|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Near-misses between space station and debris on the rise
On Apr 6, 7:46*am, bob haller wrote:
Near-misses between space station and debris on the rise BY STEPHEN CLARK SPACEFLIGHT NOW Posted: April 5, 2012 Statistics show the International Space Station came under growing danger from space junk after 2007, with half of the orbiting lab's close calls since then due to near-collisions with debris from a Chinese anti-satellite missile test, the mysterious explosion of a Russian military spacecraft, and the cataclysmic high-speed crash of two satellites. The space station, assembled in orbit beginning in 1998, has fired its thrusters 14 times to avoid space debris, with half of the maneuvers coming since August 2008. If ground controllers recognize a debris threat, or conjunction, too late, they ask the station crew to take refuge inside their Soyuz escape capsules during the predicted closest approach. The lab's crew has moved into their Soyuz lifeboats three times, first in March 2009. NASA says the number of hazardous debris conjunctions per month more than tripled between 2006 and 2008. Officials blame the change on three debris-creating events: China intercepted an orbiting satellite with a ground-launched missile in January 2007. The anti-satellite test destroyed China's polar- orbiting Fengyun 1C weather satellite 530 miles above Earth, creating the largest cloud of space debris in history. More than 3,200 objects from the destroyed satellite were catalogued by the U.S. military, and only about 6 percent of the debris had re-entered the atmosphere by the end of 2011. A Russian military satellite broke apart in early 2008, spreading more than 500 fragments in low Earth orbit. The Cosmos 2421 satellite, launched in June 2006, liberated debris three times in March, April and June 2008. Analysts say 22 out of 50 similar satellites launched since 1974 have exploded in orbit. Cosmos 2421, which was designed to eavesdrop on U.S. naval vessels, was orbiting 255 miles high when it spread debris, and almost all of the satellite's fragments have re- entered the atmosphere. The Iridium 33 communications satellite and a retired Russian relay spacecraft struck each other 490 miles over Siberia. The satellites collided at a relative velocity of more than 24,000 mph, throwing more than 1,700 objects through a region of space trafficked by the International Space Station, numerous operational satellites, and more than 3,000 other catalogued objects. It was the first collision of two intact satellites. The bulk of the fragments from Cosmos 2251 and Iridium 33 satellites remain in orbit. The higher altitude break-ups of Fengyun 1C, Cosmos 2251 and Iridium 33 left long-lasting debris in orbit. It could be decades for all of the fragments to fall back to Earth and burn up in the atmosphere. NASA says increasing solar activity, which balloons the atmosphere and creates more drag, is helping rid low-altitude orbital zones of some debris. At least 48 percent of the space station's near-misses since 2007 were due to debris generated by China's anti-satellite test, Russia's Cosmos 2421 satellite, and the in-orbit collision in 2009, according to NASA data. Officials commanded four of the space station's last seven debris avoidance maneuvers to move the international complex out of the path of debris created by the three incidents. An emergency burn in August 2008 moved the space station out of the way of debris from Cosmos 2421. Another thruster firing in April 2011 altered the station's orbit to avoid a close call with a fragment from Cosmos 2251, the Russian satellite annihilated in the collision with Iridium 33. Two maneuvers in January dodged debris from Iridium 33 and Fengyun 1C, the craft destroyed in China's satellite weapons test in 2007. The last debris avoidance burn before 2008 was in May 2003. Experts credit more accurate tracking technology for the reduction in maneuvers, but the rate of near-misses picked up again in 2008 as fragments from Russian, Chinese and Iridium satellites spread around the globe. The space station's six residents most recently scurried to their Soyuz lifeboats March 24 due to the late notice of a threat from Cosmos 2251 satellite debris produced in the 2009 orbital crash. The space station is armored to protect against impacts of the tiniest debris, and officials have a good handle on the trajectories of well- known, large objects. But there is some dangerous debris too small or erratic to accurately track. U.S. Space Command, the military division which tracks objects in orbit, notifies mission control in Houston of potential threats from space junk. The Air Force keeps tabs on more than 22,000 objects in orbit, and experts believe there are hundreds of thousands more too small to be spotted from existing radars. About 1,100 of those objects are active satellites. If an object is estimated to have a greater than 1-in-10,000 chance of hitting the space station, managers will order a rocket burn to change the orbit of the 450-ton complex. But it takes time to program an avoidance maneuver, and late warnings force astronauts into their Soyuz capsules to wait out the danger. ABLs could probably vaporize some rogue/nomad items into representing less density. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Near-misses....Darpa "Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)
Op 9-4-2012 0:01, Peter Stickney schreef:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:40:00 +0200, dott.Piergiorgio wrote: Il 08/04/2012 19:15, Fred J. McCall ha scritto: It's morons like you, Navia, The Guthball, and Bobbert that have wrecked this newsgroup and driven off most of the contributing posters. These are 'sci' groups. They don't exist for mentally deficiant juveniles to blather about this and that. Posters are expected to rationally and logically support their positions with facts. When they fail to do so, people are going to point it out. When they persist in posting the same thing over and over and over again while failing to ever support it, people are likely to ridicule them. this is why warhol ought to be driven out of s.m.n. (not necessarily by hard means....) "Did you know that there are men who, for a fee, will drive you out of the country?" "Who?" "The Taxi Drivers" I'm willing to take up a collection to provide Warhole, Guth, et al an opportunity to observe in situ: 1) That rockets work in a vacuum. 2) The International Space Station in orbit. Pressurized cabins and space suits are deprecated as unnecessary costs. Millions of people know that you are wrong... Rockets CANNOT work in space Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space one of the biggest hoaxes of all time! rocket propulsion cannot work in space. you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has to push the rocket. but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the rocket/vehicle itself. can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something similar creating force in a vacuum? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhrGTSeLOLk |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Near-misses....Darpa "Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)
Op 8-4-2012 20:14, jonathan schreef:
wrote in message . .. Il 08/04/2012 19:15, Fred J. McCall ha scritto: It's morons like you, Navia, The Guthball, and Bobbert that have wrecked this newsgroup and driven off most of the contributing posters. These are 'sci' groups. They don't exist for mentally deficiant juveniles to blather about this and that. Posters are expected to rationally and logically support their positions with facts. When they fail to do so, people are going to point it out. When they persist in posting the same thing over and over and over again while failing to ever support it, people are likely to ridicule them. this is why warhol ought to be driven out of s.m.n. (not necessarily by hard means....) Warhol is really Fred McCall, which is really Allen Erstine, Fred uses multiple nics including mine now. Which is why I'm outta this space ng. yeah that too... ha ha ha... Hmmm I guess, everything is a lie. But I am the Son of the Lion... Raisuli The Magnificent. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wae_NAYlixA |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Near-misses....Darpa "Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Near-misses....Darpa "Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)
"Warhol" wrote in message ...
