Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Satellite Destroyed in Space Collision
Space.com ^ | 11 February 2009 | Becky Iannotta and Tariq Malik

Posted on 02/12/2009 5:40:00 AM PST by Freeport

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last
To: ETL
The fact that the collision occurred over Siberia also makes this suspicious.

The location is not at all suspicious -- it's a simple matter of orbital mechanics.

These were two polar-orbiting satellites in different planes: it's precisely where you'd expect a collision to occur. (Or, equivalently, over Antarctica.)

61 posted on 02/12/2009 7:55:08 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY
14,000 was the figure before the Chinese tested their antisatellite capability by blowing up one of their satellites a year or so ago. The total now is estimated to be above 22,000

This was the subject of a show on Discovery or History channel within the last week. Very informative show for the Boob Tube. This will make another big jump in the amount of space junk that jeopardizes every other thing in orbit.

62 posted on 02/12/2009 8:02:39 AM PST by McGruff (Oh no, there goes Tokyo! Go go PORKZILLA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Freeport

Andromeda Strain?


63 posted on 02/12/2009 8:06:40 AM PST by jetson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
The state of technology has little to do with it. The Russian philosophy has always been "good enough to get the job done, and not much more."

That'll work for chucking stuff into orbit. It still won't give them a state-of-the-art, secure, redundant, efficient space-based military communications system, for example.

Or maybe they could do it, what do I know? I still don't think this was intentional on the part of the Russians. A chain reaction of space debris collisions would be a disaster for them and us and everybody else who has equipment up there.

They are not our bestest buddies, but neither are the suicidal psychos like the muzzies.

64 posted on 02/12/2009 8:06:57 AM PST by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: dead
It still won't give them a state-of-the-art, secure, redundant, efficient space-based military communications system, for example.

Well... now you're getting into design goals rather than capabilities.

We Americans tend to build seriously high-end hardware that works splendidly, albeit at extremely high cost. The question is whether that's the only way to get the job done -- and the Russians showed that you can get the same basic services using low-end, less capable hardware. Their capabilities aren't anywhere close to ours, but it's good enough for them.

As for redundant .... well, the prize there goes to the country that can replace failed satellites most easily. The US satellite industry is rather ineffective these days, especially for military programs -- cost, schedule, and technology issues have been a very serious problem for the DoD. The Russians might be in the same boat ... the Chinese may have the upper hand there.

65 posted on 02/12/2009 8:15:38 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Well, of course with enough time a monkey would randomly fix the broken typewriter, change the ink ribbons, and create more monkeys to do the same.

And thus, Microsoft Windows ME was created. (smile)

66 posted on 02/12/2009 8:31:41 AM PST by Jonah Hex ("Never underestimate the hungover side of the Force.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
The location is not at all suspicious -- it's a simple matter of orbital mechanics.

Of course it is *IF* the Russians were somehow able to lower or raise their satellite's orbit. They *may* have selected this particular satellite (COSMOS 2215) precisely because its orbit could potentially intersect with the U.S. (Iridium) satellite's over Siberia where they could more easily monitor a collision (if the altitude was 'adjusted' just right). However, based on an excerpt I followed up with from the Space.com article, the Russian satellite was apparently 'non-maneuverable'. But I don't buy that quite yet.

67 posted on 02/12/2009 8:35:42 AM PST by ETL (Smoking gun evidence on ALL the ObamaRat-commie connections at my newly revised FR Home/About page)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: ETL
Of course it is *IF* the Russians were somehow able to lower or raise their satellite's orbit.

Which they apparently could not.

You're making this way too complicated. An accidental collision is a far more plausible explanation for what happened.

68 posted on 02/12/2009 8:52:42 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Freeport

“Someone in the observation community dropped the ball on this one.”

Likely true, unless the orbit of the Russian bird was maneuvered fairly quickly to intercept the Iridium satellite.


69 posted on 02/12/2009 8:55:02 AM PST by EEDUDE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
You're making this way too complicated. An accidental collision is a far more plausible explanation for what happened.

We're dealing with the Russians here. No scenario is too complicated. They are masters at the game of chess. Most of us, unfortunately, have difficulty understanding checkers.

70 posted on 02/12/2009 9:09:42 AM PST by ETL (Smoking gun evidence on ALL the ObamaRat-commie connections at my newly revised FR Home/About page)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: TChris

“...which is demonstrably false.”

OK. Demonstrate it to me. I’ll supply the monkey and the typewriter. Get back to me when you are finished! ;)


71 posted on 02/12/2009 9:12:50 AM PST by EEDUDE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ETL
We're dealing with the Russians here. No scenario is too complicated. They are masters at the game of chess. Most of us, unfortunately, have difficulty understanding checkers.

And some of us are apparently unwilling to accept the most plausible explanation. It was bound to happen at some point -- and now it has happened.

72 posted on 02/12/2009 9:16:17 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: BlueMondaySkipper
No, it's an analogy that you are taking literally and it is perfectly true. An infinite iteration of chance would indeed accomplish this.

But that's just the problem. The analogy fails precisely because it must be taken literally.

"Infinite time" analogies are prima facia false, because no real, man-made object remains unchanged and functional to infinity.

The typewriters break down. The monkeys die. The paper runs out. The ink dries up.

In the real world, the 2nd law of thermodynamics trumps the "infinite time" fantasies and stops them in their tracks.

Can you honestly claim that given two objects, sent flying in opposite directions within the emptiness of space, would eventually hit each other, given engouh time? It's just false. It would never, EVER happen. Even with infinite time.

Why? Because time is not the only variable involved, when you're talking about reality. Said objects would not collide, because they would hit something else first, or they would lose their momentum.

There are many imaginary events which could never, ever occur in reality, regardless of the amount of time thrown at them. Other variables preclude them.

73 posted on 02/12/2009 9:18:15 AM PST by TChris (So many useful idiots...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: EEDUDE
OK. Demonstrate it to me. I’ll supply the monkey and the typewriter. Get back to me when you are finished! ;)

Yeah, I'll get right on it. :-)

74 posted on 02/12/2009 9:19:50 AM PST by TChris (So many useful idiots...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Valance

75 posted on 02/12/2009 9:26:14 AM PST by Cooter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TChris
OK, so if an infinite number of monkeys started posting on a Free Republic thread, would they still threadjack it?

;-)

76 posted on 02/12/2009 9:26:18 AM PST by Jonah Hex ("Never underestimate the hungover side of the Force.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: TChris

But if you had an infinite number objects sent into an infinite number of directions in space, two of them would most definately collide over time.


77 posted on 02/12/2009 9:27:55 AM PST by BlueMondaySkipper (Involuntarily subsidizing the parasite class since 1981)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Jonah Hex
Does the theory work with dogs?


78 posted on 02/12/2009 9:28:46 AM PST by ETL (Smoking gun evidence on ALL the ObamaRat-commie connections at my newly revised FR Home/About page)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Jonah Hex
OK, so if an infinite number of monkeys started posting on a Free Republic thread, would they still threadjack it?

Oh, it only takes one. It was my turn. :-P

79 posted on 02/12/2009 9:30:41 AM PST by TChris (So many useful idiots...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: EEDUDE
Likely true, unless the orbit of the Russian bird was maneuvered fairly quickly to intercept the Iridium satellite.

Given the Russian bird had been orbiting for some 15.6 years, that's impressive durability for those thrusters and their control system.

80 posted on 02/12/2009 9:31:16 AM PST by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson