NASA's Fermi Spacecraft Dodged a Defunct Russian Satellite

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA's Fermi Spacecraft Dodged a Defunct Russian Satellite

Posted by Soulskill on Wednesday May 1, 2013 @09:26AM from the evasive-maneuvers dept.

g01d4 writes "On March 29, 2012, NASA scientists learned that the space agency's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope was headed for a potential conjunction (close approach) with Cosmos 1805, a defunct Russian satellite from the Cold War era. The team knew that the only way to move Fermi would be to fire thrusters designed to move the spacecraft out of orbit at the end of its operating life. On April 3rd, shortly after noon EDT, the space agency fired all thrusters for one second. When it was over, everyone involved 'just sighed with relief that it all went well.' By 1 p.m., the spacecraft had returned to its mission."

47 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Should we assume the delay... by rmdingler · 2013-05-01 09:32 · Score: 1

In the story's release was a matter of national security, or just normal time lapse between an event's occurrence and discussion on /.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
1. Re:Should we assume the delay... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 09:38 · Score: 1
  
  It was due to time dilation.
2. Re:Should we assume the delay... by forand · 2013-05-01 12:58 · Score: 1
  
  No. It wasn't news then for the same reason there are no highly moderated posts on the article now: it isn't news. When this occurred the community (of gamma-ray astronomers) knew it was happening. It was never kept secret.
3. Re:Should we assume the delay... by davester666 · 2013-05-01 18:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, to prevent this satellite from possibly turning into junk now, we are now committed to turning it into space-junk later, for our kids satellites to deal with.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
In Soviet Russia.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 09:32 · Score: 1

Satellite Dodge You!
Why avoid it? by ArcadeMan · 2013-05-01 09:37 · Score: 1

Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Not to mention that it's already in orbit.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
1. Re:Why avoid it? by Stolpskott · 2013-05-01 17:31 · Score: 2
  
  Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Not to mention that it's already in orbit.
  Nice idea... simple solution... but if we take this seriously (sorry, too early in the morning for my sense of humour to have woken up yet) the only problem with it is that any explosive method of dealing with orbiting debris just creates lots of small and tiny pieces of shrapnel, and traveling through a field of that crap at orbital velocities is not going to be the highlight of your day. Not a problem if you are in an M1 Abrams battle tank, but satellites do not have armour, except for shielding against the sun's radiation, and things like solar panels do not work very well after being hit a few times by orbital debris.
  What we REALLY need is a small version of Mega Maid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VptOUWC-Itc) to go up there and hoover up all the junk, preferably while leaving all the viable stuff alone.
2. Re:Why avoid it? by wallsg · 2013-05-01 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Not to mention that it's already in orbit.
  Be careful. It might not be Cosmos at all. It might be IKON and it'll nuke you back.
3. Re:Why avoid it? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 19:54 · Score: 0
  
  Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure. Not to mention that it's already in orbit.
  Nice idea... simple solution... but if we take this seriously (sorry, too early in the morning for my sense of humour to have woken up yet) the only problem with it is that any explosive method of dealing with orbiting debris just creates lots of small and tiny pieces of shrapnel, and traveling through a field of that crap at orbital velocities is not going to be the highlight of your day. Not a problem if you are in an M1 Abrams battle tank, but satellites do not have armour, except for shielding against the sun's radiation, and things like solar panels do not work very well after being hit a few times by orbital debris.
  What we REALLY need is a small version of Mega Maid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VptOUWC-Itc) to go up there and hoover up all the junk, preferably while leaving all the viable stuff alone.
  Does anyone know if an M1 Abrams battle tank can stand up to that? What I've read about space junk is that the high velocities endow great destructive results.
4. Re:Why avoid it? by matfud · 2013-05-01 20:34 · Score: 1
  
  A pretty thing but not something to mess with.
cold war just got hot by jehan60188 · 2013-05-01 09:46 · Score: 2

this is clearly a premeditated act of war by the russians. I propose we attack Uzbekistan.
1. Re:cold war just got hot by khallow · 2013-05-01 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  I propose we attack Uzbekistan.
  Why not attack Hawaii instead? The weather is nicer.
2. Re:cold war just got hot by tehlinux · 2013-05-01 10:27 · Score: 2
  
  That didn't work out so well for Japan.
  
  --
  Most linux users don't know this, but the man pages were named after Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris fsck'ing hates noobs!
3. Re:cold war just got hot by camperdave · 2013-05-01 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  Meh. Why do all that attacking? If the weather is nice, why don't we just lie on the beach with little umbrella drinks?
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
4. Re:cold war just got hot by Kittenman · 2013-05-01 14:51 · Score: 0
  
  this is clearly a premeditated act of war by the russians. I propose we attack Uzbekistan.
  Thanks god that George W. isn't still in office... he probably would.
  
  --
  "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
5. Re:cold war just got hot by VortexCortex · 2013-05-01 19:12 · Score: 1
  
  Meh. Why do all that attacking? If the weather is nice, why don't we just lie on the beach with little umbrella drinks?
  That's the way the Terrorists Win!
6. Re:cold war just got hot by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 22:43 · Score: 0
  
  Ya, president Barack Osama will just use drone attacks on American citizens in the USA to distract the Russians while he hands out more foreign aid to the Taliban in Syria.
  "we don't need no stinkin' constitution" anyway.
  (a once proud American who is looking to emigrate)
7. Re:cold war just got hot by sayno2quat · 2013-05-03 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  That's the way the Tourists Win!
  FTFY
  
  --
  Sure I sold you robot insurance. But you were attacked by a cyborg. Not covered.
Bad headline by MasseKid · 2013-05-01 09:58 · Score: 1, Informative

Dodged evidently doesn't mean it was going to hit it and they moved it out of the way. It was actually a "close approach" as stated in the summary (gotta love sensationalism, right?). Except, close approach actually means within 700' of the defunct satellite, which really isn't all the close at all.
1. Re:Bad headline by DougOtto · 2013-05-01 10:00 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  From TFA:
  
  Though Fermi was expected to miss Cosmos by several-hundred feet, NASA scientists knew from experience that forecasting spacecraft positions a week in advance isn’t an exact science. For example, Iridium 33 and Cosmos 2251 collided in 2009 even though they were predicted to miss each other by approximately 1,900 feet. This was the first known satellite-to-satellite collision.
  
  --
  Solving Unix problems since 1989...
2. Re:Bad headline by X0563511 · 2013-05-01 10:02 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  If there was any debris from the Cosmos (either directly from it, or from interactions with other junk or such) could be within that area.
  Our radar is not good enough to make it safe enough to pass by that closely.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
3. Re:Bad headline by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 10:41 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  700' is ridiculously close when you're going miles per second and the Earth's atmosphere is constantly changing, changing each object's orbits by similar amounts regularly due to drag.
  Heck, if the RADAR producing the data has a couple of microseconds of jitter in it's clock, the propagation estimates could be off by that amount....Basically, 700' is pretty close to the noise of our estimations for orbital objects like this, and it's just better to be safe than sorry. Not to mention, who knows what small pieces could have broken off of that satellite and be orbiting nearby it....
4. Re:Bad headline by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 10:44 · Score: 0
  
  So you think they moved it for no reason? Good reasoning. Well thought out.
5. Re:Bad headline by DerekLyons · 2013-05-01 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  Except, close approach actually means within 700' of the defunct satellite, which really isn't all the close at all.
  Except, you don't know the margin of error in either our knowledge of Fermi's orbit or that of Cosmos 1805's orbit. But I'd be willing to bet that the margins are large enough that a predicted 700' approach would place the two spheres of position sufficiently in overlap that there was a non-zero chance of collision.
6. Re:Bad headline by AK+Marc · 2013-05-01 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  The margin of error is greater than 700', so it's improbable but possible. And with such dire consequences in the event of a collision, it was safer to move it.
  
