Tiny Particle Blows Hole In European Satellite's Solar Panel (go.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tiny Particle Blows Hole In European Satellite's Solar Panel (go.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday August 31, 2016 @10:00PM from the technical-difficulties dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from ABC News: A tiny piece of debris has punched a gaping hole in the solar panel of one of Europe's Earth observation satellites, causing visible damage but not enough to affect its routine operations, the European Space Agency said Wednesday. The unknown particle just a few millimeters big slammed into the back of a solar panel on Copernicus Sentinel-1A on Aug. 23. Using on-board cameras, engineers have determined that the hole is about 40 centimeters (16 inches) in diameter. The European Space Agency said the loss of power caused by the strike is "relatively small" -- less than 5 percent of the wing's usual output. The likelihood of such a strike is calculated at between 1:35 and 1:130 during the satellite's five-year lifetime, said Holger Krag, who heads the agency's space debris office. While the particle probably had a mass of less than 1 gram (0.04 ounces), scientists calculated that it was traveling at up to 40,000 kilometers an hour (24,856 mph) when it hit Sentinel-1A. Space.com has posted a video about the incident, showing images taken before and after the impact.

225 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

At last! by hcs_$reboot · 2016-08-31 22:05 · Score: 3, Funny

Someone found that screw we lost in space!

--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
1. Re:At last! by stealth_finger · 2016-08-31 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  Someone found that screw we lost in space!
  But who put the screw in the Tuna?
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
2. Re:At last! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  they say they have yet to determine if it was manmade or natural... what's nominal orbital velocity at that [whatever it is] altitude?
3. Re:At last! by Mal-2 · 2016-09-01 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Why was there bacon in the soap?
  
  --
  How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
4. Re:At last! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  but more importantly was it an metric or imperial size screw?
Unit conversion not needed by sjbe · 2016-08-31 22:07 · Score: 5, Funny

Using on-board cameras, engineers have determined that the hole is about 40 centimeters (16 inches) in diameter.
That's 0.00198838 furlongs for those too lazy to do the conversion.
I think slashdot readers are fine with having just the metric units. Anyone who couldn't do the conversion in their head if they cared probably isn't reading slashdot.
1. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 22:25 · Score: 0
  
  Using on-board cameras, engineers have determined that the hole is about 40 centimeters (16 inches) in diameter.
  That's 0.00198838 furlongs for those too lazy to do the conversion.
  I think slashdot readers are fine with having just the metric units. Anyone who couldn't do the conversion in their head if they cared probably isn't reading slashdot.
  Reality is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.
2. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 22:40 · Score: 1
  
  While most are probably fine as you say. Nothing was lost by including the information and if it helped a few it was helpful.
  No use being unit snobs, or did you want this to be a special elite club for those who have reached metric ascendancy.
3. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 22:46 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Even then, I doubt that there are many people who do not have a feeling for how big 40 cm is, even in countries where inches and feet are still in use.
4. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 23:08 · Score: 0
  
  Nobody likes a showoff
5. Re:Unit conversion not needed by jabuzz · 2016-08-31 23:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If you are going to do a unit conversion then learn about significant digits. So 0.0020 furlongs is the actual conversion for people that actually know about units and measurement.
6. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 23:59 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, that's just silly -- furlongs -- it would be expressed as 4/9ths of a yard, obviously.
  Just the same with the mass (well, mass in grams is reasonable), but instead of a decimal just say it would weigh no more than 3/64th of an ounce.
  Simple and obvious!
7. Re:Unit conversion not needed by sbrown7792 · 2016-09-01 00:59 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, that means nothing to me. What is it in terms of football fields?
8. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 01:17 · Score: 0
  
  no, 0.00199 furlongs is
9. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Opportunist · 2016-09-01 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  Well... no. Not even the metric system could give America a real democracy.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
10. Re:Unit conversion not needed by stealth_finger · 2016-09-01 01:29 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  or did you want this to be a special elite club for those who have reached metric ascendancy.
  You mean everyone except America and two other shit countries? That special elite club?
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
11. Re:Unit conversion not needed by stealth_finger · 2016-09-01 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, that means nothing to me. What is it in terms of football fields?
  Is that metric or imperial football?
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
12. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 01:36 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah... I hate when the aspect ratio changes on my 8.5"x11" paper.
13. Re:Unit conversion not needed by ITRambo · 2016-09-01 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Canadian football, silly.
14. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  Been twenty years since I thought of that. Was it Ministry? Meat Beat Manifesto? Thrill Kill Kult?
15. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  No use being unit snobs, or did you want this to be a special elite club for those who have reached metric ascendancy.
  Over 95% of the world uses the metric system and most of the other 5% will know at least the basic units.
16. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 02:09 · Score: 0
  
  It's funny how Americans even have their own special paper sizes specified in their own special units, just to be different from the rest of the world.
17. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  It is tiresome to have to cater to a subset of people who are so backward
  On those people's own site, where you are a tiny minority.
18. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 02:13 · Score: 0
  
  All different DIN A sizes have the same aspect ratio. You can scale up and down as you like. You can print two pages side by side on the next smaller size, and they'll fit. Half a 8.5"x11" sheet of paper has a different aspect ratio as the 8.5"x11" sheet.
19. Re:Unit conversion not needed by burtosis · 2016-09-01 02:15 · Score: 2
  
  I prefer my units in beard seconds you insensitive clod!
20. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-09-01 02:23 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  or did you want this to be a special elite club for those who have reached metric ascendancy.
  You mean everyone except America and two other shit countries? That special elite club?
  One problem with a lot of computer type geeks. They seem to masturbate while fantacising about monocuulture.
  So what if I know and understand more than one way to measure things? Not a brain cell wasted anywhere. Easier than learning a new language.
  Because for all of the haughty pronouncements at base, the metric system is based on being 1 ten millionth of the length measured from the north pole to the equator as measured through Lyons, France.
  That's just about as arbitrary a measurement (and inaccurate, by the way) as we can get. And all other measurements stem from that.
  And for all of it's supposed superiority, it is being constantly revised. As the artifact method of measurement is retired because of inaccuracy, and we switch to atomic methods of measurement, the arbitrariness is completely revealed.
  The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This replaced the 1960 convention based on the wavelength of Krypton88 radiation.
  Such a absolute logical base kinda makes one quiver, eh? But in the end, either system works, and could be implemented with equal accuracy. And some of us are capable of using either system. Check your superiority complex.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
21. Re:Unit conversion not needed by CaptainLard · 2016-09-01 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone who couldn't do the conversion in their head if they cared probably isn't reading slashdot.
  Not so sure about that. You have to take into account all of the political trolls that generate a lot (most?) of the site traffic these days.
22. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 02:56 · Score: 0
  
  pics or it didn't happen...
23. Re:Unit conversion not needed by arth1 · 2016-09-01 02:58 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  While most are probably fine as you say. Nothing was lost by including the information and if it helped a few it was helpful.
  Yes, something was lost by the conversion - the uncertainty factor changed.
  40 cm in this context where the hole hasn't been accurately measured is an estimate, not a fixed value. If translating to inches, 16 inches implies a much higher precision than what's implied by 40 cm.
  "14-18 inches" would be a much better conversion.
24. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  Well if they are going to do the conversion, at least do it closer to correct. "About" 40 centimeters is close to 16", but it's "about" 15.75 inches.
  It was wrong to include the US measurement since it's wrong. Learn metric, 7 billion people us it, only 330 million don't.
25. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  I think slashdot readers are fine with having just the metric units.
  Why do we keep pretending this?
  Before you know it, they'll have us converting dollars ($) into metric money (€), too.
26. Re:Unit conversion not needed by stealth_finger · 2016-09-01 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Metric is better for one simple reason. Forget what it's based on, everything is based on something arbitrary to other things. The reason it's better is its easy. 100 cm in a m. 1000m in a km. 1000ml in a litre etc etc. We still a few imperial units for things in the UK but I couldn't tell you how many feet in a yard or yards in a mile. I know 12 inches in a foot but i don't think its 12 feet in a yard definitely not 12 yards in a mile etc. How many pounds in an ounce in a stone? Sure I could easily look it up or carry around a reference book but it's just simpler and better to just know from the c,m,k or whatever your're splitting your thing into.
  
