Slashdot Mirror


20-Year-Old Military Weather Satellite Explodes In Orbit

schwit1 writes A 20-year-old U.S. military weather satellite apparently exploded for no obvious reason. The incident has put several dozen pieces of space junk into orbit. From the article: "A 20-year-old military weather satellite apparently exploded in orbit Feb. 3 following what the U.S. Air Force described as a sudden temperature spike. The “catastrophic event” produced 43 pieces of space debris, according to Air Force Space Command, which disclosed the loss of the satellite Feb. 27 in response to questions from SpaceNews. The satellite, Defense Meteorological Satellite Program Flight 13, was the oldest continuously operational satellite in the DMSP weather constellation."

253 comments

  1. It was Terrorists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Invade Mars immediately.

    1. Re: It was Terrorists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Martians are the JV teams!

    2. Re:It was Terrorists! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      The Martians are straightening the Tower of Pisa!

    3. Re:It was Terrorists! by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      It was probably the Chinese practicing their space warfare.

    4. Re: It was Terrorists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They took our stuff!

    5. Re:It was Terrorists! by mgf64 · · Score: 1

      The Martians are straightening the Tower of Pisa!

      Hail to our Martian Overlords !

    6. Re:It was Terrorists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I blame climate change!

    7. Re:It was Terrorists! by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      The Martians are straightening the Tower of Pisa!

      Hail to our Martian Overlords !

      You got semi-whooshed there: the quote is from one of the all-time greatest pinball machines: Attack From Mars. Which, BTW, is available as a sim via PinballArcade.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    8. Re: It was Terrorists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol I like your "sliding" logic where you state 911 wasn't staged then say it wasn't staged to quite the extent"... You've been watching too much Fox News to argue like that. Fyi: I don't disagree about military industrial complex... But you are borderlining crazy land and "fake moon landing" "no climate change" "earth is 4000 years old" " the holocaust didn't happen " land when you say the U.S. staged its own 911.

  2. It should stand two degrees, for sure! by DrTJ · · Score: 2, Funny

    Even the military grade tech deteriorates. Surely it should withstand a two degree increase - especially over a century!

    1. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This was a test of laser weapons. Either the USA destroyed it or someone else did.

    2. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Many satellites are hybrid solar+batteries. They have sun enough to run and charge, so in the shade, they run off batteries. Batteries fail, sometimes spectacularly. It's possible that there was a chemical reaction in the batteries that *caused*, not was the result of, the temperature spike. Then the battery failed, exploding.

    3. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by earthminion · · Score: 2

      "solar+batteries"

      Maybe they used old laptop batteries. ;)

    4. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I doubt that, there are no sharks in space.

      Oh, you are serious. Well, that was my first thought too. Either a laser weapon or a small particle of something (meteorite) smashed through it causing a catastrophic failure..

    5. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      that is possible. Its also possible that this is false information to cover up a military test. or worse, someone other than the US military testing....

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    6. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by knightghost · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Micro meteor is an option. So is a laser - the chinese have already been testing them. Where was the satellite over geographically when it exploded?

    7. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, aiming a laser at something in orbit really isn't all that difficult. Assuming that you have a reliable power source and cooling enough to run the diode continuously, you can pretty much just point the thing into the sky and wiggle it around until you hit something. Yes, there's a lot more to it, not the least of which is problems caused by light refraction as the laser leaves our atmosphere, but the bottom line is that "testing" a laser is really, really easy, and cheap. That's why we want to militarize them so badly, to tell the truth.

    8. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      that is possible. Its also possible that this is false information to cover up a military test. or worse, someone other than the US military testing....

      So, a conspiracy, you reckon? (reaches for tinfoil hat...)

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    9. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Occam's razor. Which is simpler. A routine battery failure, or a complicated military test on a hostile satellite?

    10. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by ubrgeek · · Score: 5, Funny

      > Where was the satellite over geographically when it exploded?

      The Earth.

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    11. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by gtall · · Score: 1

      Stop watching TV, it is bad for you.

    12. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      I would launch the laser into space on a satellite or something.

    13. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Demena · · Score: 3

      Micro meteor a very unlikely option. There was heating before the explosion. A laser or its ilk? Quite possible. Now who would want to demonstrate the capacity to destroy space and orbital assets easily and cheaply at this political juncture? Russia, China, North Diarrhoea, Iran? I wonder what part of the world it was over?

    14. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Demena · · Score: 1

      Which is simpler? No one knows. Too many unknowns and imponderables. As a guess I would think the latter more likely.

    15. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by ckatko · · Score: 1

      Which one?

    16. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Not more likely. More simple. A common failure, with no people deciding to do anything, or an experimental test performed by a hostile entity that the US government is covering up part, but not all, of the details about the test? One is a simple mechanical failure. The other is an act of war, with a complex cover-up performed by the attacked nation.

      Don't answer what you would prefer the answer to be, or what you think is more likely, but look at the complexity of each of the options, and answer the question of which is more complex?

    17. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

      This "build shit, destroy shit" cycle we humans seem stuck in is going do do us in some day. At least when we blow shit up on Earth it lands somewhere to be slowly buried over by soil. All that orbital debris is going to form a freaking shrapnel belt at some point and it'll be Russian roulette every time we launch and sipping tea in front of a Gatling gun to stay in orbit. Life is hard by its nature, but we seem hell bent on making it as hard as possible. Then again, maybe they used those old Lenovo ThinkPad batteries in the thing and no weaponry was involved...

      --
      Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
    18. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Temperature spike points to laser weapons testing. I think you're correct. Now the big question is who did it? USA blowing an old useless junk sat for a test, or Ru/Cn testing their toys on an old US sat to say "see what we can do now"...

    19. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ok, everybody, look over here!"
      "This,", pointing, "is a deneuralizer."
      Bzzzoing!
      "Swamp gas and chemical bettery reactions. Now move along and stop staring people."

    20. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by meerling · · Score: 1

      Some gear has something called a chemical battery.
      A chemical battery is a one use short duration power supply.
      I've never heard of one being used in a satellite, but the military doesn't give out specs on their satellites, which conceivably might have a need for such a resource.

    21. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Yes. If nobody was watching the weather channel, none of this would have happened.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    22. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by DrTJ · · Score: 1

      No, it wasn't a laser test.It was my weather satellite joke above that back-fired.

    23. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can also be a debris from chinese satellite hitting US satellite.

      At least a house and plot got destroyed in south western tip in India, last week, though not fully attributed to this cause.

      ---
      Many people in Kerala have reportedly seen a fireball falling from the sky on Friday night, which is likely to be a meteor or part of a Chinese rocket that burned up on hitting the earth’s atmosphere.

      The fireball was visible in different parts of the state, only to disappear moments later. People who witnessed the unnatural event were gripped in fear as they thought it to have hit the ground. The fireball left behind orange trail as it descended.

      Earlier in the week, a similar incident was reported from the United States where people in Arizona saw a fireball falling from the sky which was later confirmed by NASA as the junk body from a Chinese rocket.

      After the initial panic, people started posting images of the unidentified object on social media. However, Minister Adoor Prakash has ordered for an investigation on the matter and requested the residents not to panic.
      Panic grips parts of the state.

