A Dead Soviet Satellite and An Old Rocket Booster Could Collide In Space Tonight (cnn.com) 82
Space traffic experts are tracking two pieces of orbital garbage that appear to be careening toward each other: A defunct Soviet satellite and a discarded Chinese rocket booster that are expected to nearly miss each other -- with a slight chance of colliding -- Thursday evening. CNN reports: No one knows for sure if the objects will collide, and near-misses happen in space all the time. But LeoLabs, a California-based startup that uses ground-based radars to track spaceborne objects, is putting the odds of collision at 10% or more. That's high, but not uncommon LeoLabs CEO Daniel Ceperley told CNN Business on Thursday. "Multiple times a week we're seeing dead satellites come within 100 meters of each other, moving at tremendous speeds," Ceperley said. The company decided to raise public awareness about this particular event, he said, because the two objects are both large -- and likely to create an enormous debris field if they collide -- and because they're in an area of orbit that's still relatively clean compared to nearby orbits. The company is also trying to raise more general public awareness about the debris problem, he said.
The Soviet satellite, which launched to space in 1989 and was used for navigation, weighs nearly 2,000 pounds and is 55 feet long, according to Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. And the rocket booster, part of a Chinese Long March launch vehicle that likely launched in 2009, is about 20 feet long. Neither of the objects is still in use. If the rocket and satellite do collide, it would be the first time in more than a decade that two objects spontaneously collided in space -- a situation space traffic experts have hoped desperately to avoid.
The Soviet satellite, which launched to space in 1989 and was used for navigation, weighs nearly 2,000 pounds and is 55 feet long, according to Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. And the rocket booster, part of a Chinese Long March launch vehicle that likely launched in 2009, is about 20 feet long. Neither of the objects is still in use. If the rocket and satellite do collide, it would be the first time in more than a decade that two objects spontaneously collided in space -- a situation space traffic experts have hoped desperately to avoid.
Re: (Score:3)
No.
Geosynchronous orbit is high up and out of reach for most spacecraft, it's densely populated and space there is quite precious, and items there aren't standing still - just like in any other orbit, they, well, orbit.
Re: Geosynchronous orbit (Score:4, Informative)
To avoid collision they would need to be geostationary (special case of geosynchronous) but for that each would need to be at a unique longitude above the equator, so there not many satellite slots could be allocated.
Re: (Score:2)
To avoid collision they would need to be geostationary (special case of geosynchronous) but for that each would need to be at a unique longitude above the equator, so there not many satellite slots could be allocated.
I thought the circumference of the geostationary ring was something like 100,000 miles. How can that space be crowded yet?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Geosynchronous orbit (Score:5, Informative)
That's not so much because of the lack or equatorial launch sites - those just give you a free bit of extra launch speed, modestly increasing payload capacity to a given orbit.
The real problem is that geostationary satellites aren't visible from high latitudes - which includes much of the USSR. Instead you need an inclined orbit that will itself spend time at high latitudes so it's overhead instead of below the southern horizon. And any circular orbit that spends time at high northern latitudes, spends just as much time at high southern latitudes, which was useless for the USSR. So instead they put them on elliptical orbits that spend their far, slow-moving time above the northern hemisphere, while rushing across the useless sourthern hemisphere at low altitude and high speeds.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is going to enforce such a rule?
Re:Geosynchronous orbit (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
So close. Geostationary and Geosynchronus are not the same thing.
Geostationary orbits appear stationary from the ground, and can, as you say, only be circular orbits directly over the equator, at an altitude 35,786km (= radius of 42,164 km) so that their angular speed exactly matches that of Earth's surface. They are one special case of the more general class of...
Geosynchronus orbits, whose orbits are synchronized with the Earth's rotation (e.g. it takes exactly one day to complete an orbit), but general
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen better trolling at a retirement home luncheon.
Re: (Score:2)
>Canâ(TM)t they have a rule that every device in orbit has to be geosynchronous? Then nothing would collide. Also... shouldnâ(TM)t countries be made to down old space junk?