  It's also not being constantly revised. A kilogram is the weight of one litre of water, I'm not sure what the length is based on but probably not what you said. But I do know a 1mx1mx1m box will hold 1000l so that's probably relevant somehow. That's the other good thing. They all relate to each other.
  
  If the world switches to a new standard it will be because it's easier and simpler to use, not because of what it's based on. You stick with imperial and sing it's praises all you want, no skin of mine or anyone else noses but while everyone is getting on with it you'll be converting.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
27. Re:Unit conversion not needed by freeze128 · 2016-09-01 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, all that does is cause problems when some yokel fills the printer with 8.5" x 11" paper, but changes the paper tray size to A1. Then they wonder why it won't print when they just replaced the paper.
28. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 03:52 · Score: 0
  
  It's not being unit snobs, nor a special elite club. Most of the world uses this elegant system. It is tiresome to have to cater to a subset of people
  How are you, or any of your other "elegant system"-using compatriots harmed or inconvenienced at all by having the measurements given in BOTH systems? You get the measurement you understand, and you have to - *gasp* - gloss over an irrelevant-to-you parenthetical to continue reading.
  
  Personally, I would feel the exact same if every time we talked about material failure or accidents, we were obliged to end with "God forbid", due to the inability of some sizable minority to get with the times.
  Except there's a difference between a unit of measure and what you seem to believe is an expression of devout religious belief. If you really can't see the difference between the two, then I submit that you are, in fact, the "unit snob" you claim not to be.
  Don't be a dick. Carry on with your life.
29. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Grishnakh · 2016-09-01 04:19 · Score: 2
  
  This is an old argument. The thing you're missing is that unit conversion simply isn't important to most people who aren't scientists or engineers. Think about Suzy Homemaker or HR Manager Bob: why would they ever need to convert between inches, yards, or miles? Or better yet, why would they ever need to do a unit conversion involving temperature? Very few people in society ever use the Ideal Gas Law outside of Chemistry 101, and the people who do don't use Fahrenheit, or Celcius, they use Kelvins. In short, the people who care about unit conversions are already using the SI system when they do such work, and those same people have zero trouble converting between English and metric as necessary. For everyone else, they simply don't care, and it doesn't affect their daily lives.
30. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Grishnakh · 2016-09-01 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  Here again the pro-metric people tout something much like unit conversion. The thing you always miss is: why should I care? No one actually prints on half-sheets of paper and cares about the different aspect ratio. Almost no one outside the printing industry cares about being able to scale an image up with the same aspect ratio. Almost everyone just gets a printer that prints in letter/A4 size, and they use that one size of paper for their entire lifetime.
  Asking an entire society to change something because a tiny minority of people in one small industry find it easier does not make economic sense.
31. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  Teaching an entire society an outdated inefficient set of units when the rest of the world has already standardised on a different set doesn't make economic sense either.
  Wait, it actually does. American protectionism. The US can make it's own things that aren't compatible with the rest of the world so it doesn't have to compete with other countries.
32. Re:Unit conversion not needed by orgelspieler · 2016-09-01 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  I see this as a failing of the DIN paper sizes. Sometimes, the different aspect ratios of B and C size drawings are actually advantageous. Not terribly often, but it does matter sometimes.
33. Re:Unit conversion not needed by stealth_finger · 2016-09-01 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  Good point, well made.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
34. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-09-01 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  Metric is better for one simple reason. Forget what it's based on, everything is based on something arbitrary to other things. The reason it's better is its easy.
  so is all the others. I choose to know both, and it was absolutely zero problem. It's also not being constantly revised. A kilogram is the weight of one litre of water,
  The prototype Kilogram was efined in 1875 .It was found to vary in mass over time. the ICPM in 2005 reccomended that it be redefined in terms of a fundamental constant of nature. In 2011 the CPGM decided that it needed to be redefined in termes of the Plank constant. That was deferreduntil 2014, then deferred again.
  And when we get into the amount of accuracy needed, we even get into mass drift. Sounds insane, but there has been documented mass gain in the standard artifacts.
  
  I'm not sure what the length is based on but probably not what you said.
  SRSLY? It isn't like you can't look it up.
  I'll even help you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  Nice thing about this article, is it pretty much has everything laid out for you, having the Meter info also. From the article:
  the meter is defined as the distance light travels in a vacuum during a time interval of 1299,792,458 of a second. However, the meter's practical realization typically takes the form of a helium–neon laser, and the meter's length is delineated—not defined—as 1579800.298728 wavelengths of light from this laser.
  Whacky thing is, none of that changed the value of th meter, however the Paris Meridian isn't accurate. for all of the bloviating about being based on sensible units based on 10 (the meter is supposedly 1/10 millionth of the distance betwenn the North pole along a meridian throught Paris. the original measurement was not accurate.
  My point, if there is one, is that you only get bragging rights to superiority if you have a non-arbitrary base. Metric's is every bit as arbitrary as anything else.
  1,650,763.73 wavelengths of th eight given off by burning Krypton 86 or the distance light travels in 1/299 792 458 seconds is every bit as arbireary as grains of barley in a row. Oh, and there is that seconds thing as well.
  Anyhow, some of us make up for that in being adroit in several measurement standards. If you are less skilled, pick one and use only that one.
  
  If the world switches to a new standard it will be because it's easier and simpler to use, not because of what it's based on. You stick with imperial and sing it's praises all you want, no skin of mine or anyone else noses but while everyone is getting on with it you'll be converting.
  Umm, you not read what I been writing? I'll use either system I'm presented with. If you can only handle one, at least you can come up with rationales that allow you to feel superior to people who are much more flexible. So anyhow, your homework if you care to take some, is repeat back to me my quotes where I said that imperial was superior. Ypou accept the challenge, or just have imagionary conversations with people?
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
35. Re:Unit conversion not needed by stealth_finger · 2016-09-01 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Look, you make good points and I'm not trying to argue with you. I initially responded to the guy suggesting everywhere but the us is a special elite club, not suggesting one was better than other. I still stand by metric is easier to work with regardless what it's based on. If you're happy doing conversions all roads then more power to you.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
36. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-09-01 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  This is an old argument. The thing you're missing is that unit conversion simply isn't important to most people who aren't scientists or engineers. Think about Suzy Homemaker or HR Manager Bob: why would they ever need to convert between inches, yards, or miles? Or better yet, why would they ever need to do a unit conversion involving temperature? Very few people in society ever use the Ideal Gas Law outside of Chemistry 101, and the people who do don't use Fahrenheit, or Celcius, they use Kelvins. In short, the people who care about unit conversions are already using the SI system when they do such work, and those same people have zero trouble converting between English and metric as necessary. For everyone else, they simply don't care, and it doesn't affect their daily lives.
  I think it is almost a Ford Versus Chivvy argument. Maybe allows some folks to feel superior to the fat 'murricans as well.
  Even without all that, a whole lot of American stuff is done metrically now. Sometimes I wonder if part of the issue is that a lot of metalworking Machinery, which when taken care of will last a long time, is finally starting to wear down, possibly to be replaced by metric. At work, we had perfectly functional lathes that were manufactured during World War two. You have to make a pretty good argument to replace an entire infrastructure. Even a fair number of years ago, the CNC machinery could work in either metric or imperial. Poin tis though, a lot of the world was in ruins, and we had a lot of imperial machinery sitting around that was going to be good for the next 60 years or so.
  Coupled with the crew who sees such things as SUV's or imperial measurements as somehow being patriotic, we have a completely silly argument about what's best. I do have a metric Lathe and Mill in my garage. I can do either on it.
  To your point, most people don't care that much. If you can get them to know that a quart is .946 liters, or a 13mm socket is pretty darn close to a half inch, you've done well.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
37. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 06:16 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, and here we have the average US geek in its esse, condescending towards "ordinary" people, assuming they have neither the intellectual interests or any practical needs for something, and thus disparaging any attemptt at showing how useful the SI system can be.
  Here's some news for you, you fucking inbred imbecile: Even ordinary people do unit conversions, be it to do practical things, or for hobbies, such as in baking, various crafts etc
38. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Hognoxious · 2016-09-01 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  1,650,763.73 wavelengths of th eight given off by burning Krypton 86 or the distance light travels in 1/299 792 458 seconds is every bit as arbireary as grains of barley in a row.
  
