Slashdot Mirror


Defunct Satellite To Fall From the Sky

Front page first-timer EmLomBeeNo sends word of a 6.5-ton satellite that will soon be making a quick and fiery return to Earth. From Space.com: "The huge Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) is expected to re-enter Earth's atmosphere in an uncontrolled fall in late September or early October. Much of the spacecraft is expected to burn up during re-entry, but some pieces are expected to make it intact to the ground, NASA officials said. The U.S. space agency will be taking measures to inform the public about the pieces of the spacecraft that are expected to survive re-entry." According to a NASA press conference today, you have a 1-in-21 trillion chance of being hit by falling debris. Who's feeling lucky?

168 comments

  1. Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Every day idiots all over the U.S. throw down $1 for a 1 in 100 million chance of winning some big jackpot lottery. So, on the off chance that said idiots stumble upon a news channel while channel-surfing between "The Jersey Shore" and Maury Povich's "Primetime Baby-Daddy Special" (and assuming that they're not too high to understand what's being said), there is a pretty good chance that they'll completely ignore the "1-in-21 trillion chance" addendum and only hear the "being hit by falling debris" part. In this case, I would say the odds of them panicking, and then going out and spending the last bit of their McDonalds paychecks on booze and "Huffers Own"-brand industrial glue are pretty goddamn high.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the odds of being hit by a piece or winning the lottery are pretty slim, however, the odds of finding a piece of the satellite that has an image of the Virgin Mary on it and selling it on eBay for a bunch of cash are pretty high.

    2. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Well, if you can't find the image of of Virgin Mary on SOMETHING, you're obviously are either not looking hard enough or you aren't Catholic.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just look at Fukushima incident and the panicking idiots buying iodine in the US, China, Philippines, and elsewhere. Another example is spending hundreds of billions combating terrorism. They are worried about terrorists or nuclear plants while drink and driving or not worried about someone else killing them on the street.

      People, including policy makers, are stupid and don't understand odds at all.

    4. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by Malties · · Score: 1

      So you are saying there's a chance!

    5. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unwashed masses, indeed! This may be the single most elitist piece of self-righteous bluster ever posted on Slashdot!

    6. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course you're correct, but falls in the "why /. is terrible" category. We're talking about a press release - not some sort of Fox News sensational media reaction. At least not yet. Why jump the gun!? Because you're a pig. Be better than the people you're crapping on, man!!

    7. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      You should hear my take on bible-thumpers and NASCAR fans.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    8. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, anyone who dies because they got hit with a chunk of satellite should go out and buy a lottery ticket!

    9. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by Score+Whore · · Score: 1

      I think that anyone who thinks there is a single "odds" for people on the earth being hit by this satellite doesn't understand orbital mechanics. Or even sub-orbital ballistics. (E.g. The further you are from the thrower, the lower your odds of being impaled by the lawn dart.)

    10. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I heard some girl got killed by a toilet seat from Mir when they deorbited it. But that could just be a rumor.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    11. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Not to mention Burning Man Attendees

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    12. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by vux984 · · Score: 1

      I think that anyone who thinks there is a single "odds" for people on the earth being hit by this satellite doesn't understand orbital mechanics.

      Sort of like the odds for being bitten by a rattlesnake tomorrow. If you live in the arizona desert and work at the zoo the odds are quite a bit higher than if you are a lawyer in alaska.

      Still an aggregate odds does exist as a single number. Divide all the people who will be bitten tomorrow by the world population... and you get a number.

      What that number means exactly... that's harder to say. It does mean that we shouldn't worry much about it, unless we there is a justifiable reason to think we do.

    13. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by sconeu · · Score: 2

      I heard she later became a Grim Reaper.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    14. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by Skater · · Score: 2

      There was an article in the Washington Post this morning about people who are afraid to go to public events for fear of terrorist attack. I'm sure many of those very same people don't think twice about getting in a car.

    15. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, lessee. 7 Billion people on Earth, each one with a 1 in 21 Trillion chance of getting hit by debris. 7b/21000b = 0.000333, or 0.0333% chance that someone somewhere will get hit.

      That's pretty dang high if you ask me. Especially for something that could have easily been prevented with a little foresight.

    16. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      You are more likely to be hit by a falling mobile phone, or falling coins (while walking over a fairground), than being hit by falling satellite debris...

    17. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      God, I swear I can still smell them from here.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    18. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      WTF is wrong with you?

      Is that addressed to /. in general, or me in particular?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    19. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you rta you will note that it's actually a 1 in 3200 chance for this particular piece of space junk, not 1 in 21 trillion as the description says.

    20. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by Teckla · · Score: 2

      I wonder which is worse: spending $1 in exchange for a little enjoyable fantasizing about what it would be like to be rich, or complaining endlessly on Slashdot about how stupid everyone else is.

    21. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by Yaur · · Score: 1

      shouldn't that be 1-((1 - 1/21T)^7Billion)?

