Slashdot Mirror


ISS Nearly Clobbered By Space Debris

erice writes "A chuck of space debris came within 335 meters of the space station, forcing the crews to head to their escape capsules and prepare for emergency evacuation to Earth. '[NASA's] Associate Administrator for Space Operations, Bill Gerstenmaier, said it was the closest a debris object had ever come to the station. An analysis was now underway to try to understand its origin, he added.'"

131 comments

  1. A Chuck...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    What about a Bob or a John of space debris? Hmmmm?

    1. Re:A Chuck...? by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      Turned out to be a duck instead.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:A Chuck...? by MRe_nl · · Score: 1
      --
      "Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
    3. Re:A Chuck...? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Damn. I was hoping it would be a coyote!

    4. Re:A Chuck...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...it's not the 25th and a half Century!

    5. Re:A Chuck...? by justsayin · · Score: 1

      Well, if it looks like a duck and it sounds like a duck,...

    6. Re:A Chuck...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then it's a witch!

    7. Re:A Chuck...? by RL78 · · Score: 1

      Beat me to it.

    8. Re:A Chuck...? by luvs2splooge · · Score: 1

      How much space debris can a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck space debris?

    9. Re:A Chuck...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the majestic space duck.

  2. Good by kdougherty · · Score: 1

    I'm glad no harm came to the crew, but its good that an occurrence of this sort happened without injuring anyone. Maybe now they will start to develop smarter technology to help prevent disasters such as this in space.

    --
    The best way to predict the future is to invent it. -Alan Kay
    1. Re:Good by rbrausse · · Score: 2

      You mean, "maybe now the Chinese will stop blowing up their own satellites as a show of strength"?

      the debris cloud of Fengyun 1-C was only 17% of the trackable debris in Aug 2007 :)

      Yeah, fat chance - it's not like China has any space station that might be at risk.

      You are aware that China is building it's own station? And that in 2007 the country tried to become a partner of the ISS (with positive reactions from Russia and the ESA) but was not invited?

    2. Re:Good by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Maybe now they will start to develop smarter technology to help prevent disasters such as this in space.

      I bet you the answer is going to be "space is a bad and dangerous place, let's not go there anymore".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Good by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Which would be good. Start exploring the oceans ! There is alien life there ! There are exploitable riches there ! There are artefacts from lost civilizations there ! (yeah, sunken ships with archaelogical treasures onboard)

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    4. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the current method of exploration (wait until some company finds a way to make it profitable, then copy exploit the hell out of it), space seems better suited. The asteroid belt has the potential to be a good mining location for minerals that aren't trapped under 6300 km of rock

    5. Re:Good by paiute · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean, "maybe now the Chinese will stop blowing up their own satellites as a show of strength"?

      the debris cloud of Fengyun 1-C was only 17% of the trackable debris in Aug 2007 :)

      Only? Humans have been putting junk into earth orbit for half a century. That a one-time event now accounts for 17% of all trackable debris is actually kind of shocking.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    6. Re:Good by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the debris cloud of Fengyun 1-C was only 17% of the trackable debris [nasa.gov] in Aug 2007 :)

      Are you serious? We've been getting stuff to space for 67 years (Germany's V-2 launch in 1944) and one even accounts for almost 1/5 of all trackabe debris?

      And you call that *only*.

    7. Re:Good by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Can't do it. Too much junk. Too dangerous.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    8. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also a desolate, empty, radiation-blasted hazardous place. What's the appeal? Seriously? We don't go much to the bottom of the ocean either. So WHAT!?

    9. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead, they're trapped behind 100s of millions of kilometers of NOTHING. It's not any better. You can't make that profitable vs. simply recycling the materials we already refined on Earth. You guys are deluded.

