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."

61 of 379 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    2. 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
  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 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.

    4. 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.)

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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
    9. 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.

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

      Slashdot?



      (I kid, I kid)

    11. 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.
    12. Re:Target practice? by tagno25 · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    13. Re:Target practice? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Morbo is not spelled that way!" - Morbo

    14. Re:Target practice? by pengin9 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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
  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 MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      no thats just comcast service as usual.

    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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!”
    7. 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!

  5. The only way by Evelas · · Score: 5, Funny

    but it's the only way to be sure!

  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 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
    2. 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?

    3. 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

    4. 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
  7. 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"
  8. 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 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."
  9. 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."

  10. 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.
  11. 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 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.
    2. 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.

  12. 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 )

  13. 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
  14. 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 mmontour · · Score: 5, Informative

      Really... massless particles can create pressure now?

      Yes. Photons carry momentum despite having zero rest mass.

    2. 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, ...
    3. Re:Light pressure by frieko · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  15. 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
  16. 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.

  17. Re:I know I've made some very poor decisions recen by Dragoniz3r · · Score: 5, Funny

    You underestimate the power of sudo.

  18. 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

           

  19. 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.