    24. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I'd think most satellites have batteries, how else are they going to work when their solar cells are in the shade of the Earth?

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    25. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by davester666 · · Score: 2

      2. You won't believe what we did to the first one.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    26. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by mirix · · Score: 2

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

      Though the units in question do have batteries, which have historically been of the NiCd variety, and are in this case as well. I'm not sure if any newer satellites use newer battery tech? (NiMH or some sort of lithium ion..).

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    27. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by DrTJ · · Score: 1

      I doubt that, there are no sharks in space.

      No, not yet. But at this rate, it's just a matter of time.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    28. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Hard to believe that China would go out of their way to piss the USA off by blowing up their satellite. Doesn't seem consistent with their style.

    29. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      It would be very dumb to reveal your capability in that way.

    30. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Demena · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, perhaps not. An active working public satellite, well I doubt it. An old worthless, past its busby date satellite, maybe.

      But there are lots of candidates besides China.

      But I am not making a claim for either cause or villain. We do not know enough and probably never will.

    31. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or a false flag action of the US to accuse a foreign power. To get more funding for the space defense toys.

    32. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      or a false flag action of the US to accuse a foreign power. To get more funding for the space defense toys.

      Anything that gets more money in the hands of nasa can't be all bad.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    33. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Occams razor is a tool for resource allocation, not truth level.

    34. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um...

      I'll just leave this here.
      http://xkcd.com/1377/

    35. Re: It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It it could have been space junk that ripped the insulation. When the sun it hit the internal batteries exploded.

    36. Re: It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does not matter where the sat was. Earth to orbit laser attack is not feasible due to diffraction of light in atmosphere. If it was laser, it was orbit to irbit

    37. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      Temperature spike could also be a runaway fault in the power supply. You have a power supply and a device likely full of hypergolic fuel for station keeping; I don't think system fault is really ruled out here either.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    38. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Demena · · Score: 1

      I do not know. I am not putting forward any theory. Actually, reading back, I did. But I mentioned it only as a possibility. I am certainly not wedded to it

      Whatever caused it caused it. That is the only thing I am certain of. People seem to think I favour a particular theory. I do not, Sorry to give any other impression.

    39. Re: It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Demena · · Score: 2

      Atmospheric diffraction used to be far more serious on earthly telescopes than it is now due to correction mechanisms and software. The flickering of stars due to atmospheric vagaries can be almost entirely eliminated. You want to bet on the fact that a lot of money has not been put into making that go the other way?

      Atmospheric attenuation should not be a big issue. The point of having a ground based laser system is that you can pump a lot of power into either a flash strike or a persistent strike. Orbit to orbit? How much power can a satellite pack? I honestly do not know.

      However, as we do not know it was a laser it is moot at this point.

    40. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      This was a test of laser weapons. Either the USA destroyed it or someone else did.

      I'd be just a bit - hell very surprised - if it was something like that.

      There is a really good reason that we don't go around willy nilly blowing things up in space. It's the rough equivalent of shitting on your dinner plate. China started an international incident a few years ago when they tested an anti-satellite weapon. It's pretty trivial to make booms that take out satellites. But it hurts you as much as your enemy. One satellite worth of debris is a big deal.

      Our fist war in space will be our last war in space. We'll lose GPS, Weather,Communications, space station, spy, science and manned space flights, and anything else that once resided in that area or tried to get through it. Until most of it de-orbits.

      See? This is why we can't have anything nice.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    41. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      > Where was the satellite over geographically when it exploded?

      The Earth.

      Nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only...oh.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    42. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Occam's razor. Which is simpler. A routine battery failure, or a complicated military test on a hostile satellite?

      Ah, but which is more fun? This Occam sounds like a right misery guts.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    43. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Interesting? Really mods? Everybody forget Occam's razor? This thing was the OLDEST one the military had that was still "functioning" and by functioning they meant it was parked as a back up for the last NINE YEARS.

      So you have a device in one of the most inhospitable places we know of, WELL past its prime, sitting in a holding pattern with minimal power strictly as a backup. So what would one say most likely using Occam's razor? That the thing has been deteriorating for over a decade and that when somebody fired up the engines they went BOOM! and took the bird with it. Considering how old it was? Not only is this most likely it really isn't even surprising, after all you ARE talking about trying to perform a controlled release of highly pressurized gas from a sat that has been beaten by micro meteors and exposed to insane temp variations since Clinton was POTUS.

      Now which is more likely, the US military risked setting off a chain reaction and fucking up their satnav network just to test a laser, or they tried to move the thing and it ripped itself apart?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    44. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by tom17 · · Score: 2

      It is a bypass! You've got to build bypasses!

    45. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Uhhh...unless I'm mistaken the USA hasn't used RTGs as power sources except in deep space for precisely this very reason, too risky if something goes BOOM!

      OTOH the Soviets had a serious love affair with RTGs, they used 'em on LEO sats, used 'em in their arctic bases, even ran lighthouses with RTGs. They cranked out so many RTGs they honestly no longer know where they are all located, so many were used in the former USSR that there is no telling how many abandoned stations in Bumfuckistan have RTGs lying around waiting for some fool to kill himself trying to steal the metals in the casing.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    46. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a good book you would like if you haven't read it, it's called "Cradle to Cradle" and is based on creating a cyclical production model so that nothing is wasted.

    47. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by niftymitch · · Score: 1

      Even the military grade tech deteriorates. Surely it should withstand a two degree increase - especially over a century!

      Climate change does not apply to objects in space. Surely you cannot hear me scream.

      --
      Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
    48. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      microdebris piercing the hydrazine tank would explain both the temperature spike and the explosion.

    49. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like Occam's Laser to me.

    50. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You prefer Rube's razor? The more complex answer is more fun.

    51. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The resource allocation in this case is time thinking or talking about it.

    52. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I doubt that, there are no sharks in space.

      That we know of.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    53. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      OTOH the Soviets had a serious love affair with RTGs ...

      Nevermind the RTGs - I'm much more concerned with the nasty fission reactors they've put up there. The US put one up, too.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    54. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and then the US proceeded to shoot down a satellite after having criticized china for their stunt.

      China accuses US of double standards over satellite strike

    55. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt that, there are no sharks in space.

      A sufficient number of sharks with laser beams can target and destroy objects in space from the surface of the ocean. There's no need to actually swim up that high.

    56. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      and then the US proceeded to shoot down a satellite after having criticized china for their stunt.

      China accuses US of double standards over satellite strike

      Your point? Presumably the satellite was about to de-orbit and wold have been a danger due to the fuel. Hydrazine.

      Nasty shit, that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

      As likely as not, they waited until the thing was close to deorbiting and then took it out. All of that orbiting junk eventually debris. If it is imminent, destroying a potential big hazard that would otherwise fall more or less intact - as far as I know, the hydrazine tank was full as the satellite failed quickly - you'll opt for destroying it at the last moment, and letting the fuel go boom in space.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    57. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many more? Any small (or big...) party can be easily deceived they have a satellite in orbit but it is just a team of writers *somewhere*. Any idea where are satellites in terms of Islam? Allowed? Feared? Despised cause they can only go back 12000 years to the desert while we (they)... ? I _do_ have LOTS of examples HERE IN FRONT OF ME who would rather kill ANYONE who knows computers existed so they can keep playing chess in free tables and pretend they are not useless vagrants but **people in the _knowing_**. I mean, would kill ANYONE who knows how to MAKE any of those things work... ... :-(

    58. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You omitted self destruction to hide whatever, but if anyone else can, they would DO. Can WE??

    59. Re:It should stand two degrees, for sure! by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      No RTGs on board - otherwise we would already have had Greenpeice screaming about the 'end of the world'. Besides the reason the USA doesn't use RTGs for ordinary satellites isn't about safety - its because they are expensive to make.
      Most/all RTG's are designed to withstand the fall from orbit - as was the US's space reactor which was crashed - deorbited into the deepest part of the sea decades ago. As I have pointed out before the sea already has 4 billion tons of natural uranium in it so a bit extra wont make any difference. Of course Greenpiece were still worried about contaminating the natural uranium - which is good , with the evil human uranium.

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
  3. Natural ways by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

    An asteroid for instance?

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  4. The truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The truth is the explosion came just after a software update.
    Sources that want to remain anonymous confirmed the update included systemd.

    1. Re: The truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other sources confirm it was installed using alien.

    2. Re: The truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's dead. Netcraft confirms it.

    3. Re:The truth by weilawei · · Score: 1

      Now we know where the old Slashdot Beta went.

    4. Re:The truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watch out, you might get the systemd sjws in here all mad about how people keep hurting their feelings.

    5. Re:The truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The correct, though violent reaction of any system to the installation of systemd. Think of the rush at the ERs once systemd comes to smart watches.

    6. Re:The truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing as how systemd has already won the war, sounds like you're the one with the chapped ass.

  5. Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What should we blame this time? Russia, global warming or terrorists?

    1. Re:Canada by mrsquid0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Aliens.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    2. Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, it was an accident that could have happened to anyone. How were they supposed to know a satellite would get in the way of the death ray?

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

      Laser test. Either the USA destroyed it or someone else did. The temp spike was the laser melting the shit out of it.

    4. Re:Canada by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

      I miss the good old days, when you knew to blame everything on the Axis of Evil, and you could solve all our problems by bombing Iraq.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... and when we had a president who loved America.

    6. Re: Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's hard to imagine and I could be mistaken, but lasers beams tend to diffract rather quickly. A lot of progress has been made with Airy/bessel beams, but on the order of 1 meter.

      It could be that the some military has a edge here, but I really have my doubts. I think it's much easier to imagine some kind of chemical or electrical failure that became catastrophic rather quickly. This was an old sattelite with old chemical batteries, propellant and possibly some kind cold-war era self destruct mechanism.

    7. Re: Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US Navy has been actively installing weaponized lasers, and they're lobbying Congress for money to retrofit the fleet accordingly. Lasers and railguns are the future of naval weaponry. That much is all over C-SPAN.

      What isn't is that they're a core component to the next generation of missile defense systems. We already have the ability to knock a missile out of the air from miles away; lasers just give us the ability to do so for pennies on the dollar. That's one reason the Navy is so interested in them; that, and it eliminates the magazine, greatly reducing the chance that a ship will just explode when hit. You can imagine that excites them to some degree.

      In any case, it's not a stretch to think that laser tech has progressed to the point of being able to knock satellites out of orbit if it's already to the point that it's being considered for anti-ICBM systems. Once you punch through the denser bits of the lower atmosphere, you've done most of the hard work.

    8. Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That story arc isnt ready yet, they havent even gotten to the asteroids!

    9. Re:Canada by Tokolosh · · Score: 1

      Stuxnet

      --
      Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    10. Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When was that again??

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

      1945 or so...

    12. Re:Canada by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      Nah, it was Eisenhower in the 50's. I like Ike.

    13. Re: Canada by f3rret · · Score: 1

      ...already to the point that it's being considered for anti-ICBM systems...

      The ABL Project was killed years ago, and that was the main anti-ICBM laser system.

      --
      Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
    14. Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pics or it didn't happen!

    15. Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I am pretty sure that Obama would not have had the balls to send the army into the South in order to desegregate their schools. Obama would admonish the Ku Klux Klan to make double sure they only lynch those who deserve it, and he'd ask the blacks to trust in the wisdom of those carrying larger weapons.

      Ike was pretty much the last president for whom civil rights and liberty were something worth fighting for, not something to bargain away. He was an American to his heart. Obama may be black, but that's just skin deep, like everything with him. He is just a coward to the core leading a nation of cowards.

    16. Re:Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone liked Ike. What no one seemed to notice was that Ike didn't like everyone else!

  6. Star Wars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Explosion after a measurable temperature hike sounds more like a laser or maser attack than a collision. With a collision, there would not be much to measure.

    Ok, if the collision just severed some pipes or power or control lines, a temperature hike might also be part of the first consequence. But that would be boring.

    1. Re: Star Wars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      chinese laser, definitely

    2. Re: Star Wars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please let it be the North Koreans!!!

    3. Re:Star Wars! by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Funny

      Explosion after a measurable temperature hike sounds more like a laser or maser attack than a collision

      Really, and how does it sound in space?

    4. Re:Star Wars! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      It sounds like a battery had a fault, and ran hot, until it exploded. A laptop battery has a greater energy density than a hand grenade. So a sudden catastrophic failure would give the results observed.

    5. Re:Star Wars! by Rockoon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A laptop battery has a greater energy density than a hand grenade.

      20 year old laptop batteries?

      Maybe you should consider what you are saying before you say it.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re: Star Wars! by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      Perhaps NASA battery tech from 20 - 25 years ago was more advanced than the cheap laptop batteries of the day? Maybe? Quite often military / space applications are the source of consumer tech down the line...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    7. Re:Star Wars! by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      The various sensors (IR and optical) on the thing would probably notice a massive amount of electromagnetic radiation hitting it. It's possible the frequency used was invisible to the onboard detectors, but that seems fairly unlikely. Much more probably it just had some kind of malfunction: the thing is probably loaded with mono-propellant and of course it has a battery, either of which could easily spontaneously explode if something went wrong.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    8. Re:Star Wars! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I had a laptop in the '90s. It had a run time better than today's. Though the screen was shit. And the energy density didn't change greatly between then and now. Small improvements, but not massive. The biggest change from Ni-Cad to Li-ion is the memory effects and longevity, not energy density.

      And no, I'm not suggesting any particular type of battery was used. I would have no idea what the military would use in a satellite. Perhaps they were willing to pay the extra cost for a sealed lead-acid battery (a more well known and well tested tech, even if heavier and less dense than laptop batteries of the day).

      But a battery is a known failure problem. I've personally seen one explode - blew the hood off a car (technically, it wasn't the battery that blew, but the H2 that leaked out of the lead acid battery that collected under the hood, ignited by the starter, to blow while I watched from a safe distance when a friend was starting his car to drive home).

      There have been hundreds of incidents of on-board fires in airplanes from batteries - usually laptop batteries, sometimes phones.

      I recommend you consider what you are saying before you say it.

    9. Re: Star Wars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, masers come from Mexico, dumbass.

    10. Re: Star Wars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do gasers come from San Francisco?

    11. Re:Star Wars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh*...

      Yes, energy density has improved. A 1,200mAh battery in the 90s was the size of a masonry brick, and weighed about as much. Now, you regularly carry around 2,400mHa batteries in your smart phones, that you'd need a postage scale to weigh. Stop making absurd claims.

    12. Re:Star Wars! by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      People forget that these satellites have thrusters to adjust orbit & that typically have combustible propulsion fluids.

    13. Re: Star Wars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Improved, yes. But milliamp-hours is only one characteristic here. 2400mAh @ 3.7 volts is less than 9 watt-hours. Whereas the brick sized battery was on the order of 6000+ mAh @ 12 volts, for ~70 watt-hours. Please compare in terms of power density, not just spout off like an expert talking about only half of the power equation here.

    14. Re:Star Wars! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What's the weight of a '90s Ni-Cad AA battery? How many mAh?

      How about the current AA rechargeable batteries, you pick the type. Then compare the Joules in each.

      You are confusing the units and such. Stick to total Joules in the device by weight. You didn't. So I assume you are the one you are the one that doesn't know what you are talking about.

    15. Re:Star Wars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't this be detectable through voltage, current and power models and validation? These things are heavily instrumented.

    16. Re:Star Wars! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Generally either PEW PEW PEW, or the Star Trek phaser sound, I'm sure.

    17. Re: Star Wars! by mirix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      These ran NiCd cells. Here's some TL;DR from NASA about a variant of NiCd they use(d), not sure if it applies here.

      http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oc...

      Short notes:
      Fancy NiCd, Higher density and sealed. They rely on precise chemistry to be hermetically sealed units (lean on one element, for limiting and only O2 production).
      High pressure at full charge (~60PSI at room temp), higher if things go south, Pressure drops with charge state.
      Excess discharge causes hydrogen production.

      So, tin can, pressure changing with charge cycles (metal fatigue over many cycles?), H2 production, O2 production... maybe there is some chance for catastrophic failure there.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    18. Re:Star Wars! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It took nearly that long for the current battery tech to leave the lab and be a commodity, so bleeding edge satellite batteries from 20 years ago may compare directly to ten year old or maybe even five year old laptop batteries.

    19. Re:Star Wars! by Christian+Smith · · Score: 1

      It took nearly that long for the current battery tech to leave the lab and be a commodity, so bleeding edge satellite batteries from 20 years ago may compare directly to ten year old or maybe even five year old laptop batteries.

      I doubt it. The last thing you want in an unserviceable satellite is bleeding edge battery technology. You want to use what you know works, stable mature technology, and work within the known limitations of such technology.

    20. Re:Star Wars! by fremsley471 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I think they did install some bleeding edge technology as a sister satellite, the F11 exploded in a very similar manner in 2004. See last item here:
      http://planet4589.org/space/js...

      Only interesting part of this story is that I included the JSR reference for F11 in Wikipedia in June 2004. It was deleted last year by an anonymous user in Washington DC.

    21. Re:Star Wars! by dbIII · · Score: 1

      With respect, it takes more time to plan out production lines for an economical design than it does to work out how to make a single reliable item that has to be hand crafted at great expense.

    22. Re: Star Wars! by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      MASA will put a whale on the moon for 200 bucks.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    23. Re: Star Wars! by qvatch · · Score: 1

      Because of environment hardening and reliability, space tech is frequently behind commercial tech.

    24. Re:Star Wars! by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      Spacecrcaft components are NEVER EVER bleeding edge on a production bird (microsats and testrigs are a different matter, but the last thing you want on a long-duration bird is 'bleeding edge')

      They're generally locked in place from what's reliable when the designs are laid out (so the tech is 10 years old about then), then on average launched 10 years after that point (making them 10 years behind spacecraft state of the art and 15-20 years behind general purpose state of the art)

      Until very recently the CPUs of choice were 1990s era P5 or Power devices because they were proven to work.

    25. Re: Star Wars! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is probably better to say it is more robust but less capable. that isn't really the same as being "behind". by being more hardy it is more advanced at least in that respect even if it does so by sacrificing speed or some functions.

      also being on a satellite it may need to be lighter and/or reduce power consumption, both of which can take a lot of effort to do. for example why is it so hard for intel to match the power consumption of ARM chips used in mobile defices.

      i would say it is likely a feed back loop. some of these things such as reduced power consumption and possibly some rf shielding desired for space tech probably trickles back into consumer goods. while increased speed and features eventually trickle down to the space tech.

  7. fixed it for ya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    20-year-old military "weather" satellite apparently exploded

    1. Re:fixed it for ya by mrsquid0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      It takes a lot of energy to change the weather. Some of it must have leaked.

      --
      Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    2. Re:fixed it for ya by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      Space heaters are fire hazards.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:fixed it for ya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must not take as much as it would seem since it was working for twenty years. I wonder if this was the one that steered Katrina. The Bush Crime Family scored a huge win with that one.

  8. "Weather" satellite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    end of message

    1. Re:"Weather" satellite by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      It's to help decide "whether" to bomb someone.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  9. No obvious reason? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That depends, did it blow up right over the Kremlin by any chance?

  10. Well, I guess now we know... by Type44Q · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, I guess now we know that this was no weather satellite...

    1. Re:Well, I guess now we know... by MattskEE · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While possible, it could also be something mundane like failure of station-keeping thrusters.

    2. Re:Well, I guess now we know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we don't.
      But one thing is certain.
      This was no boating accident.

    3. Re: Well, I guess now we know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to suggest hyperbolic fuel might be unstable? Just because it's acidic, toxic as hell, and wants to burst into flame if you look at it funny, no oxygen required, doesn't mean it could cause... Never mind.

    4. Re: Well, I guess now we know... by Deadstick · · Score: 2

      All the conic-section fuels are unstable.

    5. Re: Well, I guess now we know... by plover · · Score: 1

      OH MY GOD, THE HYPERBOLIC FUEL IS SO UNSTABLE! It will lead to the explosions of every satellite in orbit! And it's so acidic it will eat through the fuel tanks, dripping killer toxic acid rain onto every surface on earth!! The world will end!

      Or, perhaps, your device auto-corrected hypergolic, which is to say a chemical combination that self-ignites when the two substances are brought into contact with each other?

      --
      John
    6. Re: Well, I guess now we know... by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      All the conic-section fuels are unstable.

      Except for the circle of course.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    7. Re:Well, I guess now we know... by gtall · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yer right, why would the Air Force and Navy need weather satellites.

    8. Re:Well, I guess now we know... by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Space Cowboys reference?

    9. Re:Well, I guess now we know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It, in fact, was a weather satellite. It was used to keep track of the world's political climate.

    10. Re: Well, I guess now we know... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      All the conic-section fuels are unstable.

      Except for the circle of course.

      Now! Now! Let's not go off on a tangent.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    11. Re:Well, I guess now we know... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Yeah, yer right, why would the Air Force and Navy need weather satellites.

      For target practice?

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    12. Re: Well, I guess now we know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know that there's two parts to a redox reaction? A fuel and a oxidizer? And typically your oxidizer contains oxygen, because the other options are even nastier to work with.

      Middle school chemistry, buddy.

    13. Re:Well, I guess now we know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More like a floating accident. Maybe even a falling accident.

    14. Re: Well, I guess now we know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      typically your oxidizer contains oxygen

      ALL oxidizers contain oxygen. It's in the name you should have learned from, ya know, middle school chemistry...

    15. Re: Well, I guess now we know... by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Oxidizers are not specific to just oxygen. Any species which accepts electrons in a redox reaction is an oxidizer. Chlorine and fluorine are good examples.

  11. Obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It obviously tripped over the cable that was put up by the spacewalking astronauts just moments ago.

  12. Hit by space junk. by Simulant · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It was bound to happen eventually.

    1. Re:Hit by space junk. by deodiaus2 · · Score: 1

      Space debris cascade.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...

  13. chinese anti-satellite lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Could be the latest test of the Chinese anti-satellite system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASAT_program_of_China

    The Chinese aimed a high power laser at a U.S. satellite in 2006 (without damaging it), and blew up one of their own weather satellites in 2007. They have tested a number of anti-satellite systems since then.

    1. Re:chinese anti-satellite lasers by PPH · · Score: 1

      Perhaps. Where* was the satellite at or just before this event?

      *INB4 In space.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:chinese anti-satellite lasers by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uh huh. Do some math for me. A 1um laser fired out of a 1m aperture spreads to an 800m circle at an altitude of 800km. If you want to heat something 1m across with 1W, you need to have a total power output of 500kW continuous from the laser. The US Navy's laser program expects to top out at about 100kW (http://www.wired.com/2011/02/unexpectedly-navys-superlaser-blasts-away-a-record/). And you're telling me someone out there is firing a 500kW laser into space from a secret mountain lair. Possibly one that launches capsule-eating rocketships too? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_Only_Live_Twice_%28film%29)

    3. Re:chinese anti-satellite lasers by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      A 1um laser fired out of a 1m aperture

      Why are you using a 1 meter aperture, and why are you not using such a large aperture for focus at a distant point?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:chinese anti-satellite lasers by hankwang · · Score: 4, Informative

      "A 1um laser fired out of a 1m aperture spreads to an 800m circle at an altitude of 800km"

      You're off by a factor 1000. The divergence is about 1e-6 rad, which makes 0.8 m diameter at 800 km.

      Now another issue is that satellites tend to be wrapped in gold-coated foil, which will reflect 99% of the light at 1 micrometer. It would be difficult to overheat the body of the satellite, although the solar panels might be damaged more easily.

    5. Re:chinese anti-satellite lasers by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Whoops. But with your point about the coating, I'm only off by a factor of ten...which kind of puts the laser within the realm of the possible. The next item on the agenda: how much power do we really need on target to make it overheat given that it's designed to cycle between daylight and night, even if it is in whatever sun synchronous orbit it's in.

    6. Re:chinese anti-satellite lasers by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Just a ballpark number, but larger optics are trickier to keep on target than smaller optics.

    7. Re:chinese anti-satellite lasers by dunkindave · · Score: 1

      Could you use multiple independent lasers all aimed simultaneously at the same target to increase the effective yield to a power greater than what a single laser could achieve?

    8. Re:chinese anti-satellite lasers by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      And you're telling me someone out there is firing a 500kW laser into space

      Or a *lot* of smaller ones. Either way, multi-targeting or power, it would have to be someone with a lot of money and organization.

    9. Re:chinese anti-satellite lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw that capsule eating rocket ship in a James Bond flick years ago!

    10. Re:chinese anti-satellite lasers by hankwang · · Score: 1

      But with your point about the coating, I'm only off by a factor of ten...

      1000 times smaller beam diameter means 10^6 times higher irradiance. With 1% absorbance it's still a factor 10^4 off.

      how much power do we really need on target to make it overheat given that it's designed to cycle between daylight and night

      The solar panels are designed to receive 1500 W/m2 irradiance from the sun, of which maybe 500 W/m2 comes out as electricity and the other 1 kW/m2 is heat load. A black-body radiator against 4 K background temperature on one side and earth (279 K) on the other side will reach an equilibrium temperature of 330 K (57 C). To heat the solar panel to a damaging 150 C (just a guess), you'd need about 2.5 kW/m2 extra (on top of the solar irradiance).

      It wouldn't surprise me if the back side of the solar panels is used as a radiative heat exchanger to get rid of the heat generated inside the body of the satellite. The gold-coated foil around the satellite body acts as a kind of thermos bottle to insulate the electronics inside from extreme temperature swings, but still the electronics need to get rid of its own dissipation, so you would not only destroy the solar panels but indirectly also the electronics.

      I doubt that it's practical to aim specifically for the solar panels for an object that's travelling at 7 km/s, with a mechanism that can do that within 1 microrad. It might be more practical to have a 10 m diameter spot size, which would require 250 kW, which might be doable with a CO2 laser at 10.6 micrometer wavelength (the atmosphere seems to be fairly transparent at that wavelength).

      If the solar panels have a mass of 15 kg/m2 (just a guess), then you would need to maintain this 2.5 kW/m2 for about 10 minutes, over which time the satellite will be travelling 4200 km. This doesn't sound easy...

  14. All part of the long term plan. by Snufu · · Score: 0

    If you want to pollute other planets, solar systems, and galaxies with debris, you have to start small by polluting your own orbit.

  15. My Bad by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Funny

    Turns out those green laser pointers you get in the mail are a lot more powerful than you would think.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:My Bad by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Turns out those green laser pointers you get in the mail are a lot more powerful than you would think.

      Ah, a beta tester for the North Korean anti-satellite laser system I see...

    2. Re:My Bad by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      It would be interesting to see what a stadium full of synchronized powerful laser pointers could do...

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:My Bad by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    4. Re:My Bad by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Great link. I was thinking of nearer objects (like a plane) with a powerful $300 laser, but it's interesting to see how much further you'd have to go to have a visible effect on the moon.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:My Bad by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      Not synchronized, but, here is a stadium of laser pointers aimed at an Egyptian helicopter.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjaW3QM2Nb8

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
  16. "laser" by darkob · · Score: 1

    "laser"?

  17. No obvious reason by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Informative

    What no obvious reason? Either the batteries overheated and exploded (fuel and oxidizer packed close together and sitting for 20 years) or the fuel tank vapors exploded on their own (tends to happen with monopropellant--no need to additional oxidizers, just a random injection of energy). Russian rocket bodies used to explode in orbit from time to time from fuel vapors (undesired bipropellant mixing) until they were convinced to burn off all their spare fuel after they deployed their payload into its orbit.

    1. Re:No obvious reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be an expert. Interesting that you completely forget about the possibility of it getting hit by something.

    2. Re:No obvious reason by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1, Informative

      I'm not forgetting, I'm just saying that spontaneous combustion isn't a rare event for old stuff in space.

    3. Re:No obvious reason by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      or humans left unobserved and unattended at night! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

      Shockingly just like SHC, except for the human part!

    4. Re:No obvious reason by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      But which of those is the actual reason is not obvious.

    5. Re:No obvious reason by fremsley471 · · Score: 1

      DMSP F11 exploded in the same way 11 years ago. See the last paragraph here:
      http://planet4589.org/space/js...

      Some anonymous user from Washington DC deleted the above reference from Wikipedia on 6 June last year (and that's all they did). Now, the discussion on this site, full of clever, well-informed people, is without that information (it would have been just above F13). That in itself is interesting.

      I was at a meeting last week where we were shooting the breeze over satellite-killers and how if you were going to try out your technology, what type of target would you use? For the USAF, an old, inoperational, big weather satellite was the one we would choose = F11 and now F13.

      But you are right (no sarcasm intended), we have zero proof and propellant explosion is more probable.

    6. Re:No obvious reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are the most likely causes.

      What will happen next is my former employer will do a detailed risk-tree failure analysis. This will be involve going back to all design and manufacturing document, taking these failure hypothesis and simulating what conditions could cause the observed failure with the particular design. This involves going back to all calculation and simulation as well as new ones and checking every component tolerance, variance and failure mode to see if such corresponds to observed pre-event telemetry and post-event telemetry. Some physical testing of mocked up components is likely as well. Based on this the most likely event scenario is identified and remedial lessons learned are documented.
      .
      This is the process we went through to figure out why this happened. Obviously few if any physical pieces were available to analyze but the cause was identified.

  18. Re:Conspiracy theories by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Russian politician was far from obscure, well known and very vocal as a matter of fact. He was also against Putin and Putin's nut job attempts at bringing back the Cold War. He was someone we like, not someone we'd want to kill.

    Your conspiracy theory only makes sense if you know absolutely nothing at all about what's actually going on.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  19. Pluto? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    I think the PIAP activists have started eliminating the competition.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  20. Confused by Whiteox · · Score: 2

    So which overlord should we bow down to this time?

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  21. repair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The secret military astronaut that was performing maint must've had an iPhone in his pocket.

  22. Exploded over Americas, Cooling Failure? by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This satellite blew up at 1715 UTC, and since it was in a sun-synchronous polar orbit, local noon would have put that over the Americas (North, Central, or South). This satellite was sitting under the direct sun for 20 years. If the radiator cooling system failed, things could heat up and fail very quickly (there is no wind up there, remember).

    --

    Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

    Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    1. Re:Exploded over Americas, Cooling Failure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wind? They should've installed a fan/heatsink! Sheesh.

  23. military weather? by swell · · Score: 0

    Sorry, didn't read TFA or TFS. I got stuck at the beginning where it said "U.S. military weather satellite", and all I could think of was 'what the heck is military weather?'. I got more confused over time wondering if the purpose was to observe military weather or to create it. Then I noted that the ominous Global Warming must have begun at the same time (20 years ago) the satellite was launched. Eyow! How many military weather satellites are up there? Does China, Russia, N. Korea have them too? Could we defend ourselves by sending up cool Loving Rainbow Daffodil satellites?

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re:military weather? by gtall · · Score: 2

      Well, I know this sounds weird, but during a conflict the U.S. Military and Russia's and China's are not going to be relying on commercial weather satellites. Something about they possibly being pwned by the enemy. Militaries worry about these sorts of things, clearly you have never been in one.

    2. Re:military weather? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > what the heck is military weather?

      Meteorology was actually invented in the aftermath of the 1855 Crimea War, in which the anglo-franco-italian Allied Forces defeated the barbaristic Khaganate of Muscovy, thus saving the Ottoman Empire from ruin, but a suprise storm sank many british warships. In hindsight it became obvious to the Admirality that said suprise storm was actually quite foreseeable, so they devoted a large pile of money and brains for the development of science-based weather prediction methods. Civilian meteorology is just a peace dividend perk from that peace of military history.

    3. Re:military weather? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      On one hand, 'weather satellite' was a cold war (and probably is still) a euphemism for spy satellite. Kinda like how nuclear missile subs conduct 'oceanographic research,' not 'nuclear deterrence patrols,'

      On the other hand, the military is very interested in weather, as 'Hang on, let me check if it's going to be stormy' isn't a proper military response to 'Ok, we need to move a carrier group down to, say, Taiwan. Now.'

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    4. Re:military weather? by swell · · Score: 2

      "clearly you have never been in one"

      Actually I was one of the first from the US in Vietnam. Not an enthusiast tho. Military enthusiasts seem oddly lacking in humor, particularly struggling with irony and sarcasm. Yes, that includes the uniformed groundpounders and the suits who think up 'weather' satellites. That lack of humor, which includes most military, government, religious and dictator types, is one of the great tragedies of civilization.

      --
      ...omphaloskepsis often...
  24. Its a warning shot... by david.given · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...telling us to stay the hell away from their base on Ceres.

    We should retaliate by beaming Youtube comments at them.

    1. Re:Its a warning shot... by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      That's no dwarf planet, it's a space station.

    2. Re:Its a warning shot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...telling us to stay the hell away from their base on Ceres.

      We should retaliate by beaming Youtube comments at them.

      I am sure that would be a violation of the Galaga Convention.

    3. Re:Its a warning shot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sue Twitter Comments aren't warranted.. it is a counter measure after all...

    4. Re:Its a warning shot... by Wormsign · · Score: 1

      We should retaliate by beaming Youtube comments at them.

      Come now, we are not monsters!

  25. Re:Conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    That Russian politician was generally obscure. Maybe not in the western world, but his entire support base registered something like 0.014% of the Russian voting population.

    As such, Putin had no threat from the guy, and having him killed like that in broad daylight is pointlessly stupid. Putin is ex-KGB, if he wanted the guy dead, the guy would have "committed suicide", or had an unfortunate car accident (you know, how these things are usually done, everywhere, including the USA).

    Governments don't just off their rivals in a big noisy show, that just draws attention and scrutiny from the media and world, and quite frankly offing the guy now does no favours to Putin what so ever. There is nothing for Putin to gain from killing the guy, and lots to lose. As such it is highly unlikely that he was killed on the ruling parties orders.

    Then again, you state that Putin is trying to bring back the cold war, when the reality is the other way round. As such I can only assume you are widely misinformed about the nature of the situation. May I recommend staying away from western media and broadening your knowledge of the subject matter if you plan on engaging this topic in future.

  26. Re:Uninsightful by Immerman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Perhaps you could be more informative as to the problem? Why wouldn't a coherent microwave beam be every bit as effective as a laser? Or perhaps you simply didn't realize that masers are a real thing, and even predate lasers sufficiently that lasers were originally called "optical masers".

    The only potential issue that I can think of is that, due to the longer wavelength, it would be difficult to focus a maser beam as tightly. Of course if you're happy to cook the whole satellite instead of burn a hole in it, then that's less of an issue.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  27. Re:Conspiracy theories by Immerman · · Score: 2

    Or are you being insufficiently cynical? We might want a new cold war as well - cold wars are wonderful excuses to tighten the screws on your populace, and ours is starting to slowly wake up to the fact that all the "anti-terrorist" policies we've implemented in the last decade+ are fairly ineffective against terrorists, but *extremely* useful for suppressing legitimate dissent and undermining democracy. Start a nice theatrical cold war though and they could probably get away with putting all those empty FEMA internment camps to "proper" use.

    Not that I believe we did it, Putin would be much higher on my list for starters, but I do love a good conspiracy theory.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  28. Self-destruct charges. by amanaplanacanalpanam · · Score: 2

    It's a good bet the Empire knows we're here.