    22. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did he post a new root-level comment, or did he reply to your asinine post?

    23. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by Lexx+Greatrex · · Score: 1

      I'll place a bet on that... what odds are you offering?

    24. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Get the fantasies for free and save your money.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    25. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by Evil.Bonsai · · Score: 1

      Odds are one thing, probability is quite another.

    26. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 0

      No. He just plays mad on the 'Net.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    27. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 1

      "If humanity is to survive, we must pledge to eliminate all carbon dioxide from our atmosphere by 2030"

      Your signature made me laugh so hard I almost spewed.

      I imagine some of the enviro-whackos actually believe this.

      Ppl really need to watch the Great Global Warming Swindle.

      I do think humans are destroying the earth via pollution such as
      the great pacific garbage patch and its giant soup of BPA toxin.

      The BP oil spill, and other issue as well...such as Bhopal.

      --
      google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
    28. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by hardtofindanick · · Score: 1

      If she weren't that ugly I could have watched that.

    29. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      That's pretty dang high if you ask me. Especially for something that could have easily been prevented with a little foresight.

      A little foresight and a big pile of tax money. You can be that the same people who are worried about a 1 in 3000 chance that someone somewhere will be hit are the some ones who think a 12 percent effective tax rate is too high. How much are you willing to spend to get rid of a 1 in 3000 chance that one of 7 billion people will get hit? Why wouldn't you be willing to use that money to buy and destroy guns?

      It about a billion times more likely that some moron who either doesn't know how to turn of their iPhone (or worse is unwilling to) will screw up a Cat-III landing procedure and take out a couple hundred people at some point this year. (That's still only one in a few hundred, but that doesn't stop the guy next to me from leaving his phone on despite the flight attendant explaining to morons how to turn off an iPhone. Have you ever seen someone pull an iPad out of storage to turn it off? Of course not.)

    30. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 1

      You know, parent. You really need to chill out and stop insulting people. Your post reeks of you projecting your self confidence issues onto others.

      I suppose that you may feel superior to others, by way of you not having a McDonald's job, but no other person is any less human than you. And for those who don't get maths and probabilities, and share your infinite wisdom about such... well I bet that they're really nice down to earth people who'd help another human without thinking twice about it.

      So have fun making fun of people on the internet... they're out and about living their happy lives.

      Bye.

      --
      Huh?
    31. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @ elrous0 :: I bet that you are a little person, living in a controlled world where you have the ability to feel safe and superior, using the few things you truly understand.

      But I bet that if you were taken out of your little comfort zone, you'd not survive for very long in the real world. With all it's complexity and subtlety, and 'dumb' people. You'd have to deal with them and their emotions, at a human level.

      A little punk like you.. hah. The world would have you for breakfast and shit you out to rot in the sewers of life.

    32. Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      But every week, someone wins each of those lotteries, and in sad comment on state of things, it's their only chance of ever getting rich too.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  2. Terrible word choice by zill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    uncontrolled fall

    There's a reason why engineers shouldn't write press releases.

    1. Re:Terrible word choice by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Funny

      What, you would rather an engineer AND a communications major be required to produce the press release, in order for it to change from "uncontrolled fall" to either "planned gravitationally-assisted descent process" (if you were told to spin it "for") and "massive, fiery man-made meteor raining death on unsuspecting victims" (if you were told to spin it "against")?

    2. Re:Terrible word choice by frosty_tsm · · Score: 2

      What, you would rather an engineer AND a communications major be required to produce the press release, in order for it to change from "uncontrolled fall" to either "planned gravitationally-assisted descent process" (if you were told to spin it "for") and "massive, fiery man-made meteor raining death on unsuspecting victims" (if you were told to spin it "against")?

      You could just call those the "CNN" and "FOX" versions.

    3. Re:Terrible word choice by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Ah yes! From the folks who brought us the "Two valued discrete dimmer switch"

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Terrible word choice by bwintx · · Score: 0

      For it to be the Fox News version, there would have to be some mention of how the satellite's fall was symptomatic of "Islamofascism." Other than that, you're right on the money.

      --
      Discussion System prefs link: http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=editcomm
    5. Re:Terrible word choice by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 1

      You could just call those the "CNN" and "FOX" versions.

      Here's a link to the FOX News article. It says "Small risk to the public". That's paraphrased from the NASA press release that says "Extremely small risk to the public". So I guess that is some spin.

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    6. Re:Terrible word choice by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      No they expect a grammer gnazi with a minor in cake engineering, a minor in communications and a major pain in the ass to write it in a gremmar gnazi correct way.
       

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    7. Re:Terrible word choice by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Kinetic military action.

  3. Re:Falling Debris by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

    Really?

    How?

    --
    In Liberty, Rene
  4. Chance by Fjandr · · Score: 1

    So, does that mean there's actually a 1:3000 chance that someone on Earth will be struck? :)

    1. Re:Chance by Ruke · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yep. TFA puts the odds at about 1:3200, actually.

    2. Re:Chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If every individual has a 1 in 21 trillion chance, then the odds of everyone on the planet (assuming about 7 billion) "missing their chance" are approximately 2978/2979, or about 1:3000 that at least one person will get hit.

    3. Re:Chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, very close estimate, 1:3200

      Guess they're trying to make it sound as innocuous as possible.

      http://www.universetoday.com/88780/look-out-below-huge-satellite-coming-in-for-uncontrolled-re-entry/

    4. Re:Chance by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      I think it means just that, but if you put that in perspective, there are much higher chances (almost sure) for somebody on Earth to be hit by a truck while sleeping in their bed (or add here any other improbable death)

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    5. Re:Chance by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      I imagine the 1 in 21 trillion is for "you" (an individual) getting hit, not for any individual getting hit.

      Yes, but, the GP is right - if each person on the Earth has a 1 in 21 trillion chance of getting hit, then the chance that one of the roughly 7 billion people on this planet will get hit is right at 1 in 3000.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    6. Re:Chance by Archwyrm · · Score: 2

      Well is there anything we can do? Like lie down and put a paper bag over our head or something?

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
    7. Re:Chance by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

      Even worse! The Chinese satellite that got blasted a few years back is now 2317 traceable pieces. If the odds are for 1 piece, then odds are about 75% somebody is going to get thwacked!

      Or maybe not.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    8. Re:Chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go find a book maker?

    9. Re:Chance by mcavic · · Score: 1

      Spend the next 6 weeks looking up at the sky. If you see something coming toward you, run. Or you could build a bomb shelter, but you only have a couple of weeks to finish it.

    10. Re:Chance by WrecklessSandwich · · Score: 2

      Even worse! The Chinese satellite that got blasted a few years back is now 2317 traceable pieces. If the odds are for 1 piece, then odds are about 75% somebody is going to get thwacked!

      Or maybe not.

      Very much maybe not. That figure makes the assumption that none of the pieces will burn up on re-entry. Given that it's already in small pieces that will individually burn up more easily and that UARS is "huge" (I have no info on the Chinese ex-satellite, but let's assume for the moment that it was of fairly average size), the chances of being hit by a piece of that Chinese satellite are probably far lower.

    11. Re:Chance by Yaur · · Score: 1

      Hide out in a cave til its over.

    12. Re:Chance by SlashV · · Score: 1

      If you like!

    13. Re:Chance by Capt.+Skinny · · Score: 1

      Surround your house with plastic wrap and duct tape.

    14. Re:Chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you like.

    15. Re:Chance by Lexx+Greatrex · · Score: 1

      Lying down might imperceptibly lower your odds odds of survival. The paper bag might be a good idea though.

    16. Re:Chance by Ruke · · Score: 1

      Stand really close to someone else. The odds that falling satellite debris will hit two people are absolutely dismal.

    17. Re:Chance by monkyyy · · Score: 0
      --
      warning pointless sig
    18. Re:Chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. TFA puts the odds at about 1:3200, actually.

      If this were a healthcare study, like the chances of having a heart attack if you eat more than 5 cheese-doodles per day, they would give that 1:3200 figure as the odds of you personally having a heart attack. They would say you have a 0.031% increased risk of having a heart attack when really it's only a 0.0000000000048% increased risk for you personally to experience a heart attack due to cheese-doodle abuse.

    19. Re:Chance by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Will it help?

    20. Re:Chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pah, big deal! Just don't Look at Clouds (daytime) or Stargaze (night) and you won't be killed by a falling satellite.

      This PSA courtesy of The Sims 2.

    21. Re:Chance by cffrost · · Score: 1

      You mean like this?
      http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=115082

      [Sigh]... The headline: "Udupi: Bus Collides with Another, Barges into Hut - One Killed"

      Humbly submitted, my own NYC tabloid-inspired remix: "Mookambika Motorcoach Mash-up Mortally Mangles Man, Mattress"

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  5. Yeah, so I don't understand the decision here by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Informative

    So apparently they used the remaining fuel a few years ago to move it into a more rapidly decaying orbit. If they had enough fuel to do that why not just deorbit the whole thing in a controlled fashion and aim it at an ocean? We've done that before. Obviously these are some very smart people but it seems weird that they'd have exactly enough fuel to put it into a rapidly decaying orbit but not enough fuel to handle that last little bit.

    On the bright side, the danger from deorbiting satellites is pretty small. The biggest actual problem that has occurred when a Soviet satellite with radioactive material decided to scatter itself over a large part of Canada back in the 1970s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954. When the US space station Skylab pulled a similar stunt over Australia, the local government fined NASA a few hundred dollars for littering.

    1. Re:Yeah, so I don't understand the decision here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So apparently they used the remaining fuel a few years ago to move it into a more rapidly decaying orbit. If they had enough fuel to do that why not just deorbit the whole thing in a controlled fashion and aim it at an ocean?

      I'm pretty sure the thought was, "We need it out of the way, and it's hard to not hit the ocean."

    2. Re:Yeah, so I don't understand the decision here by clarkn0va · · Score: 2

      why not just deorbit the whole thing in a controlled fashion and aim it at an ocean?

      Or a Michael Bolton concert, assuming you're trying to minimise the chance of it hitting someone.

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    3. Re:Yeah, so I don't understand the decision here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is standard practice to use up any remaining fuel to lower the orbit as much as possible. If there was enough fuel left, they would have deorbited it. My guess is there wasn't.

    4. Re:Yeah, so I don't understand the decision here by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Perhaps actually deorbiting in a controlled manner, aiming for a particular impact zone, would take more fuel than they had, but switching to a naturally decaying orbit for the same impact zone in a number of orbits time was doable?

    5. Re:Yeah, so I don't understand the decision here by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      According to TFA they used all its fuel just getting it into a lower orbit. It's a pretty large satellite, so I imagine even that probably took a lot of fuel. Also, it's been dead since 2005, so even the de-orbit took quite a while.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    6. Re:Yeah, so I don't understand the decision here by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      Well, the fact that it took years to de-orbit even after lowering the orbit suggests that they just ran out of fuel.

      De-orbiting a satellite takes quite a bit of fuel, actually. I doubt that most carry that much. They are trying to carry enough to get the satellite into a low enough orbit that it eventually de-orbits, so that they aren't stuck up there forever. Things like geosync satellites don't have nearly enough fuel to do even that - you'd need something resembling the booster rocket that put it in orbit to get it back down, and it might almost be as energy efficient to just send it to the moon or something.

    7. Re:Yeah, so I don't understand the decision here by Yaur · · Score: 1

      In that case wouldn't it make more sense to use part of the fuel to put it into a decaying orbit and then use the last of it to do a controlled deorbit once gravity and friction had done most of the work?

    8. Re:Yeah, so I don't understand the decision here by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      > When the US space station Skylab pulled a similar stunt over Australia, the local government fined NASA a few hundred dollars for littering.

      Fined for littering huh, same thing Bernhard Goetz was fined for,,,

      I still have my Skylab tee shirt it's bright yellow with a large bull's-eye on the front.

      IIRC a couple of Australians got a few thousand dollars (US) bounty from a San Fransisco newspaper
      when they were the first to show up with pieces of the Skylab.

    9. Re:Yeah, so I don't understand the decision here by doublebackslash · · Score: 2

      Think of it this way, all orbital changes take energy. Now that is obvious but bear in mind that ALL orbital changes take energy. What I'm getting at is that the velocity for a satellite determines its altitude range (or just it's altitude in the case of a circular orbit).

      Since any change in velocity takes energy (fuel) and the difference between an orbit that is 100% clear of the atmosphere is a vastly different energy than one that is mostly or all in it. Now, on the other hand if you intentionally make the orbit highly elliptical you can have the satellite skim the outer atmosphere at closest approach. Sounds like they BARELY got there and the thing to keep in mind about the upper atmosphere is that it is not a solid line "atmosphere starts here" and even at a given altitude the density varies wildly.

      Seems like they got it into as elliptical an orbit as they could and then had to rely on atmospheric breaking in an atmosphere that might be described as a "soft vacuum" in a laboratory. With those sorts of time scales and depending on the atmosphere it is little wonder that the target and timeframe were what they were. "Earth" and "sometime in the next X years".

      As it get closer to re-rentry they will be able to make much better predictions but the last few orbits will eat the majority of the speed (exponential decay) so there isn't much to do till then but keep watching and waiting.

      --
      md5sum /boot/vmlinuz
      d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e /boot/vmlinuz
    10. Re:Yeah, so I don't understand the decision here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you not wait for it to come close to deorbiting on its own and then use its rockets to control the deorbit?

    11. Re:Yeah, so I don't understand the decision here by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      If they use the rest of the fuel to lower the orbit, it's quite possible they didn't have enough fuel for a full deorbit.

    12. Re:Yeah, so I don't understand the decision here by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      Depending upon how high it was, that might have been several decades or even a millennium. You can be pretty sure that its batteries will be defunct and it's solar panels will be degraded to the point that its receiver and computer won't function.

    13. Re:Yeah, so I don't understand the decision here by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

      The biggest actual problem that has occurred when a Soviet satellite with radioactive material decided to scatter itself over a large part of Canada back in the 1970s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954

      The satellite
      Was out of sight
      Radioactive though
      Quite all right
      When it was high
      But now it's very low..


      .

    14. Re:Yeah, so I don't understand the decision here by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      why not just deorbit the whole thing in a controlled fashion and aim it at an ocean?

      Or a Michael Bolton concert, assuming you're trying to minimise the chance of it hitting someone.

      Or China. You know they are going to end up recycling the metal anyway.

    15. Re:Yeah, so I don't understand the decision here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the US space station Skylab pulled a similar stunt over Australia, the local government fined NASA a few hundred dollars for littering.

      I hope they got a comedy award for that :)

  6. So 1:3000 that it will hit somebody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 : 21,000 Billion that it will hit YOU
    7 Billion People
    1 : 3000 That it will hit SOMEBODY?

    That seems a little high, actually.

    1. Re:So 1:3000 that it will hit somebody? by kenrblan · · Score: 1

      That simple calculation doesn't consider geographic clustering of people. Since many people are clustered in large population centers that are outside of the predicted possible impact locations, you shouldn't include the entire world population in the reduction of personal odds to generalized odds. For instance, if it is predicted to impact the southern hemisphere, you could rule out all people except those on the African, South American, and Australian continents and islands south of the the equator.

      --
      Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
    2. Re:So 1:3000 that it will hit somebody? by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Look at it this way. The number of meteorites that reach the surface of the earth is estimated at more than one per day. Most of them are very small, but none of them would fail to get your attention if they hit you. How many impacts on humans do you know of?

      rj

    3. Re:So 1:3000 that it will hit somebody? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      It's still right on average. Any increase in probability due to clustering of population in one place is accompanied with a decrease in probability elsewhere on the planet due to rarefaction of population.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  7. Idea from epSos.de by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will make a cross on the road in front of my house to make a bet for the landing spot.

  8. 1 in 3000 chance of SOMEONE by io333 · · Score: 1

    Back of envelope calculation shows me they're saying there's a 1 in 3000 chance of some person getting hit somewhere. Or am I holding it wrong?

    1. Re:1 in 3000 chance of SOMEONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, NASA did a global census of all life. The "1 in 21 Trillion" just means that the poor creature likely to be hit is a jellyfish.

    2. Re:1 in 3000 chance of SOMEONE by Ruke · · Score: 1

      Yep. TFA puts it at 1:3200, actually.

    3. Re:1 in 3000 chance of SOMEONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 in 21 000 000 000 000

      7 000 000 000 people

      7 000 000 000 in 21 000 000 000 000 = 1:3000

      However, you can't simply multiply the odds by the number of people or you would have a 1:1 chance if there were 21 trillion people - which is obviously not true (I guess 1:3200 on NASA's site is based on the fact that the odds aren't exactly 1 in 21 trillion to beginn with). Granted, 21 trillion people causes other problems, but back to the problem at hand: I will concede that the actual number is very close to 3000 (or 3200 given the actual odds), maybe something like 2999.90 (2999.90 seems lower than 2999.9 and is more accurate ;-) ), but that is only because the odds are so low anyway. The higher the odds get the more this concept makes a differerence. Consider 1:2 odds. The chances of you winning (at least one) 1:2 gamble after 2 attempts is not 100%, but 75%.

    4. Re:1 in 3000 chance of SOMEONE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In order to receive credit, you must show work. Also be sure to include units, to ensure full credit. Partial credit may or may not be grants

  9. Discworld odds? by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    there millon-to-one chances happens 9 of 10 times. But as this is world maybe 1 in 21 trillions is the right spot that turns it into something certain.

    1. Re:Discworld odds? by stewbee · · Score: 1

      Nice. I just read "Guards, Guards", where they mention this sort of logic. I haven't made it through all of his books yet. (man, there's a bunch!). My chances of reading them all, however, are a million- to-one.

    2. Re:Discworld odds? by TheBig1 · · Score: 1

      I have read all that are at the local library (which I am pretty sure is almost all of them). Highly recommended: he is one of the funniest fantasy writers I have read in a long time, definitely up there with Douglas Adams (and possibly even a bit better; blasphemy, I know!).

    3. Re:Discworld odds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no possibly about it. He is better.
      Who else comes up with sentences like:
      Whole new theories of money were growing here like mushrooms, in the dark and based on bullshit.

    4. Re:Discworld odds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, he was diagnosed with a form of alzhiemers a couple of years ago.... all hail Sir Terry Pratchett!

  10. Could be worse... by macraig · · Score: 1

    ... it could be another Skylab (what a waste!) with a trajectory that drops it over, say, Europe instead of the Aussie outback.

  11. Just what Texas needs .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Red hot material slamming to parched fields setting more of the state on fire.

  12. Hope you have satellite insurance... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope your home/car has coverage incase of it getting hit by a satellite....

  13. If I get hit by Haedrian · · Score: 1

    Could my family sue NASA for damages caused by negligance?

    1. Re:If I get hit by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 0

      Glad to hear that's the first thing you thought of. *rolls eyes*

    2. Re:If I get hit by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      I'm going to be too dead to care probably

    3. Re:If I get hit by Jeng · · Score: 1

      No, but you might end up in limbo having to help the recently dead to reach their final destination. You may then end up haunting your former family driving them insane and splitting them up.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    4. Re:If I get hit by Lexx+Greatrex · · Score: 1

      Yes, your family would become very wealthy if they can prove it was a falling piece of UARS that vaporized you.

  14. Satellite Holocaust, The Movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if they can get a SciFi Channel movie out by this Saturday or will the movie version be on next Saturday?

  15. Re:Falling Debris by wsxyz · · Score: 1

    Didn't you ever see one of those cartoons where Wile E. Coyote tries to trick Roadrunner into eating iron shot so that he can then use a giant horseshoe magnet mounted on a car to catch him, but then somehow Wile E. Coyote ends up eating the shot and getting dragged all over the desert running into cacti as the car with the magnet careens uncontrollably about?

    It's just like that.

  16. People, PLEASE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like the sky is falling...

  17. Measures to inform the public by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 4, Funny

    NASA says run, but not in a straight line.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    1. Re:Measures to inform the public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SERPENTINE!

    2. Re:Measures to inform the public by schlachter · · Score: 1

      The odds of YOU getting hit are 1 in 21 trillion.

      So the odds of ANYONE getting hit are 1 in 3,500???!!

      Let's hope that NASA's feeling lucky.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    3. Re:Measures to inform the public by gijoel · · Score: 1

      Run is a SERPENTINE manner. It won't hit you for sure.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szcviFDt9xM

    4. Re:Measures to inform the public by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Serpentine!

    5. Re:Measures to inform the public by guruevi · · Score: 1

      I don't know how they calculate the odds, but 1 in 3500 is only twice as likely as you getting in a car accident. You also have to look at the number of incidents - we drive around with millions of cars and you have about 1 in 7000 chance to be in a car accident. There is 1 satellite falling and you have about 1 in 3500 chances of getting hit by it.

      I think the odds are more than 1 in 21 trillion. The earth surface is 510,072,000 sq. km, 70% of that is water. This thing will probably destroy IF it hits land AND does not burn up completely in the atmosphere (whatever the chances of a sizable chunk falling to the ground are) affect at most about 0.01% of a sq. km. All humans together take up at most 7000 sq. km. (calculated at 1 sq. m per human). You are in 7 billion people.

      Plus, we can probably precisely calculate where it will fall approx. and unless that falls into a very densely populated area (like say, NYC) we can clear the area of any humans for the timeframe we expect it to be there. Also, we could shoot it if we know it is going to fall and not burn with a missile high in the atmosphere and break it up further. Shouldn't be too hard for a couple of fighter jets to intercept it, they can shoot other flying stuff from hundreds of miles away.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  18. Toilet Seat Girl by sacridias · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not sure how many are fans of dead like me, but the simple fact that she got nailed by a toilet seat comes to mind with this story.
    Just be careful not to get hit, as you will be nicknamed toilet seat girl/boy for the remainder of your unlife.

    1. Re:Toilet Seat Girl by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      I wish I'd thought of that sooner! No mod points, but I would've +1'd you.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    2. Re:Toilet Seat Girl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if I get hit by falling space debris, do I get to be a reaper? Will I have to answer to Mandy Patinkin?

    3. Re:Toilet Seat Girl by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      I'm so glad that I took the time to skim the comments before posting because I had the same idea. For those of you who never saw the program, here's a link to the Wikipedia article on Dead Like Me.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    4. Re:Toilet Seat Girl by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize UCARS had a toilet.

    5. Re:Toilet Seat Girl by JustNilt · · Score: 1

      It's also on Netflix as well as on Hulu. Well worth watching; it's one of those that, like Firefly, got cancelled too early. They also did a movie later (made for TV, I think) that was pretty good.

      --
      You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
    6. Re:Toilet Seat Girl by cffrost · · Score: 1

      It's also on Netflix as well as on Hulu. Well worth watching; it's one of those that, like Firefly, got cancelled too early. They also did a movie later (made for TV, I think) that was pretty good.

      It's also on TPB, for those worldwide and/or who prefer sharing* over stuffing MAFIAA coffers:

      S01: https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4999686/Dead_Like_Me_DVDrip_Season_1
      S02: https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4999688/Dead_Like_Me_DVDrip_Season_2
      LaD: https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4704424/Dead.Like.Me.Life.After.Death.2009.DvDrip.aXXo-SS

      * Please seed. =)

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  19. Odds? by sootman · · Score: 1

    Is this the same NASA that thought there was a 1-in-100,000 chance of a catastrophic Shuttle failure?

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:Odds? by jandrese · · Score: 3, Informative

      The actual odds for shuttle failure on each launch were calculated to be about 1 in 100, which ended up being pretty close to reality.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:Odds? by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      The actual odds for shuttle failure on each launch were calculated to be about 1 in 100

      Only after it blew up the first time. Before that the 100,000 number was often quoted; ISTR Feynman referencing it during the Challenger investigation.

