Near miss! NASA satellite, dead Russian spacecraft zoom past each other in orbit

Since neither satellite has maneuvering capability, the depiction of the Russian satellite as the "bad guy" is highly prejudicial. I fault both nations for failing to de-orbit these birds before they lost maneuverability.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alaintha
It's not relevant that it is still operational. It cannot maneuver and therefore is a danger to everything else in a similar orbit. It should have been de-orbited before it ran out of fuel regardless of operational status. SpaceX regularly deorbits birds because they're running out of fuel, even though they're still functioning.
 
It's not relevant that it is still operational. It cannot maneuver ..
I cannot find any references to TIMED being non-maneuverable. All NASA websites show it as operational. A satellite can't be operational if it can't orient itself.

We now deorbit satellites, but when these two were launched in 1997 and 2001 that was not the protocol.

As for the reference to being "clobbered", it is only because it is written from someone based in the US. If based in Russia it would say the Russian satellite got clobbered. Exactly the same, just two different views.
 
I cannot find any references to TIMED being non-maneuverable. All NASA websites show it as operational. A satellite can't be operational if it can't orient itself.

We now deorbit satellites, but when these two were launched in 1997 and 2001 that was not the protocol.

As for the reference to being "clobbered", it is only because it is written from someone based in the US. If based in Russia it would say the Russian satellite got clobbered. Exactly the same, just two different views.

Rotational maneuvering is often accomplished using reaction wheels that are powered by the bird's solar panels and so don't run out of power until the panels die. While these can be used to keep antennas aligned properly, they cannot be used to adjust the orbit.

Satellites can still be operational without any maneuvering capability. They may lose some capabilities (high speed communication being the most critical), but they can often still be useful for some parts of their original mission. TESS is a prime example.

The Space.com article quotes NASA:

""While the two non-maneuverable satellites will approach each other again, this was their closest pass in the current predicted orbit determinations, as they are gradually moving apart in altitude," NASA officials wrote..."

The article may be incorrect, but it is what I based my comments on.

It wasn't the protocol, but it should have been. From a "who to blame for a collision" standpoint, both nations are equally to blame.

I realize that painting the Russian object as the aggressor is simply a geopolitical affectation, but I'd prefer if Space.com would avoid such characterizations.
 
Last edited:
From that other space website:

"In a brief statement March 1, NASA announced it was ending the On-Orbit Servicing, Assembly and Manufacturing (OSAM) 1 mission. OSAM-1 was being developed to refuel the Landsat 7 spacecraft . . . due to continued technical, cost, and schedule challenges, and a broader community evolution away from refueling unprepared spacecraft, which has led to a lack of a committed partner."

I am wondering how long it will be before SpaceX has some sort of refueling service technology for its constellation of StarLink satellites. Something like a StarShip tanker could provide enough fuel in orbit to make a long lived "gas station" - - provided it doesn't have a high probability of getting clobbered by some other dead satellite. I guess it would have the fuel to "dodge", but it would take a significant amount to move such a big craft.
 

Latest posts