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

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 03:53 PM
link   

hounddoghowlie

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.


Over geological times they will coalesce and form junk rings around planet earth.

that picture was 2 d .....a 3 d picture would reveal asymmetry.

you do realize that the poles are relatively free?




posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   

beckybecky
you do realize that the poles are relatively free?


Because they don't launch satellites into orbit around the poles.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 


You can attach a drag tether to them and deorbit them that way but doing it would be a bear, unless they were designed that way from the beginning.
edit on 22-2-2014 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Zaphod58

beckybecky
you do realize that the poles are relatively free?


Because they don't launch satellites into orbit around the poles.


I am afraid you are wrong again as here is list of polar orbiting satellites.

look in to my eyes at the left.


A low altitude polar orbit is widely used for monitoring the Earth because each day, as the Earth rotates below it, the entire surface is covered. Typically, a satellite in such an orbit moves in a near-circle about 1000 km (600 miles) above ground (some go lower but don't last as long, because of air friction) and each orbit takes about 100 minutes. Many spacecraft use such orbits, e.g. the US Air Force surveillance satellites of the DMSP series, or the series of French Earth-resources spacecraft SPOT.



www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov...





The POES satellite system offers the advantage of daily global coverage, by making nearly polar orbits 14 times per day approximately 520 miles above the surface of the Earth. The Earth's rotation allows the satellite to see a different view with each orbit, and each satellite provides two complete views of weather around the world each day. NOAA partners with the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT) to constantly operate two polar-orbiting satellites – one POES and one European polar-orbiting satellite called Metop.

www.ospo.noaa.gov...

edit on 22-2-2014 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by beckybecky
 


I'm afraid you're wrong again. I said they don't orbit around the poles. There are no satellites in orbit over either pole. Polar orbit means that they pass over the pole, not that they are orbiting the pole.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 05:31 PM
link   

beckybecky
Over geological times they will coalesce and form junk rings around planet earth.


How? What's the physical mechanism for changing the angular momentum?



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   

beckybecky
I am afraid you are wrong again as here is list of polar orbiting satellites.

look in to my eyes at the left.


Ah, Becky Becky Becky Becky, I'm afraid what I see in those eyes is the sudden dawning realization that you and your uncle are wrong.

Because, if as you say there are satellites in polar orbits, they can easily be at the same height and velocity as other objects, yet collide with great force.

And you haven't even considered retrograde orbiting satellites. Alas.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 08:24 PM
link   
vacuum would not be nice, haha that is for sure. All the accounts iv read are nowhere near the brutal eye/body explosions that are shown in the media. The process would be painful and likely kill you should you be exposed for a period of time, but it isn't the graphic death that has been shown by the media for years.

The guy with the hole in the head in Gravity for example would likely be floating with blood still maybe wet. he would not be the frozen mummified body that the movie shows. Same goes for the crew of the shuttle.

ANYWAY

The points here are correct, satellites orbit in a large range of altitudes, some are geo-stationary, others are not. Some have polar crossing orbits. While the physical distance between satellites is indeed large, the statement said that it is easier to his something with a shot gun than a rifle holds true. You would need extraordinary bad luck, but the scenario is not impossible.

I am not sure what the process of forming a ring is called, though in general systems do want to attain the lowest energy configuration, for a spinning object, a flat disk is such a configuration. Angular momentum must be conserved as you say, I am also not entirely sure without doing some roche limit calculations for the Earth along with knowledge of where the satellites are mainly in relation to it, of how some of this would play out. The time scales for the formation of a disk however is a long one.

I can imagine it as similar to a process of spinning glass windows back in days of old. Take a blob of molten glass, it is approximately a blob. You spin it and it flattens into a disk. This is not directly applicable to the above because the glass is a physically connected system via amorphous structure, for a dust of debris, the only connection is gravity, and such any process similar to this has to be very slow.



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 06:36 AM
link   

beckybecky
Over geological times they will coalesce and form junk rings around planet earth.


mbkennel
How? What's the physical mechanism for changing the angular momentum?
Gravitational attraction, the same force that formed the natural ring systems on the gas giants in our solar system, would tend to make this happen. You don't get a change in angular momentum unless you have a collision which can create debris, but since that's part of what this thread is about, collisions could happen. The ring forming effect tends to flatten the orbits into a flat disk without changing the angular momentum in the absence of collisions. There is already a ring at geostationary altitude as seen here:

orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov...


The ring will spread out partly as a result of the 2002 US regulation requiring geostationary and geosynchronous satellites to get a roughly 300km altitude boost at the end of their life, which doesn't always happen.

With the vast majority of space junk in "Low Earth Orbit" (at least it looks that way on the space junk maps), LEO satellites will enter the Earth's atmosphere before rings form.

If there are enough geosynchronous and geostationary satellites boosted 250-400 km at the end of their life into graveyard orbits, and I suspect there will be, it might be possible for a ring system to form from those dead satellites, even more defined than the ring system already seen.


ErosA433
vacuum would not be nice, haha that is for sure. All the accounts iv read are nowhere near the brutal eye/body explosions that are shown in the media. The process would be painful and likely kill you should you be exposed for a period of time, but it isn't the graphic death that has been shown by the media for years.
I used to think the "Total Recall" scene on Mars, which has 1% of Earth's atmosphere, was pretty fake, but if it had been a total vacuum it might not be as far off as I thought after reading this pretty good source about vacuum effects:

Human Exposure to the Vacuum of Space

research, conducted during the 1950s and 1960s, concluded that a human exposed to a vacuum will remain conscious for ten to fifteen seconds and can survive for up to 90 seconds with relatively minor and reversible side effects. The exact limits are unknown, but death is believed to be unavoidable after two to four minutes of exposure. Contrary to depictions in many other popular movies, a person exposed to the vacuum of space does not instantly pass out or freeze to death, the body does not explode, and blood does not boil.

...Shortly after losing consciousness, the body will experience paralysis followed by convulsions and finally paralysis again. Water vapor also begins forming in soft tissue causing the body to swell, perhaps to as much as twice its normal volume if not constrained by a suit. Over the next 30 to 60 seconds, heart rate slows, blood pressure drops, and blood circulation stops. Gases and water vapor rapidly escape through the mouth and nose causing these parts of the body to drop to near freezing temperatures. The rest of the body cools more slowly.
Dramatics aside, the "twice its normal volume if not constrained by a suit" is probably about how much the bodies swelled up when exposed to Mars atmosphere in "Total Recall", from the formation of water vapor in tissues containing water.

Apparently this was Joe Kittinger's experience with his hand:


Another brush with low pressure occurred in 1960 when Joe Kittinger made his record-breaking skydive from an altitude of over 100,000 ft (30,480 m). The right hand of Kittinger's suit sprung a leak while he was ascending in a balloon resulting in a painful swelling in his hand. Kittinger later said that his hand had swollen to twice its normal size and was completely useless. Despite the stiffness and loss of circulation, however, Kittinger continued his flight and his hand had returned to normal about three hours after landing back on the ground.



ErosA433
I am also not entirely sure without doing some roche limit calculations for the Earth along with knowledge of where the satellites are mainly in relation to it, of how some of this would play out. The time scales for the formation of a disk however is a long one.
I'm not sure where you're going with the Roche limit calculations, but if you look at Saturn there's just a gap in the rings at Saturn's Roche limit. There are plenty of rings both "above" and "below" the Roche limit/Roche gap of Saturn (Here are David Darling's Roche limit figures for Earth, Saturn, etc: www.daviddarling.info... ) The Roche limit for Earth given by Darling is roughly half the altitude for geostationary orbit.
edit on 23-2-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I was just idly thinking about the limit because of how it causes instability in holding an object together as a single piece. Thinking perhaps that items can tend to be centred around the equator. That an object close to the limit or inside the limit would naturally want to be centred, but i am not sure if that idea is even correct.

The examples of high vacuum are always quite interesting. The dynamics of these are a bit different however as even in LEO the general atmosphere is orders of magnitude less than a vacuum chamber.
Swelling would be pretty bad that is for sure, quite drastic that would occur over minutes, rather than instant popcorn like affect. That said the dynamics and behaviour of objects in hard vacuum are not portrayed correctly in movies as your descriptions support


From my one experience with high vacuum systems, things become thermally limited below a pressure of about 0.1 mbar, meaning that most things freeze out and sublime away. By freeze though i don't mean ice crystal freeze, or temperature change freeze, but just that the molecules stick to surfaces and only leave surfaces when they randomly thermally eject from the surface. The rate depends upon the material the temperature and the surface area.
It is likely that that causes the pooling of volatiles at the skin surface.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 05:32 AM
link   
I was always under the impression that space debris was a major risk due to it being a bit of an unknown (due to sizes, etc).

However, in a completely unrelated coincidence i have been reading an article in my local paper this morning about RAF Fylingdales in North Yorkshire (RADAR tracking station and part of ECHELON system). It is basically a bit of a glimpse into life in the base.......

Anyhow, the reason i bring it up is because they discuss how they also track upto 16'000 items of space debris there and the sizes of things they track is just incredible, including a pair of pliers and a glove from the first US space walk (yep, the glove is still whizzing around Earth's orbit). What really struck me was the power of those tracking stations to be able to pick up a glove in near Orbit - makes you wonder how they miss those random asteroids!

Article below for any that fancy a perusal.......

www.yorkpress.co.uk..." target="_blank" class="postlink">We have never knowingly detected a UFO



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Flavian

Because they track NEAR earth orbit. They can't see past a certain point.





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join