    10. Re:Good by rbrausse · · Score: 1

      how ironic that comments with an irony marker are taken completely serious....

      btw, the NASA document is a quite interesting read - the debris statistic started in 1961, of the total of nearly 13k trackable objects are a little bit over 7k now either outside of GEO or dropped backed to earth. The amount is surprisingly low, I expected much more objects; even considering the difficulties identifying the pieces, the Kessler effect seems top be exaggerated.

      otoh, a single Ariane 5 launch (costs ~ US$ 160m) could transport over 16k Aluminum spheres with an diameter of 10 cm (minimum size for identifying debris according to the NASA pdf) to a LEO, a *very* interesting price for playing havoc with satellite-dependent businesses and military. And why stop at using solid objects? An optimized design could add much more debris - the biggest payload fairing has an usable volume of 200m^3

    11. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has always been the utlimate reason AGAINST space-based weapons: it is trivial (technologically and econmically) to bust them up simply by shooting gravel into the appropriate orbits. Note that a fleck of paint almost took out the space shuttle front window on STS-7...it doesn't take much mass to be deadly at the velocities under discussion.

      See wikipedia for a great discussion of "space junk" and how we are close to making all LEO paths useless. Of special note is the idea that just a few of the existing large relics broken into small bits (through highly probable collisions given the amount of crap up there) could start a "cascade" of new pieces that would eventually put so much junk up there that we can't reliably use (or even travel up through) most of LEO and MEO. Large debris breaking into smaller fragments which then hit more pieces and make more pieces and so on and so on.

      Oops...

    12. Re:Good by NevarMore · · Score: 1

      Theres a dolphin with an implant that lets it talk and Roy Scheider *not* killing sharks!

    13. Re:Good by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Huh... There are companies currently exploiting underwater gold that just lies on the oceanic floor at less than 1 km of depth.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  3. Unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Clearly we need astronauts who are better at playing Asteroids.

    1. Re:Unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How big was the debris? Have they tried to use the tractor beam?

    2. Re:Unacceptable by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Nah the old man disabled it.

    3. Re:Unacceptable by jmd_akbar · · Score: 1

      Well, then reenable it!! It's there under Options!

      :D

      --
      Nothing here... So... SHOOO!!!
    4. Re:Unacceptable by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      There are too many options. Whose idea was it to use Eclipse as the UI for the ISS anyway?

    5. Re:Unacceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We need astronauts who read/watch Planetes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetes

      It is a story about people who collect space debris in the future.

    6. Re:Unacceptable by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Their only other choice was Windows 7, problem was last time they tried it they were locked out of doing anything until someone gave their credit card to a Russian website to start the cleaning process....

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Unacceptable by jmd_akbar · · Score: 1

      I remember, the last time they tried Windows 7 they were locked out till a nearby passing Vogon ship nearly gobbled the astronauts..

      --
      Nothing here... So... SHOOO!!!
  4. How was it discovered? by Bromskloss · · Score: 1

    I skimmed the article, but I don't see that they mention how they noticed the debris. How was that done? Because they crew went into the escape capsules, you'd think it was detected i advance. How long in advance? Otherwise, perhaps they just felt that after one piece had already passed them, others were likely to follow, motivating the emergency readyness.

    --
    Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
    1. Re:How was it discovered? by agentgonzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      NORAD tracks as much space objects and debris as it can. There's a lot of stuff up there and it's constantly changing orbits in a slightly unpredictable way due to variable drag from the atmosphere. This object (NORAD designator 82618) has a drag coefficient 175 times greater than that of the ISS so it was hard to predict in advance that it would be that close. The ISS crew got notice a little over two hours before the encounter at about 2200 GMT (UTC) last night and it cleared the ISS at 0008GMT this morning.

    2. Re:How was it discovered? by gringer · · Score: 1

      it cleared the ISS at 0008GMT this morning

      Sorry but in what way 8 minutes past midnight is 'morning'?

      In the Hong Kong or Tokyo way (or pick some other country in a similar area of the world).

      --
      Ask me about repetitive DNA
    3. Re:How was it discovered? by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info. Do you happen to know the relative velocity between the two in this near-miss?

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    4. Re:How was it discovered? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if the ISS detected it on their own radar. I would have a pretty doppler signature.

    5. Re:How was it discovered? by agentgonzo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately not. I can't find any data on the subject or TLEs (NORAD's Two Line Elements that describe the orbit) for the debris.

    6. Re:How was it discovered? by strack · · Score: 1

      you can be pretty much guranteed its enough.

    7. Re:How was it discovered? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      In hongkong or toyoko 0008GMT is the middle of the day.

      Do you even know what GMT is? Greenwich Mean Time.... http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/what-is-gmt/

      Greenwich England... I.E. 0008GMT is 8 minutes past midnight in Greenwich England. NOT Tokyo or Hong Kong.

      I strongly suggest you learn about time and how it's measured on this planet.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:How was it discovered? by G-forze · · Score: 2

      I would have a pretty doppler signature.

      Nothing personal, but I really doubt that.

      --
      "There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
    9. Re:How was it discovered? by agentgonzo · · Score: 2

      Orbital speeds (as opposed to velocities) are the same for the same shaped-orbits (which LEO ones pretty much are) so the only variable is direction of motion. Relative velocities can be anywhere from a few feet per second (if the orbits are almost exactly aligned) to a theoretical maximum of about 15,000m/s if the were in a head-on collision (unlikely). I'd guess that it was somewhere in the region of 3-10km/s relative velocity.

      For reference, the collision of Iridium 33 and Kosmos-2251 in 2009 was at a relative velocity of 11.7km/s (42,120 kmph or 26,170 mph). Plenty enough to destroy that section of the ISS if it hit.

    10. Re:How was it discovered? by scubamage · · Score: 1

      Well the ISS at least was going 27,724kph (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station). It's mass is over 400 metric tons. So if the object was stationary, using mv^2/2, we're looking at 153724035200000 joules. This could go up or go down based on the speed and vector of the other body. Slashdot nerds, please tear apart my math. I'm doing this on the fly so I probably made a mistake.

    11. Re:How was it discovered? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      I would have a pretty doppler signature.

      Nothing personal, but I really doubt that.

      Yeah, doppler isn't a adjective.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    12. Re:How was it discovered? by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      I don't see how NORAD has time to track everything, but at least they're damn good at finding that fat man in a red suit every December 24th.

      --
      I8-D
    13. Re:How was it discovered? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Hi there Mr. Troll,

      Hong Kong is at GMT+8 hours, Tokyo is at GMT+9 hours. So at 0008GMT you're at eight minutes past eight or nine in the morning in Hong Kong or Tokyo, respectively. Certainly 'morning' by most people's understanding of the word. I might suggest that you 'learn about time and how it's measured on this planet.'

      Cheers,

      Sleazy Rider

      PS: If you can learn to stop assuming that everyone else is an idiot, it will make it easier to avoid looking like one yourself.

    14. Re:How was it discovered? by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I understand that their "speed" will be similar, especially in LEO, but there's still a huge possible range in angle of attack, which would make a huge difference in the energy of an impact. I'm just curious what order of magnitude we're dealing with here. Are the two meeting at 500kph or 50,000kph? How big is this debris object... 0.5g or 500g?

      If I were on the ISS at the time, I would be asking these questions.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    15. Re:How was it discovered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bonus points for using 3 different units of speed in two sentences.

      "Relative velocities can be anywhere from a few feet per second (if the orbits are almost exactly aligned) to a theoretical maximum of about 15,000m/s if the were in a head-on collision (unlikely). I'd guess that it was somewhere in the region of 3-10km/s relative velocity. "

  5. Origin? by Macrat · · Score: 3, Funny

    An analysis was now underway to try to understand its origin.

    A small planet called Krypton.

    1. Re:Origin? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Hey, don't blame baby Superman, he didn't have any parents to teach him not to litter!

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    2. Re:Origin? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Is he like the Menendez Brothers? You have to feel sorry for him/them because they are orphens?

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  6. Maybe it was an asteroid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Supposedly, one was due to visit recently...

  7. Shielding Technology Need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why we need _some_ kind of usable shielding technology (plasma cloud held in place by magnetic fields, energy bubble, whatever, etc. ) else space travel will predicatively unsafe. Even Low-Earth orbit that the ISS flies in isn't safe without it.