  --
  Learn to love Alaska
7. Re:Bad headline by steelfood · 2013-05-02 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, revised calculations made their pass even closer, within 30 milliseconds. I may be doing the math wrong, but it seems like that's much closer, like an order of magnitude closer than 700' and then some.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Launched when? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 10:02 · Score: 0

During the cold war? It's got nukes in it, that's why they didn't wanna hit it!
Orbital Envoirment Protection Agency.... by rts008 · 2013-05-01 10:05 · Score: 1, Interesting

It seems to have reached a point where the amount of orbital garbage is causing major (and expensive) problems.
I think that if anyone puts a sat in orbit without dodging capability, they are fools, and potentially contributing to the 'littering' of orbitals.
It's past time to start working on and TESTING solutions to clean up the orbitals before it gets even more out of hand.
Or is this some Earthshade Anti-Warming scheme I missed hearing about?

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
1. Re:Orbital Envoirment Protection Agency.... by bobbied · 2013-05-01 11:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Oh man, where do you start with this?
  In LEO, orbiting debris are a self limiting problem. They will eventually deorbit on their own. So I guess that's not an issue for you.
  In Geosynchronous orbit, every object is going to be pretty much moving in exactly the same direction anyway so the relative velocity is really small. The risk of collision is pretty small and the debris created would be minimal at low collision energies.
  Outside these two areas, collecting orbiting debris, which vary in size from a few tons down to a few grams is a daunting task at best. How do one would imagine this could be done is the stuff of science fiction at best. Any collection system would by definition need to collect varying sized objects passing though a huge (by human standards) volume. This means there will need to be some pretty large structures launched, flown in space, survive the impact of collecting the desired objects and dispose of the collected mass. All this will need to happen without adding to the problem....
  I just don't see how we are going to do this.
  Personally, mankind would be better off if we took a debris mitigation strategy that required all launched hardware be mindful of not creating debris in orbits that would not naturally reenter within 5 years or so. We do this kind of thing now, at least the responsible people throwing most of the stuff in to space do, no telling what DPRK does.
  Other than that, we might want to start thinking about building "space tugs" that can capture the junk that's collecting in geosynchronous orbit, tug it to less popular locations and work on ways to recycle parts of it. It sure doesn't seem worth the effort to deorbit the stuff that is that high up.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
2. Re:Orbital Envoirment Protection Agency.... by barjam · 2013-05-01 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't altitude and velocities in geosynchronous orbit have to be exactly identical by definition? Otherwise it wouldn't be geosynchronous orbit and stuff would drift forward or backward.
3. Re:Orbital Envoirment Protection Agency.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 11:40 · Score: 0
  
  Putting shit into space is still pretty expensive. First guy who figures out how to start capturing and bolting this stuff together is going to have a pretty nice gig.
  Don't wait for spaceX to do it. They just cut the cost enough to undercut the good ole boys.
  Meanwhile the governments of the world will continue to run space programs on the backs of taxpayers for 100x cost. Because taxpayers are basically very stupid people.
4. Re:Orbital Envoirment Protection Agency.... by k6mfw · 2013-05-01 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  perhaps international policies to prevent a "tragedy of the commons."
  
