Defunct Satellite To Fall From the Sky 168
Front page first-timer EmLomBeeNo sends word of a 6.5-ton satellite that will soon be making a quick and fiery return to Earth. From Space.com:
"The huge Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (UARS) is expected to re-enter Earth's atmosphere in an uncontrolled fall in late September or early October. Much of the spacecraft is expected to burn up during re-entry, but some pieces are expected to make it intact to the ground, NASA officials said. The U.S. space agency will be taking measures to inform the public about the pieces of the spacecraft that are expected to survive re-entry."
According to a NASA press conference today, you have a 1-in-21 trillion chance of being hit by falling debris. Who's feeling lucky?
Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds (Score:2, Insightful)
Every day idiots all over the U.S. throw down $1 for a 1 in 100 million chance of winning some big jackpot lottery. So, on the off chance that said idiots stumble upon a news channel while channel-surfing between "The Jersey Shore" and Maury Povich's "Primetime Baby-Daddy Special" (and assuming that they're not too high to understand what's being said), there is a pretty good chance that they'll completely ignore the "1-in-21 trillion chance" addendum and only hear the "being hit by falling debris" part. In
Re: (Score:1)
Just look at Fukushima incident and the panicking idiots buying iodine in the US, China, Philippines, and elsewhere. Another example is spending hundreds of billions combating terrorism. They are worried about terrorists or nuclear plants while drink and driving or not worried about someone else killing them on the street.
People, including policy makers, are stupid and don't understand odds at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You should hear my take on bible-thumpers and NASCAR fans.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention Burning Man Attendees
Re: (Score:2)
God, I swear I can still smell them from here.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that anyone who thinks there is a single "odds" for people on the earth being hit by this satellite doesn't understand orbital mechanics. Or even sub-orbital ballistics. (E.g. The further you are from the thrower, the lower your odds of being impaled by the lawn dart.)
Re: (Score:2)
I think that anyone who thinks there is a single "odds" for people on the earth being hit by this satellite doesn't understand orbital mechanics.
Sort of like the odds for being bitten by a rattlesnake tomorrow. If you live in the arizona desert and work at the zoo the odds are quite a bit higher than if you are a lawyer in alaska.
Still an aggregate odds does exist as a single number. Divide all the people who will be bitten tomorrow by the world population... and you get a number.
What that number means exac
Re: (Score:2)
1 in 3,200 (Score:2)
If there's a 1 in 21 trillion chance that an individual will be hit, and there are 7 billion people, then the odds of someone, somewhere, getting hit are 21,000,000,000,000/7,000,000,000 or 1 in 3,000.
Of course, seeing as people tend to clump together, the most likely scenario, IF someone gets hit, is that multiple people get hit - so that is also ~ 1 in 3,000.
This matches pretty well with the actual odds in the article:
Re: (Score:2)
A 300-pound piece of flaming satellite debris traveling at supersonic speeds is going to do more than hurt a little.
If it's something like a 300-pound crowbar, it would be wise to flee.
If it's a typical 300-pound random assortment of parts be supersonic as it re-enters the atmosphere, but by the time it gets to a few km from the surface in the much denser air it'll be very much subsonic. Still, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to be hit in the back of the head by it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Get the fantasies for free and save your money.
Re: (Score:2)
"If humanity is to survive, we must pledge to eliminate all carbon dioxide from our atmosphere by 2030"
Your signature made me laugh so hard I almost spewed.
I imagine some of the enviro-whackos actually believe this.
Ppl really need to watch the Great Global Warming Swindle.
I do think humans are destroying the earth via pollution such as
the great pacific garbage patch and its giant soup of BPA toxin.
The BP oil spill, and other issue as well...such as Bhopal.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, parent. You really need to chill out and stop insulting people. Your post reeks of you projecting your self confidence issues onto others.
I suppose that you may feel superior to others, by way of you not having a McDonald's job, but no other person is any less human than you. And for those who don't get maths and probabilities, and share your infinite wisdom about such... well I bet that they're really nice down to earth people who'd help another human without thinking twice about it.
So have fun m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you can't find the image of of Virgin Mary on SOMETHING, you're obviously are either not looking hard enough or you aren't Catholic.
Re:Methinks the public doesn't appreciate odds (Score:4, Funny)
I heard some girl got killed by a toilet seat from Mir when they deorbited it. But that could just be a rumor.
Re: (Score:3)
I heard she later became a Grim Reaper.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF is wrong with you?
Is that addressed to /. in general, or me in particular?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty dang high if you ask me. Especially for something that could have easily been prevented with a little foresight.
A little foresight and a big pile of tax money. You can be that the same people who are worried about a 1 in 3000 chance that someone somewhere will be hit are the some ones who think a 12 percent effective tax rate is too high. How much are you willing to spend to get rid of a 1 in 3000 chance that one of 7 billion people will get hit? Why wouldn't you be willing to use that money to buy and destroy guns?
It about a billion times more likely that some moron who either doesn't know how to turn of thei
Terrible word choice (Score:3, Insightful)
uncontrolled fall
There's a reason why engineers shouldn't write press releases.
Re:Terrible word choice (Score:5, Funny)
What, you would rather an engineer AND a communications major be required to produce the press release, in order for it to change from "uncontrolled fall" to either "planned gravitationally-assisted descent process" (if you were told to spin it "for") and "massive, fiery man-made meteor raining death on unsuspecting victims" (if you were told to spin it "against")?
Re: (Score:3)
What, you would rather an engineer AND a communications major be required to produce the press release, in order for it to change from "uncontrolled fall" to either "planned gravitationally-assisted descent process" (if you were told to spin it "for") and "massive, fiery man-made meteor raining death on unsuspecting victims" (if you were told to spin it "against")?
You could just call those the "CNN" and "FOX" versions.
Re: (Score:2)
You could just call those the "CNN" and "FOX" versions.
Here's a link to the FOX News article [foxnews.com]. It says "Small risk to the public". That's paraphrased from the NASA press release that says "Extremely small risk to the public". So I guess that is some spin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No they expect a grammer gnazi with a minor in cake engineering, a minor in communications and a major pain in the ass to write it in a gremmar gnazi correct way.
Re: (Score:2)
Kinetic military action.
Chance (Score:2)
So, does that mean there's actually a 1:3000 chance that someone on Earth will be struck? :)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well is there anything we can do? Like lie down and put a paper bag over our head or something?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Will it help?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it means just that, but if you put that in perspective, there are much higher chances (almost sure) for somebody on Earth to be hit by a truck while sleeping in their bed (or add here any other improbable death)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like this?
http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=115082 [daijiworld.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like this?
http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=115082 [daijiworld.com]
[Sigh]... The headline: "Udupi: Bus Collides with Another, Barges into Hut - One Killed"
Humbly submitted, my own NYC tabloid-inspired remix: "Mookambika Motorcoach Mash-up Mortally Mangles Man, Mattress"
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse! The Chinese satellite that got blasted a few years back is now 2317 traceable pieces. If the odds are for 1 piece, then odds are about 75% somebody is going to get thwacked!
Or maybe not.
Re: (Score:2)
Even worse! The Chinese satellite that got blasted a few years back is now 2317 traceable pieces. If the odds are for 1 piece, then odds are about 75% somebody is going to get thwacked!
Or maybe not.
Very much maybe not. That figure makes the assumption that none of the pieces will burn up on re-entry. Given that it's already in small pieces that will individually burn up more easily and that UARS is "huge" (I have no info on the Chinese ex-satellite, but let's assume for the moment that it was of fairly average size), the chances of being hit by a piece of that Chinese satellite are probably far lower.
Re: (Score:1)
If every individual has a 1 in 21 trillion chance, then the odds of everyone on the planet (assuming about 7 billion) "missing their chance" are approximately 2978/2979, or about 1:3000 that at least one person will get hit.
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine the 1 in 21 trillion is for "you" (an individual) getting hit, not for any individual getting hit.
