US Spy Satellite Buzzes ISS (arstechnica.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US Spy Satellite Buzzes ISS (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Wednesday June 14, 2017 @10:00PM from the close-call dept.

The spy satellite that SpaceX launched about six weeks ago appears to have buzzed the International Space Station in early June. The fly-by was made by a dedicated group of ground-based observers who continued to track the satellite after it reach outer space. Ars Technica reports: One of the amateur satellite watchers, Ted Molczan, estimated the pass on June 3 to be 4.4km directly above the station. Another, Marco Langbroek, pegged the distance at 6.4km. "I am inclined to believe that the close conjunctions between USA 276 and ISS are intentional, but this remains unproven and far from certain," Molczan later wrote. One expert in satellite launches and tracking, Jonathan McDowell, said of the satellite's close approach to the station, "It is not normal." While it remains possible that the near-miss was a coincidence due to the satellite being launched into similar orbit, that would represent "gross incompetence" on the part of the National Reconnaissance Office, he said. Like the astronaut, McDowell downplayed the likelihood of a coincidence. Another option is that of a deliberate close flyby, perhaps to test or calibrate an onboard sensor to observe something or some kind of activity on the International Space Station. "The deliberate explanation seems more likely, except that I would have expected the satellite to maneuver after the encounter," McDowell said. "But it seems to have stayed in the same orbit."

121 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

The fly-by was made by a dedicated group by turkeydance · 2017-06-14 22:09 · Score: 1

i bet
1. Re: The fly-by was made by a dedicated group by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 22:26 · Score: 1
  
  a dedicated group of RUSSIAN HACKERS!
2. Re:The fly-by was made by a dedicated group by martinfb · 2017-06-17 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Probably should have read something like "The fly-by was observed by a dedicated group".
  
  --
  
  Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 22:14 · Score: -1

Another day in the US, two more mass shootings.
I'll celebrate the day police go door-to-door and confiscate all privately owned guns.
Nobody needs them, period.
1. Re:Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 22:19 · Score: -1
  
  Nobody should be able to walk into a Walmart and walk out with a truck load of machine guns and ammo. That's just insane.
2. Re: Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 22:24 · Score: 0
  
  Well said, kamarad. Sieg heil!
3. Re: Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 22:42 · Score: 0
  
  You'll grow old and die, never being able to celebrate. Meanwhile I toast to the normalization of the internet and the end of online anarchy. :)
4. Re:Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 22:55 · Score: -1
  
  And it's a great thing that nobody can! Unless you'd like to clarify that you were dramatically exaggerating when you said 'machine gun'
5. Re:Ban guns by Maritz · 2017-06-14 23:52 · Score: 0
  
  This troll will be well fed. That's my prediction anyway.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
6. Re: Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 23:58 · Score: -1
  
  Nowadays, basically all guns are machined guns, and a vast majority automatically recock themselves, so they are automated guns too. Are you some kind of hoplophile?
7. Re: Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:11 · Score: -1
  
  Now that Adolf Trump is in power, just wait until all your rights are gone
8. Re: Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:13 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously? That's not a good thing.
  The corporatised internet blows donkey dick. Bring me back before eternal September any day. Or create a new internet that's not user friendly that only smart people can access, not grandma and pre teens and corporations.
9. Re: Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:17 · Score: -1
  
  Thanks for your contribution, fuckhead.
10. Re: Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:29 · Score: -1
  
  There are technical definitions for what a "machine gun", an "assault rifle" and an "automatic weapon" is. Those definitions are very precise and pertaining to the actual functioning of the weapon. They are not opinable. If you're stupid, ignorant or worse willfully ignorant it's only your problem. It never ceases to amaze me how nerds can be pedantic to the point of crossing over to autism on computers and other minutiae but then choose not to understand technically precise terms. Must be a mental defect.
11. Re:Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:29 · Score: 0
  
  Especially not on the ISS, guns don't work in space.
12. Re: Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:36 · Score: -1
  
  Nobody should be able to buy machine guns at Walmart, period.
13. Re:Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:44 · Score: 1
  