  True. But it's much more consistent.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
39. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Hognoxious · 2016-09-01 06:30 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming it's to the nearest centimetre that's still less than half an inch of spread. 16 is the nearest whole number.
  No idea where you pulled 14-18 from.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
40. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Shinobi · 2016-09-01 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  What? Plenty of people print in A5 at home, or for their hobby group etc. I print plenty of photographs on A5 to frame, or to send as larger postcards to friends and family.
  As for making economic sense, can you fuckers in Nazi States of America fucking stop using Letter/Legal and go with A4? I'm tired of having to waste money on special binders etc just to handle paperwork from you guys. Exchange of paperwork with Taiwan? A4. Exchange of paperwork with South Africa? A4. Exchange of paperwork with Germany? A4. Exchange of paperwork with Australia? A4. Exchange of paperwork with USA? Roll the dice, 20% chance of A4, 40% chance of Letter, 40% chance of Legal.
41. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-09-01 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  If you're happy doing conversions all roads then more power to you.
  whe you work with them every day, it isn't a problem.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
42. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-09-01 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  1,650,763.73 wavelengths of th eight given off by burning Krypton 86 or the distance light travels in 1/299 792 458 seconds is every bit as arbireary as grains of barley in a row.
  True. But it's much more consistent.
  True. I started to think of the standard Barleycorn as measured by some distance light travels over some amount of time. Then I decided that was probably the first step to insanity.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
43. Re:Unit conversion not needed by jbengt · 2016-09-01 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  [the meter is] just about as arbitrary a measurement . . . as we can get. . . The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. . . Such a absolute logical base kinda makes one quiver, eh?
  Yes, but if you think that's so arbitrary, remember that the yard is officially defined as 0.9144 meters.
44. Re:Unit conversion not needed by jbengt · 2016-09-01 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  Very few people in society ever use the Ideal Gas Law outside of Chemistry 101, and the people who do don't use Fahrenheit, or Celcius, they use Kelvins.
  I used degrees Rankine in Thermodynamics 101, you insensitive clod.
45. Re:Unit conversion not needed by stealth_finger · 2016-09-01 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure it's not and google can sort everyone else.
  
  --
  Wanna buy a shirt?
  https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
46. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Grishnakh · 2016-09-01 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  As soon as you fuckers pay us the billions of dollars it would cost to switch everything over, we'll talk. We invented computer printers and photocopiers after all, so rightfully you should be using our standards for paper. If you're not going to pay for the costs of converting a society of 310+M people, then fuck off. We never pushed any standards on you.
47. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Grishnakh · 2016-09-01 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Coupled with the crew who sees such things as SUV's or imperial measurements as somehow being patriotic
  Those SUVs are all metric these days: all the American automakers went metric ages ago, starting in the 70s, and finishing probably in the 2000s. The construction and defense industries are probably the last big holdouts for SAE-size fasteners and linear measures.
  Basically, here in the US, we're converting to metric where it makes economic and practical sense to do so. Working with SAE-size fasteners is a PITA, because of the fractions and the need for separate tools, so if you want to sell cars globally you need to use metric parts. We don't build houses for export so there's not much call to switch over there, plus you don't use fractions that much in construction, and the English units are generally pretty easy: drywall is 4x8, studs are every 16 or 24 inches, etc. As long as you know there's 12 inches in a foot, you can handle it. Equivalent metric sizes are always in 3-digit centimeter counts.
48. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  How are you, or any of your other "elegant system"-using compatriots harmed or inconvenienced at all by having the measurements given in BOTH systems? You get the measurement you understand, and you have to - *gasp* - gloss over an irrelevant-to-you parenthetical to continue reading.
  I didn't say I was harmed. You have invented a nonsense position and attacked that. I said it was tiresome. I happen to find the redundancy annoying, as well as how conversions between units happen to ultimately mess with whatever precision was initially intended. I'm actually a little surprised that on a site such as this redundancy and the introduction of inaccuracy isn't commonly considered tiresome.
  
  Except there's a difference between a unit of measure and what you seem to believe is an expression of devout religious belief. If you really can't see the difference between the two, then I submit that you are, in fact, the "unit snob" you claim not to be.
  You can submit whatever nonsense you wish. I am fully capable of differentiating between a unit of measure and expression of a religious belief. Are you unable to discern that I am equating how tiresome the two are, not the nature of the two? Are you always this prone to red herrings? A level of rigour in your thinking is lacking.
49. Re:Unit conversion not needed by LunaticTippy · 2016-09-01 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Nautical miles are still used by mariners and pilots because it works out so well. It's 1/60th of a degree of latitude and it makes a lot of navigation math easier. I don't think units are magic or anything, but I'll use whatever is easier for the situation. Sometimes imperial units are easier, and sometimes its easier to specify both.
  
  --
  Man, you really need that seminar!
50. Re:Unit conversion not needed by david_thornley · 2016-09-01 08:41 · Score: 2
  
  The meter was originally as stated, the size to make it ten thousand kilometers from the equator to the North Pole through Lyons. After that measurement was determined, the meter became the distance between two scratches on a bar. Eventually, it and the second were determined by the speed of light in a vacuum and a very particular way of generating EM radiation.
  The liter was originally supposed to be one cubic decimeter, and the kilogram was supposed to be the mass of a liter of water. They missed, and the liter is no longer exactly a cubic decimeter (although it is a kilogram of water). The kilogram is, last I checked, the only basic unit defined as an artifact, specifically a piece of metal massing (by definition) a kilogram. There's been talk of finding a reproducible way of determining it, but it has to be a practicable measurement that has at least as good accuracy as what we've got now.
  One advantage of the metric system is that almost every country uses it, most in everyday use. The US is weird in that it normally uses certain units defined in relation to the metric system: for example, the legal definition of an inch in the US is 25.4mm. Another is that there's not more than one unit with the same name. A ton can be 2000 or 2240 pounds (a megagram is about 2204 tons, and is often referred to as a ton). There are different miles, the most commonly used ones being the statute and nautical miles. Then there's the obvious advantage that the calculations are a lot easier. Even though I know how many inches are in a statute mile, 63360 is not an easy number to do mental calculations with.
  I don't see humanity changing from the metric system ever. There's no replacement system that would be significantly better.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
51. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Hognoxious · 2016-09-01 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  Why are people arguing about *units*? The important thing is that if it had been a free-orbiting MURCAN satellite it would have had a gun with the safety off and one under the hammer and no goddam commie particle would have dared to go near it because NUMBER ONE, YAY!
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
52. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 09:32 · Score: 0
  
  ...He assumed the significant figure was the trailing 0 (implying 35-45cm).
53. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Coren22 · 2016-09-01 09:33 · Score: 1
  
  and the US will hold a fair election with sensible, honest, and trustworthy candidates...
  Calling out just the US for this issue is pretty short sighted. Can you think of any country that has fair elections of sensible, honest and trustworthy candidates currently?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
54. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 09:56 · Score: 0
  
  Even then, I doubt that there are many people who do not have a feeling for how big 40 cm is, even in countries where inches and feet are still in use.
  pffft.
  I used to be an instructor at a junior college here in the USA, and it was a rare person who had any idea how tall they were in centimeters or how many kilograms they "weighed", or even what would be an appropriate range for a typical person. Those who did know off-hand seemed to be ex-army, usually.
55. Re:Unit conversion not needed by kwbauer · 2016-09-01 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Why should the US adopt the German Industrial Standards for paper sizes? We won the damn war.
  You do understand what DIN means, correct?
56. Re:Unit conversion not needed by chihowa · 2016-09-01 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming it's to the nearest centimetre...
  Which is an assumption you can't make when given a measurement of 40 cm, which has one significant figure (though it is somewhat ambiguous... the ambiguity could be resolved by calling it a 0.4 or 0.40 m hole).
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
57. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 13:18 · Score: 0
  
  You've got that back assward. A centimeter is a finer degree of measurement than an inch, and the more there are of them the more accurate you can be using them (say, 41cm rather than 17inches) as whole units.
58. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 14:05 · Score: 0
  
  Typical America, always looking for a handout. Never willing to compromise or think long term.
59. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Grishnakh · 2016-09-01 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  We don't need a handout or a compromise; we're not the ones who think there's a problem. You can use whatever measurement system you want in your country, we'll use whatever we want in ours. Why do you think you have any right to dictate to other sovereign nations what kind of measurement systems they should use anyway? That's just asinine.
  As for long-term, we ARE thinking long-term. We're moving to metric where it makes sense, and at a sensible pace for a highly industrialized nation that has centuries invested into an older system, and an economy that utterly dwarfs those of any European nation. Try buying a new 2016-model American-made car (or any made in the last 10 years for that matter) and see how many English-sized fasteners you can find on it. There aren't any. The stuff you're complaining about is silly and inconsequential.
60. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 16:43 · Score: 0
  
  At least he wasn't referring to the DIN paper standard which differs a bit from ISO... oh wait. At least it doesn't differ as much as Sweden or Japan does.
61. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 16:49 · Score: 0
  
  Which is why actual science and engineering work doesn't usually give a damn about sig figs beyond just making text look a little cleaner. If you actually care, you put down actual tolerances.
62. Re:Unit conversion not needed by arth1 · 2016-09-01 17:49 · Score: 1
  
  Correct, although when saying "around 40 cm", the risk of ambiguity is very low. 40 is a big enough number that "around 39.5-40.5 cm" makes far less sense than "around 35-45 cm". So "around 40 cm" can be treated as single-digit-precision.
63. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 18:54 · Score: 0
  
  You can call it the ISO A series, if you prefer. It is however rather typical that your pride would stop you from adopting a better system.
64. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 21:11 · Score: 0
  
  There was a war on paper sizes?
65. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 21:16 · Score: 0
  
  The tolerances in DIN are smaller than in ISO. Otherwise, it is identical. The ISO standard is based on the DIN standard.
66. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 21:24 · Score: 0
  
  The B and C series are part of the DIN norm.
67. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Hognoxious · 2016-09-01 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  If it had been "around 41" would you interpret that as 36-46cm?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
68. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Hognoxious · 2016-09-01 23:35 · Score: 1
  
  I totally can, because I did. Your own link suggests it's a valid interpretation:
  "In a number without a decimal point, trailing zeros may or may not be significant."
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
69. Re:Unit conversion not needed by poofmeisterp · 2016-09-02 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  That's just asinine.
  As for long-term, we ARE thinking long-term. We're moving to metric where it makes sense, and at a sensible pace for a highly industrialized nation that has centuries invested into an older system, and an economy that utterly dwarfs those of any European nation. Try buying a new 2016-model American-made car (or any made in the last 10 years for that matter) and see how many English-sized fasteners you can find on it. There aren't any. The stuff you're complaining about is silly and inconsequential.
  Oh, we forgot you're the most intelligent, knowledgeable and astute person out of all of the group. You're the leader of the world and we have to follow suit because you said so. Got it. Don't know how we missed the memos!
70. Re:Unit conversion not needed by chihowa · 2016-09-02 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  My own link clearly states that it's an ambiguous statement with several potentially valid interpretations. With the rest of the context, as arth1 pointed out above, your interpretation is the least likely to be correct. Do you really think that from, "Using on-board cameras, engineers have determined that the hole is about 40 centimeters in diameter," it is a reasonable assumption that the engineers think that the hole is 39.5 cm to 40.5 cm in diameter? There's a saying about making assumptions...
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
71. Re:Unit conversion not needed by dave420 · 2016-09-02 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  When those other countries continually engage in a nationalism-fuelled wankfest over how democratic they see themselves, you'll have a point. Until then the fetishistic adoration of democracy in the US compared to the ridiculous results of democracy in the US tell a laughably sad story.
72. Re:Unit conversion not needed by dave420 · 2016-09-02 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Stop saying "we". You didn't invent either. The computer wasn't even an American invention (and has nothing to do with paper), so I'm not sure what point you were trying to make to assuage your insecurity.
73. Re:Unit conversion not needed by dave420 · 2016-09-02 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  There you go with the "we" stuff again, talking for everyone like you own them or have anything to do with their decisions. It reeks of an illogical mind. Speak for yourself.
74. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Coren22 · 2016-09-02 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  I can't say I have ever seen people doing that in the US. Perhaps you just have a different perspective, but generally when I hear other US citizens speak about the US, it is about our freedoms, not about democracy as if it is something we have. Considering that the US isn't even a democracy, it would take some serious delusions to praise the country for it.
  The US is a representative republic, not a direct democracy. Expecting the US to change its system of government because you don't like it is frankly silly.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
75. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  Can you convert that to parsecs for me please?
76. Re:Unit conversion not needed by RockDoctor · 2016-09-02 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing was lost by including the information and if it helped a few it was helpful.
  Having both metric units and imperial errors means that several people who would have died of apoplectic fits when only the metric units are presented. The continued avoidance of the grave by these animated corpses (what's the modern word - zombies?) is slowing the acceptance of metric.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
77. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-09-02 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, Slashdotters. Marking the above post as flame bait? Looks like that overly sensitive woman who went nuts because of a hula doll in a taxicab might have mod points today.
  Is it that upsetting when you are toldl that the measurement system that is somehow irrefutable proof of your superioity over gthe fat stupid 'Murricans is just as arbitrary?
  Don't answer that - we know it is upsetting for y'all
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
78. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 13:09 · Score: 0
  
  So you're planning to move to metric anyway. But you're doing it slowly and making it cost more. Wasting all those resources still teaching/using a system that in the long term you know is finished.
  America is a special little snowflake. It doesn't have to cooperate with others.
  America's massive economy with so much money is still too poor to be able to afford the changeover.
  Thats what happens when your entire economy is based on debt and printing money. Any country could have the biggest GDP if all you have to do is borrow money for free/print money for free and then spend it. It's not that big of an achievement.
79. Re:Unit conversion not needed by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 13:33 · Score: 0
  
  So your argument boils to - America is becoming metric behind the scenes anyway, since all the smart people know it's for the best. It's just the stupid average person who is resisting the change and we are a democracy so can't force them.
  Glad to know which side of the smart/stupid fence you sit on.
  Pity you don't have "leadership" in your country and always stoop to the lowest common denominator.
  What better time to change than when you have all this free money and your economy is stalling. How about spending some of that money stimulating the economy and changing over to metric. Think of all the jobs it would create. It wouldn't even really cost anything as interest rates for the govt is practically zero. Nope that would just give Obama another feather in his cap, lets just wait a couple years to the next almost depression and hope a white man is in charge. A woman, well try again in another 8 years.
80. Re:Unit conversion not needed by hyades1 · 2016-09-09 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  "The world's first computer printer was a 19th-century mechanically driven apparatus invented by Charles Babbage for his difference engine."
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_%28computing%29
  Babbage was English. Anything else I can help you with, Sparky?
  
  --
  I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
40cm? by MichaelSmith · 2016-08-31 22:11 · Score: 0

For a structure presumably just 1cm thick, thats a pretty nasty failure. That particle should have just breezed through.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
1. Re:40cm? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 22:21 · Score: 0
  
  On what do you base your opinion? Why do you think your Earth-based experience applies to space?
2. Re:40cm? by Mathinker · 2016-08-31 22:31 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry, Michael, I guess we Earth dwellers just don't have the technology your Martian foster parents had... </humor_attempt>
  Actually, it's not a hole, just an "affected area" (from URL http://www.esa.int/Our_Activit...)...
  
  The pictures of the affected area show a diameter of roughly 40 cm created on the solar array structure, confirming an impact from the back side, as suggested by the satellite’s attitude rate readings.”
3. Re:40cm? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 22:35 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Kinetic energy = 1/2 of mass times speed squared.
  At 11 km/s, even a mote of dust kicks more than one part of human anatomy.
4. Re:40cm? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 22:37 · Score: 0
  
  A particle of the same mass, travelling at the same velocity at impact, and hitting the same structure, would have pretty much the same effect on Earth as it would in space. So he's not even basing his opinion on comparable Earth-based experiences.
5. Re:40cm? by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2016-08-31 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  When objects traveling 16000mph collide what do you expect?
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
6. Re:40cm? by willy_me · 2016-08-31 22:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Everyone knows that the projectile has a large amount of energy. The question is how much of the energy was transferred to the solar panels. When a projectile blows through a thin object, most of the energy remains with the projectile.
7. Re:40cm? by MichaelSmith · 2016-08-31 23:01 · Score: 1
  
  I expect momentum to be transferred in the direction of the impactor, not perpendicular to that direction, chewing up structure along the way. This structure was too stiff.
  
  --
  http://michaelsmith.id.au
8. Re:40cm? by Salgak1 · 2016-08-31 23:07 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  One half mass of the particle times the square of the velocity applies everywhere. So, given the value of 1 gram, and 40K kph, we get just a bit under 62 kilojoules. While the mass was likely less than a gram, the velocity is the primary issue.
  The initial impact area is over maybe a square millimeter at best. Given the kinetic impact of relatively common events, this is roughly 8 rifle bullets. So a 40 cm area is entirely expected. While the actual hole is small (as expected, it punched through) cracks would run through a small group of solar cells, rendering the affected cells useless due to transmitted shock. . .
9. Re: 40cm? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 23:08 · Score: 0
  
  So basically you think craters are some kind of conspiracy.
  A 9mm bullet fired at this speed would explode a warship into pieces.
10. Re:40cm? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 23:13 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, stupid silicon-based solar panels. Next time, they'll contact you to find out how they should build their satellites. Idiot. Space isn't this playground that "owes" you to behave like Star Trek, or how you "expect" things to behave.
  That's why space is hard, and it's not this giant Wal-Mart just waiting for us to colonize it.
  It's a radiation-blasted deadly hell. Not a place for narcissistic software nerds to express amazement at how stupidly the universe behaves.
11. Re: 40cm? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 23:19 · Score: 0
  
  Structures in space are stiff, its cold up there.
  Plus the hole itself is quite small, the 40cm figure relates to the area of the panel that's now damaged and no longer generating electricity.
12. Re:40cm? by 110010001000 · 2016-08-31 23:23 · Score: 1
  
  Wow...another Space Nutter shot down. The hits just keep on coming!
13. Re:40cm? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 23:32 · Score: 1
  
  At orbital velocities the projectile is vaporized. Don't imagine a bullet, imagine a small explosion.
14. Re:40cm? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 23:38 · Score: 0
  
  It goes so fast that the outer material on the particle simply vaporizes on contact. Think of it as an explosive bullet...
15. Re:40cm? by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2016-08-31 23:48 · Score: 2
  
  Both objects were likely traveling in excess of 16000mph (approx 9 times the speed of a bullet). We only know which direction the impactee was traveling. As for the impactor we do not know it's mass and have only vague information as to it's volume (We know it's less than 6cm wide because otherwise it would be trackable by radar). So please explain why what is effectively a pane of glass struck by an object of unknown proportions should have suffered less damage!
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
16. Re:40cm? by v1 · 2016-09-01 00:00 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The question is how much of the energy was transferred to the solar panels.
  
  When the density of the particle is high relative to the hardness of the target, there's a very high chance for penetration and low energy transfer.
  But when the projectile density is relatively low compared to the target hardness, the projectle is usually deformed and stops inside the target. Or as in this case, is completely atomized, causing nearly perfect energy transfer. (approaching 100%)
  So being able to ignore energy loss in the transfer make the math and modeling pretty easy. You just imagine an explosion at the point of contact, with about double the energy of the projectile. (since explosions are omnidirectional, wasting 50% of their energy in the other direction on impact, and in this case, 100% of the energy is transferred into the target)
  And at orbital and escape velocities, delta-V is so high that even a very low M yields a lot of joules.
  Final thing to consider, these panels aren't terribly sturdy. They're made to be extremely light, store compactly, and self-deploy/assemble in space, making them overall pretty delicate. This isn't built anything like the solar panel on your roof. It's more like the model car in your dad's display cabinet. Shoot that thing with an airsoft gun and see what happens.
  
  --
  I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
17. Re: 40cm? by Deadstick · 2016-09-01 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  its cold up there
  Since the damaged object was a solar panel, I suspect it might have been exposed to, y'know, the sun? In which case it would not be very cold.
18. Re:40cm? by drinkypoo · 2016-09-01 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  For a structure presumably just 1cm thick, thats a pretty nasty failure. That particle should have just breezed through.
  I'd say the thickness is the problem. The forces aren't distributed in a straight line, they get spread out throughout. If you made your solar panel thinner then it might actually lose less area to a small impactor. Ideally* though, you'd use the same mass to make a much larger flexible plastic panel that was a lot thinner, and perhaps even perforated so that an impact is more likely to tear away the minimum area rather than spread the force out throughout the panel and destroy more of it.
  Apparently NASA tested some of this stuff in space back in 2014. I didn't catch how it turned out.
  * (maybe)
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
19. Re:40cm? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2016-09-01 00:27 · Score: 0
  
  .At 11 km/s, even a mote of dust kicks more than one part of human anatomy.
  So Donald Trump's idea of building a wall of tiny particles will work?
  At least, at European space borders.
  Send the bill to Mexico.
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
20. Re:40cm? by mwvdlee · 2016-09-01 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  It just has a dent in it, and the dented area is still functioning (albeit somewhat less efficient). Seems to me they got it just about as good as you could realistically wish for. Or would you rather have had a hole that might have severed electrical connections?
  
  --
  Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
21. Re: 40cm? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, the front. The back is facing the rest of the universe.
22. Re:40cm? by TheDarkMaster · 2016-09-01 00:56 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  As a modelist myself DON'T shoot the (expensive and time-consuming to build) model car in your dad display cabinet, you will avoid a world of pain :-)
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
23. Re:40cm? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 00:57 · Score: 0
  
  Something in orbit is already moving 10s of thousands of K/hour, its only the relative velocity that matters, so something like that moving on earth would have drastically more impact.
24. Re: 40cm? by jareth-0205 · 2016-09-01 01:05 · Score: 2
  
  its cold up there
  Since the damaged object was a solar panel, I suspect it might have been exposed to, y'know, the sun? In which case it would not be very cold.
  Yes yes very clever. There is this thing called "shade" that means the temperature is all over the shop during normal operation. Solar panels in space have to survive between -100 & 125 Celsius.
25. Re:40cm? by WhiplashII · 2016-09-01 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  What you are missing is that the collision is happening at extreme hypersonic speeds. That means that when the first atoms to collide hit, they literally cannot get out of the way of the next line of atoms. (The speed of sound is basically the fastest the atoms can move to get out of the way.) So that matter hits and is stopped, and is unable to get out of the way of the rest, etc, etc. So you end up with everything smashed to incredible pressures (higher than the inside of the sun) which causes incredible heat (vaporizing an approximately equal amount of impactor and impactee). Then that cloud of super-heated gas interacts with the stuff around it for a very short time.
  