    1. Re:Shielding Technology Need by jpapon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even Low-Earth orbit that the ISS flies in isn't safe without it.

      Actually, I would guess that LEO is the most dangerous places to be, debris-wise. All debris has to pass through LEO eventually as it enters the atmosphere, and it has the smallest volume of space, so statistically speaking, I'd think the chances of getting hit are by far the highest in LEO.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    2. Re:Shielding Technology Need by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't LEO be safer because the drag there is much higher, so debris will quickly pass through and fall down to Earth? Unlike GEOish-orbits where I got the impression it'd be circling for a very long time.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Shielding Technology Need by KDR_11k · · Score: 2

      Problem is the HOW. E.g. a plasma cloud wouldn't really help much against high speed debris as they'd just punch through it with their sheer force, even if they do get vaporized they'd likely still hit the hull in that extremely hot state and cause a lot of damage (there's a concept for combining electric reactive armor with a strong magnetic field for tanks so projectiles are turned into plasma and the magnets assist with the deflection but I'm not sure that would stop a modern AP shell and I'm not sure how those even compare to space debris). I don't think there's a real concept for how energy bubbles could even work.

      If we could deliver payload to space more easily we could possibly build heavy armor on our spacecrafts that may be able to take some bigger hits than the current stuff (spacecrafts and suits are already armored with a thick foam layer but that won't stop more than tiny, low energy debris).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    4. Re:Shielding Technology Need by John+Bresnahan · · Score: 1
      We've been sending people into space for almost 50 years, and none of their vehicles have ever been disabled by impact with either man-made space junk or meteoroids.

      This probably isn't even near the top of the list of things to worry about.

    5. Re:Shielding Technology Need by jpapon · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure, but remember that the volume of space goes up cubicly, so it would take quite a bit of debris to make up for the vastness of GEO compared to LEO.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    6. Re:Shielding Technology Need by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Up in GEO the debris are much more organized, they roam the area looking for targets and pillage... If we are lucky they will kill us first...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Shielding Technology Need by wisty · · Score: 1

      A rail gun might work.

    8. Re:Shielding Technology Need by Wandering+Idiot · · Score: 1

      That's a stupid statement on all sorts of levels. "We haven't had two airliners collide in mid-air in a long time, we should just get rid of air traffic control!"

      It's because it is a concern and they take steps to mitigate it. There's a reason the Shuttles have so many layers of redundancy, and it's not just for internal equipment failures.

  8. It's origin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to just go out on a limb here and say I'm pretty sure the debris came from space. It is an object with an infinite amount of possibilities regarding it's place of origin. It is probably too far away from the ISS to get a good look at it, so there won't be any sort of analysis on the physical comp of the rock. I doubt there were little green aliens hanging onto the side of it, so it's probably not from somewhere that we're actually interested.

    1. Re:It's origin... by agentgonzo · · Score: 2

      It's by far more likely that the debris is from something the human race has launched into space. It's in low Earth orbit. Pretty much everything that comes from outer space either flies past the earth (see yesterday's encounter with 2011 MD) or slams into it as a shooting star (meteor/meteorite). Something from outer space has to lose an awful lot of speed just as it passes the Earth to end up in Low Earth orbit, which just doesn't happen.

    2. Re:It's origin... by Rashdot · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe it was an excess apostrophe.

      --
      This is not the sig you're looking for.
  9. A probable source of debris by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 1

    Debris From Satellites' Collision Said to Pose Small Risk to Space Station

    It seems like the risk isn't that small after all.

    1. Re:A probable source of debris by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      The term "risk" is generally considered to include not only severity of an incident but also it's probability. In the case of an on-orbit collision, while the severity of an impact can be extremely high, the probability of it actually occurring is vanishingly low.

      Of course, there's no reason to take chances with life-or-death situations, so risk-management policies in place require the crew to take shelter when objects do come near the station.

  10. I get that space is big and all... by niftydude · · Score: 2

    But how is just over one third of a kilometer considered a near miss?