  Quite a number of people in pre-independence America disagreed. You're a couple hundred years late to the party.
  If you genuinely believe that, I want to hear your stance on knives, baseball bats and rocks. A trivial google will show large numbers of attacks using those weapons that are clearly too dangerous for the public to own.
  It's almost as if the demon spirit in each gun that makes it evil (and takes over the mind of whoever touches it) is actually present in other objects too, but that's silly talk. We all know guns are special things, and make poor helpless people into killers. Judging by headlines, guns act alone and a person isn't even involved in a lot of mass shootings...
14. Re:Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:47 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  How much shorter would this event have been, and how many lives would have been saved, had at least one person at the game had a gun on them?
  I own a gun for the same reason I own a fire extinguisher.
  Yes, I can call the fire department. I'd rather not sit back and watch my house burn to the ground while waiting on them.
  Likewise for the lives of my family.
15. Re: Ban guns by Deadstick · 2017-06-15 00:48 · Score: 1
  
  And nobody can.
16. Re:Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:56 · Score: 0
  
  I fear the police more than I fear my neighbor's guns.
17. Re: Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 01:02 · Score: -1
  
  Any single trigger pull, multiple discharge weapon requires special licenses from the federal level. Any firearm sold in the US legally without this license is single trigger pull, single discharge. As a firearm enthusiast myself, I don't even know where one would start to try to acquire a full auto or burst fire weapon.
18. Re: Ban guns by JonWan · 2017-06-15 01:12 · Score: 1, Offtopic
  
  Any single trigger pull, multiple discharge weapon requires special licenses from the federal level. Any firearm sold in the US legally without this license is single trigger pull, single discharge. As a firearm enthusiast myself, I don't even know where one would start to try to acquire a full auto or burst fire weapon.
  You start by saving up about $15,000, the $200 tax and 9 month wait are a piece of cake.
19. Re:Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 01:29 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  If more responsible citizens were armed there would be far fewer mass shootings.
20. Re: Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 01:31 · Score: -1
  
  Not everything is about Trump and I wish you fucktards would stop crapping every thread with Trump comments. I do not like the man either but this trolling is just bullshit.
21. Re: Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  Won't happen, ever. There is and there will always be one internet, and it has been brought to heel. Here's to the end of anarchy. :)
22. Re: Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  Guns work very well in space.
23. Re: Ban guns by guruevi · 2017-06-15 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  You can get an AK from any shady arms dealer for ~$500.
  
  --
  Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
24. Re: Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 03:31 · Score: 0
  
  The problem isn't the tax. I'd pay the tax. The problem is the $200 tax stamp hasn't been issued in years.
25. Re: Ban guns by TheCastro1689 · 2017-06-15 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  In the US? AKs are legal, semi-auto and many cost more than that. Not fully auto at all.
26. Re: Ban guns by HornWumpus · 2017-06-15 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  Much less. AKs in sub saharan africa go for about $20/each. But they are typically worn out, you don't want them, even without the potential for 10 years federal, just for possession.
  After the fall of the USSR, the world was glutted with AKs.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
27. Re: Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 04:47 · Score: -1
  
  Impeach TRUMP. Hillary was a FAR BETTER candidate. She technicly WON THE ELECTION. If America wasnt so fool up with misoginistic bigots she would have won by a LANDSLIDE.
  
  She is smart, intelligent, wise, popular, healthy, holy, funny, and the true definition of progress. TRUMP is an evil man who wants to steal everything from America and give it to Big Business and Russia.
28. Re:Ban guns by TheCastro1689 · 2017-06-15 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  There was a bodyguard there, capitol police I think, and they took the shooter down.
29. Re: Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  Bullets have their own oxidizer. They work just fine in space just as they work underwater.
30. Re: Ban guns by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 09:05 · Score: 0
  
  It's just not a good idea to use them there.
Trump by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 22:15 · Score: 1, Funny

Trump probably decided he could declassify it to the Russians on board ISS, and let them have a good look.
Still waiting for the "expected" US response. by bogaboga · 2017-06-14 22:34 · Score: 2

Had it been a Russian spy satellite, the USA would be screaming "irresponsibility & recklessness" on part of the Russians.
Question is: Am I wrong?
1. Re:Still waiting for the "expected" US response. by Dog-Cow · 2017-06-14 22:43 · Score: 0
  
  Have you been asleep for the past year? The current administration believes Putin is God.
2. Re:Still waiting for the "expected" US response. by Maritz · 2017-06-14 23:54 · Score: 2
  
  Hell if Trump was about forty/fifty IQ points higher, and it was easier to assassinate journalists in the US, you'd already have your own little golden Putin.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
3. Re: Still waiting for the "expected" US response. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:19 · Score: 0
  
  Better than the other side who think he's the devil and we'd be better off with another 100 years of endless conflict.
4. Re:Still waiting for the "expected" US response. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  Hell if Trump was about forty/fifty IQ points higher, and it was easier to assassinate journalists in the US, you'd already have your own little golden Putin.
  Well, no, you'd have the makings for another Clinton Administration.
5. Re:Still waiting for the "expected" US response. by Solandri · 2017-06-15 05:38 · Score: 2
  
  Whether a flyby is dangerous or safe depends on how well you know the path of both objects. The trajectory of the ISS is very well known, and the trajectory of the spy satellite is (presumably) very well known. Probably to within a few hundred meters. So they could've accurately predicted that the two were in no danger of colliding, and this was a safe pass. The same would've been true for an active Russian or Chinese spy satellite (though it would've required sharing of precise orbital element info between the involved countries).
  
  Space junk is a problem because its path is not well known. At best we use radar to nail down its trajectory to within a few km. That larger error radius is what makes any pass within a few km dangerous. It's not that passes within a few km are inherently dangerous.
6. Re: Still waiting for the "expected" US response. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 06:51 · Score: 0
  
  Orbital info for spacecraft is determined the same way it is determined for space junk and has the same accuracy in almost all cases.
7. Re: Still waiting for the "expected" US response. by Bomazi · 2017-06-16 19:28 · Score: 1
  
  The orbit of spacecraft is determined by analysis of their radio transmissions. The trajectory of debris is determined by radar which is a much less accurate method.
sounds like a non-story by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 22:46 · Score: -1

Why are people considering this a "near miss"? The thing is 4-6km higher altitude. That's not even close to a near miss.
This sounds more like a case "because we could" that was probably followed by a round of high-fives for everyone on the team involved.
Raise your hand if you wouldn't have buzzed the ISS if you had the ability to do it.
1. Re:sounds like a non-story by ledow · 2017-06-14 22:58 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Idiot.
  4-6km at 10-20,000 mph is a near miss. That's literally seconds away, or a tiny angle error because you completely destroy both objects in question.
  Even in aviation terms, that kind of distance is probably needing reporting for most places. 4-6km isn't exactly "far away" at even aircraft speed.
  In orbit, it's just downright dangerous.
2. Re:sounds like a non-story by RobinH · 2017-06-14 23:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  To be fair, they're not necessarily moving a 4 to 6 km/s relative to each other. If they're in "similar orbits" then the relative speed is much lower. I still wouldn't want the ISS to get hit by a satellite at any speed, but unless it was in a retrograde orbit, it's nowhere near that fast (in retrograde, it would be 8-12 km/s).
  
  --
  "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
3. Re:sounds like a non-story by muecksteiner · 2017-06-14 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  To be fair, if something the size of a spy satellite hit squarely ISS head on while on a retrograde orbit, the outcome would be a short-lived, and very faint, ring of tiny debris particles around earth. With very little else remaining. So being concerned about a fairly close pass is not that unreasonable - at least if no other information is available.
  That having been said, I do agree with you that this was likely an intentional "close pass" while on fairly similar orbit, so the relative velocities were likely not that dangerous.
4. Re:sounds like a non-story by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  > 4-6km at 10-20,000 mph is a near miss. That's literally seconds away, or a tiny angle error because you completely destroy both objects in question.
  That would be one hell of an error with two objects on ballistic trajectories, considering how accurate even non-modern radar systems are. A resupply mission, non-ballistic, is a far worse danger for the ISS.
  > Even in aviation terms, that kind of distance is probably needing reporting for most places. 4-6km isn't exactly "far away" at even aircraft speed.
  Yet aircraft almost never collide above even the busiest airports.
  > In orbit, it's just downright dangerous.
  Not anything near as dangerous as all the tiny pieces fallen off obsolete satellites up there, which often break up or alter trajectories after colliding with each other. Also not anything near as dangerous as regular motorway traffic, with its often unpredictable accelerations.
  Since the satellite wasn't rerouted, a better question would be 'what surface areas will it be able to see?'
5. Re:sounds like a non-story by Plus1Entropy · 2017-06-14 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yet aircraft almost never collide above even the busiest airports.
  But isn't that exactly because they maintain minimum distances between aircraft?
  
