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.

 

UARS Satellite - why does it have to fall?

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Here's something I don't get. Why are our defense forces allowing this multi-ton glob of metal to fall to earth, with a possibility of causing damage to life in property?

Don't we maintain an arsenal of satellite-killing missiles and technologies? Why not simply blast it out of space or at least break it up so most of it burns up during reentry?




posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:41 AM
link   
To answer your question yes we do own this technology and it has been used before. But I like to think that if they shoot it down they wont get the story they want when it hits something of great importance.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
You know that it carries data that has to be recovered right?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
The problem isnt the entire mass of it surviving reentry and hitting somebody.
The problem is that there are, according to NASA, 23 pieces of it solid enough to survive reentry.


Originally posted by TXRabbit
Why not simply blast it out of space or at least break it up so most of it burns up during reentry?


This wont help.
A missile hit would break it up, but the 23 pieces will still then fall to earth surviving the reentry. Most of it is already going to burn up during reentry.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I hate to say, we entered the solar maximum this year. The flares might've brought the whole system down..



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Any weapon we have is not going to disintigrate the satellite. All it wil do is break it into many pieces which then have their own orbits and decay schedules. So instead of one rain of pieces you get many and it will be spread over a much larger area. Our anti-satellite weapons are deisgned to disable the operation of a target satellite --- not vaporise it.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni
 


I did not know that. Thanks for the info



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
You know that it carries data that has to be recovered right?


Wrong. It's dead, it has no power to it. It's a piece of space junk soon to be earth junk.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TXRabbit
 


As Phage once so eloquently put it:


What happens when you hit something with a missile? Do you think it turns into fluffy bunnies?


Exactly how much difference do you think there is between blowing the thing up and letting it burn up in the atmosphere? We're still left with the same thing... a bunch of debris.

And we can't leave it up there. As space junk, UARS would pose a greater threat to astronauts aboard the ISS than it does by being allowed to fall.

Letting it fall intact is the safest thing we can do with it.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I think its been covered pretty well so far, but essentially because gravity, and blowing it up would cause debris.

one of my favourite anime series is called planetes or 'planets' if you translate it, mainly due to the realism, and space is involved, basically the cast are debris haulers trying to clear up LEO while groups and governments plot to ruin space forever, all while a new ship is being built on the moon to reach jupiter using HE3 (seriously its an amazing series go watch.)

moral of the story, don't screw up space for the next guy, and what goes up will come down even if down is relatively the suns gravitational field.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Heartisblack
 


I started a thread earlier about the ROSAT re-entering next month, you could be right...




"Solar activity causes the atmosphere to expand upwards, causing more braking on space objects. The reason UARS is coming back sooner than expected is a sudden increase in solar activity. Indeed, we expect to see a higher rate of re-entries as we approach the solar maximum in 2013,"


Source[ed itby]edit on 23-9-2011 by Bex33 because: Link went wrong



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Another thing I´ve been thinking of is, that isn´t there already quite a lot of space junk orbiting Earth and it means there are dead satellites and debris, but if they are on orbit, they should stay there? Whay this one started to fall down then? I´m not very familiar with this theme.

ETA: Thanks Bex33, it´s one possible answer.
edit on 23-9-2011 by Amandla because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
You know that it carries data that has to be recovered right?


What data needs to be recovered, I had not heard this?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Gravity is why it has to fall....



Its called gravity.

The Satellite was decommissioned in 2005. Thus No more need to maintain it's orbit.

The orbit decays with gravity until it hits the atmosphere and burns up upon reentry.

Also providing Less space junk to cause potential collisions as well.

Plain and Simple.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Amandla
 


there is a multitude of space junk up there in semi stable orbits ie won't re-enter any time soon, the more junk we put up there or need to to reach LEO or beyond with current tech means there will be less and less trajectories to reach space by and sooner or later it will be impossible to reach space, unless someone starts knocking the stuff into reentry or collect the big stuff.

ed: the reason for this, as pointed out in the anime series I mentioned earlyer, even a screw can anhililate a satalite if the trajectories are opposite. 7km per second is faster than a bullet.
edit on 23/9/2011 by whatsinaname because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
OK question answered, but what i dont get is how they are saying there *only* a 1in 3500 chance of being hit by it.
it s like saying my head (1sq. foot) could get squashed if i stand in my garden (3500 sq feet) .

there has to be somethinmg wrong with that, but i read it again on bbc website only today. wtf/?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

NASA URGES United states now back in UARS STRIKEZONE!!



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ZIPMATT
 


There's 1:3200 chance of just one person on the planet being hit by it. There's a 1:21.44 trillion chance of you, specifically, being hit by it.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 


one in twenty four trillion ? care to explain that maths ? i will check again at the bbc



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   


Experts have calculated the probability of anyone anywhere on Earth being injured by a falling UARS component as 1 in 3,200.
source bbc (updated)

not exactly clear , but thanks for that. "someone , somewhere" is how i would have put it

i wonder what your chances are if you are NOT on the earth, as in , on a plane ?
edit on 23-9-2011 by ZIPMATT because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join