  20. Re:Falling Debris by Whiternoise · · Score: 1

    Interestingly the Ministry of Aviation in England did a study on something similar a while ago: http://aerade.cranfield.ac.uk/ara/arc/rm/3332.pdf. They claim that attitude deviations of up to 1.5 degrees may be observed for a 3 square metre surface area (normal to the Solar radiation) and a 2.5T satellite. That's not insignificant, and if the Sun did somehow produce a sudden large outburst, akin to a cataclysmic variable, then perhaps it might be enough to push the satellites into a decaying orbit. Then again, there are a lot of integrals in that paper and I could be reading it wrong!

  21. No it's 1:3200 the YOU will be hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... but take heart, if you are hit it won't hurt me a bit.

  22. so theres 21 trillion places that this could hit by cod3r_ · · Score: 1

    How do they come up with that number? does that mean there are 21 trillion square whatevers of land that someone could possibly be standing? What if you are on a boat? what if you and 5 friends are on a boat is your boat 5 times more likely to get hit? WE NEED THESE DETAILS!

  23. Re:Falling Debris by Whiternoise · · Score: 1

    Although note that attitude deviation is a rotational thing (whoops, should have noticed that) - the calculations are essentially to work out the torque on the satellite, not the change in orbit height. In which case it may well be very insignificant.

  24. Those are actually frightening Odds by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 0

    It means there is about a 1 in 3 chance that "Somebody" is going to hit be debris. Not OK.

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
    1. Re:Those are actually frightening Odds by TheBig1 · · Score: 1

      Umm, you are off by about 3 orders of magnitude... hint: there are not 7 trillion people on the earth.

    2. Re:Those are actually frightening Odds by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      No, it does not mean 1 in 3 chance someone is going to be hit, even by the wildest stretch of the imagination.

      1 in 21 trillion is 4.7619047619047619047619047619048e-14

      If we assume a world population of about 7 billion, and we fudge the math as 4.7619047619047619047619047619048e-14 * 7 billion, we get 1 in 3000 chance someone gets hit. I can only assume that you assumed a 7 trillion population and used this same incorrect math.

      It is going to be a lot less than that in reality, but I can't be arsed to do the math at the moment.

  25. We want the funct! by tootalltom · · Score: 1

    Gotta have that funct!

  26. Ooops, I meant 3K by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 1

    Hehhe, amazing what 1 little letter can do.

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
  27. Taco Bell by Baloo+Uriza · · Score: 1

    I hope Taco Bell puts up a target that, if hit, means everyone in the world gets a free burrito. They did it when Skylab came down.

    --
    Furries make the internet go.
    1. Re:Taco Bell by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      I hope Taco Bell puts up a target that, if hit, means everyone in the world gets a free burrito. They did it when Skylab came down.

      That was Mir.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    2. Re:Taco Bell by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      When did that, they found someone to insure it. So if it ever happened, the insurer will bear the costs. I doubt they can find someone to insure, in this economy.

  28. 1 in 3,200 by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    If there's a 1 in 21 trillion chance that an individual will be hit, and there are 7 billion people, then the odds of someone, somewhere, getting hit are 21,000,000,000,000/7,000,000,000 or 1 in 3,000.

    Of course, seeing as people tend to clump together, the most likely scenario, IF someone gets hit, is that multiple people get hit - so that is also ~ 1 in 3,000.

    This matches pretty well with the actual odds in the article:

    There is a 1-in-3,200 chance that a person somewhere on Earth could be hit by falling satellite debris, but the odds of the UARS spacecraft re-entering over a populated area are extremely remote, NASA officials said.

    A 300-pound piece of flaming satellite debris traveling at supersonic speeds is going to do more than hurt a little.

    Johnson said that, on average, a spacecraft as large as UARS falls back to Earth about once a year. In 2010, a total of 400 pieces of satellites or spent rockets fell back to Earth, though most pieces either burned up during re-entry, fell into the ocean or fell over unpopulated areas, he added.

    So, given that this happens every year, the odds of someone, somewhere getting hit during your lifetime are actually much better - if you only live to 50, they become 1 in 64.

    Also, it's already happened that someone has been hit, even though the woman wasn't hurt, so the odds may be higher than "theory" alone predicts.

    1. Re:1 in 3,200 by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      A 300-pound piece of flaming satellite debris traveling at supersonic speeds is going to do more than hurt a little.

      If it's something like a 300-pound crowbar, it would be wise to flee.

      If it's a typical 300-pound random assortment of parts be supersonic as it re-enters the atmosphere, but by the time it gets to a few km from the surface in the much denser air it'll be very much subsonic. Still, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to be hit in the back of the head by it.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    2. Re:1 in 3,200 by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      TFA says that individual pieces will be up to 300 pounds each. Not to worry though - if that lands on you, it's probably only going to hurt for a fraction of a second.