  --
  Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
6. Re:sounds like a non-story by darthsilun · 2017-06-15 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  ... a tiny angle error...
  I'm not saying mistakes don't happen (think Viking 1 antenna adjustment) but we have a pretty good record for not making tiny angle errors.
  And as others have pointed out, the relative velocity isn't anywhere near the rates you cited. (and great way to mix KM and MPH).
  Personally I think you're being just a teeny bit alarmist.
7. Re:sounds like a non-story by MangoCats · 2017-06-15 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  Commercial airliners regularly fly 1km separation, and as little as 1500' altitude difference when going "head to head" in a controlled commercial flight lane.
8. Re:sounds like a non-story by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  Nice social skills there fuckwit.
9. Re:sounds like a non-story by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 01:10 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  They didn't say km/s, they said km.
  That's distance, not speed.
  It was a near miss.
10. Re: sounds like a non-story by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 01:11 · Score: 0
  
  Only one way to find out!
11. Re:sounds like a non-story by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  For large, commercial aircraft, yes they maintain minimum distance, but for small aircraft, nobody is really keeping track other than the pilots themselves. Granted the closest I've ever gotten was on a commercial flight where I think it was a 737 was at our altitude about 1000 yards away flying the same direction as us. They quickly moved to a different altitude though. Or we did, sort of hard to tell.
  But at any rate, with orbits, if they're 6km height difference, there's no way they're in danger of colliding. To change orbital height requires speed change, and once things are in orbit, they don't tend to change speed much. And I can't be bothered to do the math to figure out the speed change needed to move 6km in height, but I'm fairly certain it is non-trivial.
12. Re:sounds like a non-story by rand.srand() · 2017-06-15 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  When two objects have highly similar orbits which frequently coincide it implies very low velocity difference and very precise planning to synchronize the orbits. Yes, they are mutually moving very quickly but their relative velocities are lowest when they are nearby. This isn't two objects zipping by each other, they are more like in a ballet. Yes, it's extremely counter-intuitive.
  The real story here isn't about some risk of collision, it's that there's some purpose in having them orbit together because they wouldn't end up in a situation of having multiple passes and a gradual decrease of distance on the closest passes any other way. That's the mystery.
13. Re:sounds like a non-story by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  The absolute speed is irrelevant, only the relative speed maters. The closer you are to the same orbit, the closer you are going to be to the same speed.
  Russian Progress and Soyuz craft routinely come much closer to the ISS while moving at orbital speeds. They just do it at extremely close to the same orbit, and thus a speed difference of inches per second.
14. Re:sounds like a non-story by RobinH · 2017-06-15 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  True, sorry, it was the 10-20,000 mph I should be quoting.
  
  --
  "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
15. Re:sounds like a non-story by MightyYar · 2017-06-15 03:30 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Don't call people idiots unless you yourself are willing to talk about the whole story. Direction is very important. NASA does not draw a sphere around the ISS, they draw a "pizza box". The pizza box is 50 km wide, but only 1.5 km tall. This is because stuff in space is not likely to change altitude very quickly, but it is moving very quickly within it's orbit. So, the AC is actually correct and a 4-6km altitude difference would take this thing well out of harms' way. If it was anywhere within the pizza box at any time, which it does not appear was the case, then yeah - it would be a near miss by violating NASA's safety zone.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
16. Re:sounds like a non-story by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 05:30 · Score: 0
  
