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.

 

NASA: "Unknown piece of space debris of unknown size" buzzes ISS, crews shelter in Soyuzes

page: 3
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 12:25 AM
link   
KEWL
Finally some action




posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
The handgun is aboard Soyuz because returning Russian cosmonauts are occasionally attacked by wolves!


uh huh that's your story is it?

Hmmm


Currently, NORAD tracks space debris down to the size of a tennis ball.

csat.au.af.mil...

...odd they missed this stuff...

But THIS is cool...

A fleck of paint leaves a crater...


The Air Force Space Command NORAD radar system tracks about 7,000 objects larger than 10 centimeters, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. The Arecibo radio telescope conducted a limited survey, and from the number of radar returns from objects larger than one centimeter identified over 150,000 objects in orbit. NORAD tracks a total of 100,000 individual objects from the size of a glove or larger. The Arecibo data suggest there are about one million objects larger than 2 millimeters. When you include things like paint chips and other sub-millimeter objects that are untrackable, the numbers may be as large as one hundred billion.

The Space Shuttle collided with a paint fleck from a previous mission or rocket launch and this chipped the front window leaving a crater several millimeters across. A 1-centimeter object moving with a relative speed of 17,000 kilometers/hour would deliver as much energy as a small hand grenade. The International Space Station has a front bumper that will try to protect its most vulnerable parts from the numerous objects of millimeter-size, but larger objects will be a rare, but ever-present problem capable of producing breaches in the pressurized parts of the station.


www.astronomycafe.net...

Chinese ASAT Test Jan 2007

That was the satellite the Chinese blew up...

Screen shot from AGI Viewer file of Chinese ASAT scenario (five minutes post-attack)



View of ISS Orbit (green) and Debris Ring (red) from Chinese ASAT Test



View of LEO Satellites (green) and Debris Ring (red) from Chinese ASAT Test



View of All Satellites including Debris Ring from Chinese ASAT Test Readily Visible




As of 2007 September 25 (another 160 TLEs were released on this date), 2,247 pieces of debris—including whatever's left of the original payload—have been catalogued by NORAD. That makes this event the largest debris-generating event on record—far surpassing the 713 pieces cataloged when the Pegasus rocket body that launched STEP 2 exploded on 1996 June 3. NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office estimates more than 35,000 pieces of debris larger than 1 cm from this event:


www.space.com...

35,000 pieces at least as powerful as a grenade...
and that is just ONE event

NASA et all COSMIC LITTERBUGS EXTREME



FULL SIZE

We need warning beacons in space "Avoid Earth... Danger Zone"



And all that stuff NASA is bombing the Moon and Asteroids and Planets with... debris everywhere. Makes it hard to hunt anomalies with all that crap strewn around the solar system



edit on 29-6-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



uh huh that's your story is it?


No, it's Alexei Leonov's:


Upon return to Earth after the Voskhod mission, a rocket malfunction forced Leonov and his crewmate to land in the Ural Mountains amid deep snow, with wolves growling and scratching at Voskhod's partly open hatch. They remained all night, surrounded by wolves, until a rescue crew found them the next day.

www.imdb.com...

I suppose it's possible that the jetsam that missed the ISS was left over from the Chinese ASAT test, but that would be impossible to prove. The points representing space junk are obviously not to the same scale as the Earth in the diagrams you provide. Most space junk is extremely small and space, as you know, is extremely large.



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
I suppose it's possible that the jetsam that missed the ISS was left over from the Chinese ASAT test, but that would be impossible to prove.


Wasn't saying it was... just showing how one little satellite makes so much debris and NORAD is tracking it. But I did just read that NORAD doesn't have the computer capacity anymore to track it all... interesting that... means more surprises are imminent



The points representing space junk are obviously not to the same scale as the Earth in the diagrams you provide. Most space junk is extremely small and space, as you know, is extremely large.


Satellites, spent rocket boosters, debris of all sizes, tool boxes, toilet dumps and all those secret space craft... near earth space isn't that empty and we are filling it quickly. Now wait till all those emerging space nations come on line... going to need something like the cowcatcher on the old trains


Oh look seems the ISS has such a bumper



The International Space Station has a front bumper that will try to protect its most vulnerable parts from the numerous objects

www.astronomycafe.net...

Maybe a space vacuum
or maybe we can form a satellite mining company... imagine all the gold and platinum and secret tech floating around out there. Be worth a King's Ransom
edit on 29-6-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by Arken

Originally posted by franspeakfree

Originally posted by JimOberg
NASA: "Unknown piece of space debris of unknown size" buzzes ISS, crews shelter in Soyuzes


What do you think the unknown debris could be? something originating from earth or something originating from space, piece of asteroid,meteor e.t.c?

Interesting none the less .
edit on 28-6-2011 by franspeakfree because: (no reason given)


I think that is something that come from outside.

