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."
first post (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:first post (Score:3, Informative)
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!
Re:first post (Score:3, Funny)
Re:first post (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe it'll hit my car. Hang on, I gotta go buy some insurance from Lloyds real quick
Re:first post (Score:2)
Don't bother, if your car were to be hit by a piece of space junk its value as a "collectable" would be far greater than its insurance valuation.
Re:first post (Score:2, Funny)
Re:first post (Score:2, Informative)
Re:first post (Score:2)
Re:first post (Score:2)
If you get hit by something travelling at that speed, it dosn't matter what element it is made of. But unless it is either very large or aerodynamically shaped there is no way you are going to get anything from space travelling at anything like that kind of speed from space. Anything dropped into Earth's atmosphere is subject to a "terminal velocity", where drag from the air equates to 1G. Since the Earth's atmosphere is of varying density the force due to drag can quite easily excede 1G.
Re:first post (Score:2)
Re:first post (Score:2)
Re:first post (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, great. Time to dust off the old SkyLab Detector hat.
Re:first post (Score:2)
Re:first post (Score:2)
Re:first post (Score:4, Funny)
Not to worry...Taco Bells top scientists are working on it at this moment.
The *what* Ultraviolet Explorer? (Score:3, Interesting)
You just know... (Score:5, Funny)
Considering there are 7000 objects in orbit (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Considering there are 7000 objects in orbit (Score:2)
Perhaps the man who robbed a store with a tree branch [slashdot.org] might be interested.
Re:Considering there are 7000 objects in orbit (Score:5, Interesting)
In November 1954 a housewife in Alabama was struck by a 3-lb (1.4 kg) meteor that smashed through her roof, bounced off some furniture, and struck her in the hip as she lay sleeping. She received a large bruise but no other harm.
In October 1992 a 26-lb (12 kg) meteor punched clear through the trunk of an automobile in Peekskill, New York, wrecking the aged Chevrolet (but also turning it into an instant collector's item that sold for over $20,000).
In June 1994 a man driving near Madrid, Spain suffered a broken finger when a 3-lb (1.4 kg) meteor crashed through his car's windshield and smashed the steering wheel, ending up in the back seat.
or here [branchmeteorites.com].
Unfortunately I couldn't find the link to the central park jogger that got nailed a few years ago. Although all it did was bounce off him. It made many major newspapers though. Anyone got a reference?
Re:Considering there are 7000 objects in orbit (Score:2)
Re:Considering there are 7000 objects in orbit (Score:4, Interesting)
Magic word: disclaimer (Score:5, Funny)
In no event shall the designers of the satellite be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or consequential damages (including, but not limited to, procurement of substitute goods or services; loss of use, data, or profits; or business interruption; destruction of cities, countries, continents; death of all humans) however caused and on any theory of liability, whether in contract, strict liability, or tort (including negligence or otherwise) arising in any way out of the use of this satellite, even if advised of the possibility of such damage.
Re:Magic word: disclaimer (Score:2)
Pffff, I hate dandy insurance restrictions.
/max
insurance coverage (Score:3, Informative)
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.
They should make a law! (Score:4, Interesting)
If they could control this thing and bring it down when and where they wanted they could potentially do some interesting stuff. Like having it streak over the opening ceremonies at the Olympics. Or if the had REALLY fine control they could light the olynpic calderon with it instead of using the torch. That would be even better than the flaming arrow. Or they could drop it on Bin Laden's head. Ok, now I am getting silly.
ps I am bitter because I submitted this exact article and had it rejected several hours before it appeared.
Re:They should make a law! (Score:4, Funny)
you've never met Mr. Murphy have you? You see, he's got this law..
Gives new meaning to a 'messy' PR problem..
'shotput from god kills thousands' or something for the headline..
sigh. all too easy.
Re:They should make a law! (Score:2)
Where's the fun in that? Besides, you don't need any new laws, there are already existing laws that prevent people or companies (groups of people) from inflicting harm on citizens of the United States. This is all the incentive most satellite-launching organizations need to make sure their satellites come down safely. And for those that don't, they risk having million-dollar lawsuits and criminal charges brought against them if their satellite should strike someone due to negligence.
ps I am bitter because I submitted this exact article and had it rejected several hours before it appeared.
Get over it, yours was probably submitted AFTER the one that eventually got posted AND/OR it sucked compared to the one submitted.
How to enforce it? (Score:2)
I agree. However, this is extremely hard to enforce. What would the US government do if a foreign (Russian, Chinese, Japanese, French, you name it) satellite does not have this capability? 'Express their concerns' via diplomatic channels, or something less effective, I think. Clearly an international treaty would be required.
Many satellites are used for military purposes, and a reliable re-entry system would require reductions in the satellite payload and efficiency or increase the cost. I doubt most nations are not willing to let some international treaty to compromise their military interests. Considering the fate of the ABM treaty, it is pretty clear that United States is not one of them. Enforcing such a treaty efficiently would also require pre-launch inspections of all satellites, including the military ones. How many nations with space capabilities would allow this?
Re:They should make a law! (Score:2)
Re:They should make a law! (Score:2)
While you might be right, it would look better if it were hot. If they made a movie about it afterwards you can be sure that it wouldn't come down cold.
Re:They should make a law! (Score:2)
Re:They should make a law! (Score:2)
And I KNOW that the come down frequently. I still thing that there should be a mechanism to control the ones that have parts that can survive re-entry.
It's a good thing, in some senses (Score:2)
Considering the amount of space junk in orbit and the clutter and risk it represents, it's nice to see that some of this stuff is finally exceeding its orbital lifespan and is reentering.
Of course, I'm not sure I'd want it ending up on
*scoove*
Where will it land? (Score:3, Funny)
Odds (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Odds (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Odds (Score:2)
Re:Odds (Score:2)
Since there's millions more beestings per year than there are satellites coming down, that'd account for the difference in statisticss.
Re:Considering there are 7000 objects in orbit (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually it may not by as great a risk as you suppose.
Exactly why it's good to be selling insurance, not buying insurance.
Re:Considering there are 7000 objects in orbit (Score:2)
Yes abd no, in one breath. EUVE certainly is not in GEO, which is why it's falling back. Stuff in GEO tends to stay there forever, as there is essentially no atmospheric drag. EUVE is, if I recall correctly, in Low Earth Orbit, almost certainly about the same as the Shuttle. Drag is strong enough to deorbit things on short time scales in LEO.
There really aren't meaningful orbits higher than GEO, unless you're leaving Earth entirely.
Re:Considering there are 7000 objects in orbit (Score:2)
Like "Everything in orbit not affected by atmospheric drag". Meaning: Pretty much damn near everything in orbit.
> so spiraling closer to the sun (however slowly) could definitely contribute to global warming (on an exponential scale when graphed over time).
You're right about one thing, though. Neither you nor your friend is a physicist ;-)
Objects in orbit around the Earth sometimes fall to earth, because they're in low enough orbits that atmospheric drag is a problem.
Other objects in orbit around Earth (like the Moon) are far enough away that there is no atmospheric drag, and they remain in orbit indefinitely. (Ignoring tidal effects.)
The Earth is most assuredly not spiralling closer to the sun. That would require that the Sun gain significant mass during its life, which Just Doesn't Happen. (Nor are we spiraling away from the Sun in any measurable fashion. Yes, the Sun loses 4000 tons of mass every second (by turning matter into energy), and that may sound like a lot of mass, but it's negligible in comparison to the total mass of the Sun.)
And as for global warming, the "ozone hole" is about an increase in ultraviolet radiation hitting the Earth, potentially causing an increase in skin cancer rates, as well as destruction of habitats such as the top few centimeters of the oceans (read: "plankton, significan portion of the food chain"). The ozone layer has nothing to do with global warming.
Your friend is also a pretty piss-poor climatologist, as well as a lousy physicist. (Though I suppose that still makes him an environmentalist ;-)
Lest you think I'm slagging all environmentalists, I'm not. I'm only slagging the clueless ones.
My personal opinion is that the evidence is pretty damn clear that CFCs are responsible for the damage to the ozone layer. I don't think the evidence is anywhere near as clear that "man" is "responsible" for "global warming" -- that is, records of Earth's climate have shown temperature changes of 10-15 degrees Centigrate without human involvement, so where's the evidence that our CO2 emissions are hazardous?
To summarize my position: The ozone layer risk was/is real. Global warming is bunk. The two issues have little to do with each other. Neither issue has anything to do with orbital mechanics.
Re:Insurance and Satellites (Score:2)
Anything which survives from a satellite doing an uncontrolled reentry isn't going to be much different from a regular meteorite. Also a sizable object hitting the ground is more likely to have fallen off an aircraft than be space junk anyway.
Then again, they *do* exclude nuclear attack, so who knows
Insurance companies also tend to exclude being bombed, whatever the type of munitions. They also tend to consider "terrorism" as being exempt unless specifically covered.
Hmmm (Score:2, Funny)
What version of Windows was it running?
What time is it? (Score:3, Funny)
;-}
Meanwhile, on board... (Score:2, Interesting)
This is amusing in that car-wreck sort of way. Who wants to bet that when this crashes on Mrs. Tingle's Rose Garden in Bummsville, Idaho and there's a lot of media attention, that the government is gonna spend lots of money to go up there and give these things emergency navigation systems so that they can easily fall on unsuspecting sea mammals instead of J. Random Human?
Free Taco? (Score:5, Funny)
nice work NASA (Score:2)
Re:nice work NASA (Score:2)
"The chances of anything coming from Terra", he said, "are a million to one."
Insurance? (Score:2)
Re:Insurance? (Score:5, Interesting)
LV
Re:Insurance? (Score:2)
Also if you are hit with a military satellite, that could be a grey area also - acts of war are not covered.
Re:Insurance? (Score:2)
the real issue! (Score:3, Funny)
the real problem here is what to do about it...
i propose using defunct home Internet appliances as projectiles. it would be extremely inexpensive and, when fired from a railgun at speeds in excess of 30,000ft/sec, these little beauties could easily eliminate a chunk of space debris weighing 100 or more lbs.
Riddle me this... (Score:3, Offtopic)
A: ABC's new Fall line-up...
No onboard steering system? (Score:2)
Of course, it WAS described as defunct, so I suppose I can give them some leeway on that.
-Restil
Auto destruct sequence? (Score:2, Interesting)
There REALLY should be a way to contoll the destruction better, instead of just letting it drop. Granted making it drop might be better, but this thing will still have some pretty good chunks hitting the ground. Why not design them to break up or be broken up more thoroughly. Somewhat similar to what an Indy Car does when hitting a wall.
Putting explosives and the like would be somewhat risky, and designing weaknesses into the stucture might weaken it. But, having a 200lb chunk nail my house at mach 6 wouldn't be the best either
Food for thought (Score:4, Interesting)
Could you design a sattelite in such a way that it could be destroyed remotely, ie. blown into small chunks that pose no danger to other spacecraft (are "blasted" towards Earth and therefore certain disintegration), while maintaining stability during launch/operation and not adding too much to the total weight?
Devil's advocate:
Who'd enforce it? Corporations won't pay extra for a very unlikely liability problem (until such a time that we're lobbing dozens of big things into space daily)
What circumstances (other than system failure) would cause you to push the button - and if it had failed, who's to say it's pointed the right way and you won't shoot your comsat into the ISS?
Sorry - just thinking out loud...IANARS
Re:Food for thought (Score:5, Insightful)
Blowing things up just means more pieces (Score:5, Insightful)
As afidel wrote above (I'd mod him up if I had any points now), you don't want to do this to a defunct satellite.
As you point out, it would have to pose no danger to other spacecraft. Well, the only practical way to do that is to ditch it in a controlled fashion. Any explosion involves a release of energy in pretty much all directions. Although some shaping of the charge can control the blast, you still blast some pieces in every direction. Each piece that does not hit the atmosphere enters its own orbit - risking collision with some other satellite.
The proper solution, employed by almost all responsible satellite designers, is to allow enough extra fuel to deorbit the satellite. Of course, this depends on having CONTROL of the satellite. To guarantee this requires more redundancy - and more weight and fuel and complexity, etc. At the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a pound for launch costs, the designers usually opt for mission-suitable redundancy, and hope (and pray) that all the systems don't fail before they DO deorbit. And if they do start failing unusually fast, they'll deorbit early to avoid this kind of fiasco.
Kind of ironic - I've seen some griping on
You can't have it both ways, folks!
Re:Blowing things up just means more pieces (Score:2)
Even something hitting the atmosphere does not mean it will simply burn up or hit the Earth. The alternative possibility is that it can bounce off, into a different orbit.
Re:Food for thought (Score:2)
Re:Food for thought (Score:2)
Re:Food for thought (Score:2)
To do this you'd need a fancy system of shaped charges. You'd also need to have a functional attitude control system when you set them off. Also the chance of something reaching the ground intact is not simply a function of its size. Shape and composition also play a part.
Incoming! (Score:5, Informative)
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:Incoming! (Score:2, Informative)
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:2, Informative)
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.
Re:Incoming! (Score:5, Informative)
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)
If I'm so wrong-what about the disel resivouir that has a layer of water on the very bottom to insulate it from the rock. Or that the buildings themselves are built on very large springs, and there are huge holes in the sides that are rivited shut as a result of computers being bigger back in the day than they are today.
Or that C-in-C NORAD is the only person aloud to drive the car *into* the mountain and park right by the first builting, not in the parking lot outside. In the hole, through the right blast door and straight ahead through the second, and down the...right tunnel, IIRC. It might have been the left though...yah I think it was the left, the right tunnel had storage and stuff along the side.
So what if my numbering is a bit wrong. I didn't see the whole place-but I did see parts of it.
Re:Incoming! (Score:2)
Though this is a fairly fragile 3 and a half ton object. It's not ias if it is a 3.5 ton lump of iron and nickel or solid rock.
What about Star Wars?? (Score:2)
If this DOES start to happen with higher frequency the Star Wars will save us... right?
We don't have anything to worry about because George W. is going to protect us from this stuff.
It would be a REALLY great scandal.
Bush and his defense contractor friends are not counting on anything actually happening. If something comes down and causes any damage this would put a BIG red mark on his face.
Kevin
Warning. (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA's original press release [nasa.gov] was on the 16th Feb.
Even that is a bit worrying. Did NASA only discover 11 days ago that their 3.5 tonne satellite was going to crash? It's not like they behave erratically, is it?
info (Score:5, Informative)
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.)
Bets on where it lands... (Score:3, Funny)
a prayer for the satellite (Score:2, Funny)
Amen.
No need for worry (Score:5, Funny)
Crashing? (Score:2, Funny)
What version of Linux w/Gnome is it running?
:-)
All this technology and yet so disturbing (Score:2, Troll)
CNN (and other sources including NASA) are reporting a 9 hour window on when it could fall. With all the scientific minds and all the great algorithms we have, we can't determine when something like this will happen? Or is it that unimportant to bother getting out the slide rule and doing some calculations? And then there's where. A 1000 mile path that nobody seems to have any clue where it might land. We can't figure out a simple trajectory?
Doesn't this disturb anyone that chunks of metal up to 100lbs is going to be dropping on our heads shortly? True, the chances of getting hit are probably a billion to one, but they say that about lightning as well. Well, it'll be a fun light show and we can always hope it lands in Redmond or somewhere insignifigant.
liB
Can you tell me how much it will rain tomorrow? (Score:5, Informative)
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:Can you tell me how much it will rain tomorrow? (Score:2)
Apparently you can do this with a magic passport though.
The weather in low earth orbit is just as unpredictable as the weather at the ground, and just as variable.
If something is comming down from orbit the weather at all levels of the atmosphere
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.
Solar arrays are obvious type of object for generating lift. As a satellite is heated it may well be subject to forces from "outgassing".
Re:Can you tell me how much it will rain tomorrow? (Score:2)
Poor analogy.
a better one would be, If I hurld a baseball off a skyscrapper, could you tell me EXACTLY where it will land.
In which case the answer is YES within 5%.
Same with the satalit, they know its speed, and direction, once they know its angle, the rest is just math. The weather, with the eception of extreme weather, will have little impact on an object entering the atmosphere at this speed. Yes I know it will be constantly slowing down, and it will be changing shape as t enters, but thats why its a 5% margin of error, or 95% accuracy.
Hmm. could make wishing hazardous (Score:5, Funny)
What they're really saying is... (Score:2)
at least a little of the sattelite is going to end up hitting the earth, and it's going to be DAMN HOT!
Ya know, it's too bad they can't just harvest it (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, my closet is full of old computer parts, so you see how I think.
Re:Ya know, it's too bad they can't just harvest i (Score:2)
Re:Ya know, it's too bad they can't just harvest i (Score:2)
Max Headroom!!! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Max Headroom!!! (Score:2)
Get out your umbrellas and lawnchairs!
I really wish some network would re-run the series again.
The hell with that. I want it on DVD already.
This already is common. (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy
Re:This already is common. (Score:2)
IIRC this sort of thing happened with the "Sea Lanuch" system. All the innovative bits worked fine, but the final stage of the rocket was a dud.
Y2K Shelter? (Score:2, Funny)
Some perspective (Score:2, Interesting)
up thousands and thousands of weatherbaloons
in the sky, every day. And you dont hear them
killing people left and right?
That is metal intstruments that weights a few
pounds. Hitting the ground in 200-300km/h
that is more then enough to kill a man or
destroy a car etc. etc.
So, I guess it wont be such a big problem.
Now, or in the future.
afaik. there has been one or two incidents in
30 years in sweden of thoose landing in urban
areas.
Re:Some perspective (Score:2)
It's not unknown for bits and pieces to fall of aircraft. Sometimes without even being noticed until a maintenance worker takes a look at the plane.
J-Track 3D (Score:3, Informative)
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!
Skyfall and Max Headroom (Score:2)
The highlight of the celebration was that each of the networks and others would intentionally down their retired satalites on the same night each year, producing an intentional light show of shooting stars (as seen from earth).
Silliness abound (inspired by the Skylab incident) about people walking around with metalic umbrellas and the like...
I actually read that as: (Score:2)
I'm pretty happy I read it wrong. Although Microsoft never seem to hesitate to give us "some of the old in-out-in-out" whenever we dare to walk in the wrong parts of town.
Re:ianae but... (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:at least the astronomers tell us... (Score:2)
The difference is that a bit of a plane would be a recognisable man made object, most likely people would have a tough time telling the difference between a bit of space junk and a natural meteorite.
Re:Sueing for Damages? (Score:2)
How do you prove it was space junk. There are considerably more natural than man made meteorites... Even if you can convince the judge that it was man made how do you prove it came from a NASA craft?
Re:Sueing for Damages? (Score:2)
personally, I'd sue the company who owned it. considering the entire population of the earth could fit into Rhode Island, I don't think it will be an issue for me, thank goodness.