As other have said, geosynchronous satellites can still collide. Even geostationary ones can since their orbits will tend to not be absolutely perfect, though any such collision would be at very low relative speed.
Geosynchronus orbits also suck for communication - they must have a semi-major axis of 42,164 km, which works ou
Re: (Score:2)
Canâ(TM)t they have a rule that every device in orbit has to be geosynchronous? Then nothing would collide. Also... shouldnâ(TM)t countries be made to down old space junk?
Not workable... And a number of reasons it's a really bad idea..
First, such an orbit is much higher and takes a LOT more energy to get to. That makes it much more expensive to launch stuff..
Second, things still move around in relation to other objects in this orbit, yea the relative speeds might be lower, much lower, collisions would still be very disruptive.
Third, you will be concentrated everything to one set of orbits, which are already over populated.
Fourth, Not every application works in that kind
Metric for the rest of the world... (Score:5, Informative)
Soviet satellite - 900kg and 17 metres long
Chinese rocket booster - 6 metres long
Re: Metric for the rest of the world... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they collide, still less space junk than one single "starlink" launch.
At least the "starink" junk will deorbit naturally fairly quickly. One of the advantages of low earth orbits is that objects will natrually deorbit themselves in relativly short time frames. Those orbits are natually kept clean by the small amounts of drag from the upper atmosphere. It may take a decade or so, but if you don't go too high, you can rest assured that "what goes up will come down" and your mess will natrually clean itself up.
Re: Metric for the rest of the world... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the world uses meters, not metres.
Only if you think "most of the world" means "USA". In my experience, English usage flavours "re" over "er". Since the USA uses the metric system much less than every other English speaking place on the planet, even their huge population doesn't overcome everyone else. India and the rest of the Commonwealth add up to a lot of English spellers.
https://grammarist.com/spellin... [grammarist.com]
"For the unit of measurement equalling approximately 1.094 yards, 'meter' is the American spelling, and 'metre' is preferred everywhere
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
As Maxwell Smart would say - “missed it by THAT much!”
Re: (Score:2)
Two large pieces of orbital debris — a defunct Soviet navigation satellite and a spent Chinese rocket body — apparently whizzed safely past each other high over the South Atlantic Ocean on Thursday evening (Oct. 15).
Dammit. "Kessler Syndrome" would have got me a 2020 bingo.
Re: (Score:2)
The ±18m is simply the analysis estimate of position measurement accuracy, unless the masses can swerve.
Re: They missed (Score:2)
> analyses suggested that the two objects would miss each other by just 82 feet (25 meters), plus or minus 59 feet (18 m) â" numbers that left a collision very much in play.
Eh? Those number seem to suggest to me that the closest they could get is 25m - 18m = 7m. In other words, they're certain to miss.
The only chance of them hitting is if the numbers are wrong.
Tracking? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This one tracks 19,295 "satellites", but that includes all kinds of stuff such as the Atlas Centaur booster from 1963 about to pass over Morocco. https://maps.esri.com/rc/sat2/... [esri.com]
It's a good thing I'm not on my work computer right now, or I'd probably lose most of the morning on this web site.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. Well, the big stuff anyway - I think current technology still has trouble tracking stuff as small as stray nuts and bolts and similar minor debris - which can still do incredible damage in an impact since impact speeds can easily be thousands of meters per second - several times faster than the fastest rifle bullets, and impact energy increases with the square of speed.
Orbital space is big, but orbits are tightly constrained and very repetitive. If two orbits cross (or worse, remain at) the sa
Fishpaper (Score:2)
Odd odds? (Score:2)
"Multiple times a week we're seeing dead satellites come within 100 meters of each other, moving at tremendous speeds,"
yet hasn't actually happened "in more than a decade".
I'd hate to think that these people were sensationalising this, just to get a bit of publicity.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is: If it happens, we're fucked.
One satellite breaks up into a thousand itty bitty little flying pieces of scrap metal death that can break up other satellites in turn leading to a nasty chain reaction. The fact it _has_ happened is not cause for relaxation - that collision is causing consequences today.
