MORE SATELLITE DOOM: Russian spacecraft Phobos-Grunt is stuck in orbit and posing a threat to Earth., page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 12:04 PM by JimOberg
Originally posted by Zaphod
Originally posted by tom.farnhill
if it still laden with fuel then surely it would explode when it comes though the atmosphere and gets super heated
so i don't think the danger to earth is as great as they say .

also why is there not some kind of self destruct on these things , and if they start to show that they could present a danger by an uncontrolled return to earth , they could just blow the thing to bits


/facepalm

You need to understand orbital dynamics better (or at all). The absolutely worse thing you could do with a failing sat is turn it into thousands of smaller peices that could hit other sats.


Doesn'r Zaphod need to do a TWO-handed facepalm? Just wondering.

Two points:

Objects hitting the atmosphere can experience severe SKIN heating, but it might take a long time --
minutes, tens of minutes -- for heat to soak into the structure if its thick enough and cold enough.

Small meteorites land 'cool' -- their internal below-0-deg temperatures overcome the hot outer skin, especially since the hottest stuff sloughs off during the 10 to 20 second heat pulse, and falls as dust. They have been observed to form frost layers, in hot humid climates. Weird but true.

They also experience severe deceleration forces -- 10 to 20 G's -- and if not strong enough can collapse and fragment. Like the Columbia shuttle and its crew.

If they do, or if the chemical fuel explodes or just flash vaporizes in a 'steam explosion', all of the pieces are already falling to Earth and NONE will threaten other satellites still in orbit.


reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 12:16 PM by CosmicWaterGate
Originally posted by CosmicWaterGate
reply to
post by 1AnunnakiBastard



HopingFULLY... this is not going to be a "Blame It On The Failed Satellite Loaded With Who Really Knows' ... first strike... Since we are all "allegedly" so close to a AJ WW3

Mr X-ULTRA/HUD... "Shall_We_Play_A_War_Game"... Let's call it 'EMPed U First' ... I'll get the Organic Vodka & put it on 'Instant Ice Age'... YE-ALL bring the SIRIUS---(Beluga caviar)
edit on 10-11-2011 by CosmicWaterGate because: Someone needs to bring the bellinis
... Cheating on my post... Because I'm type 0-ver my 4hr... did I really mean this to be on the 'ATS Noah Ark Servers' and WWW public "I's"... without my anal spell checking it first ... Asking 'China Color Red Santa' for a reverse engineered 'Voice To Text' program... like the one they use from Phobos transmissions to earth


reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 12:25 PM by crazydaisy
reply to post by 1AnunnakiBastard



Your right, it was early when I posted -
I'm awake now. It appears to be
a spacecraft rather than a satellite.
With fuel, we don't need this falling
back to earth.



reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 03:57 PM by Illustronic
reply to post by pazcat



I read two weeks of battery time left, but I also read that in 3 days it will be in a position to fulfill it's mission if they can make contact. I'd have to review the articles, but you can't just achieve escape velocity anywhere in orbit and reach your flight path. If they can confirm its a software problem and not a hardware problem their flight path can be achieved in 3 days, So I would guess every 4 days they have an escape window.

I also could be wrong since I just browsed the article.


reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 05:20 PM by Atzil321
reply to post by Illustronic


The fuel on this probe is very toxic, all 11 tons of it.
Yet Oberg said he worries that the fuel - nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine - would freeze in the cold over a couple weeks. If that happens it "will make it the most toxic falling satellite ever," he emailed. "What was billed as the heaviest interplanetary probe ever may become one of the heaviest space derelicts to ever fall back to Earth out of control."
To put it in perspective...
In 2008, the U.S. government, worried about the hazards of a half-ton of frozen hydrazine in a titanium tank in a dead spy satellite. It shot down the satellite with a Navy missile.
So yes I think there is a valid cause for concern with this probe.


reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 05:22 PM by Illustronic
reply to post by Atzil321



I know all about this and that, it's not nearly as big as other rocket failures. I'm not going to run out looking for reentry strike insurance.



reply posted on 10-11-2011 @ 05:27 PM by Atzil321
reply to post by Illustronic

Those rockets blew up in a controlled enviroment, designed to deal with catastrophic failure. Clean up crews would have been on the scene quickly to deal with the mess.


reply posted on 11-11-2011 @ 05:38 PM by moondancer811
Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to
post by Illustronic


The fuel on this probe is very toxic, all 11 tons of it.
Yet Oberg said he worries that the fuel - nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine - would freeze in the cold over a couple weeks. If that happens it "will make it the most toxic falling satellite ever," he emailed. "What was billed as the heaviest interplanetary probe ever may become one of the heaviest space derelicts to ever fall back to Earth out of control."
To put it in perspective...
In 2008, the U.S. government, worried about the hazards of a half-ton of frozen hydrazine in a titanium tank in a dead spy satellite. It shot down the satellite with a Navy missile.
So yes I think there is a valid cause for concern with this probe.


I am glad you mentioned this as it was exactly what I was thinking about when I heard the news . In 2008 the nitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine was considered so much of a hazard the US government shot the satiellite down. I remember all the hype. It was a really small amount at half a ton. Now of course, they say 11 tons poses no threat? I wish I knew more about the fuel, but I do not. Is there a greater risk if it is a satellite rather than a probe? Anyone know?

There have been so many reports on this with so many different stories. Initially they DID say that the battery would last for only 3 days and then shortly after said 2 weeks. One report shortly after the incident said this could "potentially be the most toxic disaster ever caused by man" and then as the days went on they said it posed no threat. I'm lost. It is expected now to fall to earth around December 3rd. I wish I knew more about this but it is an interesting story to follow nevertheless.


reply posted on 11-11-2011 @ 07:24 PM by Illustronic
reply to post by moondancer811



Nitrogen tetroxide
Hydrazine

Toxic volatile chemicals yes. Why they are reserved usually for above atmospheric propellants, also for their efficiency. Its not nuclear fallout, just toxic, so is ammonia and bleach.


reply posted on 11-11-2011 @ 09:33 PM by Illustronic
reply to post by crazydaisy



It's not LET. It's can't prevent. It's a can't fulfill the mission. It's a gaff, a failure, a budget cutting wake up call, a world space exploration example of what not to do.

There is no profit to send a probe into earth escape velocity, and send something back, so be it, not the first to do so, so why not dot the eyes, cross the tees, and dot the lower case jays at least?

This is a big black eye for the Russian's that did this just for National pride, because no money is going to made of it being successful, would be cool, but that is space probe reality. 100% zero return of investment, and zero return of inadequate investment, in that way they beat the American's, because the Americans spend more to make the missions work, well, no Wallmart Phobos dust for them.

Sad really, because I really respect the Russian space program, and I really like the Russians and their culture, I after all am part descendent of Russian blood, I am taking no personal satisfaction in this whatsoever, it would have been a great mission and possibly uncover things we weren't aware of.

I would love to see them work this out and succeed in the whole mission plan, it would be a great contribution to mankind somehow eventually.

I just wanted to stress that space missions like tis is in no way for profit, it is entirely an expense. I applaud the effort, and you won't see this kind of thing from a private industry, because how would they tell their stockholders they get no dividend because they shot it out of this world instead?
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^