  --
  while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
26. Re:40cm? by Opportunist · 2016-09-01 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Traveling 16,000 mph ... relative to what?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
27. Re: 40cm? by advocate_one · 2016-09-01 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  that means the temperature is all over the shop during normal operation
  Well considering most of the time they're pointing at the sun and are only in the Earth's shade for a few minutes at high orbits... most of the time, there's a pretty constant high flux on the one side and they're thin
  
  --
  Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
28. Re:40cm? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  perhaps you didn't read 'the same velocity at impact' as actually meaning 'the same relative velocity at impact', and just decided to be an ass.
29. Re:40cm? by NatasRevol · 2016-09-01 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  But what's it's *relative* speed. It could be a lot higher OR lower than 11 km/s.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
30. Re: 40cm? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  And the backside is radiating to an environment that's roughly 4 Kelvin.
31. Re: 40cm? by NatasRevol · 2016-09-01 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  It could have been in a shadow when it was struck?
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
32. Re:40cm? by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-09-01 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't built anything like the solar panel on your roof. It's more like the model car in your dad's display cabinet. Shoot that thing with an airsoft gun and see what happens.
  You mean someone's going to come out and beat your ass?
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
33. Re:40cm? by fahrbot-bot · 2016-09-01 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  When objects traveling 16000mph collide what do you expect?
  If they're both going the same direction, then not much... rubbing is racing.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
34. Re:40cm? by PvtVoid · 2016-09-01 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  I expect momentum to be transferred in the direction of the impactor, not perpendicular to that direction, chewing up structure along the way. This structure was too stiff.
  ZOMG! It's a conspiracy, just like Bush did 9/11!
35. Re:40cm? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 05:43 · Score: 0
  
  So you would just need a single ball bearing to completely vaporize an astronaut into red mist ...
36. Re:40cm? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  given the value of 1 gram, and 40 Mm/h, we get just a bit under 62 kilojoules..
  FTFY.
  40K kph? Nasty.
37. Re:40cm? by david_thornley · 2016-09-01 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Velocity relative to me doesn't count here. What was the relative velocity? It sounds like it was a collision between a satellite at orbital velocity, and an incoming particle at roughly Earth escape velocity, but without the actual vectors it tells me little about the speed of impact.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
38. Re:40cm? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 17:01 · Score: 0
  
  But when the projectile density is relatively low compared to the target hardness, the projectle is usually deformed and stops inside the target. Or as in this case, is completely atomized, causing nearly perfect energy transfer. (approaching 100%)
  No, it is not anywhere close to that simple, which kind of shoots down your following argument. The transfer is not even close to 100% efficient for the satellite as a whole, and it depends heavily on what you're talking about as far as energy transferring to, because pieces can shear off, and the original blob still retains quite a lot of its momentum. This comes up in design of modern armor, because the friction between the material being penetrated makes quite a difference, and weapons are designed to maximize the amount of energy that passes through. Or go to another extreme, and look at high energy particles that will lose proportionately less energy in collisions the faster they go.
  Explosions aren't even a great example of things being simple, as you can still have different situations where the material from the blast is embedded into the target vs. reflected.
It's absolutely amazing by wkwilley2 · 2016-08-31 22:16 · Score: 2

how much kinetic energy a spec of dust has when it's travelling over 11k m/s.

--
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
1. Re:It's absolutely amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 22:39 · Score: 1
  
  how much kinetic energy a spec of dust has when it's travelling over 11k m/s.
  And almost 16 times as much at 40 km/s, as seems to have been the case here.
2. Re:It's absolutely amazing by OneSmartFellow · 2016-08-31 22:40 · Score: 1
  
  Ek = 1/2 mv^2
  
  m = 0.001 kg
  v = 11,111 m/s
  
  Ek = 61727 joules. That's 14 kilocalories, or about as much energy as in 2 ml of alcohol
3. Re:It's absolutely amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 22:53 · Score: 0
  
  "speck". Spec is short for specification.
4. Re:It's absolutely amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  And almost 16 times as much at 40 km/s, as seems to have been the case here.
  No. TFA says 40,000 km/h, which is roughly 11.1 km/s. I guess that is upper boundary estimate for the speed, because slightly faster and that body would leave Earth's orbit. If it was a fragment of a man-made object placed in orbit, it shouldn't move faster then Earth escape velocity. If it moved faster, it was a meteoroid.
5. Re:It's absolutely amazing by OneSmartFellow · 2016-08-31 23:51 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The answer 61K joules doesn't tell you much unless you are really familiar with energy.
  So, let's look at another similar energy values to help us understand how much energy the solar panel experienced (for lack of a better word).
  This https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... bullet (when fired) has a muzzle energy value of about half that amount. This is basically the size of round fired from a .50 Calibre machine gun. That gun is so large, that it is difficult for one person to carry it, and is normally fired from an anchored position (a mount). This is a common ship-board defense weapon against small craft.
6. Re:It's absolutely amazing by Salgak1 · 2016-09-01 01:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Considering that 3800 joules is the force applied by a 7.62x39 rifle bullet (i.e an AK-47 round), this is the equivalent of about 8 rounds hitting simultaneously in an area likely under a square millimeter. . .
7. Re:It's absolutely amazing by Opportunist · 2016-09-01 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  If both objects travel at 11km/s in the same direction around the planet, they do not necessarily have any meaningful speed relative to each other. We do that whenever we dock Progress orbiters onto the ISS, and guess what, they usually don't smash into each other.
  A speed alone means jack (unless close to light speed) if we don't know the reference. That Progress and the ISS both travel at the aforementioned 11km/s relative to a point on the planet below, yet relative to each other they don't move at all. If they "collide", nothing meaningful happens (except probably a very audible "clunk" inside the ISS, provided the place where you are is structurally rigidly connected to the point where the Progress touches).
  If you launched that Progress towards the west (i.e. "against" the orbit of the ISS) and then make them meet, the result of those two objects touching would result in a vaporized Progress and a lot of ISS debris. And all this despite them still having exactly the same speed relative to a point on the planet. Relative to each other we went from 0 to 22km/s though!
  What matters is the reference point when you give speeds in space. And the only reason we needn't give a reference point while on our planet is that it's implied that the reference point is a point on the planet. It's usually not very useful to give the speed of a car relative to a point on the moon.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
8. Re:It's absolutely amazing by Opportunist · 2016-09-01 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  Mmmmm.... space bacon.....
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
9. Re:It's absolutely amazing by saider · 2016-09-01 02:23 · Score: 2
  
  Considering that 3800 joules is the force
  Not force, energy.
  
  --
  
  Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
10. Re:It's absolutely amazing by Shinobi · 2016-09-01 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  No, 7.62x39 usually clocks in around 1.8-2.4 kj. 7.62x51 is around 3.4-4k, depending on load.
more and more and more by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 22:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

that space debris has created more space debris that will create more space debris that ...
1. Re:more and more and more by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 22:48 · Score: 0
  
  doesn't help when china has that nasty habit of shooting satellites out of orbit.
2. Re:more and more and more by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 23:10 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps laser weapon like that could be used to evaporate small particles like this?
3. Re:more and more and more by kwiecmmm · 2016-09-01 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Something is going to need to be done soon about the space debris issue.
  Otherwise more satellites are going to start being taken out which will created more debris, which will take out more satellites...
  This issue was first recognized almost 40 years ago and no solutions have been found yet.
4. Re:more and more and more by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  Seems like placing a massive object in low Earth orbit would be enough to start directing that stuff into the atmosphere.
5. Re:more and more and more by fahrbot-bot · 2016-09-01 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  that space debris has created more space debris that will create more space debris that ...
  ... George Clooney dies and Sandra Bullock ...
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
6. Re:more and more and more by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 04:12 · Score: 0
  
  I've an idea: Launch a giant can of expanding foam into LEO on counter-revolutionary orbit. It'll catch debris and either stop it or knock it into an orbit that hits atmosphere. As for the foam itsself, it's a material with a lot of cross-sectional area and very low density, so it'll just de-orbit naturally after a while and fall down safely.
  I didn't say it was a good idea, but I'd like to see someone run the numbers and tell me just how implausible that idea is.
7. Re:more and more and more by NatasRevol · 2016-09-01 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  or even just a few cans of the expanding foam crack filler.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
8. Re:more and more and more by thegarbz · 2016-09-01 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  that space debris has created more space debris that will create more space debris that ...
  Sounds like a good movie plot.
9. Re:more and more and more by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 08:38 · Score: 0
  
