALLY think it's a good idea to pollute the Clarke belt with fragments that might be up there for years just to avoid 3 days of difficulty now?

      I don't think the world will end if the late local news has to phone in a few reports. Very little of it actually requires a live report from on-scene anyway.

      Besides that, I'll bet the owners of the satellites that could be damaged would rather not take that chance. "Just" moving a new satellite into place represents a few hundred million dollars in costs.

    49. Re:Target practice? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 1

      I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but I would suspect not. You can have orbits higher than geosync (think the moon), so you would need to apply a lot of energy to make the satellite leave orbit entirely.

      Edit: (well not really, but Preview to the rescue ;)
      Actually, it seems you are kind of on the right track though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graveyard_orbit Apply energy to push it into a higher orbit and it will still be in orbit, though in an orbit where it is far less likely to cause harm.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    50. Re:Target practice? by pengin9 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I thought the first 'C' was for 'Cartoon'

    51. Re:Target practice? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      One, things other than atmosphere can cause drag.

      Two, space (unlike the gap between your ears) isn't a perfect vacuum.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    52. Re:Target practice? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      How do these stable points overcome energy losses caused by drag?

      My guess is that collisions with particles moving roughly in the geosynchronous orbit create drag on anything moving faster or slower than them. If you slide into a valley you will move at a higher relative speed than these particles and experience some drag. This drag will remove the energy you need to climb out of the valley.

      Its just very gentle damping I suppose.

    53. Re:Target practice? by kimvette · · Score: 2, Funny

      The problem is Futurama is returning in a month and a half. We cannot possibly advocate losing broadcast satellites!

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    54. Re:Target practice? by THE+anonymus+coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not to mention the fact that the Shuttle doesn't have the thrust necessary to put it into Geosync... heck, it can't even make it to GTO. VERY out of reach.

      --
      I guess thats all I have to say.
    55. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's definitely worth reading anyway

    56. Re:Target practice? by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What about a high tech version of the old "tar baby" story? You take a powdered gluey substance that can then be mixed with waste water at the ISS, and can then be shot into trajectories where there isn't gonna be anything to hit but crap. Then as this thing floats along it picks up more and more debris, getting heavier and heavier as it goes, until it is slowly drug down and burns up in the atmosphere. If you wanted a way to control it I doubt it would take much of a rocket mounted to this tar baby glue ball to push it one way or another.

      But considering how many fragments and little pieces are splattered around us, and how their tiny weight will take hundreds or even thousands of years to pull them down, the only way I can think of to efficiently round them up and get rid of them would be to lump them together and let gravity take care of their heavier mass. And since you can't be sure that all of the pieces will be magnetic, the only thing that I can think of to get them all together would be just ramming them with something sticky. Hence Tar Baby. I'm sure DuPont or one of the other chemical manufacturers could come up with the substance for the glue, and it should be a cheap way to help clear the area to boot!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    57. Re:Target practice? by CalSolt · · Score: 1

      One idea would be to spray large amounts of even smaller debris- fine dust- into these orbits. Perhaps from the moon. It would increase drag for everything, and anything that didn't have active boosting capability (ie, anything that wasn't an active satellite) would eventually fall back to earth, including all debris. The downside would be that satellites would have to carry more propellant to maintain their orbits, increasing the needed booster size and thus overall cost. Not pretty but feasible, effective and fairly benign. If enough debris accumulates up there in the next century we just may have to do this by virtue of not having any other choice.

      Another option might be to require that all satellite components be made of or be alloyed with iron so that future satellites and spacecraft could generate magnetic fields to deflect the debris.

    58. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Safer? safer? That is un-American. Blast away and the hell with the consequences ... Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Drill-Baby-Drill etc, etc.

    59. Re:Target practice? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Haven't the military got some super satellite-busting weapon they've been dying to test?

      The Chinese military and thats how we ended up in this mess in the first place.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    60. Re:Target practice? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Your post had the exponential to be funny, but I think you missed it.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    61. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why we the people of this planet really need to be working on a strategy for cleaning all the crap leftover from dead and broken sats.

      Like vacuum it up? We need a Mega Maid.
      Just proves that all great ideas come from science fiction movies.

    62. Re:Target practice? by Calinous · · Score: 1, Informative

      Drag is an issue in the Low Earth Orbit (some hundreds of kilometers up). However, Geo Stationary Orbit is at some 36 000 km above ground (more than 20 000 miles)

    63. Re:Target practice? by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      > the ABL (big laser)

      You mean "Awesomely Big Laser".

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    64. Re:Target practice? by YttriumOxide · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Interesting idea... I do see several possible problems with it though...

      • Size: In order to be effective at "grabbing" the debris, it would need to be fairly large... anything small simply won't grab enough junk. "Large" would be a technical challenge, and possibly cause other problems floating around up there.
      • Water: The ISS doesn't have "waste water" as such... they recycle pretty much everything they can, and extremely effectively. There's no feasible way other than launching a whole lot of water up there, which is an expensive proposition.
      • Time: Related to "size" but basically, it'd take a very long time for this to have any measurable effect on all the junk up there.
      • Orbital decay: The idea of the orbit decaying as it picks up junk is of course fine (less through the added mass though, and more through the relative velocities as they impact), but I would be concerned about the maths of this. I get the feeling it'd come down and burn up WAY before it'd collected a useful amount of junk
      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    65. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...even a pebble at the kinds of speeds"

      It's geostationary.

    66. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA already announced a contest to come up with ideas for cleaning up space junk. Of course now I can't find the link, but it's out there.

    67. Re:Target practice? by hasdikarlsam · · Score: 1

      Or watching.

      It's not particularily realistic, though.. ironically, because it's attempting to be realistic. Science marches on; it's showing what we could do now, not what we'll be able to do in the timeframe it's set.

    68. Re:Target practice? by muridae · · Score: 1

      Well, of course that picture looks nasty. From sea level out to geo-stationary orbit is 36,000 kilometers*. Earth itself is only 12,000 km (or so) across at the equator. There is a ton of empty space there. And as for 'bullet speed', in relation to the ground they are moving rather quickly. In relation to anything else that is in orbit at the same altitude as a given piece of debris, they are not moving at all. If something were moving at bullet speed in relation to another object in the same orbit, that bullet object would not remain in orbit for long. Since it is debris, and does not have any thrust left, it would either be moving so fast as to escape orbit completely, or it would alter it's orbit enough that it's return would destroy it in the atmosphere. Take geo-stationary orbit, for example, which is 265,000 km long*. Any object staying in geostationary orbit is going to make that whole trip every 24 hours*.Any faster or slower, and it's orbit degrades some.

      Bad facts like this are why the green movement gets billed as ignoring the facts. Only picking on them since you linked to treehugger as a reference. Yes, the debris will be a danger at some point, but your reason and density argument are bunk. Those objects occupy a space anywhere from 300 km above sea level, out to 36,000km or more. Add to that the compressed area that makes up the edges of that projection, and the graphic is either intentionally deceptive, or ignorant of facts.

      *: ish, I know, I know. The numbers are pulled from wiki, and I don't want to do the math for the extra distance covered by the additional traversal around the sun. This is the soft math version of the problem, not the rocket science version.
      Not a rocket scientist. Just a hippie who hates other people giving us all a bad name.

    69. Re:Target practice? by rossdee · · Score: 1

      That means its orbiting above a fixed point on the equator. its sti8ll moving fast. - about 5235 km/hr by my rough calculation

    70. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "epileptic orbit"

      That's the kind of thing that astronomy majors have nightmares about seeing on their final exams.

    71. Re:Target practice? by tibit · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget that any orbit changes require two burns. First burn will change a circular orbit into an elliptical one (a transfer orbit). The second one's timing is then critical, as it will determine how circular will the final orbit be.

      If, somehow, a satellite that wants to move out to graveyard orbit succeeds at only one burn, or mis-executes the second burn, you end up with an elliptical orbit that potentially intersects the geostationary orbit.

      I wonder how easy would it be to, instead, change the orbital plane while maintaining same altitude?

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    72. Re:Target practice? by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      So while blowing it up would be a spectacularly bad idea, we do need to have a way to deal with dead crap in space.

      Massive blocks of aerogel. That'd pick up the small parts that are floating. And use disposable engines or something similar to deorbit the old satellites that cannot do it on their own.

    73. Re:Target practice? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You can't store up drag and then recycle it as thrust. It just doesn't work like that.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    74. Re:Target practice? by Dunega · · Score: 1

      From CNN?

    75. Re:Target practice? by ekgringo · · Score: 1
      Pathetic humans. My race will devour you all!

      I miss the news monster.

    76. Re:Target practice? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      New Futurama episodes come back June 24th.

    77. Re:Target practice? by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      ...getting heavier and heavier as it goes, until it is slowly drug down and burns up in the atmosphere.

      Unless, of course, it just swang straight past.

    78. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      apart from the Chinese

      Well, the US did it. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-193]

      ... you realize there's a pretty big difference between blowing up a satellite in a high stable orbit, and blowing up one which is in a low unstable orbit to prevent hazardous materials from causing problems?

      You realize that the debris from the Chinese satellite is still in orbit, and will be for decades, while the American satellite debris was mostly gone within a day?

      And before you try and say you were 'correcting' the guy, read what he said:

      very hesitant to gratuitously blow stuff up in orbit, because the debris stays in orbit

      The satellite blown up by the US was suborbital at the time of its destruction. So... in short, everything you said was wrong.

    79. Re:Target practice? by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      The problem is that you're essentially trying to catch bullets with a piece of flypaper that happens to be traveling just as fast as the bullet, but in the opposite direction.

      You'd either need a really big gob of something, or a way of matching the velocity of each speck of debris that you're trying to catch.

      You'd also need to make your space katamari indestructible so that it doesn't get smashed into a million bits.

      A big blob of aerogel might work -- it wouldn't bring anything to a screeching halt, but it would (very slightly) reduce the orbital velocity of whatever passes through it, contributing to the orbital decay of the debris. As an added benefit, the flying chunks of aerogel would remain harmless to any functioning spacecraft.

      Still, you'd need a lot of it. Remember that the "surface area" of geosynchronous orbit is much, much greater than the surface area of the Earth.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    80. Re:Target practice? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The volume covered by these orbits is gigantic. Covering that with dust is going to be extremely hard.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    81. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China does too, we could just ask them for help.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6289519.stm

    82. Re:Target practice? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Science marches on, but everything stays the same. What is fundamentally different between the Apollo and the ISS? There is the very real possibility that there will be no revolutionizing breakthroughs in space technology and that we'll have to do it with methods similar to today.

      I mean, I'm really hoping that a space elevator will pan out and make space access cheap, but it might be an impossibility.

    83. Re:Target practice? by jcochran · · Score: 1

      You're correct as regards two objects in the same orbit having little to no relative difference in speed.

      But, think about an elliptical orbit. It's nice and stable. And there's a pretty hefty velocity difference at those points where an elliptical orbit intersects other orbits. It will either be going a lot faster than it's target at perigee and when it reaches apogee, it's going a lot slower. At either point it has a rather significant difference in velocity and can cause damage. And between those two points, there's still quite a velocity difference.

    84. Re:Target practice? by JimProuty · · Score: 1

      Besides, it's the tiny, hard-to-track pieces that you have to worry about. I honestly don't know if we have a remotely workable solution to deal with these.

      Robotic satellites trailing kevlar flypaper oughta do it :-)

    85. Re:Target practice? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Actually only racist Yankees look for the "hidden meaning" and consider it a racist story. Because the intended audience, little kids, see it as a story about...drum roll... a rabbit, a fox, and a bear. Because they don't actually think that way, unless their parents are in the Aryan Brotherhood.

      I was read that story as a kid, read that story to my boys when they were kids, and you know what? Never once did "Hey! This is an allegory for whitey keeping the black man down!" ever cross our minds.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    86. Re:Target practice? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      There is actually a story called "tar baby," about a bunch of animals? What the hell?

    87. Re:Target practice? by operagost · · Score: 1

      DuPont? Pssht. Give it to a bunch of rednecks... the duct tape baby will take care of it.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    88. Re:Target practice? by CalSolt · · Score: 1

      Not nearly as hard as some of the other proposals such as shooting it down with lasers or sending up robotic ships to collect the debris.

    89. Re:Target practice? by hasdikarlsam · · Score: 1

      We've actually got a fair number of inventions stockpiled that would, by themselves, change space travel a lot. What we don't have is a good economic or military reason to go there in the first place, but that will probably be changing.

      So, since I feel like getting them straight anyway, here's a list of possibilities that would help. Some are more plausible, others less, but they are all at least possible. Not in any particular order.

      - Stripperiffic space suits. Yes. It's rather amusing, but you can make a space suit far lighter and more convenient simply by making it skin-tight; punctures could still happen but then won't release air. You'd probably still wear something over it, but without pressurization of the external part. NASA keeps intending to design them, all the enabling technologies are in place, they just can't get the budget.

      Benefits: Lighter, better agility, may remove the prebreathing requirement for going into space - and cheaper.

      Seen in: Rocket Girls. It's not as hard as Planetes, but it's actually surprisingly plausible in retrospect. (Some components really aren't at all, but they do get the suits right.)

      - Nuclear pulse engines. The Orion project. Better thrust to weight ratio and ISP than any other engine system we could currently make, but depends on detonating nuclear bombs and thus suffers from needing a large ship to be workable. Also has political issues.

      Seen in: Just about every hard-SF novel ever.

      - Nuclear thermal engines. Uses a fission reactor to heat some medium (often water) until it's really really hot, which is then left to shoot out the thruster. Easier to miniaturize than nuclear pulse engines, and has at least twice the ISP of a chemical rocket, while still maintaining enough thrust to fight gravity. Not very radioactive. Has been built, but is again politically troublesome and has never been used in a real rocket.

      Seen.. almost nowhere. A pity, it's a good design.

      - Stable antimatter, of various kinds. It's obviously the best fuel, and is needed if you want to build a (highly theoretical) pion engine, but antimatter is extremely expensive. Tiny amounts of antimatter could be used to initiate fusion, which would allow nuclear pulse engines to be drastically scaled down and also make them far more efficient - to the point of allowing interstellar hops in a reasonable amount of time.

      It is believed by some that if we just try, we can generate antimatter at far higher efficiencies than today's best, by quite a lot of orders of magnitude. As it happens, the US air force is in fact trying, in order to build positronium-powered gamma-ray "lasers", ostensibly for initiating fusion in inertial containment reactors. We'll see.

      - Nanotechnology, mainly nanofactories. Almost certain to arrive on the scene within 10-40 years; there will likely be difficulties (not that anyone's found any yet), but there are many paths to them, including working examples of nanofactories. (You're made of them..)

      Four main benefits:
      * Nanofactories make manufacturing in general cheaper, but in particular manufacturing of parts you don't need mass-produced. Space equipment will likely fall in this category for a long time.
      * Most rocket failures are due to some tiny flaw. Atomically perfect manufacturing will reduce the chance of these, though incorrect assembly is of course still possible. In the limit, it may be possible to build larger assemblies as a single part in a nanofactory, eliminating even that variation.
      * Colonization of other planets, or in general independence of earth, is impossible so long as you need several billion tons of industry and several million people to build everything needed by a colony. Nanofactories could drastically reduce these counts, though it won't eliminate them.
      * And, of course, it reduces the penalty for complexity a lot while permitting far stronger materials in many places; having a full set of sensors in every cubic millimeter of a rocket would drastically increase safety, as most f

    90. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except I already know of this one guy who's already doing that. But he rolls up the garbage and puts it back in orbit. NA-NAAAAAA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NAAAAA KATAMARI!

    91. Re:Target practice? by quanticle · · Score: 1

      Space, even high orbit, is not a true vacuum. There is atmosphere up there, just a very very small amount. Nevertheless, even that tiny amount of drag will bring down orbiting objects unless they are boosted on a regular basis.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    92. Re:Target practice? by muridae · · Score: 1

      Ah, good point. I was too busy picking apart the "omg, orbiting stuff moves fast" that I ignored that. Thanks for reminding me. The junk up there, though, is pretty stable. If it wasn't in a stable orbit, it would burn up or escape. Since it is stable, it's pretty documented. Don't go through a orbit transfer while near the junk.

      Okay, not all of it is documented, because all the various governments don't want to admit what they put up there. But in a sphere 7 times the diameter of Earth, there is a lot of empty space.

    93. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am thinking that the X-37b with the ABL (big laser) would work wonders for just this sort of thing.

      though one would want to take really really careful aim. If you hit a large spinning mirror you could fry someone else.

      Whow I think you are right they would love to take target pratice with the Big Laser but they have one very big one at Lawarence Livermore lab they could use.

    94. Re:Target practice? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      It is an old story about br'er rabbit, br'er fox, and br'er bear. It is a kid's story that has been told for ages in the south until a bunch of racist Yankees started seeing "hidden meaning" in the story. Of course these are the same folks that probably think being tarred and feathered was about changing a white man's skin color too, so there you go.

      You can get an overview here on wikipedia and please notice it is a fucking politician that screams racist. Because as much as liberal politicians would like to believe that kids are just little klan members, little kids aren't racist like them. You tell them a story about a bear and a fox that tricks a rabbit with a ball of tar in a hat? Well they actually think it is about a bear a rabbit and a fox, not "Whitey keeping the black man down!" or some such bullshit.

      And if you read the story NOBODY says nigger, or any other racist shit about the tar baby trap. Br'er rabbit merely gets insulted because he says good morning to the tar baby and the tar baby refuses to show him the courtesy of saying good morning back, and when he punches the tar baby for refusing to show him common courtesy he gets caught in the trap. Anyone who is southern knows it is an insult to refuse to return a common courtesy when it is shown to you, and is similar to the old English cut direct and Br'er Fox and Br'er bear know Br'er rabbit is a proud bunny and ain't gonna take being insulted like that.

      It is a damned shame that little kids stories like that are treated as racist taboo when the intended audience simply doesn't think like that if not brought up in a racist household. I had those stories read to me as a kid, and never once did I think "oppressive whitey" because like any other kid I took it on face value, that it was a rabbit, a fox, a bear, and a ball of tar with a hat and coat. Only adults see that as some racist diatribe on black oppression.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    95. Re:Target practice? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      You can't store up drag and then recycle it as thrust. It just doesn't work like that.

      This is just like cycling in undulating terrain. I go faster down hill and experience more drag, so I lose kinetic energy and I am unable to make it up the hill. Just imagine that orbital debris roughly in my orbit provides the drag, like air.

    96. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      epileptic orbit ;-) better elliptic orbit with high eccentricity.

    97. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess thms meant to say "an elliptic orbit"? Perhaps I'm just saying what everyone already knows. Just call me Obvious Man.

    98. Re:Target practice? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      You're a dreamer. Which is awesome. Dreamers are a lot more fun to hang out with then cynics.

      But

      Most of these don't fall into the category of "inventions we have stockpiled". They are not proven, they are not prototyped, they aren't even designed yet. They are dreams that may or may not come real one day.

      Like the space elevator. While you are relatively certain it'll work, I am merely hopeful. There are issues and potential pitfalls which could make it unfeasible.
      -Powering the lifter is an issue. I think long-range wireless energy transfer is needed and that's yet to come along.
      -Radiation belts could wear away the ribbon. Or it could limit the elevator to non-living material.
      -And then, you know, we have to actually make the ribbon.

      And anti-matter? The Orion project? Come on.

      So, you can't say that it's stockpiled and just waiting to happen. Required components and experiments just aren't there. Yet.
      You know? Sometimes the saddest thing I can think of is the fact I haven't done anything to advance the development of this sort of stuff.

      The stripperiffic suits (space activity suits, if you want people to google it) sound awesome. They would have come in handy in Planetes when they're in the pressurized moon buggy with their bulky suits in the depressurized bed of the truck. But somehow they managed to get suited up...

    99. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the case of geo's, they are super-sync'd. Much less expensive to nudge them up a few hundred kilometers than to bring them back down.

    100. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think the second 'C' is for?

    101. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice idea, but you're creating yet another unpredictable drifting object that could collide with and damage other functioning satellites. Not to mention, your fictional "vacuum-proof crazy glue" would get scattered during impacts with debris, and splattering droplets of that could stick all over mirrors, optics, solar panels and gold foil on other satellites. Which would be bad.

    102. Re:Target practice? by oldstrat · · Score: 1

      True if it were an absolute vacuum, but space isn't.

    103. Re:Target practice? by oldstrat · · Score: 1

      How does your sticky glue keep moving to the outside of the ball to keep trapping more debris?

  3. Double Bastard by SendBot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And create all that space debris that will jeopardize countless other satellites?

    1. Re:Double Bastard by tagno25 · · Score: 1

      And create all that space debris that will jeopardize countless other satellites?

      It will also break some nuclear treaties with Russia and China, and the radiation field will cause unknown damage to other satellites and the upper atmosphere.

    2. Re:Double Bastard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, if only the GGP was making a joke and not actually being serious...

    3. Re:Double Bastard by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Funny

      Duhh, nuke the debris with a second one. ;-)

    4. Re:Double Bastard by smpoole7 · · Score: 1

      Gee, if only the GGP was making a joke and not actually being serious...

      .

      Exactly. That's why GGP was modded "funny." But I guess they missed that. :)

      --
      Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
    5. Re:Double Bastard by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Better, call the Blast Corps!

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    6. Re:Double Bastard by English+French+Man · · Score: 1

      Geostationary satellite is 22,000 miles high. A nuclear explosion the magnitude of human-built devices will do a lot less harm to the upper atmosphere than the sun does continuously. Geostationary orbit is 165,000 miles in circumference. The closest satellites from Galaxy-15 are Americom-10 and Americom-11 and are both two degrees of longitude away from Galaxy-15 (that would be approximately between 900 and 1000 miles away!

      So, the radiation field will cause no damage to other satellites and the upper atmosphere.

      I am not aware of any treaties stopping the USA from nuking its own satellites.

      It would still be completely impractical to use nuclear weapons in this case, just sending a rocket would be enough. Very expensive though.

      --
      If I'm wrong, please correct me ; learning is better than being right.
    7. Re:Double Bastard by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually if one nuked it there would be no debris except of a lot of radiation.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    8. Re:Double Bastard by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I am not aware of any treaties stopping the USA from nuking its own satellites.

      There is a treaty, I forget which, to which the US is a signitor, which states no nukes in space. There seems to be some confusion about exactly what that means for some types of power sources but weaponization of space is strictly prohibited. I should say, "or so I've been told."

    9. Re:Double Bastard by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      So, the radiation field will cause no damage to other satellites and the upper atmosphere.

      You apparently do not understand how an EMP works.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse#Generation_of_nuclear_EMP

    10. Re:Double Bastard by English+French+Man · · Score: 1

      You apparently do not understand how an EMP works.

      You apparently have no sense of scale.

      From the article:

      Beyond a certain altitude a nuclear weapon will not produce any EMP, as the gamma rays will have had sufficient distance to disperse. In deep space or on worlds with no magnetic field (the moon or Mars for example) there will be little or no EMP.

      The altitude in question is not given, unfortunately. But altitudes given as examples are 300 miles at their maximum, geosynchronous satellites are 20,000 miles high. That's more than 60 times the height.

      Power varies with 1/(x^2) where x is the distance of the blast. 60 times the distance means 60^2 times less power to reach upper atmosphere where the EMP is emitted. That's 3,600. I'm pretty sure it won't do anything.

      --
      If I'm wrong, please correct me ; learning is better than being right.
  4. Where'd my cable channels go? by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's a list of what AMC-11 is used for on Lyngsat.

    Basically, if this wayward sat gets in the way, the average cable/DBS subscriber in the USA is going to wonder where half their digital channels went.

    1. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And nothing of value was lost.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Well, as a Comcast customer, half of my analog channels disappeared a couple weeks ago. Could this be related?

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    3. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      no thats just comcast service as usual.

    4. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      Oh noes...lifetime movie channel is offline. Dman you AMC-11. Seriously though, any cable company worth their salt already has several contingency plans in effect so no news here.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    5. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by shoehornjob · · Score: 0, Troll

      Nope. They are slowly migrating all the old analog channels to a hi-def signal (FCC mandate). That's why most people who plug the cable into the back of the tv can't get a signal anymore. Call 1-800-comcast as you may be able to get an adapter box to compensate for this.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    6. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by MasterOfMagic · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to Wikipedia, all television signals have been transferred to other satellites. So unless your cable company hasn't received the memo, there should be no interruption of service.

    7. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by 920 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Last I checked, the FCC only mandated the switch to digital over the air and had nothing to say what format was broadcast over private networks. That decision is just based on greed. (more free bandwidth and more converter box rental fees.)

      --
      "Perl 6 gives you the big knob" -- Larry Wall
    8. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by seanvaandering · · Score: 1

      Uh huh, I see it carries Showtime, MTV, VH1... maybe this will get the kids out of the basement for a day or two... this could actually be a good thing!

    9. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can tell you that cable operators have made the transition OFF of this failing satellite. The transition has already completed.

    10. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by grumling · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, they moved G-12, an older sat available as a spare, into 131 degrees W to take the place of G-11. The only action required by cable companies was to make sure their dishes were peaked so that while the transition was happening there was enough wiggle room to see both birds at the same time.

      --
      "Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
    11. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by vlueboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Last I checked, the FCC only mandated the switch to digital over the air and had nothing to say what format was broadcast over private networks. That decision is just based on greed. (more free bandwidth and more converter box rental fees.)

      Allow me to expand on that. It's sad that just digital SD and not full HDTV is the only "mandated" standard when both could have been forced given a couple more years to allow for larger HDTV penetration. Forced unavailability of old 4:3 on the PC and LCD industry was more effective to force us all to a 16:9. These wider but shorter screens are little more than paperweights when you consider that larger compression-based distortion and forced resolution stretches are more obvious on them than our old TV's... we have almost no programming to use the technology we purchased. Over the air HD is hit or miss, and most people continue to use cable because lots of the new OtA power transmitters suck.

      I want cablecos to explain what my bill will look like the day Standard Definition gets truly "deprecated." It should force them to remove all those duplicate non-HD channels, or upgrade my free channels to their currently payfor HD clones at no extra cost --I seriously doubt the latter will be taken, but they can't justify pulling the plug like the US government did to analog TV across the country in June 2009.

      Years after first generation HDTV sets have arrived in stores and reached to reasonable prices, networks still do not transmit in HD even 1/2 of their programming (I'm not talking 10 year old classics, but stuff recorded recently on what should be all HD cameras by now.) Weekend sports and local news are HD in many channels, but makes up for only a few weekly hours in our 24*7 blocks. While all the 9-to-5 worker drones are too busy to notice, networks are chugging along at the same old cheap non-HD resolutions until the weekend fake-out. Whatever non-basic HD is out there comes at a premium price. The two big networks for Spanish-only immigrants have even less total HD programming. Cable-subsized television for local community programming has 0 HD programs even in New York city. With no HD deadline in sight, it seems we were all duped by LCD-manufacturers and cablecos. Our second generation HD LCD sets will have undergone slow pixel death by natural dimming before governments force all cameras in every local HD program to actually transmit in HD. meanwhile, it's cries from distortion and previously unnecessary stretching for all of us.

    12. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Funny

      Are you kidding? Imagine this happening during the last episode of Lost.. It would make the Rodney King riots look like a day at the beach...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    13. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I laughed until I cried. I wouldn't even have found it funny if I wasn't a Comcast customer!

    14. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're confusing the issue. The wayward satellite is useless, and all of it's content has been moved elsewhere. The problem is the late-May to early-June threat to AMC-11's signals... which is still functional and "evasive maneuvers" for it are planned to keep it's signals going, but the jury's out as to whether this is going to work.

    15. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      That contingency plan is to post a card saying "This channel is experiencing a problem. Don't call, we're aware of the problem and it'll resolve itself in three weeks."

      It's not like there's a full satellite slot worth of vacancies out there for backups. And for those that do have backups, where are they going to get the backup for their backup now that it's the primary?

      At least this failure is predictable... LMN-HD could send a few Blu-Ray disks full of movies-with-commercial-breaks out to cable headends so nothing seems wrong, but the fact is, this is a problem that people will have to deal with.

    16. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Expect the rest of your analog channels to drop in 2012. Newer networks like FIOS and U-Verse are being built without any analog service at all. Digital is just uses less bandwidth... and that can be re-purposed to HD and Internet for the rest of us.

    17. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unless this is PART of the last episode of Lost...MAN they're good!

    18. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Stop making the terrorists' jobs easier! /s

    19. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      "Allow me to expand on that. It's sad that just digital SD and not full HDTV is the only "mandated" standard when both could have been forced given a couple more years to allow for larger HDTV penetration."

      There are problems with this idea. First, what about old content that is in 4:3? Either you accept the black bars, stretch it, or crop it to 16:9. The problem is that these are solely up to the user's preference, and broadcasting the 4:3 SD video allows the individual user to choose their preferred way of viewing it.

      Another problem with older content is that a lot of it is naturally about 720x480, the NTSC studio broadcast resolution. Are you going to legally force them to literally refilm Star Trek: The Next Generation?

      Let the market sort it out. People like you who care about stuff like this can buy your TV connection from a company that also cares. If shows filmed in HD are desirable, then as we have seen, people may be willing to pay to watch them.

      As for me, tv is still shit even if viewed in high fidelity. When the digital switch happened, I too the opportunity to remain with my old equipment and wait to see what I can pick up used. Quite a lot of high end gear has been sold at fire sale prices, just because it's not "digital."

    20. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is (part of) the official notice we were given regarding the issue (I work at a top-20 ISP) which was sent to us on April 12th.

      . Intelsat has notified us that due to an anomaly, the programming currently available via the Galaxy 15 satellite will be moved to the Galaxy 12 satellite. Intelsat assures us that this transition will be turn-key and require little (if any) involvement by our affiliates.
      The [...] video and data feed will be transmitted from Galaxy 12 via the same transponders and frequencies. Systems properly aligned to the 133.0 degree orbital location will require no adjustments or actions.
        The East and West Coast feeds will switch at the same time. The transfer should take no more than 15 minutes.
      During the April 17th transition, some networks are offering to play a 30 minute program directly from our local server in your head-end to avoid any loss of video feed.
      Again, we do not anticipate any service issues do to the Galaxy 15 technical problem or the transition to Galaxy 12. Any systems noting performance degradation during this period may need to re-peak their receive antenna to return to optimal performance

      Incidentally, the transition went fine with no major issues.
      The only remaining problem is that the old sat is still broadcasting, and since it has lost orbital controls if the antenna happens to aim in the wrong place it will still flood out signals. Also, as pointed out in the article, there is still the GPS rebroadcast service which needs a new home.

    21. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by tool462 · · Score: 1

      Well, technically, since the riots happened in LA, they really were a day at the beach. I'm sure they were no picnic though!

    22. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Otoh, Lost is nothing of value, so maybe it'd be appropriate.

    23. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by smpoole7 · · Score: 1

      My wife just found out that AMC-11 carries QVC, too. The thought of 2-3 weeks without Lisa, "Today's Special Value" and all that other stuff has galvanized her. If Bruce Willis will pitch in, she's willing to do an Armageddon-style mission to G-15 and take care of matters herself. :)

      --
      Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
    24. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by macbuzz01 · · Score: 1

      Isn't Lost all about a day at the beach?

    25. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by MasterOfMagic · · Score: 1

      I realized I made that mistake about 30 seconds after I posted...damn posting before thinking!

    26. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by SlappyBastard · · Score: 1

      Not to mention, even if it works, maneuvering a satellite shortens its lifespan significantly.

      --
      I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
    27. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THEY WOULD.

    28. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, the FCC only mandated the switch to digital over the air and had nothing to say what format was broadcast over private networks.

      Indeed, I know of at least one satellite-based TV syndicator that continues to use a whole transponder for analog video.

      Also PBS puts up an analog TV feed on AMC-4 transponder 16C. They did this because when they moved from analog to digital video over satellite, there was a big political issue because the signal was encrypted (using DigiCipher), although it was the digital video technology they wanted, not the encryption, but the two were linked together.

      So U.S. Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter VI, Section 605(c) was written to say "No person shall encrypt or continue to encrypt satellite delivered programs included in the National Program Service of the Public Broadcasting Service and intended for public viewing by retransmission by television broadcast stations; except that as long as at least one unencrypted satellite transmission of any program subject to this subsection is provided, this subsection shall not prohibit additional encrypted satellite transmissions of the same program."

      Legally and politically, it has been determined that analog satellite service is the only way to obey this law, although most of the PBS satellite interconnection system with stations is digital.

    29. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Allow me to expand on that. It's sad that just digital SD and not full HDTV is the only "mandated" standard when both could have been forced given a couple more years to allow for larger HDTV penetration.

      There are problems with this idea. First, what about old content that is in 4:3? Either you accept the black bars, stretch it, or crop it to 16:9. [...] Are you going to legally force them to literally refilm Star Trek: The Next Generation?

      Let the market sort it out. People like you who care about stuff like this can buy your TV connection from a company that also cares.

      You misunderstood this part. Even now most networks aren't filming in HD beyond a few daily "choice" shows, and you read that in my post. Getting real, I don't care about refilming, just like nobody demanded black-and-white classic films to be refilmed for color. The problem is exactly that formats laxly regulated coexist too well thanks to stretching: the new tech the industry is forcing us all to purchase, is nearly useless because producers don't care that we all have HD TV's, and carriers only care that they can charge separately for the privilege of using said forced tech.
      The market's "sorting it out" will cost an even larger dollar the day cablecos toss out all SD channels so they can charge full price for essensially artificial inflation of HD. They won't normalize prices to pre-HD days.

    30. Re:Where'd my cable channels go? by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      umm so wtf why did I get modded down here. I was merely trying to be helpful.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
  5. The only way by Evelas · · Score: 5, Funny

    but it's the only way to be sure!

    1. Re:The only way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to go that far back, GP is clearly a Sicilian.

    2. Re:The only way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I advocate lasers. But where will we find the space sharks to mount them on? Clearly we've hit a road block here.

    3. Re:The only way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree with your sentiment, please dont feed the trolls. As you can see they only digest it and throw feces

    4. Re:The only way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to go that far back, GP is clearly a Sicilian.

      Speaking as a person of Sicilian ancestry, I am would note that it's only a short swim from Africa to Sicily.

    5. Re:The only way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you read a lot of history? Do you find all that shit fascinating?

    6. Re:The only way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking as a person of Sicilian ancestry, I am would note that it's only a short swim from Africa to Sicily.

      Why would anyone swim to Sicily when they can simply jump over the strait of Gibraltar?

    7. Re:The only way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      again if black people in Africa have been on earth longer, and if all races are equal, then why didn't black people invent science and technology first?

      Primarily a lack of need. Africa is a pretty nice place for a primitive civilisation to live. When some of them got a bit bored/out-of-space/whatever, they wandered north, a bit east, further north and then west. These guys found themselves in a place that was pretty nice in summer, but REALLY crappy in winter by comparison to most of Africa... that is to say, Europe.

      These guys were still pretty dark skinned (although since the migration would've taken a long time, it's fair to say they were likely lighter already than the people that remained in central Africa). However, dark skin in these colder climates is really not such a good thing, and evolution being what it is, the lighter skinned of their children had better breeding chances until eventually the whole group was pretty "white".

      Now, living in this place wasn't easy. Biology alone couldn't cut it (extra fat layers will keep you warmer in winter, but cause you to overheat a lot in summer). So, they would have to invent some stuff, move away, or die. As it happens, the former happened and technologically the "white man" became the superior.

      All this time, the guys who stayed in Central Africa were pretty happy living there and didn't need to invent so much stuff... they still did of course - hunting equipment, farming concepts, basic housing etc; they just didn't need to go as overboard as their cousins who'd gone north did. Not through lack of ability, just lack of need. There is no conclusive evidence of any difference in intelligence between the "races" of humans of earth, but quite clear evidence of great differences in historical development. The only thing that this can therefore be put down to is "where the people were" rather than "who the people were".

      Posting AC since I'm basically feeding a troll here and it's wildly offtopic, but I was getting sick of all of these "nigger" post trolls that started going beyond the basic ranting and attempting to make pseudoscientific sounding arguments.

    8. Re:The only way by Shompol · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Your theory breaks in pieces, because advanced civilization spread from Mediterranean, where there are paradise temperatures around the year. My ancient history is weak, but why do Europeans use either Latin or Greek alphabets? Why was the wheel introduced to vikings during the invasion by Romans? Look at the nations of the FAR NORTH: some of them still live in the prehistoric times. Weak, man, real weak.

    9. Re:The only way by Hognoxious · · Score: 0

      no line of descent required

      Your previous claim that I was refuting was: "I'd go so far as to suggest that "niggers" are your forebears." Make your tiny mind up.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:The only way by ManuelFermin · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? :P

      --
      Manuel Fermin at manufermin@gmail.com
  6. Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by Manhigh · · Score: 4, Informative

    It should be mentioned that the stable libration points for geostationary satellites are earth-relative (105 deg west, 75 deg east) and are not the same as the Sun-Earth lagrange points (such as those occupied by SOHO and other observation satellites). If we could get spacecraft without maneuvering capability to perform that orbital transfer, we'd be much closer to living in a Star Trek-esque world.