  29. Playing it safe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you have a 1-in-21 trillion chance of being hit by falling debris. Who's feeling lucky?

    I'm not going to risk it, I'm wearing a hat.

  30. Why can this fall down... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...yet all that other junk doesn't? I guarantee that if I step off the ISS, I'm plunging to earth, yet this other shit won't fall down? It really doesn't make sense. Fucking gravity, how come it doesn't work? Seriously.

    1. Re:Why can this fall down... by Jeng · · Score: 1

      This might help you figure it out, or it may just confuse you further.

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

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:Why can this fall down... by rossdee · · Score: 1

      I think that you would probably stay up there longer than it (the ISS) would.

      Given tthat they are planning to deorbit it in a decade or so anyway.

  31. NASA press release by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    + re-entry and risk assessment pdf!

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/uars/index.html

  32. Watch Out George! by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Ellen Muth is worried about this.

    For those of you who won't get this joke:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Like_Me

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  33. Re:Falling Debris by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

    Yeah, I'm aware of those effects, as well as atmospheric extent expansion and contraction. That WILL affect satellites in the long run, but I can't see a major solar flare or CME causing it to rain debris all of a sudden.

    --
    In Liberty, Rene
  34. Re:Falling Debris by Whiternoise · · Score: 1

    Hence why I suggested unless it was an outburst on the scale of a cataclysmic variable - in which case we're all dead then anyway, probably before the satellites fall on our heads.

  35. i love by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

    How they say in the article that the satellite remains US property. Yeah okay, if their junk lands in my backyard (Canada) I think I'll keep it. Seriously how are they going to enforce that if it lands somewhere not in the US? I'm sorry but if your junk lands on some other countries soil they can do with it as they please.

    1. Re:i love by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Probably not. Odds are pretty good that the US and Canada have a treaty about that. Say an Air Canada jet had engine problems and landed at a private airport. Would it be okay for the owners of the airport to just keep it?
      The same treaties apply to in this case as say when a Russian pilot landed a Mig 25 in Japan. That plane was returned after it was inspected.... into little pieces.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:i love by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever hear of international treaties?

    3. Re:i love by Dr+La · · Score: 2

      Actually, many/most countries are signatory to the Space Treaty that specifically states (amongst other things) that any space debris landing on their territory has to be turned over to the country who launched it, if the latter wishes so. So yes: by international law, UARS remains US property.

      --
      Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse
  36. 1-in-21 trillion chance by PPH · · Score: 1, Funny

    And you can improve on that quite a bit. Just go down to the local surplus store, buy some satellite spare parts and drop them on your house.

    The odds of one house being hit by two pieces of satellite is vanishingly small.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  37. 1 in 21 trillion ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all i can say is that I'm glad i'm not a girl named George.

    1. Re:1 in 21 trillion ... by Existential+Wombat · · Score: 1

      all i can say is that I'm glad i'm not a girl named George.

      Or a boy named Sue.

  38. Slightly better by BadPirate · · Score: 1

    Then the odds of getting hit by a piece of the satellite are the odds that a piece will hit near enough to you that you can grab it and keep it as a trophy of improbably odds.

    --
    - Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
    1. Re:Slightly better by monkyyy · · Score: 0

      nah id sell it to someone, got to be worth alot

      --
      warning pointless sig
  39. Mislabeled Image? by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

    In the first link in the summary, there are two images of the satellite--one against a backdrop of Earth and attached to a Space Shuttle manipulation boom. The next image is labeled as being the same thing except against a backdrop of deep space.

    If so, then why are there clearly a wall, window and door in the darkened background of the second image? It appears to be a mock-up, or even possibly a scale-model, held in the air by the boom.

    Mislabeled image, or is this a "Capricorn One" moment?

    Image:
    http://i.space.com/images/i/11938/i02/uars-satellite-deployment.jpg?1315422763

    1. Re:Mislabeled Image? by bejiitas_wrath · · Score: 1

      Definitely a photo of a model taken with flash in a dark room, why is it advertised as a deep space photo though...

      --
      liberare massarum ex ignorantia, clausa descendit molestie.
  40. Well Do You, Junk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crap Joke.

  41. Advice from the UK by rippeltippel · · Score: 1

    Always take your umbrella with you.

  42. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to a NASA press conference today, you have a 1-in-21 trillion chance of being hit by falling debris. Who's feeling lucky?

    Scale this to 7 billion people and you have 1 to 3000 for a piece to hit any person. Anyway, in my view, that's press conference statistics and nothing more. It barely makes any sense. I wish to see the method by which they conclude to these numbers, just to laugh at it.

  43. You are safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are safe at latitudes over 57. Orbit inclination is 56.98.

    1. Re:You are safe by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      nope, sometimes can get a "skip re-entry". that can change orbital inclination under some conditions. for the shuttle orbiter, up to 0.8 degrees change was possible.