Lost NASA Tool Bag Can Be Seen With Binoculars (nbcnews.com) 74
A tool bag that astronauts accidentally let float away during a routine spacewalk at the International Space Station is now orbiting Earth and can be seen with a pair of binoculars. NBC News reports: The bag drifted away from the space station this month when NASA astronauts Jasmin Moghbeli and Loral O'Hara were performing maintenance on the exterior of the orbiting outpost. "During the activity, one tool bag was inadvertently lost," NASA officials wrote Nov. 1 in a blog post detailing the outcome of the spacewalk. "Flight controllers spotted the tool bag using external station cameras. The tools were not needed for the remainder of the spacewalk."
The bag is now circling the planet in low-Earth orbit, but NASA said there's little danger of the tools hitting the International Space Station. "Mission Control analyzed the bag's trajectory and determined that risk of recontacting the station is low and that the onboard crew and space station are safe with no action required," the agency said in the blog post. For now then, the lost tool bag has become a new artificial "star" in the night sky. The tool bag is orbiting about a minute ahead of the space station and may be bright enough to see with a pair of binoculars. "Skywatchers who want to try to spot the tool bag in orbit should head out on a clear night and first determine when the International Space Station is passing overhead," reports NBC News. "The tool bag will likely remain visible in the night sky for a few months, before its orbit slowly degrades and it eventually falls toward Earth."
You can track the ISS via NASA's Spot the Station website.
The bag is now circling the planet in low-Earth orbit, but NASA said there's little danger of the tools hitting the International Space Station. "Mission Control analyzed the bag's trajectory and determined that risk of recontacting the station is low and that the onboard crew and space station are safe with no action required," the agency said in the blog post. For now then, the lost tool bag has become a new artificial "star" in the night sky. The tool bag is orbiting about a minute ahead of the space station and may be bright enough to see with a pair of binoculars. "Skywatchers who want to try to spot the tool bag in orbit should head out on a clear night and first determine when the International Space Station is passing overhead," reports NBC News. "The tool bag will likely remain visible in the night sky for a few months, before its orbit slowly degrades and it eventually falls toward Earth."
You can track the ISS via NASA's Spot the Station website.
Bertrand Russell's... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meaning it has burned up?
Re: Bertrand Russell's... (Score:2)
Russell Brand Celestial Toolbag
NASA needs to clean up their mess (Score:3)
Re: NASA needs to clean up their mess (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The ISS decelerates faster than the bag due to higher atmospheric drag. The bag will remain "ahead" of it and continue to "pull away” from our Earthly perspective until the next reboost maneuver. They usually share those maneuvers here [nasa.gov] alongside all manner of things both fascinating and throughly mundane.
Re: NASA needs to clean up their mess (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: NASA needs to clean up their mess (Score:4, Informative)
"Negligible" is subjective. The effect of atmospheric drag is pronounced enough that the ISS loses, on average, ~2 kilometers of altitude each month. Without the aforementioned reboost operations it would deorbit before this bag. It has more surface area, hence, more drag.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice article. I expect they're going to want to get those costs down if they want to continue ISS operations by selling, leasing or renting.
I liked this tidbit, "The station's altitude was allowed to fall around the time of each NASA shuttle flight to permit heavier loads to be transferred to the station. After the retirement of the shuttle, the nominal orbit of the space station was raised in altitude (from about 350 km to about 400 km)."
Re: NASA needs to clean up their mess (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but an appropriately lower amount since it's mean orbital altitude (w.r.t the Earth's surface) is about 400,000km, compared to the ISS's altitude of 350~400 km.
It's not called "Low Earth Orbit" without good reason. It is literally always brushing against the (diffuse) outer edge of the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Well... no, it will not be "ahead" but actually "behind". Accelerating (or rather, decelerating slower than the object you're moving relative to) in orbit actually means falling behind because you're going to be in a higher orbit.
Counter-intuitive as it may be.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're right. Added complication, they have apparently done a reboost subsequent to losing the bag, so perhaps that's the rationale for the "look ahead" guidance? I'm not likely to find it between PNW winter overcast and my crappy eyes. :(
Re: (Score:2)
Well... no, it will not be "ahead" but actually "behind". Accelerating (or rather, decelerating slower than the object you're moving relative to) in orbit actually means falling behind because you're going to be in a higher orbit.