  The absolute speed is irrelevant, only the relative speed maters. The closer you are to the same orbit, the closer you are going to be to the same speed.
  That doesn't help. "Closer to the same orbit", sure. But wildly different orbits intersect each other too. A spy satellite appearing 6km from the ISS does not in any way imply they have similiar orbits. The relative speeds can be enormous anyway.
  A spy satellite usually have an orbit so it may fly over almost any part of the planet - that means its orbit must be rather polar. (Russia has lots of interesting stuff up north.) The ISS does not have that kind of orbit - so I expect a large speed difference due to that.
  Two satellites in similiar polar orbits may be in different phase - one going north while another goes south. Again, the speed difference will be tremendous.
  The ISS orbit has little variation in height - a spy satellite may have a more oval orbit. This is also enough to give a a large speed difference.
  If one satellite is in a retrograde orbit and the other is not - well that is much worse. But it is not necessary - any of the lesser differences mentioned still have enough difference in orbital speed or direction that a crash will be very destructive. The ISS is not built to survive a crash even at "car speed" - never mind stuff that goes thousands of times faster.
17. Re: sounds like a non-story by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  They don't bother moving the ISS to avoid an object unless an object comes within 2 km vertically or 25 km horizontally. That is classified as "close"
18. Re:sounds like a non-story by sysrammer · 2017-06-15 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  "The pizza box is 50 km wide, but only 1.5 km tall."
  Hi, just stopped in to say thanks for the info. I knew that differing orbit altitudes are not as "close" as common sense might guess, but didn't know the scale. Oh, and kudos for the mental sight picture of a giant pizza.
  --
  I'm inexplicably reminded of Douglas Adams...how did he put it?
  How do we eat?
  What should we eat?
  Where shall we have lunch?
  --
  But I digress.
  
  --
  His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
19. Re:sounds like a non-story by MightyYar · 2017-06-15 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Ha! I wish it was my analogy - I think "pizza box" is the NASA term :) Douglas Adams would approve.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Why by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 22:47 · Score: -1

Do liberals hate baseball players?
1. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 22:53 · Score: 0
  
  > Do liberals hate baseball players?
  No. We just find them odd for enjoying such a boring Yank game.
2. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:02 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, and rightly so.
Well, by bytesex · 2017-06-14 23:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

Now we know what this new satellite does. It aims at other satellites and buzzes them (and/or photographs them, or destroys them, either by smashing into it, or by using some sort of weapon on the platform itself).

--
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
1. Re:Well, by Entrope · 2017-06-15 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  What should we conclude about you, from this one comment taken in isolation? That what you "do" is post inane comments on the Internet?
2. Re:Well, by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:45 · Score: 0
  
  That is physically impossible. Plane changes are the most expensive orbital maneuver.
3. Re:Well, by Shatrat · 2017-06-15 01:21 · Score: 1
  
  Why is a plane change even needed? That's why they are excited about SpaceX's quick turnaround and rapid launch abilities. They just launch into the plane of the space object they want to check out or take out on demand.
  
  --
  09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
4. Re:Well, by AHuxley · 2017-06-15 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Spy calibration on something big and well understood on the way up?
  Or someone got metric to imperial wrong again?
  The approach ellipsoid was avoided and its ok?
  Coincidence? A mistake or some mil math got done?
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
5. Re:Well, by ZenShadow · 2017-06-15 02:22 · Score: 0
  
  Because flying non-stop is just too expensive sometimes.
  
  --
  -- sigs cause cancer.
6. Re:Well, by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  Or, just like people, they're passing each other on the sidewalk.
  One an assassin, the other a research scientist.
  They pass each other with zero interaction, but the drama-queen on the corner who spend his day pointing fingers at others sees a tremendously big deal.
7. Re: Well, by Ken_g6 · 2017-06-15 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  But why test it on a manned satellite, when there are so many unmanned satellites to choose from?
  
  --
  (T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
8. Re:Well, by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 04:30 · Score: 0
  
  Why would you need to change planes? You're trying to impact/photograph not dock. With accurate enough orbital information of both the impactor/camera and target you simply adjust your altitude and orbital eccentricity enough that you eventually end up in/near the target at the same place at the same time for a fraction of a second. This is the reason why the poles are the most dangerous places for satellites, because the orbits of objects (satellites and debris) in different planes intersect so often.
9. Re: Well, by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 07:01 · Score: 0
  
  Lol, the poles are no more likely than any other place to have a collision. Most polar orbits are sun synchronous and are inclined to the poles slightly. They don't pass directly over the poles.
10. Re: Well, by AHuxley · 2017-06-15 13:24 · Score: 1
  
  The manned satellite was big and very well understood?
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
U.S. now risks the lives of people on the ISS? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 23:27 · Score: 1

What a disgusting neglect and gross lack of responsibility. The UN and world governments MUST act on this, it's unprecedented and can not be tolerated. If another country had done this, the U.S. would've thrown a huge circus about it themselves.
1. Re:U.S. now risks the lives of people on the ISS? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 23:40 · Score: 0
  