  --
  mfwright@batnet.com
5. Re:Orbital Envoirment Protection Agency.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 14:54 · Score: 0
  
  Every object in orbit at a certain altitude is moving at the same speed, but they don't have to be moving in the same direction. Of course, there's no point in sending something all the way to 26km if you don't want it to be geostationary, so in practice everything there is moving together.
  So you're right, but there could be other stuff at that altitude that's not in geosynchronous orbit.
6. Re:Orbital Envoirment Protection Agency.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 15:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If you want to be pedantic, no. "Geosynchronous" means that it has a 1-day orbital period but does not specify the inclination or eccentricity of that orbit. The correct term for what you're talking about is "geostationary".
7. Re:Orbital Envoirment Protection Agency.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-02 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  I just don't see how we are going to do this.
  lasers?
8. Re:Orbital Envoirment Protection Agency.... by steelfood · 2013-05-02 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  A very, very large aerogel sponge. Getting the actual sponge to deorbit would be a bitch, but at least it'd be easy to track.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
9. Re:Orbital Envoirment Protection Agency.... by bobbied · 2013-05-03 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  And exactly how do you propose this would work with lasers?
  Two effects of lasers could be useful, but I don't think either of them really helps in any useful way.
  One, you could push an object with a laser. The effect is pretty small, but you could adjust an object's orbit by giving it a small push from time to time. I suppose you could eventually get it to re-enter if you can adjust the orbit enough over time. This would take a LONG time considering you would likely want the laser to be earth based so you could only push on the object at irregular intervals based on the object's orbit and the direction the laser can push it at any given time. I don't think that's going to be a usable situation.
  The other effect is heating. Again, this effect is pretty useless. If you succeeded in turning an object into molten slag, all it's going to do is turn into a bunch of small round objects with the same mass as the original object (best case). Their orbit won't change and you have simply made the problem of gathering up the junk harder. I suppose you could hope to vaporize the thing, but that is going to take a LOT more energy.
  Lasers just don't seem to be a viable option here.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
10. Re:Orbital Envoirment Protection Agency.... by sayno2quat · 2013-05-03 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  The GP has a point. The GGP states they have little relative velocity, which means they would have to have the same inclination. A geosynchronous satellite that is moving in the opposite direction is going to have a ton of relative velocity and would have disastrous results in the event of a collision.
  So perhaps the GPP meant geostationary (or close to it), not just geosyncronous (if the only definition of that is the satellite has a 1-day orbit). However, I am not an astrologer or any sort of scientist, so correct me if I am making incorrect assumptions.
  
  --
  Sure I sold you robot insurance. But you were attacked by a cyborg. Not covered.
In soviet russia... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-01 10:12 · Score: 0, Funny

spacecraft dodges you....
[i'm sorry. the voices told me to tell that]
1. Re:In soviet russia... by flyingfsck · 2013-05-01 15:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well, Yuri Gagarin is still flying and he has right of way...
  (Legend has it that he didn't die in a plane crash in 1968 and is still in orbit.)
  
  --
  Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
2. Re:In soviet russia... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-02 03:49 · Score: 0
  
  You mean, like Major Tom?
Potential conjunction? by Mister+Liberty · 2013-05-01 10:26 · Score: 1

So the conjunction was averted and didn't happen?
1. Re:Potential conjunction? by VortexCortex · 2013-05-01 19:18 · Score: 1
  
  So the conjunction was averted and didn't happen?
  Yep, that means another 1000 years of Skeksis rule.
Yuri Gagarin by flyingfsck · 2013-05-01 15:27 · Score: 1

They got to watch out for Yuri Gagarin too. According to legend, he is still flying up there.

--
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Curious that we aren't working on clearing junk by wnfJv8eC · 2013-05-01 16:08 · Score: 1

Orbit. So easy to make an object leave it's orbit. Change is vertical moment. So, a ground based laser, solar powered, naturally, is used to target junk just under the base station. A few minutes a days and this junk will be coming down. Why are we waiting?
1. Re:Curious that we aren't working on clearing junk by cusco · 2013-05-01 17:00 · Score: 2
  
  Because no one is willing to pay a gazillion dollars to provide bonuses to aerospace executives. Once the C-suite execs find a sponsor you'll suddenly hear what a high priority clearing out orbital debris has become.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
I just wish by slugstone · 2013-05-02 00:46 · Score: 0

The kids would pick up their toys when they are done with them.