MORE AND MORE SPACE DEBRIS COLLISIONS OCCURING.

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cyclonebuster

Guest
<h1 class="fontStyle51">&nbsp;&nbsp;<font size="2">I told you guys this would happen more and more.</font></h1><h1 class="fontStyle51">&nbsp;&nbsp;</h1><h1 class="fontStyle51">Satellite Debris Falls<br />from Texas Sky</h1><p class="fontStyle21">Created On: Sunday, 15 Feb 2009, 1:12 PM CST</p><div class="fontStyle4"><div class="story last"><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Residents in Hill and Navarro counties also reported hearing an explosion or feeling their house shake.</p><p>The Federal Aviation Administration's spokesman Roland Herwig attributed the reports to falling debris from a recent satellite collision.</p><p>According to the Associated Press, a derelict Russian spacecraft designed for military communications and a working satellite owned by U.S.-based Iridium, which served commercial customers as well as the U.S. Department of Defense, collided over Siberia on Tuesday.</p><p>Herwig said airmen were warned that crash debris might fall this weekend.</p><p>He said he started receiving calls at about 11 a.m. Sunday from law enforcement agencies across the state. The agencies were fielding questions from people who had either witness or found fallen debris.</p><p>&ldquo;We don&rsquo;t know what has fallen yet. We&rsquo;ll find out in a day or so what we are looking at,&rdquo; he said.</p><p>He encouraged residents to call police and use caution around any debris that they may find on their property.</p><p>Earlier this week the chief of Russia's Mission Control said clouds of debris from the collision will circle Earth for thousands of years and threaten numerous satellites, the Associated Press reported.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/Satellite_Debris_Falls_from_T</p></div></div>
 
V

vogon13

Guest
<p>&nbsp;</p><p>At ~6:45PM CST, Fox News had footage of some of the debris re-entering over Texas.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Sorry for the pokey notification, but the Pluck Crap-ware is running very, very, very poorly tonite and it has taken me over 25 minutes (so far !!) to make this post.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;&nbsp;I told you guys this would happen more and more.&nbsp;&nbsp;Satellite Debris Fallsfrom Texas SkyCreated On: Sunday, 15 Feb 2009, 1:12 PM CST&nbsp;Residents in Hill and Navarro counties also reported hearing an explosion or feeling their house shake.The Federal Aviation Administration's spokesman Roland Herwig attributed the reports to falling debris from a recent satellite collision.According to the Associated Press, a derelict Russian spacecraft designed for military communications and a working satellite owned by U.S.-based Iridium, which served commercial customers as well as the U.S. Department of Defense, collided over Siberia on Tuesday.Herwig said airmen were warned that crash debris might fall this weekend.He said he started receiving calls at about 11 a.m. Sunday from law enforcement agencies across the state. The agencies were fielding questions from people who had either witness or found fallen debris.&ldquo;We don&rsquo;t know what has fallen yet. We&rsquo;ll find out in a day or so what we are looking at,&rdquo; he said.He encouraged residents to call police and use caution around any debris that they may find on their property.Earlier this week the chief of Russia's Mission Control said clouds of debris from the collision will circle Earth for thousands of years and threaten numerous satellites, the Associated Press reported.&nbsp;http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/Satellite_Debris_Falls_from_T <br />Posted by cyclonebuster</DIV></p><p>Balony. Unfounded hype. It is almost impossible that any debris from the satellite collision would reenter by now from a 500 mile orbit.</p><p>Pure uninformed hysteria. Idiots!!<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
S

silylene

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;&nbsp;...<br />Posted by cyclonebuster</DIV><br /><br />Nice headlines. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font size="1">petet = <font color="#800000"><strong>silylene</strong></font></font></p><p align="center"><font size="1">Please, please give me my handle back !</font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxzPN-vdP_0 <br />Posted by cyclonebuster</DIV><br /><br />Both your links are to a commercial, so I have deleted them</p><p>Wayne</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
T