  Nice try, Chinese guy sitting in a room full of other media manipulators. Thanks for keeping the tard level at a high enough level to be obvious.
2. Re:U.S. now risks the lives of people on the ISS? by Maritz · 2017-06-15 00:00 · Score: 1
  
  Nice try, Chinese guy sitting in a room full of other media manipulators. Thanks for keeping the tard level at a high enough level to be obvious.
  lol. You think the Chinese government are trying to win hearts and minds on slashdot with psy ops? And correctly using contractions like "would've" whilst doing it?
  I can't get my head around how fucking stupid you'd have to be to think that.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
3. Re:U.S. now risks the lives of people on the ISS? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  Well, there's a good explanation for that...
4. Re:U.S. now risks the lives of people on the ISS? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  Hardly. This pass was well outside the NASA "safety zone" for the ISS.
  This is a clickbait article, written by ignorant fools, to trick idiots like you. Congratulations on being one of today's suckers.
what if jesus had been a girl or had a sister? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 23:40 · Score: 0

almost unimaginable? father son & holy hussy road show? would we then be allowed to keep our softer side? cease fire stand down...tears in the sky until the moms can finally stop crying... what evidence do we have that mary (earth bound mother of 'god) was a virgin anyway? borderline blasphemy... dark matters for sure..
1. Re:what if jesus had been a girl or had a sister? by Higaran · 2017-06-14 23:45 · Score: 1
  
  Jesus did have a brother and sister, Mary only had a virgin birth the first time.
2. Re:what if jesus had been a girl or had a sister? by Maritz · 2017-06-15 00:02 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Jesus did have a brother and sister, Mary only had a virgin birth the first time.
  Yeah, it was right after she spun the straw into gold for the king and just before she fell asleep for a hundred years. Because this stuff really happened. lol.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
3. Re:what if jesus had been a girl or had a sister? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:16 · Score: 1
  
  > Mary only had a virgin birth the first time.
  Or, as some bible scholars argue, the interpretation should be that it was OK not to stone the woman who'd given birth out of wedlock because she was betrothed to the father at the time of conception.
4. Re:what if jesus had been a girl or had a sister? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:29 · Score: 0
  
  Virgin Birth means – literally – hasn't given birth previously. The Immaculate Conception is something else entirely.
5. Re:what if jesus had been a girl or had a sister? by Topwiz · 2017-06-15 01:26 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The Immaculate Conception actually refers to Mary, not Jesus. The belief goes that Mary was absolved of 'original sin' by God so that later when she bore Jesus she would have a clean soul. This belief started in the 12th century and became official Catholic doctrine in 1854. The belief that Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant is the Doctrine of Incarnation.
6. Re:what if jesus had been a girl or had a sister? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  That surely depends which Jesus you are talking about, it seems to be quite a popular name in Mexico.
  If you're referring to the biblical one, then you first need to prove he existed before starting on his siblings.
7. Re:what if jesus had been a girl or had a sister? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  Jesus of Nazareth's existence is not in dispute by anyone with even half a clue.
  The historian Josephus names him as a real person that was widely known in the first century C.E. Josephus lived from the 20's C.E. to around 100 C.E, so his testimony is just another firsthand account. Also keep in mind that the apostles penned several of the works that are now books of the Bible, and they had direct contact with Jesus.
  Nobody disputes Jesus' existence. Many dispute his claims, but that's a different matter.
8. Re:what if jesus had been a girl or had a sister? by mjwx · 2017-06-15 12:18 · Score: 1
  
  The Immaculate Conception actually refers to Mary, not Jesus. The belief goes that Mary was absolved of 'original sin' by God so that later when she bore Jesus she would have a clean soul. This belief started in the 12th century and became official Catholic doctrine in 1854. The belief that Mary was a virgin when she became pregnant is the Doctrine of Incarnation.
  In actual fact, Mary got knocked up by Amnon down the street after too much mead at the tavern and couldn't think of a better story to tell Joseph.
  