Millions of people know that you are wrong... You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale. BTW, the fact that there's no vacuum if anything helps. A rocket is no different than a jet engine in terms of what it does: "move lots of mass very fast in one direction, why the craft goes in the other". A jet engine doesn't work by pushing against the air behind the plane. Rockets CANNOT work in space Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space one of the biggest hoaxes of all time! rocket propulsion cannot work in space. you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has to push the rocket. but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the rocket/vehicle itself. can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something similar creating force in a vacuum? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhrGTSeLOLk -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Near-misses....Darpa "Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Near-misses....Darpa "Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)
Op 9-4-2012 6:08, Greg (Strider) Moore schreef:
"Warhol" wrote in message ... Millions of people know that you are wrong... You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale. BTW, the fact that there's no vacuum if anything helps. A rocket is no different than a jet engine in terms of what it does: "move lots of mass very fast in one direction, why the craft goes in the other". A jet engine doesn't work by pushing against the air behind the plane. Rockets CANNOT work in space Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space one of the biggest hoaxes of all time! rocket propulsion cannot work in space. you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has to push the rocket. but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the rocket/vehicle itself. can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something similar creating force in a vacuum? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhrGTSeLOLk "*move lots of mass*", in vacuum there is *no mass* to to move... does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit? ha ha ha... you come down back from you came, and faster than you went up... I hope you know the sayings that says; *What goes must come down*... no way to stay there above and the highest they ever got is 110km, the edge... thats all all all... there above in vacuum there ain't no mass to move or to push against. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIpf6Yoyq9I |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Near-misses....Darpa "Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)
Op 9-4-2012 15:50, Jeff Findley schreef:
In article1KCdneEl_5Uh_R_SnZ2dnUVZ_oydnZ2d@earthlink .com, says... "Warhol" wrote in message ... Millions of people know that you are wrong... You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale. BTW, the fact that there's no vacuum if anything helps. A rocket is no different than a jet engine in terms of what it does: "move lots of mass very fast in one direction, why the craft goes in the other". A jet engine doesn't work by pushing against the air behind the plane. Absolutely true. The "pushing against something" analogy leads people to the wrong conclusions. It's far easier, for a rocket engine, to look at the pressures acting on the combustion chamber and exhaust nozzle. When those are summed, the net result is a force in the direction of travel for the rocket. In fact, *a rocket engine works* *better* in vacuum. Jeff *prove your claims*... that must be easy for so a clever genie as you... *but you can't*... so you need something else for damage control... ha ha ha... *working better* without any evidence ha ha ha and dont start twisting words sonny jeff. the 'essay' would be no good for space travel. although would be good if you just want to rock back and forth like many do |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Near-misses....Darpa "Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)
"Warhol" wrote in message ...
Op 9-4-2012 6:08, Greg (Strider) Moore schreef: "Warhol" wrote in message ... Millions of people know that you are wrong... You may not want to advertise your ignorance on such a public scale. BTW, the fact that there's no vacuum if anything helps. A rocket is no different than a jet engine in terms of what it does: "move lots of mass very fast in one direction, why the craft goes in the other". A jet engine doesn't work by pushing against the air behind the plane. Rockets CANNOT work in space Moon Hoax - Rockets CANNOT work in space one of the biggest hoaxes of all time! rocket propulsion cannot work in space. you get tricked by being told about newtons third law and how the propellant pushes against the body so therefore (equal opposite) has to push the rocket. but newtons third law ironically proves this to be false if viewed from the other way round, the propellant cannot push against a vacuum (zero force) so in turn (equal and opposite) applies zero force to the rocket/vehicle itself. can anyone find me a video of a rocket, firecracker or something similar creating force in a vacuum? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhrGTSeLOLk "*move lots of mass*", in vacuum there is *no mass* to to move... I really should killfile you, because you obviously are an idiot. However, in the hopes you don't lead others astray... See that flame that comes out of the rocket engine? THAT is the mass you idiot. does earths gravity field suddenly stops once you break out of orbit? Let me introduce you to the concept of a strawman. Which is what you just raised. No one has made that claim. At least no one who isn't either ignorant (which can be cured) or stupid (which in your case can't be.) ha ha ha... you come down back from you came, and faster than you went up... I hope you know the sayings that says; *What goes must come down*... no way to stay there above and the highest they ever got is 110km, the edge... thats all all all... there above in vacuum there ain't no mass to move or to push against. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIpf6Yoyq9I -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
anti-space-nuke nuts rise again | Jim Oberg | Policy | 37 | October 30th 06 09:42 PM |
'Space UFO' Nuts Rise Again -- (sigh!) | OM | History | 8 | August 19th 05 12:29 AM |
Space Station Debris | Craig Fink | Space Shuttle | 8 | August 1st 05 03:38 PM |
Space Station Debris | Craig Fink | Space Station | 8 | August 1st 05 03:38 PM |
Headline News from Houston - Meteor misses Space Station | Craig Fink | Space Station | 10 | January 18th 05 01:40 AM |