ThereIWas2

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is almost impossible that any debris from the satellite collision would reenter by now from a 500 mile orbit.Pure uninformed hysteria. Idiots!! <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Wouldn't that depend on the exact angle at which the two craft hit each other, and whether the strike was off center.&nbsp; Thinking 3D billiards here.&nbsp; Some of the pieces could have been sent diving into a much lower trajectory where they would have slowed and re-entered.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><span class="postbody"><span style="font-style:italic"><br /></span></span></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wouldn't that depend on the exact angle at which the two craft hit each other, and whether the strike was off center.&nbsp; Thinking 3D billiards here.&nbsp; Some of the pieces could have been sent diving into a much lower trajectory where they would have slowed and re-entered. <br />Posted by ThereIWas2</DIV><br /><br />To a certain extant yes, but in any case it is far too early for any debris from this colission to reach the ground.</p><p>The FAA should stick to their own territory (i.e. < 40,000 feet) and leave space science to the experts.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
S

samkent

Guest
<p style="margin:0in0in0pt" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">Without doing any math&hellip; Wouldn&rsquo;t two bodies of similar size traveling at right angles and at similar speeds lose about half their forward speed when they intersect? Even more if you take into account the energy needed to shred the space craft into thousands of pieces? Not to mention breaching pressurized tanks. Wouldn&rsquo;t that be enough to deorbit numerous pieces and lower many others?</font></p><span style="font-size:12pt;font-family:'TimesNewRoman'">I think the ISS is in more danger than what they have been reporting.</span>
 
A

Archer17

Guest
<p>http://spaceweather.com/ has a little piece on their main page&nbsp;that debunks the "satellite debris" angle of the Texas sighting. A snippet:</p><p>"Astronomer Bill Cooke of NASA's Meteoroid Environment Office has analyzed the video and confirms "<strong>it's a natural meteor</strong>, definitely." According to Cooke's analysis, the source of the fireball was a meter-class asteroid traveling at about 20 km/s."</p><p>The video he's referring to is right above the piece&nbsp;I cited but, outside of 2 commercials, I couldn't get it to work.</p><p>I <em>did </em>found a video that works here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5744573.ece</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

cyclonebuster

Guest
At those velocities I am sure there is enough KE&nbsp;in the vacuum of space to boost pieces to a higher orbit. LOL!
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">A fireball that lit up the sky over parts of Texas early Sunday was not caused by debris from a satellite collision last week, and more likely stemmed from a falling meteor, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials have said. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">The fireball, which appeared over a wide swath of Texas, loosed sonic booms that rattled windows and shook houses, according to reports from residents who called their local law enforcement agencies. A similar sighting was reported late Friday over parts of eastern central Kentucky. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">FAA spokesperson Roland Herwig told the <em>Associated Press</em> that the fireball was most likely created by a natural phenomenon and not man-made satellite debris. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">http://www.space.com/news/090217-texas-fireball-update.html</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">And 2 demerits to Tariq Malik for posting the original story on SDC in the first part without realizing how foolish it was.</span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>At those velocities I am sure there is enough KE&nbsp;in the vacuum of space to boost pieces to a higher orbit. LOL! <br /> Posted by cyclonebuster</DIV></p><p>Oh, absolutely.&nbsp; But calculations show that it shouldn't be reentering just yet.&nbsp; In any case, the stuff in the OP was definitely not satellite debris -- there were reports from Texas, Kentucky, and Italy, but all were confirmed to be meteoroids.&nbsp; Natural objects in heliocentric orbit, several of which are believed to strike the Earth daily.&nbsp; Most go unnoticed, but the recent satellite collision probably has people paying more attention to stuff in the sky. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
C

cyclonebuster

Guest
OK! So it was a meteor but still what about the satellites that did collide, the laws of physics still apply. LOL!
 
