Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space

3.5 Ton Satellite to Crash Back to Earth 323

DeadBugs writes "CNN is reporting that the NASA Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer could crash back to earth in a matter of days. It's estimated that up to 9 large pieces (4-100 lbs.) of the Satellite could survive re-entry. Unlike the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory that was guided in, this Satellite will be uncontrolled. The EUVE has only been up there since 1992.... I wonder when this sort of thing will start to be a more common event."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

3.5 Ton Satellite to Crash Back to Earth

Comments Filter:
  • Re:first post (Score:3, Informative)

    by digitalunity ( 19107 ) <digitalunity AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @12:07AM (#2923297) Homepage
    Not yet. It is falling without thrusters or any way to move itself. Only time will tell it's exact trajectory.

    The article did mention that the trail from this thing could stretch up to 625 miles. They also said that the parts that won't burn up are made out of titanium and steel. Seeing as Titanium is really expensive, if all of it hit me in the head; at least I could sell it to pay for the medical bills!
  • Incoming! (Score:5, Informative)

    by James1006 ( 544398 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @12:20AM (#2923372) Homepage
    Actually, debris entering the atmosphere (man-made and not) is a common occurrence. Happens everyday on some scale. It isn't just everyday a 3.5 ton one comes down :)

    I believe US Space Command/NASA/NORAD spends a ton of time tracking objects in close orbit, even very small ones the size of your finger.

    After all, anything going 17500 miles per hour hitting something like the space shuttle or Hubble or any other satellite (GPS, communications, spy/defense) wouldn't be pretty.

    Someone who worked for NASA at MSFC told me that they have actually had astronauts on the space shuttle change the shuttle's orbit slightly in order to avoid certain large pieces of debris.

  • Re:ianae but... (Score:2, Informative)

    by flikx ( 191915 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @12:30AM (#2923419) Homepage Journal

    From an engineering perspective (as in IAAES), I'd say that it makes sense to cut initial costs by designing the thing for a short lifespan. If it only needs to be in orbit for ten years, then why bother over-engineering it for more? The costs would go through the roof. Maintaining anything in space after that term is expensive enough on it's own. It's a better idea to build another one and send it up after a set time.

    3.5 tons of material isn't much anyways, it will come back to Earth. Big deal. We could only hope that it would land in the backyard of a certain resident of Holland, MI.

  • info (Score:5, Informative)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @12:36AM (#2923462) Journal
    EUVE Archive [berkeley.edu]
    EUVE Home (UCal. Berkeley) [berkeley.edu]

    Info on satellite tracking here [satobs.org]. Track the orbit, and place bets on where it will land. (note, the farthest north is someplace in florida.)

  • Re:Incoming! (Score:2, Informative)

    by Y B MCSE ( 469234 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @12:37AM (#2923471) Homepage
    After all, anything going 17500 miles per hour hitting something like the space shuttle

    Someone who worked for NASA at MSFC told me that they have actually had astronauts on the space shuttle change the shuttle's orbit slightly in order to avoid certain large pieces of debris.


    If you watch the news when the shuttle is up, notice it is ALWAYS flying backwards (except for reentry) pebble size objects ping it constantly and the windshields get so damaged they are replaced every launch ($40,000).

    Mission control plans the routes so that no human has to attempt the maneuvering you are speaking of. All happens far to fast.
  • Re:Incoming! (Score:5, Informative)

    by man_ls ( 248470 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @12:47AM (#2923517)
    True that. I've been inside NORAD and seen the satellite tracking facility (it's about 50 SGI Indigo and Indigo 2 workstations running a DOD-specific version of IRIX, with a second "hot backup" also used for training with identical hardware but a different room config a few floors down. (all that from only about 5 minutes in the lab...)

    It's pretty cool actually, you can open their anaylisis program and plot x; where x = the chronological number from 1 = Sputnik of the satellite launched, for a bunch of nice apogee/perigee/period/distance/elevation graphs. plot (some number I don't remember, and is probably classified anyway) plotted Mir, and the graphing was so accurate you could literally picture in your mind the space station flying around in closer and closer spirals until perigee=0 and reentry.

