2 Satellites Will Narrowly Avoid Colliding Over Pittsburgh On Wednesday (space.com) 85
Two defunct satellites traveling at 32,800 mph will narrowly miss colliding with one another over Pittsburgh on Wednesday evening. "If the two satellites were to collide, the debris could endanger spacecraft around the planet," reports Space.com. From the report: It will be a near miss: LeoLabs, the satellite-tracking company that made the prediction, said they should pass between 50 feet and 100 feet apart (15 to 30 meters) at 6:39:35 p.m. local time. One is called the Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS). Launched in 1983, it was the first infrared space telescope and operated for less than a year, according to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The other is called the Gravity Gradient Stabilization Experiment (GGSE-4), and was a U.S. Air Force experiment launched in 1967 to test spacecraft design principles, according to NASA. The two satellites are unlikely to actually slam into each other, said LeoLabs CEO Dan Ceperley. But predictions of the precise movements of fairly small, fast objects over vast distances is a challenge, Ceperley told Live Science. (LeoLabs' business model is selling improvements on those predictions.)
If they did collide, "there would be thousands of pieces of new debris that would stay in orbit for decades. Those new clouds of debris would threaten any satellites operating near the collision altitude and any spacecraft transiting through on its way to other destinations. The new debris [would] spread out and form a debris belt around the Earth," Ceperley said.
If they did collide, "there would be thousands of pieces of new debris that would stay in orbit for decades. Those new clouds of debris would threaten any satellites operating near the collision altitude and any spacecraft transiting through on its way to other destinations. The new debris [would] spread out and form a debris belt around the Earth," Ceperley said.
Kessler event = Best event (Score:2)
While it's neat (and increasingly necessary) that our abilities to track LEO objects are getting this finessed, I still think, of all the societal wrecking events humanity has lined up for itself, a Kessler event excites me the most. Doesn't salt the earth, doesn't flatten infrastructure and delivers on the promised return to the dark ages, even if only technological. All with a kickarse, decades long fireworks event to mark the occasion. I can get behind it.
Re: (Score:2)
That word...I do not think it means what you think it means....
Re: (Score:2)
I searched before I posted it and got mixed results. I now know someone else who is using it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
or other ad hominem abusive attack. ...
Well, after your long explanation, I think you don't know what an ad hominem is
Re:Kessler event = Best event (Score:5, Insightful)
While it's neat (and increasingly necessary) that our abilities to track LEO objects are getting this finessed, I still think, of all the societal wrecking events humanity has lined up for itself, a Kessler event excites me the most. Doesn't salt the earth, doesn't flatten infrastructure and delivers on the promised return to the dark ages, even if only technological. All with a kickarse, decades long fireworks event to mark the occasion. I can get behind it.
I've been arguing along these lines for years, with people arguing with me about how space debris is somehow no big deal. Like how we are planning for war in space, and denial of the orbital bag of sand is no problem, like how explodedy things in space aren't going to throw debris into multiple new orbits as some debris is increased in velocity, and some lowered.
One thing for certain, our first war in space will be our last one for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you missed that episode of Dilbert.
What did Pittsburgh do to them? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They decided they really didn't want to hear Terry Bradshaw's folksy twang during the Super Bowl halftime show.
Re: (Score:1)
Too bad it's not August. It sounds like the Pennsic War, where thousands of people gather in medieval armor for a week to fight over Pittsburgh. The losers of the battles gets stuck with it.
http://www.pennsicwar.org/ [pennsicwar.org]
Re: (Score:2)
They're narrowly avoiding the collision, because at the last minute, both satellites realized that neither of them actually wanted to LAND in Pittsburgh.
Space Debris (Score:3)
It's probably up there to stop all the UFOs, UAP from landing. The first few light years - easy peazy, the last 500km - you'd better make sure all the inertia dampeners are working before you see the wildlife up too close.
They don't like visitors.
Re: (Score:2)
The first few light years - easy peazy, the last 500km - you'd better make sure all the inertia dampeners are working before you see the wildlife up too close.
I think you mean navigational shields. Inertia(l) dampeners are for keeping the occupants from spattering all over the bulkheads during maneuvering.
Re: (Score:2)
The first few light years - easy peazy, the last 500km - you'd better make sure all the inertia dampeners are working before you see the wildlife up too close.