    --
    You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
    1. Re:I get that space is big and all... by c0lo · · Score: 2

      But how is just over one third of a kilometer considered a near miss?

      Near miss? Good God... TF title says "clobbered" - I thought many pieces of debris battered ISS for long hours.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:I get that space is big and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you get that space is big and all.

    3. Re:I get that space is big and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not so much that the distance was small, but that the warning was on short notice. It takes time to move the station orbit up (or down, but usually up) significantly enough to reduce the probability of the item hitting the station. the relative speeds up there might be quite high, so even a small piece of debris could be like a bullet.

    4. Re:I get that space is big and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a near miss because at the speeds and distances involved, the object's trajectory can't be predicted accurately enough to preclude a collision. The margin of error in the measurement when there's still enough time for evacuation or evasive maneuvers includes the possibility of a collision. When something misses you by just 400 meters while traveling at 8000 meters per second and the only information you had about the object is from radar stations 300km away, you consider yourself lucky. (For comparison: You get a warning that a car 90 miles away is heading straight for you at 45mph and two hours later it misses you by just one yard. Near miss or not?)

    5. Re:I get that space is big and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, TF says "nearly clobbered", which I think is fair, given the scale of things in space (large) and the unpredictability of the debris' trajectory (larger than usual, it seems).

    6. Re:I get that space is big and all... by NoZart · · Score: 4, Funny

      Exactly! It should be called a near hit!!!!! (George Carlin)

    7. Re:I get that space is big and all... by infolation · · Score: 1

      The ISS is slightly larger than a full-sized football field. So 335 meters is only about 3 time the length of the ISS lengths away.

    8. Re:I get that space is big and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Space debris is coming towards you at a speed of thousands of metres per second with a unpredictable trajectory
      - The astronauts are in a pressurised tin can sitting in a vacuum, any damage to which could be fatal

      Given the the above, and the vastness of the space above the earth, how close would *you* happily let something pass by without having to worry?

    9. Re:I get that space is big and all... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      You get a warning that a car 90 miles away is heading straight for you at 45mph and two hours later it misses you by just one yard. Near miss or not?

      I love to nitpick. Actually to follow your example, the car would have to miss you by 2.25 miles, using the same proportions of your first example. I wouldn't consider that a "near miss" by any means. In fact considering I live about 1500m from a highway, I get these sorts of "near misses" all the time.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    10. Re:I get that space is big and all... by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      You left out one other critical item:

      -None of the astronauts were carrying their insurance cards in their wallets when they left earth.

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    11. Re:I get that space is big and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but your nitpick fails in the correctness department. 45mph is 22 yards per second. 400/8000=1/20, so a miss by 1.1 yard results in the same distance/speed ratio.

    12. Re:I get that space is big and all... by Bengie · · Score: 4, Informative

      In the vastness of our skies, two airplanes coming within a mile of each other is close. Now imagine being ~170mi above the Earth.

      On the Discovery Channel, they showed a picture of what a 1/2 inch flake of paint can do at those speeds. It left a 3 inch crater about 1/4 deep in the aluminum wing of the Shuttle.

      Wiki has a nice pic of what a 7gram object can do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SDIO_KEW_Lexan_projectile.jpg

    13. Re:I get that space is big and all... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Why?

      why cant they push a button and fire the station keeping jets to move it? I dont understand why it takes 2 fricking days to get around to pushing a freaking button. Yes I know the ISS is a wierd shape and the computer needs to fire ALL the station keeping jets at the same time and at the correct impulse, but honestly they cant figure that out ahead of time and have one ready on the big red "OH CRAP!" button?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    14. Re:I get that space is big and all... by SeeSp0tRun · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, something about "General Motors" and "Weapons Testing Facility" just doesn't make me warm and fuzzy inside.
      I can see the similarities though... the only thing their cars are good for are going fast in a straight line, and crashing.

      --
      Something witty.
    15. Re:I get that space is big and all... by SeeSp0tRun · · Score: 1

      Sorry, mis-quoted wiki... in any case, weapons are being tested at General Motors (?).

