Slashdot Mirror


A Mysterious Piece of Russian Space Junk Does Maneuvers

schwit1 writes What was first thought to be a piece of debris left over from the launch of three Russian military communication satellites has turned out to be a fourth satellite capable of maneuvers: "The three satellites were designated Kosmos-2496, -2497, -2498. However, as in the previous launch on December 25, 2013, the fourth unidentified object was detected orbiting the Earth a few kilometers away from 'routine' Rodnik satellites. Moreover, an analysis of orbital elements from a US radar by observers showed that the 'ghost' spacecraft had made a maneuver between May 29 and May 31, 2014, despite being identified as 'debris' (or Object 2014-028E) in the official U.S. catalog at the time. On June 24, the mysterious spacecraft started maneuvering again, lowering its perigee (lowest point) by four kilometers and lifting its apogee by 3.5 kilometers. Object E then continued its relentless maneuvers in July and its perigee was lowered sharply, bringing it suspiciously close to the Briz upper stage, which had originally delivered all four payloads into orbit in May."

This is the second time a Russian piece of orbital junk has suddenly started to do maneuvers. The first time, in early 2014, the Russians finally admitted five months after launch that the "junk" was actually a satellite. In both cases, the Russians have not told anyone what these satellites are designed to do, though based on the second satellite's maneuvers as well as its small size (about a foot in diameter) it is likely they are testing new cubesat capabilities, as most cubesats do not have the ability to do these kinds of orbital maneuvers. Once you have that capability, you can then apply it to cubesats with any kind of purpose, from military anti-satellite technology to commercial applications.

4 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. Jeez, just come clean by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's pretty crowded up there, can we still afford to play "1965 Cold War" in 2014?

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
    1. Re:Jeez, just come clean by JoeMerchant · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Take a sailboat out in the South Pacific sea, get 500 miles from any port, and tell me how crowded the ocean surface (a 2D structure) feels.

      The only thing that's crowded about space is the delta-V, there's plenty of room, but you really want that when relative velocities can be > 1 km/sec.

  2. Re:No big issue by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The recurrent weakness in US military thinking (and procuring) is that small numbers of fancy, high tech stuff can beat large numbers of low tech things.

    That thinking has failed us numerous times. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps in space.

    Who is going to be raising vodka shots when the 10 million dollar piece of space junk annihilates a 10 billion dollar XB-37?

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  3. Re:No big issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That thinking has failed us numerous times. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps in space.

    Actually those wars were "lost" because the US didn't apply the necessary brutality it takes to win a war. Public relations, not high technology, is the determining factor.

    We didn't "lose" the war in either Iraq or Afghanistan.

    We went in to Iraq to toss out Saddam and in to Afghanistan to get bin Laden (we didn't really have a beef with the Taliban except that they wouldn't hand over bin Laden) and we accomplished both of those goals. Militarily we "won" in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

    The problem is, then we stuck around in both Iraq and Afghanistan for the wishy-washy goal of installing a stable democracy in a land that wouldn't recognize democracy if it bit'em on the ass. That's where we "lost". Although my impression is we came close in Iraq. Maybe if had kept a presence in Iraq, maybe in the northern part. The Kurds seem to have their act together.