N

nimbus

Guest
Now that's some proper LOLSIENSCE. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nuclear chain reaction is similar to the ping pong ball effect. The process has started.http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,496486,00.html&nbsp;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtl4fw-z9ag <br />Posted by cyclonebuster</DIV><br /><br />The Fox story is old news that has already been discussed in the Hubble Repair Mission thread. It may be news to fox, though...</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
<p>Any collision in space could potentially send shrapnel hurtling towards us. <br /><br />If you threw a rock from ISS and aimed directly at earth, the rock would re-enter in no time. Yes, the horizontal velocity component would dwarf the vertical velocity vector, but nevertheless the rock would come down in no time with nothing to counter the vertical component that was introduced by the astronaut who threw the rock and aimed at earth. </p><p>Let's say the vertical component caused by throwing the stone right at earth was 20 m/s. To reach the upper athmosphere would take 300 km - 100 km = 200 km = 200 000 m / 20 m/s = 10 000 s = 2.78 hrs.</p><p>A collision could likely send shrapnels with more velocity than 20 m/s, so in a matter of hours debris could start raining on us. </p>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Any collision in space could potentially send shrapnel hurtling towards us. If you threw a rock from ISS and aimed directly at earth, the rock would re-enter in no time. Yes, the horizontal velocity component would dwarf the vertical velocity vector, but nevertheless the rock would come down in no time with nothing to counter the vertical component that was introduced by the astronaut who threw the rock and aimed at earth. Let's say the vertical component caused by throwing the stone right at earth was 20 m/s. To reach the upper athmosphere would take 300 km - 100 km = 200 km = 200 000 m / 20 m/s = 20 000 s = 10 000s = 2.78 hrs.A collision could likely send shrapnels with more velocity than 20 m/s, so in a matter of hours debris could rain on us. <br />Posted by aphh</DIV><br /><br />It's not as simple as you suggest. In reality, the best way to ensure a quick return is to throw the object behind the orbital path, hence decreasing it's orbital velocity. Throwing it downward could possibly create a more elliptical orbit that could create a higher perigee, and endanger more spacecraft. that's why when the Nitrogen tank was pushed away from the ISS, it's precise direction was calculated. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
S

SlyCoopersButt

Guest
<p>I needed much more than that Delta V in a retrograde burn from ISS to re-enter the atmosphere in an orbital simulation I ran. And at 800 Km that factor is even greater.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's not as simple as you suggest. In reality, the best way to ensure a quick return is to throw the object behind the orbital path, hence decreasing it's orbital velocity. Throwing it downward could possibly create a more elliptical orbit that could create a higher perigee, and endanger more spacecraft. that's why when the Nitrogen tank was pushed away from the ISS, it's precise direction was calculated. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>I think leaving an object behind is the safest method, not the fastest. <br /><br />If the velocity component didn't point directly at earth, then the scenario you mentioned could occur and a new and more elliptical orbit could happen and thus the object could be zooming back at you on the coming revolutions.</p>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think leaving an object behind is the safest method, not the fastest. If the velocity component didn't point directly at earth, then the scenario you mentioned could occur and a new and more elliptical orbit could happen and thus the object could be zooming back at you on the coming revolutions. <br />Posted by aphh</DIV><br /><br />Leaving it behind doesn't do much. Decelerating it assures a shorter orbital lifetime. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Leaving it behind doesn't do much. Decelerating it assures a shorter orbital lifetime. <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Leaving something behind at ISS would effectively mean giving an object a boost on the opposite direction that the ISS travels. Both objects would still continue going forward, but the item left behind would proceed progressively slower thus lowering the orbit as function of time.&nbsp;</p><p>It's also a action-reaction pair, which means the boost I gave to a object to throw it behind ISS would very slightly accelerate the ISS. </p>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Leaving something behind at ISS would effectively mean giving an object a boost on the opposite direction that the ISS travels. Both objects would still continue going forward, but the item left behind would proceed progressively slower thus lowering the orbit as function of time.&nbsp;It's also a action-reaction pair, which means the boost I gave to a object to throw it behind ISS would very slightly accelerate the ISS. <br />Posted by aphh</DIV><br /><br />I guess we interpret the terms "leaving it behind" and "decelerating" differently :) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I guess we interpret the terms "leaving it behind" and "decelerating" differently :) <br /> Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>Sure. There is no way to just leave something behind on orbit. <br /><br />If I held a tennis ball in my hand outside the ISS and released the ball, it would continue on the same path as I did. To leave the tennis ball behind I would need to throw it to the opposite direction that I was travelling.</p><p>This would give an equal boost to both the tennis ball and the ISS. Naturally the ball would feel the effect much more strongly because of the difference in the masses of both objects. </p><p>I have just taken several courses on mechanics and orbital mechanics in the Uni, so that's why I like to speak about it. <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" />&nbsp; </p>
 
E

earth_bound_misfit

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I have just taken several courses on mechanics and orbital mechanics in the Uni, so that's why I like to speak about it. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by aphh</DIV></p><p>Was not losing your greasegun in space covered in the course? <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts