Is ISS at risk?

On Jan 27, 9:49*am, bob haller wrote:
On Jan 26, 8:53*am, Jeff Findley wrote:





In article 926a3ec7-3fa2-42a8-965a-
, says...

On Jan 25, 9:53*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 01c58d8c-d064-4614-8386-
, says...

doesnt matter for people who control sats for a living they could
damage or destroy ISS if they wish...

You're completely wrong.

Based on your statements related to orbital mechanics, you have little
to no knowledge of how orbital mechanics works. *Furthermore, it's been
pointed out to you, by multiple people who *do* have the required domain
knowledge, that ramming a satellite into ISS would actually be extremely
difficult to impossible.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker

even a near miss would change space similiar to 9 11 changes.

Possibly, but it's still going to be much harder than you think.

In the past, satellites have been lost due to incorrect commands being
sent to them. *The fix for that is to have all uploaded commands
reviewed by a second set of eyes review it (and run it through test
simulations to verify what the commands will do) before actually
uploading commands to the satellite. *These same procedures would stop
what you think is "easy".

Heck, I work at a software company and I can't even put a single line of
code into our product without the approval of others. *Direct hacking of
files is not possible because everything is under source code control.
Changes have to follow a very specific set of procedures in order to
make it into the source code database. *On top of that, corrupting a
file in a catastrophic way would very likely NOT pass our automated and
interactive testing procedures. *Nothing is released to customers (i.e.
the satellite in your scenario) without passing testing.

you claim it would be hard.. but given the amount of space junk in
orbit its more likely a piece of junk will take out or cripple ISS.
terrorists woudnt be needed.

Different topic. *Avoidance noted.

just launch a sat with a small explosive charge with ball bearings
straight up just before ISS is due to pass that area.

Different topic. *Avoidance noted.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
* up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
* *- tinker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

probably easier for foreigners to hack a virus into ISS commanding it
to tumble somed night at 3am......

a violent uncontrolled tumble.

or send faulty commands to a resupply vehicle....

or well the list in endless- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

and do note my is ISS at risk topic was just a day before the news
about a protector sat became public. see the other thread.

In article fa20bf9a-f8e8-4bf5-ab38-
, says...

probably easier for foreigners to hack a virus into ISS commanding it
to tumble somed night at 3am......

a violent uncontrolled tumble.

or send faulty commands to a resupply vehicle....

or well the list in endless

You must not have read my posting which talked about how strict source
control and testing is at my company. I know for a fact that NASA is
much more strict. What you're proposing simply can't happen.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker