Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Russian and US satellites collide

  • 12-02-2009 6:47am
    #1
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭


    http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7885051.stm
    Russian and US satellites collide
    US and Russian communications satellites have collided in space in the first such reported mishap. A satellite owned by the US company Iridium hit a defunct Russian satellite at high speed nearly 780km (485 miles) over Siberia on Tuesday, Nasa said. The risk to the International Space Station and a shuttle launch planned for later this month is said to be low. The impact produced a massive cloud of debris, and the magnitude of the crash is not expected to be clear for weeks. The reportedly non-operational Russian satellite, weighing 950kg (2,094lb), had been launched in 1993, while the Iridium satellite weighed 560 kg and was launched in 1997.
    oops, must stop playing astaroids with real satellites :o


Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,898 ✭✭✭✭seanybiker


    ha ha. The size of space. No indicators .


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,219 ✭✭✭✭biko


    I'd consider this an US act of provocation.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,729 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    biko wrote: »
    I'd consider this an US act of provocation.
    because they got hit by a defunct Russian satellite?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Simi


    "One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new insect overlords."


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,789 ✭✭✭Caoimhín


    Must have been ladies driving day at NASA and Russian space control centre.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭Sleipnir


    If you have GoogleEarth, check this out and you'll see why this really should be a more common occurance.

    http://adn.agi.com/SatelliteDatabase/SatelliteDatabase.kmz


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Sleipnir wrote: »
    If you have GoogleEarth, check this out and you'll see why this really should be a more common occurance.

    http://adn.agi.com/SatelliteDatabase/SatelliteDatabase.kmz

    Jesus Chraps!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 81,219 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Overheal wrote: »
    because they got hit by a defunct Russian satellite?
    Yes, war war war :D;)
    Nah, only messing mate.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,117 ✭✭✭Lirange


    Warn the villagers in Siberia. Oy Oleg there's a huge sh!t cloud comin!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,166 ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    Sleipnir wrote: »
    If you have GoogleEarth, check this out and you'll see why this really should be a more common occurance.

    http://adn.agi.com/SatelliteDatabase/SatelliteDatabase.kmz

    Have there actually been enough space missions/rocket launches to launch that many satellites?? :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,593 ✭✭✭Sea Sharp


    It's an intergalactic game of marbles!!!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭Sleipnir


    Zzippy wrote: »
    Have there actually been enough space missions/rocket launches to launch that many satellites?? :eek:

    There's been about 6000 satellites launched since 1957, about half of which are no longer working. They're just floating around up there. That doesn't include all the rocket bodies for all the launches as well.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,685 ✭✭✭Tom65


    Did they have little satellite babies?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,817 ✭✭✭✭Dord


    Shouldn't they "clean up" any unused/unworking satellites?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,379 ✭✭✭thebigcheese22


    Thats class!

    Well tbh its 6000 satellites in a couple of million miles (at least) so no wonder its such a rare occurance!

    They're saying it might hit the International Space Centre tho :eek:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭Sleipnir


    Dord wrote: »
    Shouldn't they "clean up" any unused/unworking satellites?

    It's expensive enough to get them up there in the first place. It would cost billions upon billions to get rid of them.
    They really should have some sort of autodestruct I suppose so that they are set to re-enter the atmosphere near the end of their useful life.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,990 ✭✭✭longshanks


    any truth in the rumour that there was a woman talking on her mobile while driving the offending satellite?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,968 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Well tbh its 6000 satellites in a couple of million miles (at least) so no wonder its such a rare occurance!

    Try about 25,000 miles


  • Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 2,160 Mod ✭✭✭✭Oink


    Dord wrote: »
    Shouldn't they "clean up" any unused/unworking satellites?


    What for? There hasn't been any major catastrophe YET that has DIRECTLY affected their OWN countries. They don't have to take direct action just yet (See global warming, genocides blah blah etc.).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,661 ✭✭✭General Zod


    surely I'm not the only person who's seen the start of You Only Live Twice?

    Collided my arse!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,990 ✭✭✭longshanks


    surely I'm not the only person who's seen the start of You Only Live Twice?

    Collided my arse!

    i'm on google earth right now searching japan for hidden secret volcano rocket base's


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,661 ✭✭✭General Zod


    longshanks wrote: »
    i'm on google earth right now searching japan for hidden secret volcano rocket base's

    I'm putting on my blue jumpsuit.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,706 ✭✭✭Voodu Child


    mike65 wrote: »
    Try about 25,000 miles
    Try about 1.2 trillion km³ (for low earth orbit, 300-2000km)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 36,634 ✭✭✭✭Ruu_Old


    And may God help you if that thing carried the Spice Channel!:mad:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,990 ✭✭✭longshanks


    I'm putting on my blue jumpsuit.

    ooh risky, you'll be the first to be shot. maybe ring in sick for a few days?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    Sleipnir wrote: »
    It's expensive enough to get them up there in the first place. It would cost billions upon billions to get rid of them.
    They really should have some sort of autodestruct I suppose so that they are set to re-enter the atmosphere near the end of their useful life.

    I think if they self-destructed it'd be a lot harder to keep track of where all the bits were.
    mike65 wrote: »
    Try about 25,000 miles

    I think that assumes that all the satellites are at the same distance from earth, no? Could be completely wrong about that...


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    They were playing Satellite conkers. Russia lost.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,968 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    I think that assumes that all the satellites are at the same distance from earth, no? Could be completely wrong about that...

    Earth-based satellites occupy 3 bands around the planet the furthest out is the Clark Belt where geo-stationary birds sit at 22,500 miles. The furthest distance between objects would be 25,000 + 8,000 miles (Earths diameter) and 25,000 miles round the other side so 58,000 miles then. I was a only bit out!

    I think I have that right :confused:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭Sleipnir


    I think if they self-destructed it'd be a lot harder to keep track of where all the bits were.



    I think that assumes that all the satellites are at the same distance from earth, no? Could be completely wrong about that...


    Well the majority of them are in a low earth orbit. When I say self-destruct, I don't mean explode which would obviously create many more thousands of pieces. I mean they could be set to re-enter the atmosphere and burn up.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 396 ✭✭dez_warlock


    Dord wrote: »
    Shouldn't they "clean up" any unused/unworking satellites?

    I imagine the cost would be astronomical :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,729 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    mike65 wrote: »
    Try about 25,000 miles
    What orbital altitude though, what altitude range, and then do the math an calculate how much cubic area satellite orbits occupy. I'm sure its a lot. Earth's SA is 316944047 square miles, and the average orbital altitude of a satellite is 238857* between 0 and 22240 miles. In all, they cover in insanely wide area (im not getting the calculator though im sure a lot of math is involved with relation to spheres and pi to work out the total cubic area). With 6000+ satellites, a collision should be a very freak occurrence, especially when their orbits are usually so precisely calculated.

    * whoops, that was totally the number for the moon. damned snap-googling.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Orbitalaltitudes.jpg


Advertisement