  Doesn't help that the U.S. did it over 30 years ago either. China is the third country to shoot down a satellite.
10. Re:more and more and more by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2016-09-01 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  The Kessler Effect (AKA Kessler Syndrome) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
11. Re:more and more and more by ZapDevil · 2016-09-02 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yep - taken to the logical conclusion you get an 'ablation cascade' that would essentially render low Earth orbit useless (note - 'useless' would mean effectively useless for satellites, due to increased risk of collision, not some sort of impenetrable barrier): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
12. Re:more and more and more by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-02 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  By the time we're ready to launch a mission to Mars it would be impossible to leave earth because of the new solid layer of space debris over the atmosphere :v
Almost a gram? Oops, my fault everyone, sorry. by sabbede · 2016-08-31 23:04 · Score: 0

I got reeeallllly high last week and lost a dime bag. Didn't realize I had lost it in orbit, but like I said, reeeealllly high.
Exponential debris spread by allcoolnameswheretak · 2016-08-31 23:08 · Score: 1

And with every tiny particle hitting a piece of space equipment, the likelihood of further collisions is increased.
I'm pretty sure there is an exponential function in this system, which is worrying. Though thanks to the vastness of space, we are still at a very low level on the progression of that function, if nothing happens at some point the function will take off and cause serious problems.
1. Re:Exponential debris spread by g3rr!t · 2016-08-31 23:45 · Score: 2
  
  Mod parent up!
  So, a 1-5 mm piece of debris caused a hole 40cm, i.e. 400mm wide - probably creating hundreds or thousands of pieces of new debris. Since the satellite is in the crowded low earth orbit (apogee 693km), perhaps the chance of it hitting a piece of its own solar panel in the future is probably now higher than "1:35 and 1:130", though those bits would not be traveling quite as (relatively) fast as the original impact.
  
  Apparently this exponential debris effect is called the Kessler_syndrome
2. Re: Exponential debris spread by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 00:59 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps Kessler answers fermi. Everyone is stuck on their planet with ftl drives being useless.
Why the heck by advocate_one · 2016-08-31 23:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

does it need a flash video (of all things) to show a before and after image of the panel?

--
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
1. Re:Why the heck by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 23:33 · Score: 0
  
  Why does ANYTHING need a Flash video????
2. Re:Why the heck by OneSmartFellow · 2016-08-31 23:36 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, a Flash Video demo.
3. Re: Why the heck by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 00:15 · Score: 0
  
  Music was 'epic' style. Not really applicable unless that dust mote wasted the entire satellite in a ball of flames.
4. Re:Why the heck by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2016-09-01 00:19 · Score: 2
  
  Why does ANYTHING need a Flash video????
  It's the only way to combat Ming The Merciless
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
5. Re:Why the heck by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 01:11 · Score: 0
  
  does it need a flash video (of all things) to show a before and after image of the panel?
  millennials
6. Re:Why the heck by Stinky+Cheese+Man · 2016-09-01 01:41 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Article and non-flash photos here at ESA web site: http://www.esa.int/Our_Activit...
7. Re: Why the heck by nitehawk214 · 2016-09-01 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  The music made it impossible to take this seriously.
  
  --
  I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
8. Re:Why the heck by bill_mcgonigle · 2016-09-01 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  does it need a flash video (of all things) to show a before and after image of the panel?
  Maybe they're set up to sometimes run an ad before their content? I dunno, I don't have Flash on this computer.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
9. Re:Why the heck by thegarbz · 2016-09-01 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  No, but it absolutely DOES need the dramatic music to show two pictures.
10. Re:Why the heck by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2016-09-01 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  Because if they hadn't used it would be all dark and you wouldn't be able to see
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
That could have been some astronaut's head by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 23:23 · Score: 1

Would their helmet be able to absorb the impact?
1. Re:That could have been some astronaut's head by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 00:17 · Score: 0
  
  To answer your question: No, and there wouldn't be many pieces left.
  While we're obsessing on hypotheticals, did you know that you could be hit by a meteorite right n
2. Re:That could have been some astronaut's head by abies · 2016-09-01 00:30 · Score: 2
  
  https://www.quora.com/Spoiler-...
  "Testing for NASA's helmets included dropping an 8 lb steel ball from 6 feet."
  As for the micrometeoroid - let's assume it is 1g, travelling at 40000 km/h. This is 11111m/s. This means around 61kJ
  For comparison, 5.56 bullet is around 4g and travels below 1000m/s. We are talking about less than 2kJ
  Steel ball will reach around 4.5m/s at point of impact, which gives 36J (not kJ)
  Fracture process is complicated and depends on many factors, but from what I understand it depends more on kinetic energy (as given above) as opposed to momentum (where steel ball still loses to micrometeoroid, but wins with bullet).
  From above, micrometeoroid seems to be many time more dangerous than point blank shot from m4 rifle. I would obliterate the helmet from what I can understand. It wouldn't neccesarily go much futher (like 10 astronauts in row) due to destruction of meteroid itself.
  What is bit surprising is that 11.1km/s is considerably larger than escape velocity in near Earth orbit (7.something km/s). This would suggest it was of external origin, rather than part of orbiting debris?
3. Re:That could have been some astronaut's head by Opportunist · 2016-09-01 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Consider: There are right now hundreds, maybe thousands of satellites in orbit. Have been for half a century now. 24/7 for half a century.
  A piece of space debris hitting a satellite makes the news.
  Now ponder the chances of this happening to an astronaut on one out of the maybe a dozen space trips for a few hours tops that happen per year.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
4. Re:That could have been some astronaut's head by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  An object at 11 km/s cannot be in Earth's orbit. It was a meteorite.
Ban all tiny particles! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 23:29 · Score: 2, Funny

Build a wall and make the depths of space pay for it!
!!! TRUMP 2016 !!!
1. Re:Ban all tiny particles! by p0 · 2016-09-01 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  How would you convince the Ferengi?
  
  --
  This is my sig. There are thousands more, but this one is mine.
"just a few millimeters big" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 23:32 · Score: 0

How old was the author of the summary? Three? Two?
AMERICAN, by any chance? You don't say... illiterate idiot.
cascade by darkob · 2016-08-31 23:41 · Score: 1

That event created few hundred pieces of few millimeters in size, whirling around...
Energy of 3x 50 cal bullets by Anonymous Coward · 2016-08-31 23:48 · Score: 2, Informative

that is about 60000J of energy, 3 times as much as 50 cal round at 20000J
Stupid conversion by BlackPignouf · 2016-08-31 23:49 · Score: 1

at up to 40,000 kilometers an hour (24,856 mph)
24854.848 mph to be exact
1. Re:Stupid conversion by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  What are significant figures???
Particle? by Luthair · 2016-08-31 23:51 · Score: 2

Aren't particles microscopic, something that can be measured in millimetres doesn't seem like it ought to be described as a particle...
1. Re:Particle? by The+Grim+Reefer · 2016-09-01 01:48 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Aren't particles microscopic, something that can be measured in millimetres doesn't seem like it ought to be described as a particle...
  In physics, yes. But they were using the general definition, which does seem somewhat out of place in this case, but is correct. This is similar to talking about a particle of dust getting into a camera lens.
Mars by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 00:02 · Score: 0

Crew traveling to Mars dies after craft collides with dust particle. Government convenes committee to determine how NASA could let this happen.
Link to article with images by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 00:05 · Score: 1

Link to article containing images of damage.
Skip the Space.com video, they're just trying to force more ads on you via video.
1. Re:Link to article with images by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  And for some reason videos at space.com cause my cpu utilization to crank up far more than other video sites. I rarely go there now.
space debris by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 00:06 · Score: 0

now there's a 16" chunk of solar panel out there
Attack by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 00:13 · Score: 0

China Attack. #chinaAttack
why is this interesting by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 00:26 · Score: 0

