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.

 

A Question about the Falling Satellite?????

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I was wondering if it splashed down in a shallow body of water travelling at that speed what would happen?? I mean like would it Create a Tsunami in something like the San Francisco Bay which is only 18ft deep on average?? What would it do in a heavily populated lake area? Like Lake Tahoe or a even smaller shallower lake like Mammoth Lakes?? I'm under the impression something that big moving that fast will displace a lot of water potentially causing a catastrophe..is this even a Possiblity or just a unfounded fear???


Thanks for the help ATS'ers...Always get the most well rounded advice here




posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewsWorthy
I was wondering if it splashed down in a shallow body of water travelling at that speed what would happen??



This really doesnt deserve a thread of its own, but in any case the answer is that everything will be travelling a lot slower by the time it hits the ground.
"Terminal velocity".
The same as if you'd thrown it off the top of a large building or from a helicopter.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Also, I understand that it will break up into many smaller pieces. This may or may not be correct, but if it breaks up, perhaps the problem would be lessened in that regard. My "guess" is that if it were indeed to hit intact on a watery surface, it would probably skip a few times and slow down all the much more before settling. Who really knows?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


Is there enough time for it to get slowed down to terminal velocity? I imagine that at the moment it is traveling well in excess of terminal velocity.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 

Plenty of time.
The fastest pieces will be falling at about 240 mph at impact.
www.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Ouch, not cool!!! Hopefully it will find a good place to land at sea...



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NewsWorthy
 


These sort of debris fall to earth all the time, In a previous thread I speculated that if a large object struck a populated area (Tel Aviv was the example I used) that it could be used as an an excuse for war.
The world just seems to be waiting for an excuse to justify financial generation.
I weep for my species.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Double post, my apologies.

edit on 23-9-2011 by HumansEh because: as said



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by HumansEh
 

I don't understand why these satellites aren't rigged with explosives that can be activated when the need arises. The cost of that seems lower than loss of life or property. I also wonder (and it's probably been addressed on another thread) if the government is held liable for such loss...

Don't we have the technology to shoot these things out of the sky? At least to make the pieces smaller...



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Does that apply to everything coming from space? I understand terminal velocity, but when rocks traveling at 20,000+ miles per hour come through the atmosphere do they as well get slowed down to terminal velocity? I know it will certainly slow down but....that much?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 

Yes. 100 miles of atmosphere is enough to slow a reasonable sized object to terminal velocity (we're not talking about very large asteroids, different ballgame there).

Typical meteorites are dropping straight down at terminal velocity when they hit.

No. At some point, usually between 15 to 20 km (9-12 miles or 48,000-63,000 feet) altitude, the meteoroid remnants will decelerate to the point that the ablation process stops, and visible light is no longer generated. This occurs at a speed of about 2-4 km/sec (4500-9000 mph).

From that point onward, the stones will rapidly decelerate further until they are falling at their terminal velocity, which will generally be somewhere between 0.1 and 0.2 km/sec (200 mph to 400 mph). Moving at these rapid speeds, the meteorite(s) will be essentially invisible during this final “dark flight” portion of their fall.

www.amsmeteors.org...
edit on 9/23/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Ok..if this didn't deserve it's own thread my apologies, I just was curious and figured this is the quickest way to a get direct answers. I didn't realize so many things fall back to earth yearly, I thought because all the coverage this was a big deal. I honestly was correlating the re-entry with meteors and was worried maybe some1 didn't think about a shallow water area like the SF Bay being splashdown point.

On a side note That is Amazing PHAGE that it slows down that much! but I could see how as it's not a direct shot, and more of a glancing bouncing typa touch down.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by visualmiscreant
reply to post by HumansEh
 

I don't understand why these satellites aren't rigged with explosives that can be activated when the need arises. The cost of that seems lower than loss of life or property. I also wonder (and it's probably been addressed on another thread) if the government is held liable for such loss...


The problem with shooting them is that it creates a lot more debris in orbit. There's already too much debris in orbit. It's much better to have them break up in the atmosphere and have most of the pieces burn up before they even hit.

The chances of a piece hitting someone is one in 3600. Worried?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by visualmiscreant
reply to post by HumansEh
 

I don't understand why these satellites aren't rigged with explosives that can be activated when the need arises. The cost of that seems lower than loss of life or property. I also wonder (and it's probably been addressed on another thread) if the government is held liable for such loss...

Don't we have the technology to shoot these things out of the sky? At least to make the pieces smaller...


Like an unplanned pregnancy,
should have thought of it at the time!
This detritus has been falling on our heads since the seventies.
And would you be happy with bombs flying in orbit over your head every day.
Next time you stare up at a starry clear night and observe a satellite crossing the sky.
Would you prefer if it was stuffed with explosives?



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks. I think I got it now, just trying to see the difference between this and oh, lets say the asteroid that took out the dinosaurs.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Skewed
 

Several hundred (or thousand) million tons.
That would be the most significant difference.

edit on 9/23/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Is this it...

This was taken a few years ago.



Probably not...But it might look something like it.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Maybe we (as human beings) are the dinosaurs of future paleontologists.
Fossilised iPhones could be a thesis of the future.



posted on Sep, 23 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by HumansEh
Maybe we (as human beings) are the dinosaurs of future paleontologists.
Fossilised iPhones could be a thesis of the future.


HAhA more like fossilized Teenage Gold Grills...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join