  "Immaculate conception... are you certain dear?".
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Lots more information here by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-14 23:45 · Score: 1

looks like the orbit was planned this way; observers were predicting close passes...
http://spaceflight101.com/falcon-9-nrol-76/secret-nrol-76-iss-flyby/
Gravity by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:00 · Score: 1

What this means is the movie Gravity may be possible after all. Take that Neil deGrasse Tyson!
never heard that in catechism school.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:05 · Score: 1

but now that you mentioned it.. was there an attending md of record? still leaves out the speculative merit of the question.. as well as the hoopla about the missing monkey hymens... thanks..
You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later. wtf?
The Gospel of Mark 6:3 and the Gospel of Matthew 13:55-56 state that James, Joses (or Joseph), Judas, and Simon were the brothers of Jesus, the son of Mary. The same verses also mention unnamed sisters of Jesus. Another verse in the Epistle to the Galatians 1:19 mentions seeing James, "the Lord's brother", and none other of the apostles except Peter, when Paul went to Jerusalem after his conversion. The "brothers of the Lord" are also mentioned, alongside (but separate from) Cephas and the apostles in 1 Corinthians 9:5, in which it is mentioned that they had wives. Some scholars claim that Jesus' relatives may have held positions of authority in the Jerusalem area until Trajan excluded Jews from the new city that he built on its ruins.[7]... (that clears it up?)
Did the US ~leak~ the plans to Russia? by pmgst17 · 2017-06-15 00:19 · Score: 1

"Another question, if the maneuver was deliberate, is whether the US government informed Russia or other international partners on the space station. The Russian segment of the station controls the thrusters that generally are used to maneuver the station away from orbital debris, so such coordination might seem prudent." Also, appropriate Top Gun reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Too bad it missed by HBI · 2017-06-15 00:26 · Score: 0

It would be a twofer. Destroying a Cold War legacy satellite and the huge boondoggle that is the ISS at the same time.

--
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
smoke to go with the mirrors by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:41 · Score: 0

whois (or was) the one who proves or disproves hymenical virginity in year 1? aspiring hymenologists want to know.. just reading the comments leaves big gaps in the facts dept.... more of a fairytailish believe it or die badly posit than anything? cease fire stand down.. seek a second unowned opinion whenever possible...
1. Re:smoke to go with the mirrors by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:51 · Score: 0
  
  proves? If the girl hasn't given birth previously, it's a Virgin Birth. It has zero, zilch, nada, nichts, nothing to do with her hymen.
  Once one baby has come down the birth canal, all following births are – by definition – not Virgin Births.
  At a guess, I'd think the girl would know if she'd give birth before or not. Still has nothing to do with Immaculate Conception.
  dipshit
2. Re:smoke to go with the mirrors by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:58 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe by taking her pulse? At least traditional Chinese medicine teaches that taking someone's pulse can diagnose anything from specific poisons to pregnancy. The hymen breaking always causing bleeding is a widespread myth, so that could have been used as well, but strangely I've never heard of vast swathes of marriages being annulled the morning after the wedding in cultures that value virginal 'purity.' Perhaps some old crone fingered the bride to be for a bit.
  Possibly the betrothal was forced upon them after Josef raped Mary, and Mary went crazy from the double shock, then indoctrinatet her son.
3. Re:smoke to go with the mirrors by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:59 · Score: 0
  
  Virgin Birth, i.e. the first time a woman gives birth, has nothing to do with "virginity" – literally. Look it up in your Funk and Wagnalls.
  A woman's "virginity", i.e. an intact hymen, as proof that she hasn't had sexual intercourse, or even just the state of never having had sexual intercourse regardless of the state of her hymen, is something else entirely.
  Gawd, it's like we're living in 1950 all over again. Or something. Very Sad. Bigly
fly-by by pahles · 2017-06-15 00:49 · Score: 1

The fly-by was made by a dedicated group of ground-based observers
Was it? Or did they merely observe it?