Two big satellites colliding at 14km/sec could very well create the nightmare scenario. Because these are high orbits - it'll take decades if not centuries for the shrapnel to leave its stable or
Re: (Score:1)
Feel free to find a responsible party for a Soviet satellite (which by definition has been trash since 1991 and wouldn't have adhered to any International treaty since 1922) and China's space crap (which hasn't adhered to any International treaties since 1943).
Re: (Score:2)
Feel free to find a responsible party for a Soviet satellite (which by definition has been trash since 1991 and wouldn't have adhered to any International treaty since 1922) and China's space crap (which hasn't adhered to any International treaties since 1943).
Russia; if they claim the Kuril Islands as the successor state to the USSR [wikipedia.org] (point 2), they get the responsibility for an orbital fuck up as the same successor state.
Re: Odd odds? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because if those satellites are all orbiting the same direction, then those speeds/distances are far less critical.
But if something is out of orbit or significantly slower (even if still ludicrously fast), then it matters a lot.
We all drive at 70mph together on a well-defined motorway in the same direction. It's dangerous, but nowhere near as dangerous as both doing 70mph FACING each other, over rough ground we're unfamiliar with, and no greater distance or any kind of barrier in between.
Velocity = directi
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that most orbits are inclined from the equator, so impacts will tend to be more like a t-bone crash, and carry a decent percentage of orbital speed. If the orbits intersect at 30 degrees, you'll have a relative speed of something like sin 30 = 50% orbital speed. Even 5 degrees difference will be carrying about 9% orbital speed. And since orbital speeds are tens of thousands of mph, that can easily be thousands of mph .
Then think of how much debris is generated in a car crash at even 30mph.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind that modern cars are designed to come aprt, crumple and disapte the energy of the collision.
I witnessed an accident the other day that was very low reletiave speed impact (likely under 35 mph) but the one vheicle came apart at the seams, spraying plastic and glass all over the road. Cars are designed to do this, much to the fireman who was tasked with sweeping up the mess' dismay. He complained loudly to me about it, and explained that it was how they where designed and that it was actually
Re: (Score:2)
Safety glass shatters to avoid stabbing or decapitating passengers. Plastic shatters because it's not worth making it hold together. Neither dissipates much energy. That's accomplished mostly by metal crumple zones designed to dissipate energy as deformation heat rather than having the crash-cage shatter from the energy of impact.
Satellites aren't designed for impacts at all, and they're *also* designed to be as light as possible - which means just enough structural strength to avoid damage during launch
10% odd (Score:1)
Sigh (Score:4, Insightful)
From the 70's or so, it should have been a condition of pushing something into orbit that you're required to clear up your mess if it should mess up, or when you decommission a satellite. Including a mandatory insurance and coordinating agency so you couldn't just run from the problem.
That it's STILL not while we're highlighting the problem to the general public (who can do nothing about it) is ludicrous.
You made the mess, you clean it up. Pretty standard rule for a 7-year-old, let alone an international multi-billion dollar business.
Re: Sigh (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about the 1970s, but conditions to mitigate the risk of debris have existed for a few decades already. Anything launched to LEO must reenter within a set period. GEO sats must be moved to a graveyard orbit. Stages and satellites must be passivated at the end of their lives.
Cleaning up the result of a collision is beyond the state of the art right now, never mind in the 1970s. The price tag would be astronomical (easily 100 times the cost of the original satellites). If you enforced liability fo
Re: (Score:1)
The Soviet Union has been defunct a long time and China isn't even capable of feeding its population right now. What responsible party do you think should pay for this?
Re: (Score:2)
I know you hate China, but there's no need to lie.
Re: (Score:1)
Perhaps you should read some international news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Frelling hard to read a YouTube video.
Re: (Score:2)
From the 70's or so, it should have been a condition of pushing something into orbit that you're required to clear up your mess if it should mess up, or when you decommission a satellite. Including a mandatory insurance and coordinating agency so you couldn't just run from the problem.
That it's STILL not while we're highlighting the problem to the general public (who can do nothing about it) is ludicrous.
You made the mess, you clean it up. Pretty standard rule for a 7-year-old, let alone an international multi-billion dollar business.
That's pretty much what the rules are today..
Re: (Score:2)
It's the politicians that need to do something - and policians rarely do anything unless its in their own self-interest. So if you want to get anything done you need to talk to their bosses - which would be us.
Of course we've pretty much completely stopped taking any responsibility and allowed the politicians to run rampant, so where does that leave us? Voting is supposed to be the *minimum* we do - it's the least-effective way of guiding our representatives, as though the only guidance your boss ever g
Old news, and disputed (Score:2)
The time of closest approach was 0100 UTC on the 16th. No collision happened. [nasaspaceflight.com]
There was disagreement on the collision risk: LeoLabs sent the alert, but other tracking organizations calculated a larger distance and a much lower collision risk.
More to come (Score:4, Informative)
Just wait until the American companies with their dreams of thousands of new satellites get cranking. They'll do what they always do, become very efficient, except here they'll be efficient at putting up as many as they can. And satellites do not last forever. They won't have a plan to retrieve them or deorbit them safely. It won't fit into their business models. Then the fun will really start.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/a... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Bit like some american companies making four wheeled vehicles
I, for one, am willing to forgo those icky four wheeled vehicles [benzinsider.com]. For the good of the environment, of course.
Re:More to come (Score:5, Informative)
Thankfully those providers are generally going to LEO - and LEO debris will naturally fall down fairly quickly (couple of years).
Re: (Score:2)
That is little consolation to Wall-E as he gets faceplanted by Sputnik while Eva's rocket careens through the debris field.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just American companies. The UK is trying to do it too, to make up for being booted out of the Galileo project after brexit. If it proves viable I expect other countries will join in to increase their soft power by providing internet to the world, a bit like the old long wave radio services did.
It's already getting tricky to send stuff up safely and with multiple constellations in low orbits, plus debris...
Re:More to come (Score:4, Informative)
mandatory deorbit system. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Both Starlink and Kuiper satellites are in very LEO and will be brought down by drag within 10 years (I think in under 5, but am too lazy to look it up). They've had to design them with complete vaporization in mind, they don't want any part of them to hit the ground intact. Got any more unfounded accusations to throw around?
News for nerds? (Score:2, Informative)
"At very high speed", "bad", "in orbit" - that is not news for nerds, that is dumbed down pseudo-science BS. No sources, nothing.
Also, it is Friday now. What happened?
Planetes (Score:2)
There was a great manga about manually deorbiting space debris called Planetes. There are English versions online.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
News for nerds? (Score:1)
"At very high speed", "bad", "in orbit" - that is not news for nerds, that is dumbed down pseudo-science BS. No sources, nothing.
Also, it is Friday now. What happened?
PS: Slashdot seems a bit unstable today...
Re: (Score:2)
that could explain why we see so few [slashdot.org] dupes [slashdot.org] today...
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing of note, which is what all the organizations with more than three radar dishes said from the beginning.
This is great news (Score:2)
I was hoping that some decades hence, our planet will be covered in space junk, much like we've covered the oceans in plastic, thereby guaranteeing humanity will never leave this planet. We'll effectively have made our own prison. We deserve it.
News at 11 (Score:2)
That's just human nature for you.
* taking carbon from deposits in the ground and putting it in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, without any concern for getting it back out.
* mining without any plan for moving all those mine dumps back into the ground or rehabilitating the area
* manufacturing a lot of plastic without concern where it will end up or to get it back from there
* putting tons of metal in orbits without a plan for getting it back on the ground
* allocating memory without freeing it
Humans see
Re: (Score:2)
dammit (Score:3)
Who had Kessler Syndrome for October? Anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
Only news because its Russia and China? (Score:2)
American bias at play on Slashdot? Shocker.
How about some good ideas for what to do about it? After all, otherwise it'll only get worse.
Call the Space Force! (Score:1)