I think you mean navigational shields. Inertia(l) dampeners are for keeping the occupants from spattering all over the bulkheads during maneuvering.
That's what I mean, whilst they maneuver around all of the junk in Earth's orbit.
Sorry to say but ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well, they are. Your failure to understand frames of reference [ck12.org] and your implicit demand for an Earth-centered frame of reference -- which is irrelevant to the collision effects issue -- is, sorry to say, your problem, not the summary's.
Re: (Score:3)
When speed is given without a frame of reference it's usual to assume it is relative to the listener or the Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
"In space [phys.org], nobody can hear you scream."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because when it's a story about something in Earth orbit, and written in an Earth language, and specifically mentions geographic locations on Earth, it totally makes sense for the velocity rates to be in reference to "Not Earth".
Context. Fucking. Matters.
Re: (Score:2)
It does. Too bad that you're ignoring the context.
Story title: "2 satellites will narrowly avoid colliding at 32,800 mph over Pittsburgh on Wednesday"
Story opening: "Two defunct satellites will zip past each other at 32,800 mph (14.7 kilometers per s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Helpful graphical display [platform.leolabs.space] for those who cannot be bothered to research the actual orbits of the actual satellites involved. How much is 14.672 km/sec in mph?
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, their speed in relation to each other is 32800 mph because they are on opposing tracks.
Wait! I think I remember this one. If satellite A is traveling East at 14000 MPH and satellite B is traveling West at 15000 MPH....
Re: (Score:2)
well generally it's one travelling Northeast encountering one travelling Southeast. Satellites rarely travel West
sutff in space (Score:5, Informative)
IRAS [stuffin.space]
To see what happens when satellites collide, select the group "Iridium 33 Collision Debris" on that page.
Re: (Score:3)
Keep in mind that after 9 years about half of the Iridium 33 debris and a third of the COSMOS 2251 debris had reentered. See the table on page 30 of the History of On-orbit Satellite Fragmentations [nasa.gov]. Of course, the Gabbard diagrams on pages 377 and 411 show that there are still a lot of longer-lived fragments.
Rogue state (Score:4)
Hmm. Could a rogue state make space unusable or dangerous by launching many tons of tungsten carbide ball bearings into low orbit ?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
For a while, anyway. Make some tungsten carbide jacks and they'll last longer.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm. Could a rogue state make space unusable or dangerous by launching many tons of tungsten carbide ball bearings into low orbit ?
Or a bag of sand.
Re:Rogue state (Score:5, Informative)
They don't need tungsten carbide ball bearings. Any small pellets, even coarse sand will do. A collision in space results in release of energy equivalent of around 4 times the mass of the colliding objects worth of TNT. [This](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Space_debris_impact_on_Space_Shuttle_window.jpg) is an effect of impact of a 0.1mm flake of paint on shuttle window.
Re: Rogue state (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't need tungsten carbide ball bearings. Any small pellets, even coarse sand will do.
You can't be serious.
Scientist minion 1: We can release a canister of coarse sand because any projectile will do the trick! ....
Dr. Evil:
Scientist minion 1: No! We can release a canister of TUNGSTEN CARBIDE BEARINGS!
Dr. Evil: Muahahahahahaha!!!
Re: (Score:2)
For a period of time, yes. There is still atmospheric drag though, so eventually without thrusters and fuel to maintain orbital velocity, it comes back down. Basically all satellites have some form of propellant on board in order to perform this function, and when the propellant gets low, the satellite is retired (either boosted to a "parking orbit" where it can decay safely and not interfere with active satellites, or intentionally deorbited somewhere the debris will not hurt anyone or anything).
Re: (Score:2)
Actually a few bags of sand would be enough.
You can use Lunar for assist and even put them easy into a retrogard orbit around Earth.
In case you plan some of that - most likely one will call it terrorist - please send 2 million dollars on my pay pal account. (The dollar is not what it used to be, so better two than the rather conventional one million, thank you.)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the closeness of the event and the uncertainty involved that makes it hairy. Two sats passing by within 50 feet is the equivalent of a car missing you by a literal hair's breadth. And if the projections are off just a skosh, they might actually be on a collision course.
I'm sorry, I don't understand all this tech stuff. (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, put solar panels on the roof, get out, and let 'er rip! You've now got a single car running around the freeways, all by itself -- think Christine (1983) [imdb.com], but with an endless fuel tank.
NOW, let's let loose 8,400 of them, of which we still control 5,000. (Actual numbers, by the way.) The rest just run around, slowly losing nuts, screws, and paint, creating virtual pot-holes In The Sky. Pretty soon your empty space is all full of junk, and the more things that collide produce yet more junk. Lovely. But they're trying. [theverge.com]
And that's just Pittsburgh, never mind the orbiting satellites.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Cheers!
IRAS (Score:2)
My astronomy professor was convinced IRAS was destroyed by a Pentagon test of an anti-satellite system.
Re: (Score:2)
Tomorrow he might be right.
Re: (Score:1)
I looked real hard up in the sky toward Pittsburgh and didn't see a kaboom at the appointed hour.
(This does not in any way disprove Impy's professor's belief, of course -- it could be that IRAS avoided being destroyed by GGSE4 by having already been destroyed by a Pentagon test of an anti-satellite system.)
[...as opposed to all those tests of anti-satellite systems carried out by, say, the Department of Interior or the Treasury?]
On speed (Score:3)
Two defunct satellites traveling at 32,800 mph
And they're travelling in opposite directions. This must be their relative speed as no orbit height is that fast.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's about 30% faster than escape velocity. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
It's obvious from reading the article that it's the relative speed.
MOPAR? (Score:2)
Chrysler finally got its cars to fly? What a great time to be alive!
Good luck seeing anything (Score:2)
From November until about April the sky in Pittsburgh look like this https://www.photos-public-doma... [photos-public-domain.com] The last visible sun was four days ago.
Re: (Score:1)
Fortunately, satellites are up high enough that they can be seen from many different places. So while the good people of Pittsburgh seek shelter from celestial doom raining down upon them, folks in places with clearer skies may be able to grab some popcorn and watch. I think the forecast may be good tonight for further south, and parts of the east coast. (The event happens too early for the big observatories in the desert southwest, alas.)
Deorbiting tech still 3-4 years out (Score:2)
Do we have any Regulations? (Score:2)
One can blame the past experts from 40+ years ago from not predicting the need to remove their junk (because these were the best and brightest doing futuristic work, they should have thought of it.)
But how could we NOT have at least common convention if not regulations for EVERYTHING in orbit to have a self-destruct = de-orbit ability?
Anything out of date should be able to fire off 1 tiny little thing to push it out of orbit? It can be complex or dead simple. Sure there is a risk a simple one smashing into
Re: (Score:1)
But how could we NOT have at least common convention if not regulations for EVERYTHING in orbit to have a self-destruct = de-orbit ability?
One satellite was sent up there in the 1950s. So no one thought about it.
Anything out of date should be able to fire off 1 tiny little thing to push it out of orbit? It can be complex or dead simple.
It uses fuel, needs an engine, and: is not dead simple.
Re: (Score:2)
They already have had the ability to tweak their position; it's not something new just a requirement to include a bit to send it into a crash trajectory. require some reserve so this can be done - that would be dead simple. If you have no way to adjust it's orbit or position then it wouldn't be simple. What comes to mind is a compressed air container that bursts open.
Re: (Score:2)
Your example you only can do once.
Everything like an engine can only be done X times.
To deorbit something, as a rule of thump, needs the same amount of fuel that was needed to put it into its specific orbit.
Re: (Score:2)
One can blame the past experts from 40+ years ago from not predicting the need to remove their junk
No, one can't. The Kessler Syndrome was predicted in 1978 for cripes sake, and the need to clean up debris had been recognized at least a decade earlier. One of the Apollo missions had a piece of an earlier launch pass by close enough to see it with the naked eye.
The blame can be clearly assigned to the short sighted money grubbing politicians and corporate executives that refused to cough up the funding nec
George Carlin (Score:2)
Here's a phrase that apparently the airlines simply made up: near miss. They say that if 2 planes almost collide, it's a near miss. Bullshit, my friend. It's a near hit! A collision is a near miss.
[WHAM! CRUNCH!]
"Look, they nearly missed!"
"Yes, but not quite.”
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"May" is the word. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no chance.
It is pretty clear if they will collide or not.
We only don't have exact enough measurement to know which it is.
Wouldn't they form a debris sphere rather than ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It takes a ridiculous amount of energy to change the inclination of a low earth orbit. Debris spreads out in a belt of varying thickness, but it's very unlikely anything gets to high relative inclination.