    --
    "Open the pod by doors, Hal" > "I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave" sudo "Open the pod bay doors, Hal" > alright
    1. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      It should be mentioned that the stable libration points for geostationary satellites are earth-relative (105 deg west, 75 deg east) and are not the same as the Sun-Earth lagrange points (such as those occupied by SOHO and other observation satellites).

      Forgive my ignorance in these highly technical matters, but when exactly did we start sending up Small Or Home Office satellites?

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    2. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by snowgirl · · Score: 4, Funny

      It should be mentioned that the stable libration points for geostationary satellites are earth-relative (105 deg west, 75 deg east) and are not the same as the Sun-Earth lagrange points (such as those occupied by SOHO and other observation satellites).

      Forgive my ignorance in these highly technical matters, but when exactly did we start sending up Small Or Home Office satellites?

      I always wondered what that particular SOHO meant. Drove me nuts because I heard of the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory first.

      --
      WARNING! This girl exceeds the MAXIMUM SAFE standards established by the FDA for BRATTINESS
    3. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by slaad · · Score: 1

      It should be mentioned that the stable libration points for geostationary satellites are earth-relative (105 deg west, 75 deg east) and are not the same as the Sun-Earth lagrange points (such as those occupied by SOHO and other observation satellites).

      Forgive my ignorance in these highly technical matters, but when exactly did we start sending up Small Or Home Office satellites?

      Don't be silly. He's referring to the satellite dedicated to observing (looking for terrorists) parts of New York, centered over SoHo.

      --


      ~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
    4. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by yotto · · Score: 1

      We didn't, but we did send up a Solar and Heliospheric Observatory.

    5. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by quanticle · · Score: 1

      SOHO (SOlar and Heliospheric Observatory) is the primary NASA mission for observing the sun and solar flares.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    6. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgive my ignorance in these highly technical matters, but when exactly did we start sending up Small Or Home Office satellites?

      We didn't. Instead we sent up Solar Heliospheric Observatory satellites. IIRC, they're the ones that UFOlogists like to think have shown UFOs.

    7. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oops. These are not L1 and L2? I am having trouble imagining the physical mechanism for earth-relative libration point. There's no other mass and this is a phenomenon driven by the oblate shape of the earth?

    8. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 2, Informative

      Right. This has nothing to do with Lagrange points.

      This is related to the fact that the Earth is not perfectly spherical.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    9. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lagrange_points.jpg max/min map:

      Would a marble flow to these Lx minimums if it had no velocity? If the sun-earth is equivalent to the earth-moon, then maybe the L1 is meant?

    10. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was wondering how a satellite in geosync would be able to get to even an earth-moon L point with no fuel... http://www.freemars.org/l5/aboutl5.html

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    11. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, those are Lagrange Points. The Earth/Moon system has a set. The Earth/Sun system has a set. Different sets, same name.

    12. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, it's a low-energy point along an orbit. Since you can't treat Earth as a point mass and it's not perfectly round or uniformly dense, there probably is a "three body" problem in this case. So, isn't it the same phenomenon, just a degenerate case?

    13. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by jfields026 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It has something to do with the mass of the Earth. These points line up pretty well with the Rocky Mountains and the Himalayas. These areas are known as gravity wells and all Geo satellites try to drift there. As operational satellites drift, they are command back into their orbital slot by their operators. Some satellite operators will purposely position their satellites at the wells as there is less fuel required to keep them in their orbital. Dead satellites drift towards the closet well, slingshot past them, and then come back. Occasionally they will swing back and forth between the two wells. It takes several months to swing back and forth. The satellites also gain inclination over time (15 years) before they hit a certain orbital point and then their inclination drifts back down to zero, and repeat. The inclination drift is said to be due to the Moon, however, it's tied the the satellites Right Ascension of the Ascending Node (RAAN), something that's independent of the Moon. Regardless, over time these satellites that die on the "Geo-belt" only really cross the operational satellites twice a day because of their inclination. US law requires satellite operators to dispose of their GEO satellites into a graveyard orbit before they die, but you can't really do that when it stops responding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graveyard_orbit

    14. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by deniable · · Score: 1

      Stare into the sun and see UFOs. I can see the link.

    15. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by kwerle · · Score: 1

      Since you can't treat Earth as a point mass and it's not perfectly round or uniformly dense, there probably is a "three body" problem in this case.

      OK, the earth isn't a perfect sphere, and it isn't uniform in mass (the center is significantly more dense than the surface, though) - but satellites are pretty high up. I tried a quick google to see if there was any accounting for gravitational differences when calculating orbits and I couldn't find any.

      Are you sure that the earth isn't [generally] treated as a point mass at that altitude? I'm thinking that the gravitational effects of the moon are significantly greater than any variation in the earth's mass distribution...

    16. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. The earth-moon L-points are L4 and L5, which are stable Lagrange points and are 60 degrees ahead of and behind the moon in its orbit, L3 which is 180 degrees (opposite the moon in it's orbit) and L1 and L2 which are in line with L3 and very close to the moon. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission/observatory_l2.html

      Bottom line is that the Earth-Moon L points are an order of magnitude (more or less) more distant than geostationary orbit. A satellite in geosync is NOT going to an earth-moon L point with out a lot of fuel and a working guidance system...

      Of course, I could be wrong, I'm most definitely NOT a rocket scientist...

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    17. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think are referring to a mascon/

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    18. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The gravitational effect of the moon is indeed very significant here, but it is periodic. (The net result is that the lunar perturbation makes a periodic change to the inclination of the orbit).
      The drift in longitude is due to the Earth's non-sphericity, not the moon.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    19. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because it's not perfectly spherical doesn't mean you can't treat it that way. Or, more precisely, whatever the shape (sphere or not), it's just acting like point mass at the COG.

    20. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by Malc · · Score: 1

      Well then you'll be impressed: I work in Soho. I get here everyday via bicycle too! Who needs rockets?

    21. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by mangu · · Score: 1

      there probably is a "three body" problem in this case. So, isn't it the same phenomenon, just a degenerate case?

      It's a different problem. In a three body problem all three bodies move in relation to each other. In the geopotential problem the masses forming the earth are rigidly attached to each other and the satellite moves with relation to them.

      For geostationary satellites the problem is made more difficult because the satellite moves very slowly relative to the geopotential, so a small east-west acceleration adds up over time. When a satellite moves in an orbit with a different period the acceleration is east-to-west at some times and west-to-east at other times, so the net effect is much smaller.

    22. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by b1t+r0t · · Score: 1

      Who doesn't need rockets. Who has a TARDIS.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    23. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by RichiH · · Score: 1

      These points line up pretty well with the Rocky Mountains and the Himalayas.

      So the Lagrange points are geosynchronous as well? Interesting, didn't know that. Do you have a source for the claim above? This sounds _very_ interesting and I'd like to know more.

    24. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by RichiH · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_concentration_(astronomy) mentions the moon & Mars, but not Earth.

    25. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Right. This has nothing to do with Lagrange points.

      This is related to the fact that the Earth is not perfectly spherical.

      That's one definition of "flat" I suppose.

      * Ducks and runs for cover *

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    26. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by jfields026 · · Score: 1

      The Lagrange points are points of equal gravitational pull, between two bodies. I don't know if these are classified as Lagrange points since the pull is only from one body. I don't really have anything to back up my previous post but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Actually, I work in the orbital analysis field. I spent a few years updating the satellite catalog (SATCAT) and I've seen how Geo satellites behave and how they trend over the years. I'll see if I can't find something else to describe it a little more.

    27. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by jfields026 · · Score: 1

      Here's some plots I made of GOES-5 which died on the belt. http://www.2fields.com/Other/Goes-5.xls

    28. Re:Not Sun-Earth Lagrange points by jfields026 · · Score: 1

      Here's something else I found a while back. The writers page isn't up anymore but I have a copy of it. http://www.twofields.com/Other/Geostationary%20Belt.htm

  7. Galaxy 15 . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is Alive!

  8. I know I've made some very poor decisions recently by MRe_nl · · Score: 5, Funny

    After sending between 150,000 and 200,000 commands to the satellite to coax it back into service, Intelsat was forced to scrap its satellite-recovery efforts and to resort, on Monday, to a limited-duration effort to force the satellite to shut down its transponders. This was to be accomplished by sending a stronger series of signals designed to cause Galaxy 15's power system to malfunction and force a shutdown of the satellite's payload. That attempt, which Luxembourg-based, Washington-headquartered Intelsat had viewed as its last, best-understood option for Galaxy 15, was unsuccessful.
    The last message from the satellite was "I'm sorry, Intelsat. I'm afraid I can't do that."

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  9. Not necessarily... by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In 1998, Galaxy IV blew out, which controlled commercial communications for a metric assload of services (including my former employer's dealership communications network, FordStar). I (and every other remote admin) got a $50 bounty per dish that we hurriedly re-pointed to a different satellite. Cleaned the whole thing up across the global network (four continents) in less than three weeks.

    I'm fairly sure that cable TV, which has more sats on tap and relatively less dishes to re-position (and nobody has to crawl on top of a zillion roofs with a wrench and a compass in hand), could likely recover in very short order - probably hours.

    That said, there's always the danger of a chain reaction (after all, there's a LOT of satellites in geosync orbit) - if not at this time, then certainly in the coming future, as the numbers continue to increase.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    1. Re:Not necessarily... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Thing is... that 1998 event left several lesser-known cable channels holding the back as bigger-money former Galaxy IV customers used their pre-empt rights on the other birds to keep themselves on the air. A natural supply/demand price increase situation arose from this.

      The SkyTel service never recovered. Customers of that service were migrated to cellular-based pagers.

    2. Re:Not necessarily... by shoehornjob · · Score: 5, Funny

      cellular-based pagers

      PAGERS???? What the hell is a pager?

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    3. Re:Not necessarily... by Macrat · · Score: 3, Funny

      PAGERS???? What the hell is a pager?

      Ask your grand parents.

    4. Re:Not necessarily... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      Ask your grand parents.

      Time to whip out the Ouija board, so you can receive a short one way message from beyond.

    5. Re:Not necessarily... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      cellular-based pagers

      PAGERS???? What the hell is a pager?

      Twitter, but in one direction only.

    6. Re:Not necessarily... by temojen · · Score: 1

      A cell phone with SMS service only and a really loud ringtone. Works where there is marginal cell service as only the SMS has to get through.

    7. Re:Not necessarily... by rootofevil · · Score: 2, Funny

      a short, relatively unintelligible message that gets interpreted through wishful thinking to something of meaning.

      my god, twitter reinvented ouija.

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    8. Re:Not necessarily... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a text message receiver, but it only receives numbers. It has existed for decades. It's how your ancestors twittered.

    9. Re:Not necessarily... by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see what you did there, don't think that I didn't see what you did there...

      --
      All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
    10. Re:Not necessarily... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the demand for ASCII-pr0n saw many flash models sporting alphanumeric displays. You'd speak to an operator (or sometimes leave a recording) in which you described the pr0n, and the operator typed it out. This feature was hacked to send messages that read like actual text.

    11. Re:Not necessarily... by Dahan · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this video will give you more info on SkyTel and pagers.

    12. Re:Not necessarily... by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's a thing people used to wear on their belts after onions went out of fashion.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:Not necessarily... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      assloads are imperial units... I believe you are thinking of metric shit-tonnes.

    14. Re:Not necessarily... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or their local doctor or drug dealer.

    15. Re:Not necessarily... by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I've been wondering WTF happened to SkyTel for eons.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    16. Re:Not necessarily... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you notice that occurred within 24 hours of when the US Navy announced they would no longer teach celestial navigation, because GPS was all they would ever need?

    17. Re:Not necessarily... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember that. I was working third shift at Hughes Network Systems (where we controlled data communications for various customers using Galaxy IV and other satellites) on the night that Galaxy IV decided to stop obeying its Earth-bound masters. All of our G4 customers called in at the same time, and we instantly knew something big was up. A quick call to Intelsat (where we could hear pandemonium in the background) confirmed our fears. It was a long night. I was then assigned to work in the call center assisting all the field techs who were re-pointing all those rooftop dishes. I'm wondering if my former colleagues at HNS are going through the same thing all over again.

  10. Title is wrong, not GPS by mangu · · Score: 0

    This is a commercial communications satellite that hasnothing to do with the Global Positioning System

    1. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, but it carries a WAAS signal which your consumer "GPS" unit uses to increase the accuracy it's measurements. So, if this gets too far out of position without shutting off, your consumer GPS might get confused. Exact impact hasn't been computed yet.