--
Sig?
1. Re:fly-by by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 01:08 · Score: 0
  
  The fly-by was made by a dedicated group of ground-based observers
  Was it? Or did they merely observe it?
  I know, doesn't anyboody check what they write anymore to see if sensory?
2. Re:fly-by by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  if sensory?
  I really hope that was intentional.
speaking of buzzed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 00:58 · Score: -1

I was playing around with my ex-girlfriends vibrator and I accidentally stuck it up my ass and turned it on. feels pretty good. Totally not gay even though it looks like a big black dick. thought you might want to know L)
1. Re:speaking of buzzed by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  Please go back to Twitter, Mr. Trump.
Poor comparison by sjbe · 2017-06-15 01:15 · Score: 2

Commercial airliners regularly fly 1km separation, and as little as 1500' altitude difference when going "head to head" in a controlled commercial flight lane.
Commercial airliners also are flying at speeds two orders of magnitude less than the speeds of satelltes (500mph vs 17500mph), with human pilots on board, the ability to quickly change course, and active air traffic control in most cases. Kind of comparing apples to oranges here.
1. Re:Poor comparison by spire3661 · 2017-06-15 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Here is the thing, the atmosphere is variable, orbit is not. Neither of these objects are going to hit each other because a little wind pushed them together. If the sat isnt on a collision course now, it never will be.
  
  --
  Good-bye
Thanks for posting this piece of news... by ctrl-alt-canc · 2017-06-15 01:18 · Score: 1

...it remembered to me that I have to renew my car insurance.
nowhere is safe by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 01:34 · Score: 0

from the prying eyes of the feds. nowhere. not even space. they've probably already got spy birds in orbit around mars, ffs.
1. Re:nowhere is safe by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 02:26 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, it's far worse than that, there are already robots running around on the ground, beaming footage back to Earth whilst looking for Martians.
BAN THE GUNS! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 02:17 · Score: -1

We all know what happened to 20+ million Russians when Stalin took all the guns.
1. Re:BAN THE GUNS! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 02:25 · Score: -1
  
  That doesn't matter. Hillary tells us the RUSSIANS are EVIL. Less Russians means more Americans. And less TRUMP means more HILLARY. I'm with her, folks!
  
  Remember in the '90s when she was talking about taking the guns away because people need to hunt less these days? I'm with her! Er, onward together to the slaughter house!
ya'll all -1 offtopic here by Thud457 · 2017-06-15 05:12 · Score: 1

I stand with Zardoz, kill all they Yahoos. But I am somewhat concerned about being collateral damage.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Somewhere a young satellite operator by LoginOrSignup · 2017-06-15 06:52 · Score: 1

And his RIO are being chewed out about circus stunt flybys.
They were checking the ISS for Green Slime by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 11:31 · Score: 0

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Green_Slime
Editor Fail by PJ6 · 2017-06-15 12:04 · Score: 1

The fly-by was made by a dedicated group of ground-based observers who continued to track the satellite
No it wasn't.

after it reach outer space.
Wow.
Werner Von Braun Said It by NicknameUnavailable · 2017-06-15 13:16 · Score: -1

First we're have the space race/cold war, then we'd have climate change scare tactics, then we'd have constant terrorist threats, then we'd have threat of asteroid, then we'd have a fake alien invasion, then we'd have everyone united enough for a 1-world government, then we'd have a planet of slaves. Hopefully the chemtrails NASA was testing the other week mean they're skipping the lame asteroid segment and going straight to the alien invasion, no way they pull that off in a remotely believable way without civilians getting ahold of some sweet black project technology to reverse engineer.
Still... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-15 15:53 · Score: 0

4 Km seems to me to be quite a distance, given that they're able to determine orbits to within centimeters days and weeks ahead. The issue here seems to be click-bait and the public's (as well as many slashdotters) complete ignorance of the actual risk. Last I heard, space has 3 dimensions, I have zero idea whether they meant that the two orbits closest approach is 4 km, or that the ISS and satellite were within 4 km of one another, or what. Any elliptical orbits around a sphere when radially projected onto the sphere will intersect at two points (unless they are identical) Those points of intersection need not be the points of closest approach. The most obvious question is was the fly-by intended to use the spy satellite to look at the ISS or was it to use the ISS to look at (something, or something wrong with) the spy satellite... There are apparently two Americans onboard right now, one of whom is a USAF officer...
Nit by stoatwblr · 2017-06-16 05:05 · Score: 1

LEO is not "outer space" - not even close to it. You're still in the atmosphere.
~3.4 meters/second by jeffkoch · 2017-06-16 07:12 · Score: 1

Using 400 km and 406 km for altitudes yields a delta-velocity of ~3.4 m/s using this online calculator (no affiliation) - http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224665242
Calibration by Anonymous Coward · 2017-06-16 17:08 · Score: 0

Seems likely to have been for calibration purposes.