      --
      Something witty.
    16. Re:I get that space is big and all... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      But how is just over one third of a kilometer considered a near miss?

      Because space junk is hard to detect, which makes it hard to predict its path. In other words, the debris was within their margins of error. That's why they thought it was prudent to put the astronauts into their escape pods.

      That said, you're not wrong that the headline was sensationalist. Even NASA said this was never an emergency in their books. Just a precaution.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    17. Re:I get that space is big and all... by Dr+La · · Score: 1

      Remember that we are talking about stuff that moves at 7.5 km per second. With a fraction of a second uncertainty in the orbit, those 335 meter could have been reduced to zero meter. Assuming the 335 meter was right in the fligthpath of ISS rather than above or under it, 335 meter represents a difference of 0.04 seconds in time....

      --
      Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
    18. Re:I get that space is big and all... by fotbr · · Score: 1

      Depending on what they needed for test equipment and room to work, it might have fit the needs without needing to make a more expensive trip out to the desert somewhere.

      Also, I think I want one of those "light gas guns" and a supply of those lexan projectiles. It looks like it would make short work of the occasional wannabe thugmobile that "cruises" the neighborhood to wake people up at 3 am with really crappy bass.

    19. Re:I get that space is big and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the distance is very close by orbital standards I'm noticing a disturbing lack of an estimation of its relative speed. While I am assuming it was traveling more than a few miles an hour this may not be as dangerous as advertised, a baseball sized piece of debris traveling at 100MPH would pose no real threat to ISS, a marble sized piece of debris traveling at 10,000MPH would.

    20. Re:I get that space is big and all... by sootman · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't have said 1/3 km, I would have said "about 350 meters or 1100 feet." Sounds a lot closer.

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    21. Re:I get that space is big and all... by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      Great idea, except since the trajectory of the debris is difficult to predict, your "oh crap" button might just push you directly into the object's path instead of away from it.

      Or maybe rocket scientists are completely oblivious to all the easy answers pontificated by armchair astronauts that know absolutely nothing about flying space stations.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    22. Re:I get that space is big and all... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      the only thing their cars are good for are going fast in a straight line, and crashing.

      That's not entirely true. The Corvette is also good for turning, stopping, treating midlife crises, and making gas, brakes and tires disappear in the blink of an eye :-P

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    23. Re:I get that space is big and all... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      The TWO oh crap buttons that are set to push it in TWO different directions. I am guessing up and down (towards and away from the planet) would be highly safe bets.

      Honestly, you can pick 64 vector directions and have them all pre-programmed so that a decision can be made and action taken in a few minutes to react.

      But it's not as cool as the Big red button

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    24. Re:I get that space is big and all... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      1.1 kilofeet away.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    25. Re:I get that space is big and all... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The "oh shit button" would increase or decrease the orbital velocity of the station, which eventually lifts the station to a higher orbit or drops the station to a lower orbit. Apparently, it takes a couple days to compute the new orbit and verify that it is safer than the current one, as well as time for the station to actually move into the higher orbit. The button would likely just end up decelerating or accelerating the impact with the object in as short a time as 2 hours.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    26. Re:I get that space is big and all... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I always love it when you hear the bass kicking immediately followed by the rattle of their license plate. It makes me laugh at the stupidity of it.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    27. Re:I get that space is big and all... by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      If you watch any car chases on TV, they frequently talk about the "near miss" of people on the sidewalk. I've heard it when the car was on an inner lane and the pedestrians were on the outer limit of the sidewalk.

      It depends on how much excitement the reporter wants to achieve in his audience, I guess.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    28. Re:I get that space is big and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You left out one other critical item:

      -None of the astronauts were carrying their insurance cards in their wallets when they left earth.

      Under Obamacare, after the accident they must travel to whever their primary care giver is located (it's illegal to go to the closest), have all their paperwork ready, and then they only need to wait for approval of the necessary procedures from the required "health care review panel" (which you're not supposed to call a death pamel), which should be handled within 3 weeks after all the paperwork is properly filled out, then you will be scheduled for care when a slot opens up (usually within six months). Or you can save time, and just take the review panel mandated aspirin now.