    2. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by compro01 · · Score: 1

      It has to do with the GPS system tangentially. It's part of the GCCS/WAAS system, which augments the GPS system for flight navigation purposes. It also relays TV signals.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    3. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by mangu · · Score: 1

      Correct, but it also carried a lot of other traffic. To call it a "GPS satellite" would be like calling it a "religious satellite" if it carries a televangelist channel, or a "financial satellite" if some bank uses it.

    4. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not just consumer GPS use WAAS. It was started by the FAA so that aircraft could safely use GPS instead of radio beacons. Therefore most commercial/industrial GPS use it too. About the only people who don't use it will be surveying GPS, which use DGPS to get even greater accuracy than the WAAS corrected signal.

    5. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You've put me in a difficult situation explaining this to you since it appears you read the title but not the summaries or the articles, yet somehow knew that this is a commercial communications satellite. Here's a linky with details on how it *does* have something to do with GPS: http://www.gpsworld.com/gps/news/waas-broadcasting-satellite-having-problems-9810

      Since I can't be sure you will read TFL, here's the first paragraph that you probably won't read either:
      Intelsat S.A. announced they lost control of their Galaxy 15 (G-15) satellite. G-15 (PRN 135 to GPS users) is one of the two Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) broadcasting satellites (GEOs) that broadcast GPS corrections for aviation and ground users all over North America. Despite the Intelsat announcement, the WAAS payload on G-15 is still broadcasting corrections.

      Are there any other sources we can provide that you also won't read?

    6. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by r6_jason · · Score: 4, Informative

      It isn't GPS, it's WAAS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Area_Augmentation_System which is an "air navigation aid developed by the Federal Aviation Administration to augment the Global Positioning System (GPS), with the goal of improving its accuracy, integrity, and availability. Essentially, WAAS is intended to enable aircraft to rely on GPS for all phases of flight, including precision approaches to any airport within its coverage area."

    7. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by mpoulton · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is a commercial communications satellite that hasnothing to do with the Global Positioning System

      It is not a GPS satellite, in that it is not part of the constellation of satellites that provide position reference. However, as TFA and the other links say, this satellite is one of only two that operate the Wide Area Augmentation System. WAAS uses ground-based GPS receiving stations with known positions to generate a correction signal which increases the accuracy of GPS position fixes to less than 25ft within North America and surrounding areas. Without WAAS, plain GPS can have error in the hundreds of feet. Without the accuracy provided by WAAS, GPS navigation cannot be used for instrument flight approaches - one of the most critical, important, and common uses of GPS today. If this satellite fails, the WAAS system will remain operational throughout most of its original coverage area - but will almost certainly fall outside the reliability limits required for instrument flight certification. It will be a very serious problem for many commercial users of GPS, and possibly for some military applications as well.

      --
      I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    8. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a commercial communications satellite that hasnothing to do with the Global Positioning System

      Wrong. Partly, anyway. This satellite is one of the two satellites that broadcast the WAAS signal to GPS receivers in North America. While it's not exactly a GPS satellite as the headline says, it's a part of the overall system, and a large number of GPS users rely on it (mainly in aviation, for instrument landing guidance).

    9. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by icegreentea · · Score: 1

      GPS accuracy isn't that bad. Ground based Differential GPS has an absolute worse case accuracy of 10m lateral/vertical.

    10. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by rriven · · Score: 1

      The Wikipedia article states that the satellite also broadcasts the same information as a "GPS" satellite. Don't know if that makes it a GPS sat or not since it is commerical, but it does all the function of a GPS sat plus more (WAAS).

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

      "The space segment consists of multiple geosynchronous communication satellites which broadcast the correction messages generated by the Wide-area Master Stations for reception by the User segment. The satellites also broadcast the same type of range information as normal GPS satellites, effectively increasing the number of satellites available for a position fix..."

      --
      Dan
    11. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Funny

      There is, as far as I am aware, a special L-band payload for WAAS. It was contracted to be installed on several communications satellites that are otherwise used for C-band and other civilian bands.

    12. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, we don't really care about its other functions since they were moved to other C-band satellites without making the news. You can't move WAAS to a C-band-only satellite, you need the special L-band payload.

      GPS doesn't work as well without it, but the real reason I used "Geostationary GPS" in the title was that Slashdot would not let me have enough characters in the title to say something more accurate.

    13. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      Well it's a good thing all of us pilots know how to fly planes without RNAV and GPS approaches. Right? You did pay attention in IFR training, right?

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    14. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a good question, what exactly is the impact on military applications?

      As far as I know the US military utilizes Talon NAMATH for GPS augmentation. How much of an impact will WAAS play on the NAMATH system if any?

    15. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well it's a good thing all of us pilots know how to fly planes without RNAV and GPS approaches. Right? You did pay attention in IFR training, right?

      I am sure a lot of them are incapable of flying VFR without GPS now. Look at all those car drivers who end up in rivers because the GPS shows a way across.

    16. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      GPS accuracy isn't that bad. Ground based Differential GPS has an absolute worse case accuracy of 10m lateral/vertical.

      Yeah but if the GPS receiver is changing altitude then accuracy can be very poor.

    17. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by imroy · · Score: 2, Informative

      AFAIK, WAAS and other Satellite Based Augmentation Systems (SBAS) are basically differential-GPS done on a large scale. The position of the satellites doesn't matter, they're simply being used to distribute the correction data on a global scale. Other systems are ground-based and limited in their range.

      Also, the usefulness of WAAS/SBAS is greatly diminished since selective available (SA) has been off for over a decade. One disadvantage is that it takes longer for an SBAS-using receiver to get a fix since it has to wait for the correction data to reach it.

    18. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      Without WAAS, plain GPS can have error in the hundreds of feet.

      That's a bit of an exaggeration. It is applicable to first generation GPS receivers and doesn't apply to modern equipment made in the past 10 years or so. I leave WAAS off on my eTrex because the estimated positional accuracy usually gets *worse* with it enabled and it can't be used in power save mode. Without WAAS, I routinely get absolute accuracy to within 19-feet and never above 30 with a strong lock. It wouldn't be able to follow roads if the accuracy was only in the hundreds of feet range.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    19. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      Ground-based DGPS isn't supported on most GPS receivers without and additional receiver to pull in the differential signal. WAAS is built into almost all aviation GPS receivers.

    20. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by mangu · · Score: 1

      it appears you read the title but not the summaries or the articles, yet somehow knew that this is a commercial communications satellite

      I know it because I happen to be an expert in the field, I could write an article about Galaxy 15 if it weren't for the NDAs. To call it a "GPS satellite" just because it has one transponder dedicated to GPS is wrong, a GPS satellite is one of the dedicated satellites that have 12 hour orbit period.

      This reminds me of the joke of the old man who complained "I own a farm and they don't call me a farmer, I own a shop and they don't call me a shopkeeper, I have several trucks and they don't call me a trucker, I have built several houses and they don't call me a builder, but I sucked a cock just once..."

    21. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by mangu · · Score: 1

      Many commercial satellites have small payloads for special uses. To put anything in geostationary orbit will cost at least $60 million for the launcher alone, so it makes sense to piggyback a small transponder in a bigger satellite.

      The reason why I feel it's wrong to call it a GPS satellite is because true GPS satellites need to have their orbits determined to much higher precision. Typically, a commercial satellite has its orbit controlled within a 100 meter precision, if it's collocated with other satellites, or several hundred meters if not. A GPS satellite needs to have its orbit determined with a better than one meter precision.

      The WAAS system exchanges precision for reliability in applications like aircraft landing where an outage is inadmissible. There are a few occasions when, due to an unfavorable alignment of the satellites, the GPS is unable to provide a good precision. This situation does not last long, but it could put a landing aircraft in danger if it happens at a bad moment.

      The WAAS, being transmitted from geostationary satellites, is always visible from its coverage area, so, although it's not as precise as "true" GPS, it's always there.

    22. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      I can't help but notice that a Wikipedian is lecturing an expert in the field in an insulting tone. Reading something from the internet is far, far different from knowing firsthand. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The insinuation that the expert is an idiot is very troubling, and the nasty, mocking manner of speech is even worse.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    23. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by NonUniqueNickname · · Score: 1

      developed by the Federal Aviation Administration ... with the goal of improving its accuracy, integrity, and availability

      And now it degrades accuracy, integrity, and availability. gg faa.

    24. Re:Title is wrong, not GPS by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Does it really exchange precision for reliability? I thought it worked by determining the path delay to a number of fixed points, where the path delay is a function of the position of the satellite and the presence of different areas of atmospheric refractivity (referred to as "billows"). I don't see how this decreases precision in the name of reliability. The main goal is to increase the full-time vertical precision to a value usable for instrument landing.

  11. Oh the scrambled pr0n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I remember turning my big satellite dish towards galaxy sats. Trying to unscramble the pr0n channels. I sold all my equipment years ago but still miss the big monster and waiting on it to lock in to whatever satellite I was after.

    I nearly killed my wife with my C-Band satellite dish. She was on the riding lawnmower and I moved the dish to a satellite that required it to aim very low in the southern sky. She didnt see it moving in time as she was looking at the right front wheel because she thought it was getting low on air. A trip to the hospital with 15 stitches and a mild concussion and it was time to sell and buy a DirectTV dish. Looking back I should have just gotten rid of my wife. It would have been a better deal in the long run.

    Tuning... Tuning... Tuning... Tuning... G15 CH40 crap on tv tonight. Tuning... Tuning... Tuning... G17 CH25 Hell yeah porkys is on (dont remember what all channels but it was good times).

    1. Re:Oh the scrambled pr0n by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Nice. :) Ya, you'll spend way more on the wife (hospital bills excluded) than you will on satellite equipment. I've never had any electronics say "I just spent $500 on shoes, hope you don't mind.", but I have heard the wife say "What do you mean you spent $200 on more toys?!"

          My worst luck with those dishes wasn't it arbitrarily hitting people. It was in a fenced area. Ours got hit by lightning a few times, and the control motor died more often. Last time the motor died, I did find that I could hit one satellite with a lot of good stuff on it, if I propped up the dish on a small stack of milk crates. It stayed exclusively there for a few years, only being realigned after heavy storms. Then the magic of cable TV came to the neighborhood and all was solved. It was so much easier to use a single testchip in the cable box than it was to reenter the codes into the VideoCipher. My apologies if I got any of the terms wrong, I haven't had either in many years. I found there's more to life than TV. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:Oh the scrambled pr0n by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      I remember turning my big satellite dish towards galaxy sats. Trying to unscramble the pr0n channels.

      Or seeing something unscrambled as you're passing through, assuming your receiver doesn't autoblank the screen while the dish moves. One day, I was just moving the dish, and suddenly there's a buxom blonde whose leopard-print outfit had utterly failed to keep up with her jumping jacks.... And then she's gone, lost to static. By the time I figured out where it was and got back to the channel it was over, and a few weeks later the channel (Las Vegas After Dark or something random) was just as over.

      Man, in the days before easy Internet porn, my teenage self cherished those simple moments. And moments like watching Cinemax West coast feeds (living on the east coast) so all the fun stuff was on in the morning.

      I sold all my equipment years ago but still miss the big monster and waiting on it to lock in to whatever satellite I was after.

      I sold the place where the dish was. The glory days had long passed, but I still miss it.

      Remember back when Galaxy 1 was almost all you needed? 24 channels of decent-to-quality programming! Seemed like madness to even move it as far up as Westar 5 to pick up some cable affiliates. And then Westar 5 left and Galaxy 5 took its slot, and most of the channels moved from G1 to either G5 (often keeping the same transponder) or Satcom C4, and G1 (G1R by then) was just left a shadow of its former self.... And moving the dish along the lower half of the arc wasn't a big deal anymore.

      Man, I remember one night not only bracing the dish with the wind-storm steel cables we used sometimes but also going outside and manually holding it steady for half an hour while I taped the season finale for Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex: 2nd GIG on Adult Swim. Good times. Cold, but good. And man, did it make the finale so much more enjoyable!

  12. Re:I know I've made some very poor decisions recen by antifoidulus · · Score: 0

    I kept on telling people that the Luxembourgians were a military threat, but nobody listened to me until it was too late.

  13. GET READY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    none of the GPS satellites are 'hardened' against solar flares. This one went down for just a B flare and the next solar cycle has just begun!

  14. We should ask for help. by EvilSpudBoy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    We could ask Kirsan Ilyumzhinov to ask the aliens to pick it up on their way by sometime.

