It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Orbiting satellites collide

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Orbiting satellites collide


www.news.com.au

TWO communications satellites have collided in the first-ever crash of two intact spacecraft in orbit.

The collision occurred yesterday about 800 kilometres over Siberia, The Associated Press (AP) reported.

The crash produced a pair of massive debris clouds, and the magnitude of the situation won't be known for weeks at least, said NASA spokesman Kelly Humphries told AP.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
The first of many that we will no doubt see, in a crowded atmosphere!

At least it's the first crash of satellites that they're willing to admit to happening. Who knows what is really up there in orbit.

It gives NASA a great excuse to delay plans, if they need to, without needing to make up any other excuses!

www.news.com.au
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
I was just reading about this. I don't think I've heard of satellite collisions before, though you would think they'd be relatively common (Have you seen the simulated pictures of satellites and general debris in orbit? Talk about overpopulation!). It would be interesting to see photographs of the collision, though I doubt they'll ever be made public.

Simulation of current space junk:



[edit on 11/2/09 by paperplanes]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
I suppose this is going to happen, however given the size of space, even with the large number of satellites the probability must be small.
The debris however could be another matter and true hazard, tiny bullet size pieces orbiting at km/sec. Not good.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Hmm, i wonder if one of them would have been the new iranian one.....just nudged a bit by the US to set them back a few years.



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by paperplanes
 


That picture just reinforces what i said on the other thread about this.

"I wonder if our planet is a big cosmic joke, kind of like that redneck uncle with an old impala on blocks in the front yard, and a couple mangy dogs and dirty kids eating from the same bowl. We could be the backwater jerks of the galaxy for all we know, throwing our trash wherever."

We are the hillbillies of the universe.

edited for laptop fumble finger misspellings

[edit on 11-2-2009 by g raj]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by g raj
reply to post by paperplanes
 


That picture just reinforces what i said on the other thread about this.

"I wonder if our planet is a big cosmic joke, kind of like that redneck uncle with an old impala on blocks in the front yard, and a couple mangy dogs and dirty kids eating from the same bowl. We could be the backwater jerks of the galaxy for all we know, throwing our trash wherever."

We are the hillbillies of the universe.


You know, I hadn't thought of it that way.

It's funny--the image we tend to have of earth from outer space is of a pristine, beautiful blue planet . Come to find out, we're surrounded by litter on all sides. What a kicker.

Edit to add: Space.com has a list called "The Sky is Falling: 10 of the Most Memorable Pieces of Space Junk That Fell to Earth". Apparently, it isn't unheard of for space litter to strike people (yes, people) here at home. It's good to know that someone is keeping a catalogue of what amounts to comedic gold (provided you aren't the one being struck...).
www.space.com...

[edit on 11/2/09 by paperplanes]



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I'm really curious what will happen with these satellites during some major event. These may all come crashing back to earth as if by some bibical prophecy.(again) The images I've seen from the space station didn't seem to show this overcrowding though. It would be ironic if Iran's new satellite triggered this. Who knows, after what China did, there may be other ways of taking out satellites by hacking into them etc. Don't these have some type of fuel or similar power source also?



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
That picture is hillarious even though its true. I've seen junk yards that look neater than our atmosphere!!


Zindo



posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by aleon1018
It would be ironic if Iran's new satellite triggered this. Who knows, after what China did, there may be other ways of taking out satellites by hacking into them etc. Don't these have some type of fuel or similar power source also?


Military satellites have been hacked in the past, and in some instances the methodology of the hackers was surprisingly unsophisticated. You have an interesting idea there--satellites raining down would certainly pose a bit of a problem. Though it should be noted that most of the satellites presently in orbit are nonfunctioning. The remaining hundreds (I believe nearing 1000 in number) are fair game for anyone who can hack them.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by cropmuncher
Hmm, i wonder if one of them would have been the new iranian one.....just nudged a bit by the US to set them back a few years.

One satellite was a commercial Iridium, while the other was a defunct Russian satellite.

Both were around 450 kgs or so.

It's in the news article.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
There's a clear idea here about how responsible people always avoid what might happen, even if they think there is a big danger like when they said in the same article:

BBC: Russian and US satellites collide

"It is hoped that most of the wreckage from the collision will burn up in the earth's atmosphere, our correspondent says. "

Here we can see 1 more evasion from responsibility.

Why they have collided anyway?



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by paperplanes




and here ladies and gentlemen is the real cause of global warming or climate change what ever there calling it now a days.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   
Space is huge. Huge huge huge huge. There is just so much space up there for satellites that it is hard to imagine.
There are 3 'zones' of orbits around earth. Low, medium, and high. Low extends to 2000 kilometres above the surface of the planet. Now even if all the satellites up there were contained to within this type of orbit, think about how much space there is in a sphere with a diameter of over 4000 kilometres. A lot.
The highest geocentric orbit is 35,786 above the sea. The surface area of a sphere that large is 22, 333, 112, 807 square kilometres, which is about 43 times larger than the surface of the earth.

Given that much area, you can cram a LOT of satellites up there. And in response to that image which shows orbiting debris, some of that junk is as big as a small country. In real life, space junk is a lot smaller, and the distances between bits and pieces is usually huge. Hundreds of kilometres.
But do something often enough, and you are bound to get an odd result sooner or later.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   
What if...

What if debris from this crash accidentally takes out this satellite?...



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:26 AM
link   
I'm kinda glad someone ele found that pic of the space junk in orbit...but there's a few more too..

and you'll find them here on this thread
space debris illustrated



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by akoviem
I suppose this is going to happen, however given the size of space, even with the large number of satellites the probability must be small.
The debris however could be another matter and true hazard, tiny bullet size pieces orbiting at km/sec. Not good.


To put more detail onto this. Nearly all satellites orbit from West to East and in a circular orbit. So most satellites orbiting at a certain altitude will have roughly similar speeds and going the same direction. No one should expect a head-on collision with a combined speed of over a dozen km/s. Collision speeds will be a fraction of their orbital speed but still significant.

The exception are scientific/mapping satellites that orbit from North to South. Combined collision speeds with a scientific and normal satellites may exceed that of orbital speed but this case is extremely rare.

[edit on 12-2-2009 by ahnggk]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Here's a Youtube video of the Iranian satellite launch




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ahnggk
[

To put more detail onto this. Nearly all satellites orbit from West to East and in a circular orbit. So most satellites orbiting at a certain altitude will have roughly similar speeds and going the same direction.
No one should expect a head-on collision with a combined speed of over a dozen km/s. Collision speeds will be a fraction of their orbital speed but still significant.



agreed, the Insertion into orbit would remain constant...under normal
circumstances.

the Russian satellite, most likely launched from their cosomodome place
most likely had an orbit more SE to NW...compared to US orbits more generally E to W.

Another thing to consider, the West's Iridium satellite (one of a constellation of ~66 plus 7 back-up satellites)
is an openly covert system...funded by Motorola @$6bn but 'bought'
by speculators for $25million. hmmm? i sense black-ops involvement!


after several years of stability between all those satellites in a relative 'parked' orbit some 500 miles up...
some Russian satellite must have had a orbit positioning malfunction where a orbit correction positioning jet got stuck in a firing position...
and caused the satellite to chage from a near circular orbit into an elongated orbit which intersected the orbit plane of that constellation of Iridium satellites...
and after a few passes through that orbit plane
the out-of-control Russian space-bird slammed into an Iridium satellite
(a chance in -trillions event)


on Coast-to-Coast, Richard Hoagland, initiated the spin that there is a lot of nefarious goings on with this (accidental) satellite collision--
or was a killer satellite operation being conducted?



i'll wait for the cover-story first,
then i'll gruff-graw at the explaination...
knowing full well that the gov't spokespersons are giving us Disinformation



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I would think there are many 'sleeper' satellites in orbit. I thought it was odd that there appeared to be a Nasa symbol on the rocket. Can someone explain this to me.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join