Yes, but, the GP is right - if each person on the Earth has a 1 in 21 trillion chance of getting hit, then the chance that one of the roughly 7 billion people on this planet will get hit is right at 1 in 3000.
Yeah, so I don't understand the decision here (Score:5, Informative)
So apparently they used the remaining fuel a few years ago to move it into a more rapidly decaying orbit. If they had enough fuel to do that why not just deorbit the whole thing in a controlled fashion and aim it at an ocean? We've done that before. Obviously these are some very smart people but it seems weird that they'd have exactly enough fuel to put it into a rapidly decaying orbit but not enough fuel to handle that last little bit.
On the bright side, the danger from deorbiting satellites is pretty small. The biggest actual problem that has occurred when a Soviet satellite with radioactive material decided to scatter itself over a large part of Canada back in the 1970s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954 [wikipedia.org]. When the US space station Skylab pulled a similar stunt over Australia, the local government fined NASA a few hundred dollars for littering.
Re: (Score:3)
why not just deorbit the whole thing in a controlled fashion and aim it at an ocean?
Or a Michael Bolton concert, assuming you're trying to minimise the chance of it hitting someone.
Re: (Score:2)
why not just deorbit the whole thing in a controlled fashion and aim it at an ocean?
Or a Michael Bolton concert, assuming you're trying to minimise the chance of it hitting someone.
Or China. You know they are going to end up recycling the metal anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps actually deorbiting in a controlled manner, aiming for a particular impact zone, would take more fuel than they had, but switching to a naturally decaying orbit for the same impact zone in a number of orbits time was doable?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, the fact that it took years to de-orbit even after lowering the orbit suggests that they just ran out of fuel.
De-orbiting a satellite takes quite a bit of fuel, actually. I doubt that most carry that much. They are trying to carry enough to get the satellite into a low enough orbit that it eventually de-orbits, so that they aren't stuck up there forever. Things like geosync satellites don't have nearly enough fuel to do even that - you'd need something resembling the booster rocket that put it in o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Think of it this way, all orbital changes take energy. Now that is obvious but bear in mind that ALL orbital changes take energy. What I'm getting at is that the velocity for a satellite determines its altitude range (or just it's altitude in the case of a circular orbit).
Since any change in velocity takes energy (fuel) and the difference between an orbit that is 100% clear of the atmosphere is a vastly different energy than one that is mostly or all in it. Now, on the other hand if you intentionally make t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest actual problem that has occurred when a Soviet satellite with radioactive material decided to scatter itself over a large part of Canada back in the 1970s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954 [wikipedia.org]
The satellite
Was out of sight
Radioactive though
Quite all right
When it was high
But now it's very low.. [youtube.com]
.
Re: (Score:2)
1 in 3000 chance of SOMEONE (Score:2)
Back of envelope calculation shows me they're saying there's a 1 in 3000 chance of some person getting hit somewhere. Or am I holding it wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Discworld odds? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Could be worse... (Score:2)
... it could be another Skylab (what a waste!) with a trajectory that drops it over, say, Europe instead of the Aussie outback.
If I get hit (Score:2)
Could my family sue NASA for damages caused by negligance?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to be too dead to care probably
Re: (Score:2)
No, but you might end up in limbo having to help the recently dead to reach their final destination. You may then end up haunting your former family driving them insane and splitting them up.
Measures to inform the public (Score:5, Funny)
NASA says run, but not in a straight line.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how they calculate the odds, but 1 in 3500 is only twice as likely as you getting in a car accident. You also have to look at the number of incidents - we drive around with millions of cars and you have about 1 in 7000 chance to be in a car accident. There is 1 satellite falling and you have about 1 in 3500 chances of getting hit by it.
I think the odds are more than 1 in 21 trillion. The earth surface is 510,072,000 sq. km, 70% of that is water. This thing will probably destroy IF it hits land
Toilet Seat Girl (Score:3, Interesting)
Just be careful not to get hit, as you will be nicknamed toilet seat girl/boy for the remainder of your unlife.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also on Netflix [netflix.com] as well as on Hulu [hulu.com]. Well worth watching; it's one of those that, like Firefly, got cancelled too early. They also did a movie later (made for TV, I think) that was pretty good.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also on Netflix as well as on Hulu. Well worth watching; it's one of those that, like Firefly, got cancelled too early. They also did a movie later (made for TV, I think) that was pretty good.