  29. Isn't this similar to the plot of... by BlogTheHaggis · · Score: 1

    ...Day of the Triffids?

    http://www.blastr.com/sites/bl...

  30. Re:Conspiracy theories by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

    Your conspiracy theory only makes sense if you know absolutely nothing at all about what's actually going on.

    That's the very best kind of conspiracy theory.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  31. Re:Conspiracy theories by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Informative

    That Russian politician was part of the Yeltsin administration that Putin had promised immunity to when he took control. This killing is very scary politically for what it means.

  32. Re:Uninsightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bwahahaha! Do you feel like a complete dunning-kruger idiot after reading the replies to your spew? Maybe you should just go curl up with some trance and x.

  33. Quick! by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Make sure no EMP-hardened helicopters have been stolen from Monte Carlo!

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  34. Re:Conspiracy theories by Skidborg · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    On the one hand, this almost seems insightful. On the other hand, you wouldn't be the first poster here on Russian payroll.

    --
    Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
  35. Re:Conspiracy theories by muecksteiner · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Even being on the Russian payroll would not mean that everything he writes is automatically wrong, you know. And he does have a couple of points worth noting. So make of this what you want - but decide based on what he writes, not what he could be.

  36. Re:Uninsightful by hawguy · · Score: 1

    A "maser" attack??
    I do not think that work means what you think it means.
    While you are looking up "maser" look up "Dunning -Kruger" as well.
    The opposite of "insightful" :(

    I looked up maser as you suggested, and one of the uses of a maser is: Masers are being used by a few countries as directed-energy weapons. So what do you think "maser" means? Oh wait, I get it, you are the one suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect. Clever.

  37. Re:Conspiracy theories by gtall · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Hmmm...so those 50,000 people marching through Moscow's government district in memory of the pol, and braving Putin's secret police and other semi-evolved Simians, are doing what, exactly? Going to a picnic?

  38. No reason for exploding by Sol+Rosinberg · · Score: 1

    ...aside from the fact that everything inside of it was 20 years old? In technological years, that's about 100 human years. They were lucky that it held out this long!

  39. Re:Conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The point of false flag operations is to trigger off outrage leading to regime change. Russia just reminded that they may not have spies as good as the CIA and propaganda as good as Hollywood and CNN but they have other assets which can hurt us.

  40. The Kessler Effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    We may have just lost Space:

    "The Kessler syndrome (also called the Kessler effect,[1][2] collisional cascading or ablation cascade), proposed by the NASA scientist Donald J. Kessler in 1978, is a scenario in which the density of objects in low Earth orbit (LEO) is high enough that collisions between objects could cause a cascade—each collision generating space debris which increases the likelihood of further collisions.[3] One implication is that the distribution of debris in orbit could render space exploration, and even the use of satellites, unfeasible for many generations.[3]"

    Source WikiPedia

    1. Re:The Kessler Effect by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did you read the Wikipedia article? "It is estimated that there are 300,000 pieces of space junk ranging from 1cm to 25cm, and on average one satellite is destroyed each year." I'm not sure why 23 more pieces would cause us to lose space.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
  41. Re:Uninsightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are proposing a theory more complex than the obvious one: a battery exploded due to malfunction.

    Everybody is yelling "LASER, LASER OMG ILLUMINATI!", without realizing the preposterous content of that idea. If it was a laser, then it would have to hit the satelite in such a way that the batteries exploded, which is most preposterous? I think I'll put my money on the idea that can be (and is) replicated by rich kids who've grown tired of their phone on youtube.

    And, of course, if it was the military conducting secret laser-tests, then why the hell would they tell people about it in the first place? TROLOLO FALSE-FLAG HUEHUEHUE...

  42. Okay, didn't want to go here but... by Demena · · Score: 2

    The principle of Occam's Razor is not "simplicity" vs. "complexity". It states not to multiply entities unnecessarily, but that does not equate to simplicity.

    We have never seen a battery failure like this before (and there are very many of that type out there) so we are creating a new entity with introducing this type of battery failure to our list of known entities. That does not mean (under the principle of Occam's Razor) that it did not happen that way (battery failure) only that we should consider other possibilities that do not include introducing that entity.

    Lasers, enemies, interest in dominance, all the other entities required for it to be an attack already exist as known entities. As such it is something to be examined not dismissed. Occam's Razor suggests that this latter hypothesis be examined prior to the former. And that is all it suggests.

    Occam's Razor does not determine between simplicity and complexity. The simplest explanation for lightning is that "God did it". Our modern explanation for lightning is incredibly complex. Which do you think is accurate? Which one better satisfies Occam's Razor?

    Given all the crap that is going down all over the place right now, someone making a point does not really require introducing anything new and doesn't seem unlikely. Nor does a simple battery failure seem unlikely. But Occam's Razor is not the tool to use here. If we try we wind up in the Procrustean Bed of refining our problem to suit one solution or the other.

    Best wishes, sorry I am a bit Aspie here.

    1. Re:Okay, didn't want to go here but... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      A foreign entity wouldn't have targeted a 20 year old weather satellite. They would have hit a major new spy sat. The only one with an interest to target a bird that old would be the US. If the argument is that it was shot down with some energy weapon the most likely perpetrator is the USA.

    2. Re:Okay, didn't want to go here but... by Demena · · Score: 1

      This was a discussion about the use of Occam's Razor. How is your reply relevant?

      There is no claim from me that it was or was not at battery failure, that it was or was not an energy weapon.

      But if were trying to send a message I would not be taking something out that was provocatively useful and expensive. That might get a reply that I don't want. You do not take out a person's (state, country, empire) assets, you demonstrate the capability to take them out. It is a good deal less provative and sends you message more clearly.

    3. Re:Okay, didn't want to go here but... by fremsley471 · · Score: 1

      We have never seen a battery failure like this before

      Er, yes we have.
      http://planet4589.org/space/js...

      Interestingly, the earlier explosion has been excised from the DMSP's wiki entry... (I added it in 2004- have been working with the SSMI and SSMIS since 1990).

    4. Re:Okay, didn't want to go here but... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      A foreign entity wouldn't have targeted a 20 year old weather satellite. They would have hit a major new spy sat.

      Except if you want to see if it works. target something no one is going to miss. What do you think would happen if a brand spanking new spy sat or something blew up? They would want to know what the fuck happened and investigate a lot more thoroughly than they will for this.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    5. Re:Okay, didn't want to go here but... by chainsaw1 · · Score: 1

      Sure they would. It's a military target, but it's old so unlikely to start a war. It's the perfect target (for anyone--US or not).

      As for the Occam's razor part, how large of a accident would it take to cause the satellite to explode? These things aren't small, so unless the battery / heater was heating leftover propellant (Apollo 13 style) I am unsure anything else has the energy necessary explode a 120 lb (55kg) mass--particularly if it's not in an airtight / pressure vessel (which is a guess on my part as the craft is unmanned).

      If energy also came from external sources, however, then the postulations above are no longer valid.

      --
      - Sig
    6. Re:Okay, didn't want to go here but... by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      that depends on their goal. if its just to show they can, they would go after junk.

      if they wanted to start a war, they would go after something new

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  43. They ALREADY figured out why - it's in TFA by jddj · · Score: 2

    From TFA:

    "The 'catastrophic event' produced 43 pieces of space debris, according to Air Force Space Command, which disclosed the loss of the satellite Feb. 27 in response to questions from SpaceNews."

    Just what kind of questions was SpaceNews asking, that the satellite would explode in response? They should STFU pretty quick, before we lose everything in LEO!

    1. Re:They ALREADY figured out why - it's in TFA by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      "Does this dress make me look fat?"

    2. Re:They ALREADY figured out why - it's in TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No dear; it's t'other way 'round.

  44. Wow by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    That totally needs to be at the next Daft Punk concert.

    That's about as synchronized as you can get, I imagine... that's exactly the kind of thing I was wondering about.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  45. Yeah batteries do explode by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    My daughter has a Macbook Pro she is currently using as a doorstop, it looks a lot like one of the ones pictured.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  46. Re:Uninsightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a fascinating circle, accusations of the Dunnig-Kruger effect are being made primarily by people suffering under the Dunnig-Kruger effect.

  47. flying bolt by deodiaus2 · · Score: 1

    How about a piece of another satellite? The smaller the debris, the larger the probability of occurrence. The average speed of a bolt in orbit is 10Km/s, which can take out a satellite. There are screwdrivers in orbit being tracked by NORAD.

    1. Re:flying bolt by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "There are screwdrivers in orbit being tracked by NORAD."

      And there are a lot more items in orbit smaller than that which aren't.

      A 10mm nut is more than sufficient to do serious damage, let alone a bolt and nothing smaller than about 5cm is able to be tracked.

      The LEO traffic jam has been likened to a room full of armed moustraps, with more being placed there all the time. Eventually one will set off the others in a chain reaction. Space scientists have been seriously worrying about tipping point for the last 5-6 years.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... - and with enough moustraps in close proximity you don't even need the pingpong balls.

  48. First Contact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're here !!

  49. just a small demo of my real power by pbjones · · Score: 1

    submit, earthlings, and I will rule you all as a benevolent dictator.

    --
    There was an unknown error in the submission.
  50. Half of North America just lost their Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny line from George Clooney in Gravity.

  51. gotcha by WorldWarPi · · Score: 1

    chinese target practice

  52. The return of Dave Bowman by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    Well, the star child which encapsulates the essence of Dave Bowman anyway.
    This was actually a weapons satellite disguised as a weather satellite.

  53. Sharks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strangely, several sharks were detected in close proximity to the satellite just prior to the thermal spike.

  54. DoD (along with everyone else) wants clean orbits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is every reason to NOT add to the debris hazard in space. That's why everyone was so pissed at the Chinese for their little experiment back a decade ago when they demonstrated an anti-satellite missile. You can bet that the DMSP (and all) satellite folks are trying to figure out what happened and, if they get any hints at a design cause, put a change into future spacecraft. Flying through all the little crap up there without serious armor is getting more difficult.

  55. Globul warming by Spugglefink · · Score: 0

    Globul warming makeded the tepmrature so hot it blowed up the satumlite. VOTE OBAMA 2016!

    1. Re:Globul warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw, is someone still upset that a black man is the pwesident?

    2. Re:Globul warming by gzuckier · · Score: 1

      Aw, is someone still upset that a black man is the pwesident?

      He's not black, Giuliani says so.

      --
      Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
    3. Re:Globul warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aw, is someone still upset that a black man is the pwesident?

      He's not black, Giuliani says so.

      Compared to Eisenhower, he is a Klan Wizard. The industrial military complex does not really mind which color their spineless putty has.

  56. Re:Uninsightful by Immerman · · Score: 1

    I was making no comment on what actually happened, I too suspect it was just a malfunction. I was simply responding to TechnoGirl's apparently baseless attack on the word "maser".

    As for your question:
    >then why the hell would they tell people about it in the first place?
    Well, people all over the world are going to notice that something has happened almost immediately - satellites are really obvious things tracked not only by governments but by armies of space enthusiasts. To the point that military stealth satellites, which are only "invisible" from certain angles, have to individually target every satellite tracking hobbyist on the planet if they want their current orbit to remain secret. Any satellite that suddenly appears or disappears is going to attract a lot of attention among certain circles, so if you were doing something covert, you'd pretty much have to throw up a media smokescreen immediately to deflect suspicion.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  57. Re:Conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Same with MH370. USA started sending mercenaries (Blackwater) to help the Ukrainian coup regime . Russia reminded them that air superiority is not a given thing. USA backed off on the mercenaries (call them trainers if you want), the East Ukrainians were able to take back the territotry captured by mercenaries.

    The only "mercenaries" in Ukraine were the uniformed, regular members of the Russian army that decided to "take time off" and go fight for the separatists.

  58. CHA by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Conventional LASERs can't hit anything over the horizon, tactically they're useless. The Navy isn't stupid, therefore they've obviously secretly learned how to bend a multi-megawatt LASER beam. Maybe they've developed mirror-carrier drones.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  59. Space Junk Reentry question by allquixotic · · Score: 1

    Question to those of you with some knowledge of how satellites are set up, where they're put in orbit, probable trajectory, etc., keeping in mind that my "knowledge" of orbital mechanics is only slightly more sophisticated than an enthusiastic player of Kerbal Space Program:

    Is the space junk created by this explosion likely to remain around for a very long time (on the human lifespan timescale), or are we looking at a high probability that most/all of the debris will reenter the atmosphere and burn up some time soon?

    If we assume a uniform distribution of debris exploding from a point within the satellite's center of mass, a "sphere" of debris would get created, where some of it would receive a fairly large push down toward the atmosphere and likely reenter very soon... what about the pieces that were given a large delta-v *away* from the atmosphere? What'll happen to those pieces?

  60. Re:DoD (along with everyone else) wants clean orbi by allquixotic · · Score: 1

    I guess "armor" would help to a certain extent depending on the circumstances, but remember, the relative velocity between a satellite and a tiny piece of space debris can *far* exceed the velocity of a bullet on impact down here in the thick part of the atmosphere, because you don't have all that drag.

    A piece of space debris the size of a fingernail can cause as much destruction in space as a bullet in atmosphere that's many times heavier. I don't think our materials science can produce materials strong enough to withstand the impact of even a small actual bullet (or other matter of equivalent mass) traveling at a typical orbital relative velocity.

  61. Re:Conspiracy theories by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US State Department downmodders are earning their pay today...

  62. havel they never learned? by gzuckier · · Score: 1

    You should turn OFF auto-update after a year or so.

    --
    Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
  63. How about a natural event? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. What, apart from wood, floats? One answer: small rocks.

    With all those bits of debris out there in their funny orbits, it's bound to happen that one of them would take out a satellite. There could be a lot of energy in one of those collisions.

  64. Maybe I should have phrased it differently by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Substitute "not available at Walmart yet" for "bleeding edge". Make more sense now with a new context?
    It takes a while to go from lab to cheap commodity - far less time from lab to niche product.

  65. Re:Conspiracy theories by Skidborg · · Score: 1

    I guess there's some [citation needed] what posting claims of that nature.

    --
    Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
  66. RUD! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly! Okay, I just wanted to say that. It's my favorite term now. I'll be on my way.