  15. GEO /= GPS!!!! by dev_alac · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are No GPS satellites in GEO. They have their own special orbits. The title is really, really wrong... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gps#Space_segment

    1. Re:GEO /= GPS!!!! by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      Read about WAAS. Many consumer & professional GPS receivers use it to enhance the accuracy.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    2. Re:GEO /= GPS!!!! by ebob · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are No GPS satellites in GEO. They have their own special orbits. The title is really, really wrong... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gps#Space_segment

      Um, well, actually there are. "The [WAAS] satellites also broadcast the same type of range information as normal GPS satellites, effectively increasing the number of satellites available for a position fix." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Area_Augmentation_System The title seems okay to me.

      --
      To avoid seeing this message again, always shut down your computer properly by selecting Shut Down from the Start Menu.
    3. Re:GEO /= GPS!!!! by fred911 · · Score: 1

      If I'm not mistaken, WAAS is a ground signal with a transmitter in the VA area, used to get a more accurate time signal. If I remember correctly the closer you get to the equator, the less accurate the time corrections are.

      but i didn't google it:-)

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    4. Re:GEO /= GPS!!!! by Vellmont · · Score: 2, Informative


      The [WAAS] satellites also broadcast the same type of range information as normal GPS satellites, effectively increasing the number of satellites available for a position fix.

      The WAAS satellites aren't merely another GPS satellites, it's entirely different. GPS signals have errors based on a variety of different variables (clock errors, ionosphere propagation variability, etc). The WAAS satellites broadcast a series of correction signals that account for these errors. The end effect is increased accuracy.

      --
      AccountKiller
    5. Re:GEO /= GPS!!!! by flatulus · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are correct that Galaxy 15 is not a Navstar (GPS) bird. But the title is not entirely correct, because WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation Service) is a signal which is sent to terrestrial receivers (i.e. your WAAS enabled GPS receiver) with position correction information. This information helps WAAS enabled GPS receivers to cancel out known (so called "systematic") errors that would otherwise affect your GPS receiver's positioning accuracy.

      So while Galaxy 15 is not a GPS satellite, it does participate in delivering high accuracy geopositioning in concert with the actual GPS birds.

    6. Re:GEO /= GPS!!!! by maxume · · Score: 1

      There is a Wikipedia link for WAAS in the summary. The Wikipedia article discusses how the satellite participates in WAAS.

      GP, you and a moderator have all chosen to 'go with your gut' and not bother investigating, and you each missed it.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:GEO /= GPS!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And WAAS does not care where its being transmitted from. WAAS satellites just relay information gathered by ground based stations. These ground based stations measure the minute variations of the actual GPS satellite orbits.

      So this is just a sensationalist story with no real impact. Some company lost a satellite due to solar flares. All affected services were moved elsewhere. Big effing deal. They collect insurance and send up a replacement.

  16. Re:I know I've made some very poor decisions recen by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Funny

    They forgot to use sudo.

        $ reentry_burn
        I'm sorry, Intelsat. I'm afraid I can't do that

        $ sudo reentry_burn
        Reentry burn initiated. Atmospheric entry in +00:15:00
     

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  17. Cheap solution for the future... by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

    Tin foil... lots of it.

    --
    The game.
  18. Re:how do satellites move? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    Everything is moving in orbit. If one satellite has a different speed from the others then it is moveing relative to them. In practice rocket motors are used for station keeping. If a motor (or the control system) fails then the satellite will not be able to hold station.

  19. Interference by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Funny

    Reminded me of this gem from NotAlwaysRight:

    Customer: “I will have you know, son, I am a Gunnery Sergeant. I’ve worked with Hand Operated Radios for years and I’m telling you RIGHT NOWthere is someone standing next to your satellite with a d*** radio and it’s interfering with my signal. I demand you to get out there and tell them to stop.”

    Me: “Far be it from me to ever argue with my clients, but I will have to at this time. I understand that you’re a Gunny Sergeant and that you’ve operated HAM radios for years, but I know my satellite equipment, and it’s not possible for someone to be standing next to my satellite with a radio.”

    Customer: “Oh? Really, smart man? Why is that?”

    Me: “Because our satellites are in outer space."

    Apparently, it is possible for someone to be standing next to your satellite and cause interference, as long as the someone is another satellite. (But it isn't easy to tell them to stop... :P )

    1. Re:Interference by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      And while NotAlwaysRight is laughing at the Marine for not knowing about satellites, the Marine is laughing at him for calling him a "Gunny Sergeant."

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    2. Re:Interference by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      "Gunny Sergeant" is unusual but not unacceptable. He would have been much worse off to call him "Sergeant."

      But I'll take ignorance of obscure forms of address used by an old boys club over ignorance of physical reality any day. Satellite-enabled gear are tools every Marine should damn well understand because their lives could depend on it. It ain't your daddy's Navy anymore.

    3. Re:Interference by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      "Gunny Sergeant" is unusual but not unacceptable

      I don't where you're getting that, but when I was in the Corps, it was not only unacceptable but bizarre. You can say Gunny, Gunnery Sergeant, or maybe even Guns if you know him/her well and were close in rank. But Gunny Sergeant is right out. If he said Sergeant, he could at least lie and say he was used to dealing with the Army.

      But I'll take ignorance of obscure forms of address

      Addressing your client non-offensively is not obscure.

      Satellite-enabled gear are tools every Marine should damn well understand because their lives could depend on it.

      In any case, this story sounds apocryphal to me, for that reason. Marines know their gear to the level they need in order to carry out their mission, which would include knowing satellites are in space. Of course, even if it were true, it's still anecdotal.

      It ain't your daddy's Navy anymore

      And it never was. It's the Marine Corps.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  20. A funnel by falken0905 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Perhaps they can launch and rendezvous a 100 ton steel 'funnel' and fit it over the satellite thus preventing it from spewing tons of satellite pollution toward earth. In fact, such a device has already been built and is currently not being used. Bonus, it's currently located not all that far from Cape Canaveral and transport ships are located nearby.

    1. Re:A funnel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Generally speaking, we don't have any sort of rocket that can lift 100 tons up to 36,000km geosync orbit. I don't think that Saturn V can even do it. An Ares V might be able to do it, but of course we won't know until one is actually built. A typical geosync payload is 6 tons, or 12 tons to GTO.

      dom

    2. Re:A funnel by glwtta · · Score: 5, Funny

      Thank you for the detailed explanation of why we can't fix a malfunctioning satellite by capping it with a 100 ton steel funnel.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    3. Re:A funnel by Titoxd · · Score: 1

      I haven't had a laugh this good in ages. Thanks for that!

    4. Re:A funnel by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      By the way, it's not really a steel funnel, it has a spruce frame and most of the structure is concrete, not that it changes the problem much.

      Also apparently we can't even fix a problem that is only 5000 foot away with it and it's a simpler thing to attempt, it only has to be lowered and in oil/water it weighs less.

      But using a 100 ton funnel to cap satellites, hmmm, maybe really what we need to collect the space debris is a 100 ton funnel that is filled with some foamy substance, it collects enough debris and then fires rockets to move all of that to the moon.

    5. Re:A funnel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In theory space debris can be cleaned up using only equipment on the ground.
       
      You need a laser that is capable of vapourising small amounts of the surface of debris, making it give off high temperature vapour and turning inert matter into a weak rocket.

    6. Re:A funnel by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I wonder how powerful a laser needs to be to 'vaporize' cold pieces of metal, plastic, glass, paper, insulation, rubber etc. that is floating up there? What does it mean 'vaporize' in this context, isn't it simply going to make more smaller debris or are you talking about converting matter into pretty much pure light energy by laser? That doesn't seem right.

      I think having some sort of a container with mushy innards that can swallow small and medium size debris flying and doing that for a while and then jettisoning that container into the Moon is a more doable approach at this point in time.

    7. Re:A funnel by geckipede · · Score: 1

      You would need a powerful laser to burn off surface of space junk but that's no problem, we've got cutting laser that have been able to do that for decades. It's the focus that's the issue, poor focus wastes a lot of power so you need more brute force light to compensate. Once you've got something like that in place though there's no problem. The vapour given off by rapidly heated space junk is just gas, by the time it cools down enough to act like a solid again it's too spread out to crystallise - no threat to anything. The propulsive effect you get isn't great, but not so tiny that it isn't worth doing, particularly for junk in low orbits that only need a tiny nudge to skim atmosphere.

    8. Re:A funnel by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the detailed explanation of why we can't fix a malfunctioning satellite by capping it with a 100 ton steel funnel.

      This is far classier than saying "whooosh."
      I congratulate you, sir. *golf clap*

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  21. Short Circuit 3 by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Number 5 got upgraded, and now is runing amok over our heads.

  22. Solar flares have mutating power by w0mprat · · Score: 1

    Haven't they seen Fantastic Four? After a big dose of solar radiation it's probably now self aware and hell bent on causing chaos!

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    1. Re:Solar flares have mutating power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And haven't you seen Cowboy Bebop? Its going to get bored, hack into the military anti-missile laser sats and start drawing funny pictures on the earth.

  23. Light pressure by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Light doesn't just illuminate something. It has pressure. If you illuminate a satellite from the proper angle with less than the energy required to blow it apart, for long enough, you can change its orbit.

    1. Re:Light pressure by BitZtream · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Really... massless particles can create pressure now?

      You should probably stick to ranting about OSS rather than physics.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:Light pressure by vtcat · · Score: 1

      I believe Slipstick Libby would disagree

    3. Re:Light pressure by mmontour · · Score: 5, Informative

      Really... massless particles can create pressure now?

      Yes. Photons carry momentum despite having zero rest mass.

    4. Re:Light pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The vapor jet from vaporizing material of the satellite will have just about infinitely more effect in that regard.

    5. Re:Light pressure by voidptr · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, they can: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Sail

      Massless doesn't mean they don't have momentum.

      --
      This .sig for unofficial government use only. Official use subject to $500 fine.
    6. Re:Light pressure by The+Hatchet · · Score: 5, Informative

      Light actually does have a pressure. It is incredibly small, but in enormous quantities (like the sun or lasers) it can be quite powerful. I believe something like Intensity / c is radiation pressure formula. Not sure though. But it definitely has pressure, without radiation pressure our creation of Bose Einstein condensates would totally fail. Photons may not have rest mass, but they have some momentum because matter is just a form of energy. E.^2=M.^2.*c.^4 Its not much, but enough of it has measurable effects. A good part of the time the pressure is converted to heat (like on earth, or in our metal cutting lasers).

      Uh, YES. Reality is a fantastic thing, i would suggest learning more about it, it is an enriching experience. Or you could just go on being a dumb-ass making the world a harder place to live in because people that know things have to sit around and explain things to you like a five year old, or just accept you people attempting to influence the world around you without understanding the possible consequences of your actions.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    7. Re:Light pressure by frieko · · Score: 5, Funny

      Heh, you're wrong AND you're an asshole. Good job.

    8. Re:Light pressure by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Light pressure is very inefficient but a laser riding rocket might work, especially if you could exploit thrusters on the surface of the vehicle. Normally laser riding requires the thruster to be lined with an ablative coating which blasts back in the direction of the laser.

    9. Re:Light pressure by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Light doesn't just illuminate something. It has pressure. If you illuminate a satellite from the proper angle with less than the energy required to blow it apart, for long enough, you can change its orbit.

      Light pressure is very inefficient but a laser riding rocket might work, especially if you could exploit thrusters on the surface of the vehicle. Normally laser riding requires the thruster to be lined with an ablative coating which blasts back in the direction of the laser.

    10. Re:Light pressure by jo42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess you never saw one of these in science class back in high school:

      http://www.ecrater.com/product.php?pid=7519326

    11. Re:Light pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely different propulsion altogether. Those are propelled by temperature gradients.

    12. Re:Light pressure by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Solar Sails

      You should probably find a new hobby. Trolling is meant to make the other person look foolish.

    13. Re:Light pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they do, dickhead.

      Maybe when you get out of primary school you'll learn some basic physics.

    14. Re:Light pressure by kimvette · · Score: 1
      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    15. Re:Light pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Stupid Planck Constant.

    16. Re:Light pressure by bluesatin · · Score: 1

      Oh by the way, the Crookes Radiometer doesn't help you argument; I quote:

      Crookes incorrectly suggested that the force was due to the pressure of light.

    17. Re:Light pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Take a look through his posting history and try to find a single post in which he's NOT an asshole. It's like a drinking game for puritans.

    18. Re:Light pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of Solar Sails?

    19. Re:Light pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think it would make a hole in satellite before giving enough pressure. and its so far away that many photons would be absorbed by atmosphere.

    20. Re:Light pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Really... massless particles can create pressure now?

      P = hf, bitch.

    21. Re:Light pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, trolling is meant to make foolish people reply. Job done, it seems.

    22. Re:Light pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "people that know things"

      Let's face it. Few of the people spouting their opinions here actually "know" what they're talking about. Mostly, it's what they have read or been taught.

      There's no need to call people dumb-ass. It doesn't make your reply smarter, and doesn't help convince anyone that you are right. All it does is give you a sort of Neanderthal thrill - which you need to get under control.

    23. Re:Light pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A little anecdote on light pressure:

      The Japanese asteroid probe Hayabusa used solar light pressure to balance itself after accidents knocked out all of the thrusters and all but one of the reaction wheels, making it seemingly impossible to orient the probe correctly (you need three axes of control to orient anything in 3D). But in a fit of brilliance, JAXA decided to use the last working reaction wheel, bursts of xenon gas (propellent for the probe's ion engines), and the solar light pressure as the three axes. Although this sounds more like a McGyver episode than real life, it actually worked, and Hayabusa is due back on Earth next month.

    24. Re:Light pressure by pz · · Score: 1

      Light doesn't just illuminate something. It has pressure. If you illuminate a satellite from the proper angle with less than the energy required to blow it apart, for long enough, you can change its orbit.

      And, importantly, it has the ability to heat whatever it strikes. Heat the object enough, and the surface can be made to ablate and transfer momentum to the main object. Furthermore, since ablation has the potential for release of chemical energy (depending on the materials) in addition to just conversion of energy in the beam, ablation can impart a potentially much larger amount of momentum to the target.
       

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    25. Re:Light pressure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way to mansplain dude.

    26. Re:Light pressure by cffrost · · Score: 1

      I can confirm this. While being tailgated with high-beams, a brief 2,000,000 candlepower pulse out the rear window produces a rapid and dramatic change in the rouge target's trajectory.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    27. Re:Light pressure by adamgundy · · Score: 1

      relatively low power lasers can apply enough force on a (dead) satellite or other orbital trash to gradually reduce their orbit until they eventually burn up:

      http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.120.6304&rep=rep1&type=pdf (DARPA/USAF paper from 2000)

      the trick is not blinding other satellites in the process.. especially 'secret' ones that you didn't know were there... also, if the satellite is not really 'dead' (just nonresponsive), it may continue to use it's own OMS etc to counter the laser pressure and stay in orbit... at least until it runs out of fuel.

    28. Re:Light pressure by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      But what if the satellite ISN'T red?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    29. Re:Light pressure by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Curse you blasted spell-cheque! Spell-cheque shall die with me. Now where the hell did I put that katana...

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    30. Re:Light pressure by jafac · · Score: 1

      A better approach would be something that got in front of the satellite, and vented a mass of foam, or highly magnetized dust (assuming the KV wasn't magnetic), or maybe a net.

      Attempting to alter the satellite's path with light would require a lot of light over a long period of time. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with this approach. In fact, this is a legitimate error that has to be accounted for in orbital mechanics. It's just that, an artificial light source has it's own issues.

      But fouling it up with a bunch of goo, or snaring it, would also change it's mass and velocity. The "kill vehicle" could ascend into orbit ahead of the target, and use attitude control thrusters to line-up and get close, discharge the foam/goo/dust/net, as it crossed paths - if a net were used, then it could use braking thrusters to really decrease the target's velocity.

      The technology for a head-on intercept is pretty fantastic, and 20 years ago, was considered pure fantasy, yet that's the approach we've been taking now. (and apparently, so have the Chinese). A co-orbital intercept has a lot less problems (though, launch-vehicle expense, and launch-site sourcing would be a huge problem). And with robotic rendezvous craft delivering supplies to the ISS, we're not too far from that technology.

      Given the public press statements about the capabilities of the x-37, it sounds like this may be the direction we're headed. Soft intercept. (the example of the problem with this approach - this payload is launched on an Atlas V. There's only like 4 or 5 places in the world you can launch one of those. And you have to pick a set of 2 or another set of 3, depending on which orbital inclination you're trying to target - yes, the x-37 supposedly can change it's orbit, but I don't believe it can change inclination significantly - not enough delta-v in the upper stage).

      Yeah, a steady light source solves a lot of these problems. What solves the problem of cloud-cover? Energy source? (unless you're talking about a giant space-mirror).

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    31. Re:Light pressure by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      What fascinates me about using light pressure is that you could potentially do it from the ground. Lots of energy available. Big thick atmosphere to traverse. Stuff that doesn't like getting shot with a laser flying by. Sure, it's got problems. But I'd love to see someone explore the potential and I'm not the right person to do it.

    32. Re:Light pressure by Whuffo · · Score: 1

      Wow. Since you've specified the intensity of light - would you like to hazard a guess of how long "long enough" would be to change its orbit in any measurable amount? For extra credit, describe how much quicker this would be than just waiting for the orbit to decay on its own.

  24. Re:I know I've made some very poor decisions recen by MRe_nl · · Score: 1

    $ sudo reentry_burn

    "Without your space helmet, Smythe, you're going to find that rather difficult." ; )

    --
    "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
  25. Re:I know I've made some very poor decisions recen by sznupi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Atmoshperic entry from GEO 15 minutes after reentry burn? No way.

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  26. Re:I know I've made some very poor decisions recen by Dragoniz3r · · Score: 5, Funny

    You underestimate the power of sudo.

  27. Lookout! by hellop2 · · Score: 1

    It's coming right for us!

    --
    How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
  28. didn't the US just laser a sat? by v1 · · Score: 1

    The military sure wigged out when one of their shiney new spy sats went DOA on them right after launch, and blew it up from the ground with a laser. Wonder why they're not nearly so anxious to get this one?

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:didn't the US just laser a sat? by jonwil · · Score: 1

      This sattelite is a LOT further off the ground (and a LOT harder to hit) than the spy sat was. Also, if you blow this one up, the risk of space debris hitting important stuff is much higher (the stuff from the spy sat mostly burned up in the atmosphere)

    2. Re:didn't the US just laser a sat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention this one likely isn't carrying the latest spy sat gear that, while expensive to make, would be best destroyed than to have the wrong people be able (however unlikely) to recover it.

  29. Wait that form space cowboys! by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 0

    Wait that form space cowboys!

  30. Just comcast hits / In Demand not D* or E* by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Just comcast hits / In Demand not Directv or echostar.

    Directv uses fiber and there own sats.

    1. Re:Just comcast hits / In Demand not D* or E* by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      D* and E* have huge receive points where they have to acquire the feed of most of the networks they carry in the same way they're sent to cable before they can upload them to their dedicated bandwidth. In other words, if G4 East on AMC-11 is interrupted, it'll fail on of all the services that look for that feed.

      You apparently have never watched DirecTV on a day when the major birds are hit by the sun being right behind them. It's a bad picture on dozens of channels, followed by a signal fail of those on the affected bird, then back to the bad picture, and then in 20 minutes or so it's over. This could be worse... a longer interruption that doesn't happen when most people are at work. Think Boston would be happy with a total NESN outage?

  31. Cable should of used clear QAM for exp basic / non by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Cable should of used clear QAM for exp basic / non hbo , max , show, ppv and out of market sports. But what we got was paying $6- to up $20 per tv to rent a cable box. A cable card system that the cable co's make in to a joke and very few cable card boxes can do SDV (needs a cable co add on tuner). Tru2way is all most nowhere. The dta's are a joke analog sd only out and you get less then the old analgo line in some areas and you missing out on stuff like YOUR RSN over flow channel forcing you in Chicago Land to pay like $5-$7 per tv to get CSN +.

    In the old analog system you just need a box for old tv's and to get PPV and in some systems hbo , max , show, type stuff.

    But in Canada you can buy the box and not be forced to rent it.

  32. how about Basil Basset Bingo? by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Now why can't we have more stuff like that?

    the UK has live roulette on tv and used to have lot's live quiz shows as well. I miss midnight money madness and the good play playmaina.

  33. Re:I know I've made some very poor decisions recen by ndege · · Score: 1

    +5 funny, indeed!

    --
    Sig Return: 204 No Content
  34. From the economy to politics to technology.

    Modern culture really is just held together with wads of chewing gum, isn't it?

  35. Re:Cable should of used clear QAM for exp basic / by LostCluster · · Score: 1

    Actually, most of that $5-7 "extra outlet with box" fee is going to the content providers. They want to be paid per TV rather than per subscriber. Even your network affiliated broadcasters collect a fee for being redistributed by cable, and they want an accurate count that those boxes provide.

    You don't have to get the cable company box, you could get a newer CableCARD-based "Digital Cable Ready" TV or a TiVo.

  36. A tad late for first by elsJake · · Score: 2, Informative

    Some are doing it already http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/21/151225

  37. cable card sucks no VOD no PPV no SDV (most tv) by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    cable card sucks no VOD no PPV no SDV (most tv) Tivo can do SDV. Also you don't get the cable co guide. Also network affiliated broadcasts are in clear QAM on cable but not the other stuff on most systems.

    also sectv let's you Purchase CableCARD for a one-time fee of $125.00 and receive a one-year warranty on the CableCARD from the manufacture so you never have to worry about rental fees again!

    and they let you Access to HD Pay-Per-View events with them as well.

    they also have Standard Digital Converter ... $2.95 / mo has VOD and on screnn guild. one of the same boxes that comcast wants $5+ /m for.

  38. SO-HO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    don't you mean the emergency back-up porn distribution satellite?

  39. Tracking Galaxy 15 yourself on your PC by White_Knight_32_KS · · Score: 1

    For those of you who have WXTrack or gPredict or even the rusty old DOS version QuikTrak 4. Here are the 2-Line track elements (from celestrak.com) to plug in to the above software or similar and you can plot the course and collision possibilities yourselves. (Start of Sat ID Line) GALAXY 15 (G-15) (Start of Line 1) 1 28884U 05041A 10127.51136922 .00000076 00000-0 10000-3 0 8255 (Start of Line 2) 2 28884 0.1250 77.0169 0002855 329.6075 230.3636 1.00283287 16733 If you need further help understanding these NORAD 2-Line elesets, please see this page: http://celestrak.com/columns/v04n03/#FAQ01 for the manual key in entry in your tracking software. Depending on available sunlight angle and sat size, you can also plot the times and locations in the sky of when it is visible, for like re-entry burn up. That's if you happen to be lucky/unlucky to be close enough to see it. From my "Ham radio sat days", it is best to get fresh tracking data, every week, for the best results. I did a lot of this in '94 or '96 and back then it was pretty cool to run a digital signal from a pc linked hand held radio in Kansas and bounce it off of the Soviet MIR space station or sometimes the non-military shuttle hops, just to get to Chicago, IL! Good luck and happy sat hunting!

  40. Quoth Twisted Sister by Chas · · Score: 1

    Shoot 'em down, Shoot 'em down
    Shoot 'em down, Shoot 'em down
    Shoot 'em down, Shoot 'em down
    Shoot 'em down to the ground!

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  41. Re:I know I've made some very poor decisions recen by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

    sudo {gasp}

        [JWSmythe realizes he's breathing nothing in the vacuum of space as the pod door opens. The last thing he does is give the finger to the satellite and then press the "Detonate Thermonuclear Device" button on his suit control]

        [Brilliant flash, then fade to black]

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  42. Satellites gone wild! by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

    It's just spring break up there. Just follow the trail of empty beer bottles and bikini bottoms.

  43. Isn't this what Mr, Dextre is for? by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

    http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=14892157-1f2f-4dfc-81e4-0b4120e299f7

    Canadian's have a robot in space that's there for hire to help fix problems with satellites and other space craft. I was under the impression that it was supposed to be mobile enough to maneuver into place and deal with this. Wouldn't using Mr. Dextre to alter the course of an out of control satellite be good enough?

    1. Re:Isn't this what Mr, Dextre is for? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dextre is on the International Space Station, in low earth orbit. Galaxy 15 is in geostationary orbit. As they say, space is big... really, really big. These two will never get within 30,000km of each other.

  44. rookies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is actually a weapon which is being requested by Intelsat. G12 moved into G15's space, so the galaxy fleet is now single threaded (G12 was the backup spacecraft). It's interesting this is just hitting /., it's been released to us (Operators) since 24 hours of it not answering back. L3 has been trying to figure out what's wrong with the command and control since, though the sun story is a new one. My guess is they are going to try to use this "space weapon" to overload the receiver .. it'll stop transmitting afterthat.

  45. Lagrange point!? by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Informative

    Since the satellite runs in 'bent pipe' mode, amplifying wide bands of RF that are beamed up to it, it is likely to interfere with other satellites as it crosses their orbital slots on its way to an earth-sun Lagrange point, the natural final destination of a geostationary satellite without maneuvering power."

        LAGRANGE POINTS? Good God almighty? What in the holy heck are you talking about? That's just ridiculous. It's not going to go to the Lagrange points (any of them). If nothing else there's no maneuvering and so the semi-major axis is FIXED at essentially geosynchronous period. What will happen is that that it will drift at varying speeds on the order of fractions of degrees a day, speeding up as it goes towards the gravity wells, passing through at pretty high speeds, then climbing back out, slowing all the time. I haven't checked the TLEs but it will either oscillate back and forth in one of wells or pass from one to the other. Just like dozens of other "died in place" spacecraft that had exactly the same problem. Eventually as the inclination changes it might go over the side of the hill (since the wells are 3-dimensional) like Skynet II/9354. Look that one up, or DSCS II/Flight II/9432 TLEs and history, that's what it's going to do.

            Brett

           

  46. Stabile Lagrange point? by Iffie · · Score: 1

    Do all rocks collect on the mountian ridges? As fr as I know sattelites do not end up in the Lagrange points, or those points would already be taken by millions of years of dust collected..If you start there you won't move, but to my knowledge those are unstabile equilibria, so if you are not there, you fall to either the Earth or the Sun or the Moon..

    1. Re:Stabile Lagrange point? by random+string+of+num · · Score: 1

      there are a few asteroids at L2 and L3 I think, but that's a long way off

    2. Re:Stabile Lagrange point? by random+string+of+num · · Score: 1

      sorry L4 and L5 collect dust and asteroids http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point#L4_and_L5

    3. Re:Stabile Lagrange point? by Iffie · · Score: 1

      Why would you lose momentum if forces cancel out? Nothing that moves will stay at a lagrange point. They are not sinks, the sources of gravitational force are the sinks..

  47. If it runs *nix, that's an easy one: by feufeu · · Score: 1
    # sudo deorbit Warning: this satellite is going to burn up during earth atmosphere reentry soon, please back up all your important data !

    Retro rockets firing NOW... [OK]

    Retro burn finished... [OK]

    No further user action needed.

    Sending all systems the TERM signal...

    Sending all systems the KILL signal...

  48. The inpact of the failure by batistuta · · Score: 4, Informative

    WASS is used to provide corrections to upper atmospheric disturbances in the GPS signal. It works like this: you have a lot of beacons on ground, mostly close to the shore but pretty much everywhere in the country. These stations know *exactly* where they are, but they anyway measure their position via GPS. By looking at the difference between what GPS says and what they know, they calculate the effect of these atmospheric disturbances. These are uploaded to a central system and get in turn broadcasted via WASS. WASS signals get used mostly by air and maritime vehicles in the North America. Europe has something similar called EGNOS, that depending on the country it could be used with limited advantage on terrestrial measurements. In Germany for instance, the angle to EGNOS is about 20 degrees which makes it almost impossible to capture free-line-of-sight by anyone that is not airborne or in open waters. Now back to the issue. One WASS satellite is failing. There are two WASS satellites and we are fortunate that the one about to fail is not the most important one. This link has some nice images showing the coverage. Sorry for copy-pasting, it's my first post and don't know how to add tags yet. http://www.gpsworld.com/gnss-system/augmentation-assistance/news/failure-imminent-waas-geo-satellite-9841 The problem is that airspace people don't like single point of failure so having one satellite only is a yellow lamp. How this will affect air traffic is still to be seen. GPS accuracy is about 16m with a good view, and when traveling 200 mph during approach, this is not crucial if you ask me. Maritime is something different. You don't wanna sail in Sweden and hit an underground island because you are 10m too far left. For final approach to runway and landing WASS has never been an enabling technology, so business as usual. The US will either replace the satellite or bring the functionality to another one. Until then, people must know that WASS could be out for a few seconds every once in a while. Nothing new really. None of us here will probably feel anything particular happening in the sky.

    1. Re:The inpact of the failure by cffrost · · Score: 1

      WA[A]S signals get used mostly by air and maritime vehicles in the North America.

      WAAS and EGNOS are used by every GPS receiver manufactured by Garmin in the past few years, unless the user manually disables it. Since OEMs like Garmin use chips from the same few GPS chip manufacturers, it's likely that most or all recently manufactured receivers incorporate WAAS and EGNOS.

      FYI:
      WAAS = Wide Area Augmentation System
      EGNOS = European Geostationary Navigation Overlay System

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  49. Why not a ground based WAAS ... by Skapare · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... located at each individual airport. The airport already knows exactly where it is. It can receive the GPS signal and see how far off it is ... specifically for that airport. Then it would transmit that correction data in real time over a local UHF frequency that can serve approaching planes out to some distance (perhaps 100km). Nearby airports use different frequencies which get selected when the target airport is selected and GPS indicates they are within range.

    They could also spend more money and put up a triangulation based TPS that would allow accurate terrestrial positioning independent of GPS. That would be in addition to final approach guidance systems. That is, of course, if you feel warm and cozy about having extra redundant systems serving the airplane you are on.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:Why not a ground based WAAS ... by russotto · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why not a ground based WAAS located at each individual airport.

      Because the "WA" is "Wide Area". If you have one at an airport, it's an LAAS (Local Area Augmentation System), and they do exist.

    2. Re:Why not a ground based WAAS ... by superdana · · Score: 0

      We already have those; they're called LAAS. WAAS is for en route navigation and precision approaches at smaller airports.

    3. Re:Why not a ground based WAAS ... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yes they do. What I wonder is just how much a GPS signal really varies over time.
      I don't have access to a GPS system to play with but just how how quickly does a stationary GPS receiver say it is moving around?
      The reason I was wondering is just how effective would it be to get GPS receiver and place it at a fixed point and then connect it to a mobile GPS device with say a Zigbee radio link. It should be trivial to take the two locations and find the distance from one to the other. Since all the "errors" should be the same for both devices you should get a very accurate location of your mobile devices distance a direction from the fixed base.

      Back to the WAAS and LAAS. One does wonder why they didn't add LAAS to every VOR station. Maybe on a sub carrier to the Morse signal.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Why not a ground based WAAS ... by russotto · · Score: 1

      I don't have access to a GPS system to play with but just how how quickly does a stationary GPS receiver say it is moving around?

      Not very, particularly not since the discontinuing of SA (Selective Availability, which intentionally degraded both the clock and the ephemerides).

      The reason I was wondering is just how effective would it be to get GPS receiver and place it at a fixed point and then connect it to a mobile GPS device with say a Zigbee radio link. It should be trivial to take the two locations and find the distance from one to the other. Since all the "errors" should be the same for both devices you should get a very accurate location of your mobile devices distance a direction from the fixed base.

      Congratulations, you've just re-invented differential GPS. Yes, it works very well within the vicinity of the fixed receiver. Far enough away and the errors start to diverge, because you're looking through a different part of the atmosphere or because you're seeing different satellites.

      Back to the WAAS and LAAS. One does wonder why they didn't add LAAS to every VOR station. Maybe on a sub carrier to the Morse signal.

      If you have to ask "why", the answer's probably "money".

    5. Re:Why not a ground based WAAS ... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yes I know it is a differential GPS but I was going to add some other features. It is for a DIY Drone idea I had.
      I was going to make a small ground base to aid in landing. I would feed in the differential data along with air pressure, temperature, wind speed, and direction. What I was wondering is was would a DIY differential system be of any use.
      Would they error that it was trying to correct for get out of sync and make it actually less accurate than just GPS.

      I would put the base station at launch point in a field and the drone would know the best direction to try and land in. BTW this would be a light slow drone so that it will not hurt anyone if it smacks into them and would have a manual override system.

      As to the VOR providing LAAS service I have to wonder just how expensive it would really be?
      1. The VORs already have power.
      2. The VORs are already at a known location.
      All you would have to do is add a GPS receiver and the equipment to add the data channel to the transmitter.
      The problem is how long would it take for pilots to add the special receivers to use the data channel.
      Since a lot of VORs are already near airports it seems like a good upgrade to the existing VOR system. Of course adding things like wind speed, direction, temperature, and altimeter settings to the data packets would be nice. An actual all digital upgrade would be even better but the costs for that would be very expensive.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  50. Re:I know I've made some very poor decisions recen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sudo? This thread can serve no useful purpose any more...[Carrier Break]

  51. go green! by ghostlibrary · · Score: 1

    This is why I personally only launch eco-friendly and organic all-wood satellites. :)

    --
    A.
  52. Things on the ground move by SlappyBastard · · Score: 1

    You might recall they moved rather dramatically in Chile earlier this year. If the point is added precision, that's not a win.

    --
    I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
  53. Stop denying the truth by SlappyBastard · · Score: 1

    It's uncomfortable to admit it, but we all know which machine intelligence it really is: SkyNet.

    --
    I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
  54. Re:I know I've made some very poor decisions recen by SlappyBastard · · Score: 1

    To be clear, did they just tell us all how we can disable communications satellites? I mean, sending a stronger signal sounds well within the realm of possibilities for an ambitious hacker type. I mean, the hard part would be finding the unnecessary reason to add an Aurdino to the project.

    --
    I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
  55. Here are links to more info by weedenbc · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wow - this has to be in the Top 10 Worst Article Summaries ever on Slashdot. And why is the link pointing to a CSMonitor dupe instead of the original story at Space.com which has the best coverage? Most of the other commenters already pointed out the problems (it's not a GPS satellite, the libration points are not Earth-Moon Lagrange points, etc), so I will just point everyone to the real articles with real facts on this story: http://www.space.com/news/out-of-control-satellite-threatens-others-sn-100503.html http://www.space.com/news/zombiesat-galaxy-15-shutdown-fails-sn-100505.html

    --

    "Trying is only the first step towards failure." - Homer
  56. Use it for target practice... by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

    Use it for target practice. The first country to blow it up wins a prize.

  57. Star Trek tech!? by ferd_farkle · · Score: 1

    "...SES officials believe they have the resources, including teleport facilities..."

    Wait, what!? Who are these people, really?

  58. Use Smart Bombs by BigBlueOx · · Score: 1

    Bomb, this is Lt. Doolittle. You are *not* to detonate in the bomb bay. I repeat, you are NOT to detonate in the bomb bay!

  59. It's space! Just push it away! by BlackBloq · · Score: 1

    Ok is it just me or is this SPACE! All the movies we watch people are so desperate to stay in orbit. All we have to do is fire a small rocket at low speed (pilot able) and push the thing with some force out of our orbit and toward the sun or space. What problems could that cause I wonder!?

  60. Natural final destination? by Tolkien · · Score: 1
    What interests me is this part.

    on its way to an earth-sun Lagrange point, the natural final destination of a geostationary satellite without maneuvering power.

    what does it mean?

    1. Re:Natural final destination? by DanJ_UK · · Score: 1

      It's a movie where different types of wildlife (birds, elephants et al) try to avoid death by natural disaster(s), such as earthquakes, tornados, volcanic ash clouds and Gordon Brown.

      --
      - Dan
    2. Re:Natural final destination? by Tolkien · · Score: 1

      Uhh.. Wrong thread?

  61. Hmm...ideas are coming... by BillX · · Score: 1

    Since the satellite runs in 'bent pipe' mode, amplifying wide bands of RF that are beamed up to it

    Hunh... did you say that the frontend of this crashed bird will blindly amplify and rebroadcast any signal that hits it? What did you say its coordinates are again?

    --
    Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  62. Let the owners deal with it all...:-) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not let the owners deal with it. Found this today.

    Firms Downplay Satellite Risks

    An out-of-control TV communications satellite is drifting dangerously close to another satellite, but officials downplayed the risk of a collision or potential disruption to U.S. programming.

    Intelsat Ltd. (ITST.YY) said last month that it had lost control of one of its satellites, Galaxy 15, resulting in an eastward drift that threatened to interfere with other satellites along its path. One such satellite is AMC 11, run by rival SES World Skies, which operates a satellite that serves a number of U.S. cable providers.

    Because Intelsat's Galaxy 15 is still broadcasting its signal, there is the potential for a conflict when it gets close to AMC 11 on May 23; however, officials at Intelsat and SES World Skies, which is owned by Luxembourg-based SES S.A. (008808732.LU), say they are taking steps to avoid any interference.

    "Given the number of technical alternatives that can be executed from the earth, we are confident that potential disruptions to television programming will be minimal or even avoided entirely," Intelsat spokeswoman Dianne VanBeber said.