It's also on TPB, for those worldwide and/or who prefer sharing* over stuffing MAFIAA coffers:
S01: https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4999686/Dead_Like_Me_DVDrip_Season_1 [thepiratebay.org]
S02: https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4999688/Dead_Like_Me_DVDrip_Season_2 [thepiratebay.org]
LaD: https://thepiratebay.org/torrent/4704424/Dead.Like.Me.Life.After.Death.2009.DvDrip.aXXo-SS [thepiratebay.org]
* Please seed. =)
Odds? (Score:2)
Is this the same NASA that thought there was a 1-in-100,000 chance of a catastrophic Shuttle failure?
Re:Odds? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The actual odds for shuttle failure on each launch were calculated to be about 1 in 100
Only after it blew up the first time. Before that the 100,000 number was often quoted; ISTR Feynman referencing it during the Challenger investigation.
so theres 21 trillion places that this could hit (Score:1)
Watch Out George! (Score:2)
Ellen Muth is worried about this.
For those of you who won't get this joke:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Like_Me [wikipedia.org]
i love (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not. Odds are pretty good that the US and Canada have a treaty about that. Say an Air Canada jet had engine problems and landed at a private airport. Would it be okay for the owners of the airport to just keep it?
The same treaties apply to in this case as say when a Russian pilot landed a Mig 25 in Japan. That plane was returned after it was inspected.... into little pieces.
Re: (Score:2)
1-in-21 trillion chance (Score:2, Funny)
And you can improve on that quite a bit. Just go down to the local surplus store, buy some satellite spare parts and drop them on your house.
The odds of one house being hit by two pieces of satellite is vanishingly small.
Mislabeled Image? (Score:2)
In the first link in the summary, there are two images of the satellite--one against a backdrop of Earth and attached to a Space Shuttle manipulation boom. The next image is labeled as being the same thing except against a backdrop of deep space.
If so, then why are there clearly a wall, window and door in the darkened background of the second image? It appears to be a mock-up, or even possibly a scale-model, held in the air by the boom.
Mislabeled image, or is this a "Capricorn One" moment?
Image:
http://i.spa [space.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
How?
Re: (Score:2)
It's just like that.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm aware of those effects, as well as atmospheric extent expansion and contraction. That WILL affect satellites in the long run, but I can't see a major solar flare or CME causing it to rain debris all of a sudden.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at it this way. The number of meteorites that reach the surface of the earth is estimated at more than one per day. Most of them are very small, but none of them would fail to get your attention if they hit you. How many impacts on humans do you know of?
rj
Re: (Score:2)
It's still right on average. Any increase in probability due to clustering of population in one place is accompanied with a decrease in probability elsewhere on the planet due to rarefaction of population.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it does not mean 1 in 3 chance someone is going to be hit, even by the wildest stretch of the imagination.
1 in 21 trillion is 4.7619047619047619047619047619048e-14
If we assume a world population of about 7 billion, and we fudge the math as 4.7619047619047619047619047619048e-14 * 7 billion, we get 1 in 3000 chance someone gets hit. I can only assume that you assumed a 7 trillion population and used this same incorrect math.
It is going to be a lot less than that in reality, but I can't be arsed to do the
Re: (Score:2)
I hope Taco Bell puts up a target that, if hit, means everyone in the world gets a free burrito. They did it when Skylab came down.
That was Mir.
Re: (Score:2)
When did that, they found someone to insure it. So if it ever happened, the insurer will bear the costs. I doubt they can find someone to insure, in this economy.
Re: (Score:2)
This might help you figure it out, or it may just confuse you further.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbits [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I think that you would probably stay up there longer than it (the ISS) would.
Given tthat they are planning to deorbit it in a decade or so anyway.
Re: (Score:2)