In a head on collision, most of the debris goes down.
Re: (Score:2)
This wouldn't be a head-on collision, it's under 90 degrees, and I don't think "most"
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, some of the Westford Needles are still in orbit. Good grief.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not even sure how to reply to that. Starlink satellites will not form a full sphere. They have a maximum inclination of, well, their maximum launch inclination (53 degrees). Every Starlink satellite will always be south of my home town (56 degrees) for example. Starlink satellites are also launched with different true anomalies, so they will be distributed essentially everywhere in a thick belt from +56 deg to -56 deg.
Two satellites
Deorbit One or Both? (Score:2)
The satellites are described as "defunct." Is there any capability to deorbit one or both of them? The only thing the two satellites are doing is creating the possibility for a collision. Have either of the owners commented?
Re: (Score:1)
One of these satellites is over 50 years old, the other almost 40 years old. Neither of them has any capability to maneuver (or do anything else). Several parties are developing and testing technologies that could be used to de-orbit satellites, but none of them are ready just yet.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA proposes research programs into cleaning up orbital debris every couple of years, and it's always denied by Congress. I think the last attempt to actually get any funding was in the '90s, and that was just an attempt to deploy a tether. The joys of having a herd of lawyers in charge of managing and funding an engineering program.
Over Pittsburgh? (Score:2)
We're okay then. As Big Ben knows it's almost impossible to hit a target.
This is going to sound stupid (Score:2)
IANA--whatever (rocket scientist?) but I remember reading somewhere that satellites have something (retro-rockets?) to cause them to break orbit when they're retired. Did I misread that? If not, is this a new thing and there's a whole series of satellites that didn't have this feature? I'm just wondering why this is such a problem.
Re: (Score:3)
I remember reading somewhere that satellites have something (retro-rockets?) to cause them to break orbit when they're retired. Did I misread that? If not, is this a new thing and there's a whole series of satellites that didn't have this feature? I'm just wondering why this is such a problem.
It's a new thing. These satellites are 40 and 50 years old. Nobody was even thinking about longevity in orbit at the time. It was too hard to get anything into orbit at all.
Nowadays, governments around the world, including the US, have some regulatory agency that requires a deorbit plan for anything in low Earth orbit, and a parking orbit plan for anything in geosynchronous orbit. In the case of the US, that's the FCC. SpaceX's filings with the FCC for Starlink include an involved discussion about deor
Re: (Score:2)
It came with the foolishness of allowing a herd of lawyers in Congress dictate to the engineers in NASA how to do their jobs. Equipment to deorbit or boost a defunct satellite into a parking orbit costs money and adds mass, and NASA was consistently instructed to cut every extra penny out of every single program for decades. Several missions had short or aborted lifespans because NASA had to remove redundant hardware.
But by the gods there sure was plenty of money to throw at the Pentagon for hardware they
Re: (Score:2)
It came with the foolishness of allowing a herd of lawyers in Congress dictate to the engineers in NASA how to do their jobs. Equipment to deorbit or boost a defunct satellite into a parking orbit costs money and adds mass, and NASA was consistently instructed to cut every extra penny out of every single program for decades. Several missions had short or aborted lifespans because NASA had to remove redundant hardware.
But by the gods there sure was plenty of money to throw at the Pentagon for hardware they sometimes didn't even want.
Ok, that being the case, maybe there's a way to make this the Pentagon's problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Really, do you want the orbital equivalent of the F-35 wandering around on orbit?
Re: (Score:2)
Really, do you want the orbital equivalent of the F-35 wandering around on orbit?
I was thinking more of the Pentagon subcontracting NASA, maybe, to clean up the mess. Because of security concerns. To protect spy satellites or X-37 type craft.
Is there any way to get rid of this junk? (Score:2)
How many hundreds of satellites are currently orbiting the planet and serving no purpose but to be an obstacle to getting other objects in orbit?
This is just really effing sad, you know... by the time we might develop the technology to cheaply travel to other worlds, our sky will be so full of crap that our descendants won't have any choice but to stay here.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone higher in the thread said that out of 8500 satellites currently on orbit we still have control of around 5000. Not a good ratio, although many of the defunct ones are in higher "parking orbits" where they're out of the way and essentially harmless and others (like Apollo boosters) are way the frack out in the middle of nowhere.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't worry, SpaceX just launched sixty more this morning, that'll fix it!