Satellite Collision Debris Cloud Danger Based on Flawed Physics Expose Revealed Exclusively !!!

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
For years.For years.

For years we have had alarmists (just like the global warming pseudo science fanatics) moaning and moaning about leaving satellites in orbit and having more satellites in orbit because they say if satellites collide with each other then this debris from the collision will form more high spreed debris which hits more satellites which creates more debris which hits more satellites which creates more debris which creates more high speed more debris which hits more satellites....and so and on ...you get the idea?

These alarmists say this could form a giant debris cloud making space flight/satellites difficult or impossible and thus stopping us from conquering other planets and stars and leaving us to sulk and die a horrible miserable death on this crapped out tired old world... I mean would it not be a great injustice when there are billions of planets waiting for us to take over ,that we should be confined to a stinking single clapped out planet?

Of course it would be great injustice for we would be denied what is rightfully ours.

These alarmists have come out with giant hoovers and other very expensive schemes to remove dead satellites to stop this happening.some of them even want to stop sending satellites up and want us to crawl back into the caves.They want us to "protect" space.


these people even gave it a name.thats right a name.

A collision they claim leads to a chain reaction effect, known as the Kessler Syndrome, where a cloud of fast-moving debris causes other collisions with orbiting bodies around the Earth.

Well today i told my uncle who is very smart and very close to me.He thought and i thought and he thought and thought and we thunked together and we bounced ideas and after consulting a book we saw a flaw in the kessler effect.

we did a thought experiment and we thought we saw a flaw.

Which is going to be revealed to you right now.


yes yes yes debris can damage other objects in orbit..the kessler effect depicts a cluster of debris crossing orbits every hour or orbit and collecting more debris right right?

But but but if the objects are traveling at different speeds then they cannot be in the same orbit! Right? right ? I mean in an explosion in orbit or a collision in orbit If the objects are traveling at different speeds they will either gain or loose altitude, putting them in a new orbit.

if the objects are in a low orbit in the first place, any collision caused by the objects orbiting in the opposite direction would slow both objects down, cause them to fall out of orbit to the earth, and thus clear the orbital zone preventing a further collision.

do you get it?

in an orbit around a planet the distance you are from the planet depends on the speed your moving relative to it.

you you doubt me?

just get an elastic band tie some item to it and pretend its a satellite and twirl it... the faster you twirl it the further the object will be from your hand and stretching the elastic more more more ....the slower you twirl the closer and closer the object will be to your hand which is a planet.

its called centrifugal force.

do you see now?

in a collision all the debris will travel at SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SPEEDS AND HENCE HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ORBIT.

In summary the laws of physics demand that every collision in orbit would reduce the debris, not increase it claimed by moaning alarmists.


edit on 20-2-2014 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Just because throwing a wrapper out your car window is not going to cause an ecological apocalypse, Does not mean you should take up littering.

Because, if every driver on the road followed the same logic as you, well, we might start seeing a bigger problem.


Just like all those "Crazy" global warming people, "might be wrong" doesn't mean I'm going to start lighting off tire fires, and running my 440 cubic inch dodge 24/7 using it as my everyday drive either...



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by beckybecky
 


Umm, errr… except you forgot that the time between the collision and the "de-orbit" of debris is when other collisions could happen. Space debris does not simply fall straight down from orbit.

Besides this, you are talking about random, unplanned collisions. During hostility between nations (in the perceivable future) there could be collisions of the intentional kind. The first thing in an outbreak would be the attempt to blind an opponents eyes and communications… satellites.

I don't know if that would make it impossible for us to leave the planet in the future but it would make a spectacular light show.
edit on 20-2-2014 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by beckybecky
 


"Crapped out planet"???

What would make you imagine another is better than here? Because the surface that you would live on was made of chocolate or something? Seriously, a rock is a rock is a rock....Who cares if we are stuck on this rock or the next? It is still a rock!



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by beckybecky
 


Space is big. The volume of orbital space around Earth out to about 4 million km is really big in its own right. Dust grains in a swimming pool.

A runaway chain reaction a la Kessler presumes widespread intentional and uncontrolled destruction. That's not the real story though as I see it.

The real story is the fragile nature of humans in space and the very small but statistically relevant possibility of a strike causing a catastrophe. Today, this is manageable with tracking technology. In the future this could get ugly. All it would take is few out of control collisions to affect the probabilities. You would start to lose certain orbital channels at first, then with each collision the problem gets geometrically worse until the tipping point is reached and the statistics get exponential.

Futurists sometimes seem to be alarmists. I'm sure Orwell was considered an alarmist when 1984 came out.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by beckybecky
 


I never knew there was a conspiracy theory about this. I watched the movie Gravity the other day, and my first thought was, this could never happen.

Well, never is a little ambitious, but unlikely, yes. Assuming no satellites are in a crash course currently, any collision that would cause space debris should dramatically change the course of the now space debris. Any slow-down is likely to cause the debris to tighten its orbit, ultimately falling into the atmosphere. Or, if traveling fast enough, be sling-shot away from the planet. The ISS actually uses its thrusters to maintain orbit, so it is unlikely for a random piece of debris to do this without thrusters.

Let's assume there is a collision that produces space debris and, somehow, the debris ends up in the same orbital plane as the ISS. There would be over 510 MILLION square miles of space on those two dimensions for the debris to fly around and hit the ISS. The amount of revolutions it would take for a collision with the debris to be statistically relevant should be enough to throw it out of orbit.

I'm not a rocket scientist. Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   
First off. We're talking about 3D space here, not a rubber band. Even though your logic *somewhat* applies to 2d dimensional orbits... that isn't what we're talking about.

Say that all satellites are launched in a single orbit [which they are't, but I'll humour you]. If collisions occur, some debris might feasibly be knocked a certain distance towards or away from earth. Your theory is that the hypothetical orbit will remain mostly debris free, because of energy gained/lost during collision. That makes sense on paper. But what of the collisions that occur above and below the hypothetical "clean" orbit? Would those collisions between debris not send some debris back into the clean orbit? Of course they would. But, I'll stretch it further for your sake. Lets pretend that we have a single, perpetually clean orbit available for satellites. Besides the logistics of all satellites sharing the same orbit, we have the issue of debris BELOW that clean orbit. Debris that must be navigated in order to reach the higher orbit.

Even humouring your logic, the theory falls apart. The debris belt would, in the end, stabilize into a relatively a homogeneous cloud of debris above our earth. You are only factoring in collisions between satellites, not collision between debris "outside" of utilized orbit. In the case of any chaotic, noisy system... we wouldn't be able to have a truly "clean" orbit.

Edit: Also, it is unlikely that there would be a perfectly circular orbit. So as debris swings nearer and further from earth, they would intersect with and interact with debris with different amounts of energy. A relatively low energy object can still end up in the path of a much higher energy object, since the orbits would conceivably be elliptical.
edit on 20-2-2014 by LeviWardrobe because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-2-2014 by LeviWardrobe because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-2-2014 by LeviWardrobe because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-2-2014 by LeviWardrobe because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-2-2014 by LeviWardrobe because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-2-2014 by LeviWardrobe because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   

beckybecky
in a collision all the debris will travel at SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SPEEDS AND HENCE HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ORBIT.

In summary the laws of physics demand that every collision in orbit would reduce the debris, not increase it claimed by moaning alarmists.
I agree with the first part, but I think you're wrong about the second part.

To clarify the problem with the second part, there is technically no mass increase or decrease of the objects after a collision...it stays the same. What increases is the number of pieces, and yes the many pieces can all have different orbits.

To use a crude analogy, if you try to hit a dime with a shotgun it would be easier than hitting a dime with a rifle and the concern of the theory you mention is like a cascade effect where one collision leads to another which leads to more which leads to more. It's sort of the way fission powered nuclear bombs explode, except in those it's a domino effect of subatomic particles like neutrons.

I think whether it would happen or not depends on how much debris is created when two objects collide. If one object only makes something like a bullet hole in another object, when they collide then there's no cascade effect, and in that case your idea that there would be no cascade could be true. But tests have shown otherwise...that collisions can create many, many pieces of debris, and instead of just making a "bullet hole", the pieces of debris could make lots more debris after a collision. Therein lies the danger.

The different orbits of the various pieces of debris is true but it just means that the shooting gallery in orbit is that much larger and covers that much more space...a whole range of altitudes.

Here's a case where the debris from one satellite resulted in over 900 pieces and as you said spans a range of altitudes, but they are mostly high enough to be long-lived orbits:

www.space.com...

"The total count of tracked objects could go even higher. Based upon the mass of Fengyun-1C and the conditions of the breakup, the standard NASA model for estimating the number of objects greater than 4 inches (10 centimeters) in size predicts a total about 950 such debris," Johnson advised SPACE.com.

Most prolific and serious fragmentation

Johnson said that the debris cloud extends from less than 125 miles (200 kilometers) to more than 2,292 miles (3,850 kilometers), encompassing all of low Earth orbit. The majority of the debris have mean altitudes of 528 miles (850 kilometers) or greater, "which means most will be very long-lived," he said.
That's only fragments 4 inches and larger.

I expect a 3 inch fragment could still cause considerable damage and the number of pieces smaller than 4 inches is likely far greater but they are too small to track and count precisely.
edit on 20-2-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by beckybecky
 


here you go becky, this is a image that nasa uses to show debris that they track.



it came from their page here.

What Is Orbital Debris?


whole lota junk floating, or should i say speeding around, seeing how it's moving at about 18,000 mph.


ETA: i found these statmeants to be interesting,



the average impact speed of a piece of orbital debris running into another object is 22,370 miles per hour. Since it is moving so quickly, a tiny piece of orbital debris can cause a lot of damage. Being hit by a piece of debris smaller than half an inch around - traveling at about six miles per second - would be like being hit by a bowling ball moving at 300 miles per hour.



And tens of millions of pieces are smaller than 1 cm. All pieces of debris larger than 10 cm are carefully tracked using radar and telescopes. That information is used to estimate the number of small pieces of debris.



Debris in orbits below 373 miles usually falls back to Earth within a few years. Objects at heights of more than 621 miles can stay in orbit for more than a century.
edit on 20-2-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)
edit on 20-2-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


So it all falls back to earth eventually. It cleans itself. Might just have to wait awhile.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 03:33 PM
link   

ZeussusZ
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


So it all falls back to earth eventually. It cleans itself. Might just have to wait awhile.


some as little as a few years, then they say some more than a century.
im the meantime more satiates are sent up. more junk added. which means more time to wait and it's just as the op people said.
the more you send up the more that accumulates.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 08:06 PM
link   
orbital dynamics is an interesting subject, and a complex one.

Unless fuelled and making small adjustments to position, every orbit will slowly decay. This is simply because the Earths gravitational field is not perfect, low orbits are most affected by this, though the effect is extremely small. You also have stability regions which due to ratios or orbital periods and distances cause orbits to stabilize.

I read a study during my undergraduate, it was a paper were satellites with decaying orbits were observed through their decay and the time spent decaying mapped. It isn't an easily predictable affect, the object doesn't spiral in with increasing radial velocity. It will spiral down, hit a region/configuration of stability, and remain in a much more slowly decaying orbit for a while.

Now much of this is discussed in terms of circular orbits, but imagine the reality. Anything that is pushed outwards will likely NOT reach escape velocity, which means that it will take an elliptical orbit. This orbit will also not likely decay instantly. So now you have objects that are crossing orbits and altitudes.

While i think a true cascade effect is unlikely, It has a very real possibility in regions were you have a high density of objects. What is important is relative motion, most objects will have low relative motion but any collisions will cause slight deviation in the orbit of the object impacted. The extreme case is if a compressed gas bottle is ruptured, or something of a similar nature. You end up with an object that goes from being low energy, to being high energy.

Is the movie Gavlity realistic? no, not really. Could something similar happen... yes.

If you took out a large object such as a section of the international space station, with a crashed transport, or some random stray debris, You will get decompression and the situation would get bad.

For the record... the part i hate about all space movies like this is the whole freezing instantly and solid in space... no, no it just doesn't happen.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   

ErosA433
Unless fuelled and making small adjustments to position, every orbit will slowly decay. This is simply because the Earths gravitational field is not perfect, low orbits are most affected by this, though the effect is extremely small. You also have stability regions which due to ratios or orbital periods and distances cause orbits to stabilize.
How can you say that and not mention drag?

Orbit

Objects in LEO encounter atmospheric drag in the form of gases in the thermosphere (approximately 80–500 km up) or exosphere (approximately 500 km and up), depending on orbit height. LEO is an orbit around Earth between the atmosphere and below the inner Van Allen radiation belt. The altitude is usually not less than 300 km because that would be impractical due to the larger atmospheric drag.
Maybe we should compare sources because while the gravitational field isn't uniform as you suggest, I thought orbital decay was mostly due to drag; in fact I'm pretty sure of it.

Even if there's not a collision, all the space junk does cause fuel problems. I think there's something like 800 satellites and over 20.000 pieces of space junk. Every time a satellite has to burn fuel to change its orbit to avoid a collision with a piece of space junk, that's less fuel it can use to maintain its orbit which is decaying due to drag for LEO satellites, which shortens its life.



For the record... the part i hate about all space movies like this is the whole freezing instantly and solid in space... no, no it just doesn't happen.

You might not freeze instantly in space but you'd probably get dehydrated pretty quickly; the astronaut in training accidentally exposed to a vacuum felt the moisture on his tongue boiling away just before he passed out.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   

hounddoghowlie

ZeussusZ
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


So it all falls back to earth eventually. It cleans itself. Might just have to wait awhile.


some as little as a few years, then they say some more than a century.
im the meantime more satiates are sent up. more junk added. which means more time to wait and it's just as the op people said.
the more you send up the more that accumulates.


I just had more inspiration.i looked at saturn rings which could be described as a vast amount of debris orbiting thru collisions/capture,junked buicks/whatever and so forth,etc.

as you may note that debris field is in a very narrow band compared to the size of the planet.

Thus it may be assumed that even if a huge number of debris fragments did occur they would automatically settle into a narrow ring automatically.

it seems i was right after all.if you look at the RINGS OF SATURN they extend in a narrow band and the alarmists and doom mongers with their scare stories have been proved wrong again.

i think in view of this we should have a party.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   

beckybecky

hounddoghowlie

ZeussusZ
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


So it all falls back to earth eventually. It cleans itself. Might just have to wait awhile.


some as little as a few years, then they say some more than a century.
im the meantime more satiates are sent up. more junk added. which means more time to wait and it's just as the op people said.
the more you send up the more that accumulates.


I just had more inspiration.i looked at saturn rings which could be described as a vast amount of debris orbiting thru collisions/capture,junked buicks/whatever and so forth,etc.

as you may note that debris field is in a very narrow band compared to the size of the planet.

Thus it may be assumed that even if a huge number of debris fragments did occur they would automatically settle into a narrow ring automatically.

it seems i was right after all.if you look at the RINGS OF SATURN they extend in a narrow band and the alarmists and doom mongers with their scare stories have been proved wrong again.

i think in view of this we should have a party.


you right about the rings around Saturn being in a band, i don't know that i would call it a narrow band. my understanding is that is it pretty big.wide and thick. but compared to the planet i guess i could agree with you. .

but on the image that i posted, you do realize that that is suppose tho represent the whole earth, ie 360 degrees all around, the whole sphere.



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 07:40 PM
link   

beckybecky

it seems i was right after all.if you look at the RINGS OF SATURN they extend in a narrow band and the alarmists and doom mongers with their scare stories have been proved wrong again.




Ahem. Look at the debris plots of NASA, and you'll see that they don't look like the rings of Saturn. Why? It isn't the same mechanism of formation. Sorry.

Is this the same uncle who proclaimed that routers don't have fans?



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Arbitrageur
How can you say that and not mention drag?

I can't and i should have said it
good catch.



You might not freeze instantly in space but you'd probably get dehydrated pretty quickly; the astronaut in training accidentally exposed to a vacuum felt the moisture on his tongue boiling away just before he passed out.


Yeah, though that is the surface, I work with ultra-high vacuum systems, and a skin boiling effect can be very rapid, bulk however is never fast.

Point is, you can live without becoming a ice ball, explode or whatever for maybe like 10-15 seconds. Heat loss is radiative and thus very slow. Surface water will evaporate as you say, but bulk water would remain. Dehydration would the least of the problems, You would stay wet and warm for hours.

The rings of saturn are a roche limit effect, where objects inside the rings above a certain size will have the tendency to be pulled apart by gravitational stress. The natural configuration for a system like this to assume is one of a flat disk, it is the lowest energy configuration
edit on 21-2-2014 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-2-2014 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Don't mention Roche limits to Nibiru aficionados. It gets them all excited when you tell them that Nibiru can't have a near grazing orbit with Earth and either one live to tell the tale.

eta: I've heard tales of people having a vacuum pulled on them, you can end up with a ferocious full body hickey. And several of them fizzed at the eyes with the nitrogen coming out. The bends can apparently be horrific.
edit on 22-2-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
cant we create like big solar powered electromagnets, or some way to use the earths own field to help clump it all back up over time?

Like a magnetic satellite drag net.





top topics
 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join