    But anyways-yes, they do track the stuff. And yes, they do course correct. A lot more than you might think too.
  • Re:Incoming! (Score:2, Informative)

    by James1006 ( 544398 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @12:50AM (#2923523) Homepage
    Wrong (Sorry).

    Quick google, straight from NASA:
    Source: http://www.wstf.nasa.gov/Hazard/Hyper/debris.htm

    "Larger particles (objects greater than 10-cm in diameter) are being tracked and catalogued by USSPACECOM radar. Spacecraft and satellites can avoid collisions by maneuvering around the larger debris. For example, when a space shuttle is in orbit, the USSPACECOM regularly examines the trajectories of orbital debris to identify possible close encounters. If a catalogued object is projected to come within a few kilometers of the space shuttle, it will normally maneuver away from the object."

    Also, further: http://see.msfc.nasa.gov/see/mod/modtech.html

    Scroll down on that page. Left side. Headline articles.
  • Odds (Score:3, Informative)

    by jhines0042 ( 184217 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @01:36AM (#2923661) Journal
    Here are some stats for comparison

    Being killed in a car accident: one in 5,300
    Being a drowning victim: one in 20,000
    Choking to death: one in 68,000
    Being killed in a bicycle accident: one in 75,000
    Being killed by lightning: one in 2 million
    Being killed by falling debris from a satellite: one in 4 million
    Dying from a bee sting: one in 6 million
    Winning the current Power Ball Jackpot of $10 million dollars: one in 80 million
  • by roystgnr ( 4015 ) <[gro.srengots] [ta] [yor]> on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @01:41AM (#2923673) Homepage
    Can you tell me where a piece of paper dropped off a skyscraper will land?

    The weather in low earth orbit is just as unpredictable as the weather at the ground, and just as variable. The density of the atmosphere around satellites (and thus the drag force on them) can vary by an order of magnitude. If the satellite loses orientation (which it is essentially certain to as drag forces overcome tidal or powered stabilization) then its coefficient of drag changes as well, and unpredictably when it rotates. It may not even have just drag acting on it; even in orbit an angled surface can produce just as much lift as drag, and when the satellite hits the atmosphere its shape could produce more lift than drag.

    And of course, for every second by which the atmosphere delays reentry, the satellite has moved 5 miles in its orbit. 5 mi/s * 3600 s/hr * 9 hr gives a nice 160,000 mile strip of possible landing sites, crossing around and around the whole globe. If you'd like to gamble about the probability of something being hit by one of the chunks, though, I suggest placing your money on "no".
  • Re:first post (Score:2, Informative)

    by PhuCknuT ( 1703 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @02:59AM (#2923900) Homepage
    It won't be travelling nearly that fast when it hits the ground. Terminal velocity is much lower. There is at least 1 case of someone being hit by a meteor and surviving with only a bruise.
  • J-Track 3D (Score:3, Informative)

    by Kwirq ( 43822 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @04:30AM (#2924100) Homepage
    While we're talking about tracking satellites,

    NASA's got a cool little Java applet [nasa.gov] you can play with to see the satellites and their orbits.

    It's a simulation based on posted data, I gather, rather than any kind of tracker, and I'm sure there are dozens of black satellites not listed, but it's still very neat. You can zoom in/out and around the earth, pick specific satellites from categories, changes the time speed, etc. There's also all the favourites such as the shuttle (when it's up), the ISS, Mir, Hubble, COBE, etc. You can also load a web page with more info about any given satellite, such as when it was launched, what it carries, and so on.

    Enjoy!

  • insurance coverage (Score:3, Informative)

    by Preposterous Coward ( 211739 ) on Wednesday January 30, 2002 @01:34PM (#2925929)
    My homeowner's insurance (not sure why they call it that since I'm a renter) policy includes coverage for the following:

    5. Aircraft, including self-propelled missiles and spacecraft.

    Who knows, maybe my insurance company would go after the spacecraft designers/operators/whoever -- or, more likely, after their insurance agency.

Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.

Working...