    29. Re:I get that space is big and all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a lot of damage for such a small object collision.

      With the increasing number of space junk objects each year, why isn't more $$ put into cleaning it up and not risking the multi-billion dollar IIS because of a small piece of junk just out of chance hits it and we lose all that hard work?

  11. Magnetize! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Silly question... Why not send a big magnet into space to catch all the floating debris and bring it back to earth for recycling, or at least burning it up in the atmosphere? At least that won't clobber the multi-billion dollar ISS when its back down here...

    1. Re:Magnetize! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, instead you have the problem of creating a multi-billion dollar GIANT SPACE MAGNET. Much more manageable.

    2. Re:Magnetize! by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Yes, a giant magnet that can also attract aluminium, titanium, gold, austenitic stainless steel and all that other stuff normal magnets can't catch. Why not make it a monopole while we are at it :)

    3. Re:Magnetize! by AlecC · · Score: 1

      Satellites are mostly built of light-weight, non magnetic materials such as aluminium.
      Magnets suffer from inverse square law problems: the largest magnets on earth have an operating range of inches, maybe a few feet.
      Because everything in orbit is travelling at high relative speeds, the amount of time any bit of debris spent within the "capture region" of a magnet would be milliseconds at best, not lone enough to match energies.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    4. Re:Magnetize! by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      But gravity would do that, right? So let's just hold a huge mass sufficiently close to those objects to change their flight path... Maybe in circles around our huge mass.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    5. Re:Magnetize! by Alsee · · Score: 3, Funny

      A South monopole or a North monopole would get pulled towards the earth's North or South pole. If we want it to keep going around in orbit we better make it an East or West monopole :)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  12. How to repair it without a space shuttle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, suppose for a moment that a piece of debris hit. It causes a significant leak so the station is evacuated and all the astronauts and cosmonauts go home. But the damage isn't so severe that the station is a total write-off.

    Without a space shuttle and thus without the ability to park another vehicle close by (most likely docked but with the hatches closed) from where you can do spacewalks, how are we going to repair the ISS? Or do the Russians have this capability?

    Or is the ISS an automatic write-off in case of a loss of air pressure?

    1. Re:How to repair it without a space shuttle? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      The module on Mir which was holed in a collision was a write off, so I think it is likely the ISS would be as well. Probably a lot of gear inside the station would be written off by exposure to vacuum. The lack of cooling would destroy electronics, for example, but the same gear would be kept running for a long as possible to aid in the escape. I think repopulating the ISS would be very expensive, difficult and dangerous.

    2. Re:How to repair it without a space shuttle? by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

      Its compartmentalized, so if one module is lost the others can be sealed off and continue being used. If all modules are punctured in one event, then yes, total loss is probable.

  13. Surprised ISS has lasted this long... by geekmux · · Score: 1

    ...without getting clobbered by space debris, or more accurately, our own space junk.

    Statistics I had heard years ago spoke of some 8,000 objects that NORAD tracks in our orbit. I'm certain that number has grown significantly since then, but I wonder how much of that we have been responsible for putting up there? Seems our habits in space tend to mirror our (bad) habits on earth.

  14. shields? Laser? Tractor Beam? by __aazsst3756 · · Score: 1

    Where is the offense and defense?

  15. Its origin??? by davidbrit2 · · Score: 1

    Am I to believe that "outer space" is not the current front-runner in the list of possibilities?

    1. Re:Its origin??? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Nothing disastrous happens unless it is cause by those evil humans.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  16. "... the crews to head to their escape capsules" by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

    I hope I'm not the only one that read that and thought "Escape capsules? Oh, that is awesome!" Please tell me there's video. Are they all acting calmly and reasonably as expected, or is one of them going "Game over, man! GAME OVER!"?

    Yes, I'm glad they weren't actually hit. But in a world where we have PEOPLE! IN! SPACE! and 99.9999% of the population doesn't know their names (me included), a little drama once in awhile isn't such a bad thing.

    .

  17. Lasers by Lord+Lode · · Score: 1

    It's time they add lasers to the ISS, to shoot away that kind of stuff.

    1. Re:Lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a respectable deflector shield...

    2. Re:Lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a respectable deflector shield.

    3. Re:Lasers by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      It's time they add lasers to the ISS, to shoot away that kind of stuff.

      For the thousandth time, sharks don't do well in space.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:Lasers by Pope · · Score: 1

      Then we clearly need to develop space sharks! C'mon, America, where's that can-do spirit?!

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    5. Re:Lasers by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Let's try a laser experiment. Have someone chuck a baseball at you head as hard as they can. Now, point a flashlight beam at it to deflect it. Once your head quits ringing, consider that space rocks travel a lot faster than baseballs, and a laser would have to be very powerful and very accurate to deflect it while it is within its range.

      Take the most powerful laser pointer you can get, and try to move a small ball bearing with its light. Use several pointers if necessary. How many watts would it take to deflect a meterite of significant mass, based on that experiment?

      Targeting would be lots of fun. You've got a radar signal, now use that to accurately lock a laser beam onto the targets center of mass, while it's travelling at some insane speed relative to yours. Heck, just design something to shoot a pistol at another bullet aimed roughly in your direction. It's a tough problem.

      If you manage to blow it up into little bits, then you now have a lot of little bits travelling in the same relative direction and speed as the original one. Instead of one big hole, now you have several little holes. Which case is more likely to hit something important?

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  18. Probably belongs to us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That chunk of "debris" is probably a piece of some secret equipment put up there by a government agency with its head so far up its ass that it wouldn't admit to it and would rather let it destroy the ISS than warn or coordinate.

  19. So what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gee ... like 100 chunks of debris were in the same lane as my car this morning...far closer to smacking into it... sometimes less than a meter

    1. Re:So what by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Was the debris traveling several times the speed of sound (in air...) relative to your car? If so, I would recommend avoiding the ghetto when driving to work...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  20. Bigelow by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Once Bigelow builds their space station, it will be above most of this. That will help a lot of things, though you still have to travel up there.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  21. Origin obvious by BForrester · · Score: 1, Troll

    [NASA's] Associate Administrator for Space Operations, Bill Gerstenmaier, said it was the closest a debris object had ever come to the station. An analysis was now underway to try to understand its origin, he added.

    My understanding is that the station mostly originated in the US and Russia, with help from about sixteen other countries. NASA's Associate Administrator for Space Operations should really know this, or at least be able to look this up on Wikipedia.

  22. Fail Subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    clobbered? Not hardly, it was 4 inches big, probably not much larger than the OP's penis.
    It probably would of flew right through the station, not clobbered it. fucking sensationalists

  23. Lasers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adding lasers to the ISS will make certain ~Emporers extremely anxious.. No?

  24. Already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought this wasn't supposed to happen till 2075?? INTO was lying..! err hold on...

  25. I doubt it by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    I find it very hard to believe that the ISS has not been hit by micro-sized debris considering one of the shuttles has and various low-earth satellites have also. I suspect that it has plenty of small craters...

  26. Re:shields? Laser? Tractor Beam? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Couldn't the Daedalus have just moved in-between and caught the projectile in their shields? What do we fund SG1 for if not to protect space?

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  27. 335 meters is kind of far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a point of comparison, the Empire State Building is 381 meters talls.

  28. Space warfare methods by Caerdwyn · · Score: 1

    So how long will it be before some pariah-state with primitive space capability, in yet another fit of childish Beloved Leader temper-tantrum-class behavior, launches a canister of one-inch aluminum bearings into crowded orbits to create orbital minefields to destroy satellites and otherwise be a pain in the ass?

    Yes, that would be without question an act of war, just like mining sea lanes in international waters would be. Does anyone think that would stop a Beloved Leader from doing it if he could use the war-drums to cling to power?

    --
    Everybody gets what the majority deserves.