Counter-intuitive as it may be.
Is there an existing term, similar to "geostationary orbit", for placing a satellite at an analogously-consistent orbit relative to another satellite at a different radius from the center of rotation? That is, Sat A and Sat B orbit Earth in such a way that - to an observer standing on the surface looking straight up - Sat B is never visible because whenever Sat B is directly overhead, so is Sat A, which perpetually eclipses Sat B?
Re: (Score:2)
No, because it is physically impossible. If the two satellites have different distances from the Earth, then they will have different rotational speeds. It's like asking if there is a way for Earth and Mars to have the same speed around the Sun so they are always in line with each other (exaggerated for effect).
How is that physically impossible?
For example, Earth and its Moon both have the same revolutionary period, so we already know two bodies can revolve around another body with the same period. You're saying it would be physically impossible for us to position a satellite into an orbit such that it always stays on the dark side of Earth and never receives direct sunlight? What physical forces prevent that from being possible?
Re: (Score:2)
There is a point (region) where that is possible in orbit around the Earth, on the far side of the Moon ("far", not "dark" ; Pink Floyd were musicians, not orbital mathematicians). But the size of the region where that orbit is stable (for a few years) is similar to the volume of the Moon itself, abo
Re: (Score:2)
The situation you describe is of a body at the L2 Lagrangian point for the Earth-Moon system, where it is unstable equilibrium in it's orbit around the Sun, with respect to the influence of the Earth's gravity.
There is a point (region) where that is possible in orbit around the Earth, on the far side of the Moon ("far", not "dark" ; Pink Floyd were musicians, not orbital mathematicians). But the size of the region where that orbit is stable (for a few years) is similar to the volume of the Moon itself, about one Moon-diameter further out.
Over a period of months to years, the influence if (in approximate order) Venus, Jupiter and Mars will displace a body placed in such an orbit, until it moves into a different orbit (the technical term is "liberates"). The most likely outcome of that would be to smash into the Moon's surface ("lithobreaking").
Away from the L1 and L2 points, all orbits will diverge simply because of the change in gravitational field from one point to another. Initially small differences will slowly be increased because, outside an atmosphere, there is no significant drag to damp the motion.
Thank you! That is a good explanation.
To apply that to my original question (which was more concerned with the vocabulary/etymology than the astrophysics), what would be a word for a second human-made satellite that remains perpetually eclipsed-from-Earth by another closer human-made satellite? What I am (no doubt in clumsy fashion) trying to get at is what happens to the terminology if we shift the frame-of-reference from "an object staying above a fixed position of the surface of Earth" to "an object stay
Re: (Score:2)
There is, TTBOMK, no term for that relationship, because that relationship would not persist, generally for more than a few degrees of rotation about the primary (Earth, in this cas
Re: (Score:2)
True, these satellites are not in a vacuum. Low earth orbit definitely has drag. However even high orbit still has some atmosphere and thus some drag. And there's a magnetic field that may affect some objects more than others.
If the bag "floated away" then even in a vacuum there is a vector for its movement. If that vector takes it to a higher or lower orbit then it will change its velocity was well. (how come they don't teach orbital mechnics in kindergarten anymore?!)
Re: (Score:2)
... that would imply that some energy has been added to the body's motion around the Earth.
(In the specific sense of "higher" meaning an orbit with higher mean distance form Earth : the orbit's elliptical shape allows for (demands, generally) that the instantaneous distance from Earth changes as the body accelerates from apogee to perigee ; after perigee, the speed decreases as the body "rises" from perigee to apogee.)
Re: NASA needs to clean up their mess (Score:4, Interesting)
That's not how orbits work. Anything with a relative velocity is in a different orbit, and those orbits are going to diverge. If the toolbag is going a bit faster it will rise to a higher, slower, more elliptical orbit. If it's a minute ahead it started with a retrograde push and will be on a lower, faster orbit.
