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.

 

On 9/23/11 You Have a 1 in 3200 Chance of Being Killed By Space Debris???

page: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhoDat09
LOL I think that is right. I don't think anyone is going to get hit by space junk, well let's hope not anyway!!
At least you have a 3,200:1 chance of being right. My money's on you.




posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
What makes me laugh is that NASA have turned round and said that even if it lands in your back garden, no matter where you are in the world, it remains the property of the United States Government and you are not allowed to sell it on Ebay!

Sod that, Craig's list anyone? lol.
edit on 19/9/11 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 



if you disagree with NASA`s claim to title - explain why it is incorrect



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by woogleuk
 



if you disagree with NASA`s claim to title - explain why it is incorrect


Maritime Law. Basically, finders keepers.

But, if they insist on getting it back, they can first pay for all of my property damage, emotional stress, and lifetime disability due to a fear of falling objects!! That should pay more than ebay anyway.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


getreadyalready beat me to the response, and probably phrased it better than me.

But anyway, regardless, I will be following the story closely and hopefully it will enter the atmosphere within visibility of me (I will have the camcorder ready, and I will post here, lol), but hopefully not too close.....I would imagine it being a bit toasty.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 

What makes you think maritime law applies?

In any case, maritime law does not say "finders keepers". In the case of shipwrecks, the wreck belongs to the original owner or, if an insurance settlement has been made, it belongs to the insurance underwriters.

In the case of a military wreck, the wreckage remains the property of the government.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
How about this:
If there were 3,200 UARS reentering, one person on Earth would be hit by debris. For sure.
I'd say another case of lies, damn lies and statistics! If there were a million UARs reentering there would not be a chance of one.


If the debris land in an unpopulated area and hits nobody then there was never any chance at all - just a perceived one.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by getreadyalready
 

What makes you think maritime law applies?

In any case, maritime law does not say "finders keepers". In the case of shipwrecks, the wreck belongs to the original owner or, if an insurance settlement has been made, it belongs to the insurance underwriters.

In the case of a military wreck, the wreckage remains the property of the government.
en.wikipedia.org...




just keep it for a few years hidden away, then start inquiring around who would like to put it in their private collection...how, who, and where, should be heavily researched and verified, and done with extreme caution, obviously.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 

That's the point.

There is a lot more area of ocean and wilderness between 57S and 57N than there are populated areas. The odds are greatest that the debris will fall there. That's what results in the overall low odds of anyone being hit.

BTW, your odds of being struck by lighting at some point in your life are better than being hit by a piece of UARS.

• The odds of becoming a lightning victim in the U.S. in any one year is 1 in 700,000. The odds of being struck in your lifetime is 1 in 3,000.

news.nationalgeographic.com...


edit on 9/19/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
There was an episode in 1000 ways to die on someone that dies from space debris



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Maritime Law applies, because it is property that has been abandoned in International Territory (Space) and has then fallen out of Space and been "recovered" or "salvaged" in some way, by some person that now has full possession of abandoned property. The US has consistently sided with the salvagor in assigning ownership rights, and at the very least assigning salvage liens on the property.

A few exceptions have been made where the Government's or Crowns are concerned, or where the property serves some public good.

The case in question would probably be found in favor of the Federal Government, just because it is the Federal Government, but in general..........finders keepers.



It is established in the United States as well as in England that ownership
of derelict goods is not in issue unless the original owner has abandoned
his tide to the property. It is equally well established that owners of sunken or derelict vessels may abandon them so effectively as to divest themselves completely of title. But where the claims of the original owner are not in issue, and the contest is between sovereign and finder, American courts have consistently held contrary to the British rule, subordinating sovereign rights to those of the finder who obtains title by occupancy.



Martin J. Norris, in his authoritative text, The Law of Salvage, 3 presents
an entirely different approach to the question of ownership which
favors neither state nor finder. He expresses the opinion that the owner
of property lost at sea is never divested of his title, the salvor merely
obtains a possessory salvage lien."4 He believes state courts should not
handle such cases, and that all abandoned property "should rightfully
operate under the protection and guidance of our admiralty courts." 11
His theory has not, however, won acceptance.



Another case similarly held that once the true owner abandoned his
property and relinquished ownership he could not reclaim title from the
salvor.


[url=http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2713&context=wmlr&sei-redir=1#search=%22maritime%20law%20found%20property%22]Source[/ur l]

If the court sides with NASA, then it also makes NASA culpable for any damages and/or injuries their property caused. Either way, they need to pay dearly if this thing lands in someone's back yard.
edit on 19-9-2011 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 

It is not abandonment of the satellite which is the issue. It is abandonment of title. The satellite is a derelict. The US government still owns it (and is responsible for it).


It is established in the United States as well as in England that ownership of derelict goods is not in issue unless the original owner has abandoned his title to the property.


Has the US government abandoned title to the satellite? If not, it is still their property...if maritime law does apply.

There is no doubt that should damages occur the US government would be held liable. It would be up to the courts to determine what damages would be recoverable.

edit on 9/19/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Signals
Am I reading this right?


No, you're not reading it right.
The thread title...On 9/23/11 You Have a 1 in 3200 Chance of Being Killed By Space Debris... is wrong.

A NASA risk assessment places the odds of a human casualty at 1:3200. means that there is that risk of *anyone at all* on earth being killed.
But there are 7 billion people, so for you to be that particular specific unlucky one is a 1 in 7 billion chance.
Mutiplied by the improbability of 3200,
so
YOUR
specific individual chance of being killed, is a tiny 1 in 22400 billion.


Actually, we need to modify even more. The odds are of a "casualty". That doesn't mean killed. It would include a bloody nose, a broken fingernail, or any other possible injury. So the title is even more misleading.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Winning Powerball (Australian lotto draw) 27,489,577
Winning Oz Lotto (Australian lotto draw) 8,145,060
Winning Tattslotto (Australian lotto draw) 2,036,265
Killed by lightning 1,603,250
Dying from venomous bite/sting 1,159,364
Being murdered (female) 79,365
Being blackmailed 52,632
Being murdered (male) 45,249
Being Kidnapped 33,223
Having malaria 21,739
Being in prison (female) 6757
Being in prison (male) 396
Having car stolen 142
Dying from heart disease 4.0
Marriage ending in divorce 2.3
Trifecta (13-horse race) 1716
Pulling an ace out of a deck of cards 13
Rolling a 7 or 11 in craps 4.5

**Some of these Stats are directly related to Australian only.**

Source: Herald Sun 11/5/99: via link provided www.scottware.com.au...
Maquarie University; ABS; Australian Severe Weather Kattron Lightning Strike Data Page

www.scottware.com.au...

AND the odds of UARS hitting you 3200/1.
Not sure wether to buy a Lotto ticket or Place a bet on someone getting hit?.

cheers Oz



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ozzealander
AND the odds of UARS hitting you 3200/1.
Not sure wether to buy a Lotto ticket or Place a bet on someone getting hit?.




Well, already since the time of reentry is roughly known, the specific humans that are on the risk list has narrowed.
Re-entry is expected Sept. 23, plus or minus a day, so only those humans underneath its orbit for those three days will be hit.
As it happens, it doesnt pass anywhere near over my head on orbits on any of those days, so I'm 0 percent of being hit, but (to pick a random example) people living in Warrnambool, Victoria, Australia, have it pass directly overhead on the 23rd so they are high on the 1 in 3200 list.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by dainoyfb
 


Isn't that the same thing?



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I'm replying to Phage, but any one knowledgeable on the topic (or not) or any math whizzes are welcome to give their opinion .. I'm not asking this as a sincere theory or anything, I remain pretty reasonable, but I am curious. Do you think it could be calculated to put an object that would survive reentry into an intentional disintegrating low earth orbit so it would land in a general target area? Think of it as a reverse engineered meteorite strike.


edit on 20-9-2011 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


That could only be done if the Earth was devoid of an atmosphere.
The reason the UARS re-entry location has been so vague is because the specifics of its re-entry depend heavily on atmospheric conditions. It's re-entry is going to remain quite vague pretty much until the time it actually falls. To intentionally put a satellite (or other object) in a disintegrating orbit that causes it to fall in a predetermined location would require an ability to predict atmospheric conditions far in advance. This, of course, is impossible to do with any reasonable accuracy.

In fact, if we tried putting a satellite in a disintegrating orbit more than a couple days prior to when we wanted it to fall, the best we could say is, "It will hit the Earth somewhere"...which isn't really all that specific.



posted on Sep, 22 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   
Some neat footage and info




UARS could land anywhere between 57 degrees north and 57 degrees south of the equator - most of the populated world.




The 1 in 3,200 risk to public safety is higher than the 1 in 10,000 limit that Nasa aims for.





Mark Matney, a scientist with Nasa's Orbital Debris Program Office, told Space.com that there was "always a concern". But, he added: "Populated areas are a small fraction of the Earth's surface. Much of the Earth's surface has either no people or very few people. We believe that the risk is very modest."









 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join