I'm really curious, not being snarky, why this is of note. Haven't the maths been know since pre sputnik days? So is it that the rare event actually happened that's of note?
I immediately want to know how rare this is, and if this had happened to hit someone spacewalking, would they be dead? What about the space station? Or trips to Mars? I'd live to be educated on the risk assessment , and risk mitigations considered.
Otherwise this becomes a discussion about energy and mass and stuff. Which is interesting for 30 seconds.
Come on, jpl nerds, space x nerds, educate us!
Tiny? Or 16 inches? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 00:37 · Score: 0

Those two things aren't the same.
Interstellar travel hazard by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 00:38 · Score: 1

Really makes me wonder what sort of shielding would suffice on a space ship capable of any decent sort of speed. If you're traveling very fast in one direction and you hit a few grains of dust traveling very fast in the other direction that's one hell of a lot of energy colliding.
Irony by sjbe · 2016-09-01 00:41 · Score: 1

If you are going to do a unit conversion then learn about significant digits.
If you are going to be pedantic then learn about irony.
1. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  Too busy preparing for some meaningless role-playing game to understand how things work.
2. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 04:21 · Score: 0
  
  If you are going to do a unit conversion then learn about significant digits.
  If you are going to be pedantic then learn about irony.
  If you're going to be a know-it-all then learn about asshattery
3. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 23:23 · Score: 0
  
  If you are going to do a unit conversion then learn about significant digits.
  If you are going to be pedantic then learn about irony.
  I think you mean
  If you are going to be pedantic then learn about sarcasm
speed by rossdee · 2016-09-01 01:05 · Score: 1

"it was traveling at up to 40,000 kilometers an hour (24,856 mph) when it hit "
How does something stay in orbit at that speed? I.m sure thats more than escape velocity.
1. Re:speed by BlackPignouf · 2016-09-01 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  You're right, escape velocity at this altitude is 10.9 km/s. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity#List_of_escape_velocities)
  "Up to 40000km/h" is in the same ballpark, so it's hard to know for sure.
  Still, 2 orbiting objects could possibly hit each other at a relative speed twice as high as the orbit velocity.
2. Re:speed by freeze128 · 2016-09-01 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  It smacks into a solar panel and loses some of its energy.
Who said anything about orbiting? by sjbe · 2016-09-01 01:13 · Score: 1

How does something stay in orbit at that speed?
Who said the particle was orbiting the Earth? Or if it was orbiting it might have been a retrograde orbit so the closing velocity was the sum of the two objects.
estrupadores de crianças by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 01:47 · Score: 0

quando é que vai ser considerarado crime que a reweb usa ceo esconder mensagens e para trazer ecstazy da europa ou publicar putaria na dark web?"
Which kind? by sjbe · 2016-09-01 01:49 · Score: 1

What is it in terms of football fields?
American Football or Association Football?
1. Re:Which kind? by Hognoxious · 2016-09-01 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know that.
  [flies up into the air]
  Aaaaaaaargh!
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Why is the hole so big? by scamper_22 · 2016-09-01 01:50 · Score: 1, Redundant

Serious question here is why is the hole so big?
If something is small and moving fast, would it not just go right through the panel leaving a small hole?
Or is the force so great and it 'explodes' on impact with the panel, creating the larger hole.
1. Re:Why is the hole so big? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  It looks like it hit the panel at an angle, or it could just be how the panel is made that caused it to tear easily in one direction.
2. Re:Why is the hole so big? by Enigma2175 · 2016-09-01 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  Why do bullets make a small hole when entering and a large hole when exiting? When something like this hits the panel at those relative velocities, the large energies involved essentially vaporize it and some of the material it hit. That vapor (probably mostly plasma at this point) is still moving very quickly. It's essentially an explosion in the panel.
  
  --
  Enigma
3. Re:Why is the hole so big? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  It creates a shockwave just like the ones you see when fighter jets cross the speed of sound. That shockwave consists of vibrations rapidly moving backwards and forwards at the same amplitude but in opposite directions. Everything gets torn up and both projectile and target effectively explodes.
Looks like... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 01:59 · Score: 0

Looks like it struck at an angle from the top down.
implications by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 02:08 · Score: 1

No big deal to ding the solar panel of an unmanned satellite. But what about a hit on a pressurized section of the ISS or any other manned craft? The amount of roadside trash left by our satellites and launch vehicles is a well known increasing problem. (With some prohibitively-expensive solutions proposed.) It would seem that mankind didn't learn the kindergarten lesson "if you get it out to play with, put it up when you finish!"
40,000 KPH by chiefcrash · 2016-09-01 02:17 · Score: 1

"scientists calculated that it was traveling at up to 40,000 kilometers an hour (24,856 mph) when it hit Sentinel-1A."

40,000 kilometers an hour relative to what exactly? The satellite? The earth? The sun?

--
Show me on the 1st Amendment bobblehead where the moderator touched you...
1. Re: 40,000 KPH by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 17:18 · Score: 0
  
  Ask that of the next officer that pulls you over
vai morrer junto com o bruno fdp by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 02:21 · Score: 0

é... pois é... avisa o chrixxx pra voltar logo senão ele morre né? a samanta é oura puta contradada com nome e diploma falso.
Ha ha by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 02:29 · Score: 0

Europe sux, its satellite got pwnt.
Tiny particle? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 02:48 · Score: 0

When it said "tiny particle" I was thinking it was a proton or some other subatomic particle travelling at nearly the speed of light from deep space, and that it was going to be useful for scientific research, or at least break the record for the known fastest known particle. (I don't know if that one's the record, but if it's travelling at 99.99999999999999999999951% c I hope it's close.
TomG
Sabotage in the climate change fight by fisternipply · 2016-09-01 02:55 · Score: 1

Let's see.... environmental monitoring satellite, measuring ice coverage and sea levels.....
eu rezo todo dia pra essa retardada bater o carro by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 03:17 · Score: 0

quando e que acaba o visto daquela merdinha da helena hein? quando essa comedora de porra vai embora? provavelmente quando der pra toda gravataí?
doente santos by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 03:34 · Score: 0

eu só não cago na frente da casa dessa puta porque é capaz dela guardar a merda e usar de colar. e eu só não toco uma pedra na casa dela pra quebrar o telhado dela, como ela fez na minha casa só porqu eu não quero comer o rabo dela, porque eu não me rebaixo ao nível de uma comedora de porra cheirdora de cocaína viciada em pedofilia.
Answer: Everybody keeps telling us to get over it. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 03:43 · Score: 0

Aren't particles microscopic, something that can be measured in millimetres doesn't seem like it ought to be described as a particle...
It begs the question - how can a particle that small decimate a solar panel? I cannot fathom how powerful it could have been. 1.21 Gigawatts, maybe?
Irregardless, people keep telling us to get over it, because the English language is constantly evolving. I guess they think it sounds intelligenter that way.
You are correct, better called a Holeticle by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 04:13 · Score: 0

You are correct, better called a Holeticle.
Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the space veal!
Phrasing by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 05:26 · Score: 0

The likelihood of such a strike WAS calculated at between 1:35 and 1:130 during the satellite's five-year lifetime
Now the The likelihood of such a strike IS calculated at 1:1
What are the odds of a second strike?
So, so wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2016-09-01 09:34 · Score: 0
Take a look at the "after" picture:
1. Gaping hole = large dent. You can't see through it, so it's not a hole.
2. Slammed into the back of the solar panel = wrong side. The picture shows the dent pushing from the front to the back of the panel, i.e.: the particle slammed into the front of the panel.
For people who can't stand the Flash video posted on the Space.com site, here's the YouTube version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And the "after" picture at time index 15 seconds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
usual slashdot flame wars by dgallard · 2016-09-02 04:58 · Score: 1

There was one funny post about the lost screw comng back.
The other *hundreds* of posts were idiotic flame wars about measurement units and what not.
A more interesting discussion would be to wonder how incidents like this, which per the article are common, would impact the longevity of the space station and other proposed long-term dwellings in orbit.
Just wondering.