Even two objects that are stationary relative to each other, but not attached will tend to diverge fairly quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Make one of the astronauts go out there an get it!
Or dock their pay for losing it. I imagine it cost quite a bit to send it up there, and now we have to send another one... I mean, do they think tool bags and their tools, launched into Earth orbit grow on trees?
Re: (Score:3)
It's interesting that they don't tether these things to either the station or the astronaut. Maybe there is some danger in doing so, getting wrapped up in the cable or something.
Re:NASA needs to clean up their mess (Score:4, Insightful)
Pfft, if we can't even get highly educated professionals to not pee on the toilet seat at work, then we certainly can't get astronauts to clean up after themselves.
What about the little green guys? (Score:2)
And here I was visualizing some little green guy on Mars saying, "Free wrench!" as he tightens a bolt on his flying saucer.
Re: (Score:3)
We don't use wrenches, our bolts are self-tightening.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about the little green guys? (Score:5, Funny)
We are not concerned with your terminology, Earthling.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop tightening their nuts, it will start a war!
The sky is falling (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
if it appears to be going left, go right. If it appears to be going right, go left. If it appears to be getting bigger, bend over and kiss your ass goodbye
Re: (Score:2)
If it appears to be getting bigger, it will probably miss unless it's already close. Earth rotation, parabolic re-entry, etc. Now if you're smart enough to calculate this on the fly then what the heck are you doing hanging out on slashdot?
What does the author mean? (Score:2)
Why "this is no moon"? Of course it is a moon, it is a small, artificial one, but it is as much moon as any other Earth satellite.
Re: (Score:3)
Why "this is no moon"? Of course it is a moon, it is a small, artificial one, but it is as much moon as any other Earth satellite.
I believe you have that kind of backwards. A moon is a natural satellite. To have an artificial moon is something of a contradiction. The word "satellite" has a root meaning of follower, subordinate, or servant. A satellite is something that follows a larger body in an orbit, or would be a subordinate body in a shared orbit. The words "moon" and "month" have a shared root th
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, "accidentally" lost (Score:5, Funny)
"The bag drifted away from the space station this month when NASA astronauts Jasmin Moghbeli and Loral O’Hara were performing maintenance on the exterior of the orbiting outpost."
Here's what really happened.
The two female astronauts had been repeatedly telling the male astronauts to clean up their messes, particularly in the workshop. The guys kept putting it off, the ladies threatened to just start throwing stuff away if the guys didn't get busy... and this "accidental" loss was the end result.
The male astronauts are already planning how to get even, though. They're going to remove the toilet seat and send that floating away into space. Skywatchers, take note! That seat will be even higher magnitude than the toolbox...
Re: Sure, "accidentally" lost (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sure, "accidentally" lost (Score:5, Funny)
hey're going to remove the toilet seat and send that floating away into space.
looks through binoculars I think I see the moon!
Re: (Score:2)
"The bag drifted away from the space station this month when NASA astronauts Jasmin Moghbeli and Loral O’Hara were performing maintenance on the exterior of the orbiting outpost."
Here's what really happened.
The two female astronauts had been repeatedly telling the male astronauts to clean up their messes, particularly in the workshop. The guys kept putting it off, the ladies threatened to just start throwing stuff away if the guys didn't get busy... and this "accidental" loss was the end result.
The male astronauts are already planning how to get even, though. They're going to remove the toilet seat and send that floating away into space. Skywatchers, take note! That seat will be even higher magnitude than the toolbox...
You win Slashdot this week!
Re: (Score:3)
"I did put the toilet seat down, but it floated back up in zero-g!"
quick, somebody name it (Score:2)
You don't inadvertently lose... (Score:4, Interesting)
... kit on a space walk, you screw up. Clearly this bag wasn't tethered as it should have been and now there's a few kilos of out of control metal doing 17K mph in LEO. The astronaut at fault needs a dressing down for this, this sort of fuckup should NEVER happen.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't build airliners either , but I know Boeing messed up with MCAS.
I'm not a musician but I know some people can't play an instrument to save their lives.
You don't always need to work in a field to spot major failures. I'm sure there's a name for the fallacy you've fallen for, perhaps someone can offer it up.
Re:You don't inadvertently lose... (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure there's a name for the fallacy you've fallen for, perhaps someone can offer it up.
Not sure there is a name for it, but here is a quote (or words to this effect) from Dr Johnson, 18th century English man of letters :-
I can criticise a carpenter for making a poor table even though I could not make one myself. It is not my job to make a table.
Re: You don't inadvertently lose... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This sort of thing is 101 for astronauts and if they get so stressed they fuck up on a space walk then someone REALLY screwed up in the selection process.
Try again.
Re: (Score:3)
The astronaut at fault needs a dressing down for this, this sort of fuckup should NEVER happen.
Who says that didn't happen?
I would expect that for a spacewalk there's planning of every step of the process, which would be checked by at least one other person, before being handed off to the astronaut. It is possible the astronaut followed every step to the letter but because there was a flaw in the process, something broke, or any of an number of things could have happened, where the astronauts on the walk did nothing wrong and the tool bag was still lost. I'm sure the astronauts know they likely scr
Re: You don't inadvertently lose... (Score:2)
Of course you can inadvertently lose a bag of tools, and that's what happened here. "Inadvertently lose" and "f*** up" are not mutually exclusive, the former is just more descriptive. They lost a bag of tools, and it was not intentional, hence "inadvertently lose".
Was it also a f*** up? Sure was. Was the astronaut dressed down for it? We don't know, because NASA isn't going to publicly tell an astronaut they f***ed up.
The stargazer rejoiced with this news. (Score:2)
Another element to put in streaks in our amateur and backyard astronomers pictures. Because constellations of satellites were not enough, we have to leave more junk out there. Why we, humans, have this knack to leave trash anywhere we set foot at?
Re: The stargazer rejoiced with this news. (Score:2)
Dumb comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Dumb comment.
Meta.
How much is it worth? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I assume it has at least one of those $600 hammers in it.
I assume that as much too. But consider this, NASA is sending up a lot of equipment, trained crew, and burn a lot of expensive fuel to get them there, do you really think they are going to sweat over losing a $600 hammer?
I expect every spacewalk to have a tool bag all planned out, packed up tight on Earth, sent with the crew, then after the mission the tool bag and all the tools get tossed out with the trash after that single use. I'm sure they hang on to the tool bag for a bit in case someone loses or br
Re: (Score:2)
I assume it has at least one of those $600 hammers in it.
Hammer: $600
Launch cost: $30,000
Re: (Score:2)
Hammer: $600
Launch cost: $30,000
Knowing just where to apply the hammer to the ISS: Priceless.
Re: (Score:2)
which makes $600 for a modified $5 hammer that weights 5% less look like a good deal . .
*some*, but not all of the "outrageous" prices are anything but the procurer's fault.
One such class is when you have multiple government agencies getting involved in pricing, allocating overhead, and such. So hours and hours over a 50 cent part turns it into hundreds of dollars due to stupid regulations.
and sometimes, it's a very specialized part. I recall one case in which the "$10,000 coffee pot" (for a P3?) was a $4k
Drones (Score:2)
It's weird that ISS doesn't have little thruster drones yet, FPV style.
At least to go grab an unconscious astronaut should something go wrong.
Or when they leave their mess outside in the yard.
Re: (Score:2)
You could use rocket forces. And then have the joys of refuelling it on orbit.
I don't know what you do for sport, but in caving and cave diving, we call the lifelines "lifelines" because, if you lose contact with the lifeline, you die. NASA clearly need a few more ex-astronaut corpses floating around in the training tank. [FR]Pour encourager les autres.[/
First all-female space walk (Score:4, Funny)
I heard they thought the tether that connected them to the tool bag made them look fat so they decided to not use it.
Skeptical (Score:1)
Historic all woman spacewalk, you say? (Score:2)
...literally dropped the tools in space.
If you made the story up, you'd be accused of misogyny.
No tether? (Score:2)
Why isn't everything on a tether like big wall climbers use for all of their gear?
Not the first time this has happened (Score:3)
2008 all over again. (Score:2)