Every single piece of debris above 1/2 cm is catalogued and its orbit known.
So....


See, Arken, you can trace a lot of your weird misunderstandings of these space events to your misplaced faith in your own "knowledge" of spaceflight, most of which is wildly wrong. You seem to be clueless about how accurately orbits are 'known' and how that knowledge is subject to errors that can grow or shrink due to outside forces such as air drag and solar activity. In this case, the orbit of an object that was originally no hazard -- passing safely outside the alert range -- shifted unexpectedly into that range, as they are wont to do on occasion due to variations in their own drag (as oddly-shaped objects present different geometries 'into the wind') and to localized solar induced excitation of the upper atmosphere. None of these effects can be predicted ahead of time so the precise motion of objects -- and by 'precise' I mean to a thousand feet or so -- cannot be accurately predicted, especially smaller non-symmetrical tumbling objects. You probably didn't know that, or understand its implications, if you did. Anyhow, "what you think" seems to have little if any connection to reality, at least in this instance -- but it can be remedied. Realize the error, watch, and learn


Thanks for your kind and sweet words, professor.
I accept you explanation, BUT NOT YOUR PERSONAL ATTAK and your rudeness!



See, Arken, you can trace a lot of your weird misunderstandings of these space events to your misplaced faith in your own "knowledge" of spaceflight, most of which is wildly wrong.




You probably didn't know that, or understand its implications, if you did. Anyhow, "what you think" seems to have little if any connection to reality, at least in this instance -- but it can be remedied. Realize the error, watch, and learn


See, Jim, seems that Your arrogance, presumption and excessive self-esteem is really huge, professor!
So huge that is "unknown size"!


To Mod: CAN I DELETE my Star & Flag from this thread?

edit on 29-6-2011 by Arken because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Very strange, all these knowns, all these unknowns, all these knowns that become unknowns...

Very confusing...

What strikes me as strange is that we apparently know what's up there in great detail, we are also aware that trajectories can change because of unknown by products of other events and we know that the level of danger that can be caused is massive..

Yet, we keep sending people up there in craft that can offer no protection.

And, If its so unpredictable up there 1, why do we keep going and 2, how come with all this mess there there hasn't been a fatality or severe incident (bar a screen scratch of sorts) overall these years, the only astronaut fatalities have been from launch.

Seems bits fall off but with all that we never get hit...



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Two things I have learned from science fiction:
* Always carry a towel
* Don't go off without the helmet for your pressure suit.

So, does part of the procedure include donning pressure suits or is the the only real aim to simply present the smallest target possible and hide in the capsules?



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frira
Two things I have learned from science fiction:
* Always carry a towel
* Don't go off without the helmet for your pressure suit.

So, does part of the procedure include donning pressure suits or is the the only real aim to simply present the smallest target possible and hide in the capsules?



Good question. The procedure only involves claoing the hatch. The in-cabin launch/entry suits ['Sokol' suits] only get donned shortly before beginning the descent.

Arken, by the way, tough re your bruised ego -- but you're still factually wrong about NASA or anyone knowing 'exactly' where everything in orbit is. The source of tracking and prediction error usually involves unknown drag effects, made unknowable because of surges in the upper atmosphere caused by unpredicted solar pulses, and by varying drag on a particular object caused by its tumbling and thus presenting different profiles 'into the wind'.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I thik that before every single manned mission in space, Nasa and other related agencies, TRACK, every single little speck of dust that cross the flight orbit.
Do you know the velocity of a speck of dust in space?
Do you know what could happen if that speck hit the shuttle, the ISS or an Astronaut during an EVA?
TRAGEDY!

Or NASA leave all to chance?



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Arken
 

The ISS is constantly manned.

Dust cannot be tracked.

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.


But it is not left entirely to chance.

Spacecraft must be designed to withstand hypervelocity impacts by untrackable particles. Conducting hypervelocity impacts on spacecraft and satellite components assesses the risk of orbital debris impacting operating spacecraft and satellites. Developing new materials and designs from hypervelocity impact data provides a better understanding to protect spacecraft and satellites from the debris in the space environment.



The ISS is the most heavily shielded spacecraft ever flown. Shielding is designed to protect critical components such as habitable compartments and high-pressure tanks from the nominal threat of an aluminum sphere approximately 1 cm in diameter.

www.nasa.gov...

Do you know how much room there is up there? If space debris were as big a problem as you think, there would be nothing but broken satellites up there.

orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov...
edit on 6/30/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Arken
 



Do you know how much room there is up there? If space debris were as big a problem as you think, there would be nothing but broken satellites up there.


Think: A bullet will be fired at a random angle, at a random spot, at a random point along the cross country highway you are driving along and gun-powder detectors line your way-- almost always giving you advance warning of the threat. Would you cancel a cross country trip?

Think not: Driving through a red light in downtown New York at rush hour.

But, on the other hand, I was thinking:
A single random paint chip finds the window of a manned spacecraft and leaves a detectable crater in the window. Yet, an entire random hurricane rolls right over the city where my evil ex-wife lives, and she emerges without a scratch. In that case, it is not about "What are the odds?" but "Where is the justice?"!



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
The procedure only involves claoing the hatch.


What is "claoing"



presenting different profiles 'into the wind'.


"Wind in space..." interesting concept. Maybe that accounts for the motion of those tether critters

So where is the REAl JimOberg?
edit on 6-7-2011 by zorgon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Do you know how much room there is up there? If space debris were as big a problem as you think, there would be nothing but broken satellites up there.


So you condone the NASA litterbugs? No worry... give em time, they will keep adding stuff to fill in the gaps



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


More often than not we are fed information that has no "real" substance. Much like this.

NASA released this info or what ever, but it doesn't seem to go anywhere. "ASTRONAUTS SHELTER IN THEIR SHIP, DEBRIS MISSES" end of story. Surely this kind of stuff happens all the time? Why release certain stories and what not?

It's all a bit strange to me, it's like they are calling the bluffs of many people interested in the subject. When I was a kid I used to lie to my parents like that, instead of denying anything happened, I used to admit stuff but take it down a notch and what not. You know, its hard to think of an example but you must catch my drift.


Like I was thinking the other day, the 7/11 attacks on the London underground that happened a few years back in the UK. The papers are getting in deep trouble for phone hacking (including victims of the attacks), and the government decided to issue a statement on the day before the anniversary of the 7/11 attacks. Why? Maximum impact, and its interesting that they also said Rupert Murdoch (the owner of the news paper in question) is getting too powerful. Coincidence? Probably not!



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by VraxUK
reply to post by JimOberg
 


More often than not we are fed information that has no "real" substance. Much like this.

NASA released this info or what ever, but it doesn't seem to go anywhere. "ASTRONAUTS SHELTER IN THEIR SHIP, DEBRIS MISSES" end of story. Surely this kind of stuff happens all the time? Why release certain stories and what not?

It's all a bit strange to me, it's like they are calling the bluffs of many people interested in the subject. When I was a kid I used to lie to my parents like that, instead of denying anything happened, I used to admit stuff but take it down a notch and what not. You know, its hard to think of an example but you must catch my drift.



Vrax:

Surely this kind of stuff happens all the time?


You may find that in order to justify some of your intuitive feel-good ideas, you have to conjure up fictitious 'factoids', and maintain your ignorance of reality.

This is a perfect example.

You assume it must be true that this kind of thing happens all the time so the news about it was some sort of manipulative trick. If you ever found out that this is only the second time in more than a dozen years of space station operations that this happened, it might cast doubt on what you enjoy believing. So you need to protect yourself from ever learning that, by not searching for that fact -- and instead, substituting a fiction in its place.

Can you offer another explanation?

This could be your 'teachable moment', as they say in the US. You might learn something you'd rather not know about your own cognitive processes. Please, take the opportunity. We've all been there to one degree or another. We're all human.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


I didn't categorically state "An ET flew up to the space station, almost colliding". I was merely providing an explanation into which NASA would release this info if it wasn't a piece of space debris. What would be the point about talking about anything on this forum if we weren't going to question it on both sides of the argument?

I was merely conspiring an explanation.

The fact that there is a question mark on the end of the quote you decided to pick up on clearly means I haven't done any research on the answer, and in fact I was asking a question. (Which in some ways could be considered as research). As for your explanation into which I haven't done any research into it, maybe it's because this topic of space debris is new to me, so possibly I haven't actually had any experience with the matter. Nothing about me trying to avoid the truth.

Without getting too off topic I could analyse the way wrote that response and why it was so negative, maybe it gives you a feel good feeling?

Back to the topic, it could have been anything, and the fact that it was of "unknown size" and why they didn't pick it up before it got so close is still a question we can recognize.
edit on 7-7-2011 by VraxUK because: Further Explanation.



posted on Jul, 7 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Jim...just a quick couple of questions on this? At what range would they be able to detect an incoming "threat "object that hadn't previously been noticed, its speed and what minimum size of object?

And how much time do they have between that boundary and the estimated impact time, given the speed of the incoming could be anything from a relative 100mph nudge to a combined closing speed of say 40000mph?

The scenario must have been something like "clang, clang, incoming object." Then they would have confirmed the trajectory, speed and maybe size. Then reconfirmed it as you've got incoming at speed against a moving target. Then did the man the lifeboats bit.

I'm just curious.
edit on 7/7/2011 by nomadros because: typos

edit on 7/7/2011 by nomadros because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join