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.

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

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

In article ,
says...

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
I wonder how long it will be before the station gets some real damage?

is it still true the station requires a atmosphere to cool station
keeping equiptement. when the station was new there was discussions a
depressurization could result in loss of control;. if a atmosphere
leak occurred. no atmosphere control devices would overheat and shut
down.

is that still the case today?

The technology needed for missile defense should be very similar
to that needed for orbital space debris removal systems.
Hmm, let's see what I can google.....

Actually, no. The typical way that a missile defense system works is by
impacting the incoming warhead at very high speeds. This approach would
create more, admittedly smaller, bits of debris if it were applied to
"orbital debris removal". Since it could only target objects which can
be tracked (bigger than 1 cm), it would actually create more debris
which would be smaller and therefore untrackable. Since debris smaller
than 1cm can actually do great damage to orbiting satellites, this is
NOT a valid way to remove debris.

NASA, DARPA Host Space Junk
Wake-Up Call

"There are some 300,000 objects larger than one centimeter
and they are all moving at hyper-velocity. The only way to
address this huge population is with laser technology,
Campbell noted.Orbital debris removal is a complex
problem, one that will require an umbrella of technologies
to do a complete solution, he stated."

"Anything that can go up and grab a piece of debris and
bring it down well, it can also grab somebody's operational
satellite and bring it down. Thats a space weapon,
he cautioned."
http://www.space.com/7644-nasa-darpa...wake-call.html

Note that such "debris removal" methods have NOT yet been developed.
Since there are unknowns involved, it's hard to say with certainty how
effective such methods would be at the task "grab somebody's operational
satellite and bring it down".

Darpa is looking into the issue with this solicitation a couple
of years ago for possible technologies for a system.

DARPA Orbital Debris Removal (ODR)
Solicitation Number: DARPA-SN-09-68

"Information is sought from all potential sources, domestic
and foreign, on innovative technological solutions that will
enable the Government to provide orbital debris removal
capabilities"
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportun...f2068d2b300b5f

DARPA looks at lots of "far out" technologies. If, and only if, they've
developed them into operational systems can we evaluate what they're
actually good for.

Here's one response...

"Responded to DARPA Orbital Debris Removal (ODR) Request
for Information (DARPA-SN-09-68). PA&S developed and
submitted a concept for a Pneumatic Impingement Stabilization
of Unstable space debris for Orbital Debris Removal System
(ODRS). The PA&S ODRS is designed to stabilize larger
Orbital Debris by apply precisely targeted jets of highly energetic
gasses [pneumatic (gas) impingement] from an external source.
http://pouloscorp.com/news/darpa-orb...ebris-removal/

In other words, a research topic, not an operational system.

Here's a nicely detailed paper on space debris removal, it's a bit
dated, but according to this research....

"An elegant, cost effective, and feasible approach is to use laser
technology to solve this problem. It is estimated that a single.
Ground- based laser facility that costs about $100 million and
that operated near the equator could remove all orbital debris
up to an altitude of 800 km in two years Since satellites typically
cost several hundred million and given the half billion price tags
on shuttle and Titan launchers, this investment is relatively small
given the potential losses of rockets "
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat20.pdf

Again, yet another research topic, not an operational system.

And here's the brand new ground based laser facility....

Starfire Optical Range
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfire_Optical_Range


Here's the space based sensor for space debris

"The Space Development and Test Wing from Kirtland AFB, NM
successfully launched the second-ever mission of the Minotaur IV
launch vehicle."

"The payload for the launch was the Space Based Space Surveillance
(SBSS) spacecraft, a revolutionary technology which will usher in
a new era in space situational awareness. The SBSS space vehicle,
developed by Boeing and Ball Aerospace, uses an 11.8-inch telescope
mounted on a highly agile, two-axis gimbal to provide data needed
to keep better tabs on space debris and guard against accidental
collisions."
http://www.kirtland.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123224585

That's an observation system, not a debris removal system, nor an anti-
missile system. It therefore has nothing to do with your baseless
assertion that "technology needed for missile defense should be very
similar to that needed for orbital space debris removal system".

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

In article ,
says...

"Jonathan" wrote:


The technology needed for missile defense should be very similar
to that needed for orbital space debris removal systems.


No. The two things are very different. In fact, it is missile
defense tests that can be one of the CAUSES of orbital space debris.

Agreed, at least for today's missile defense systems.

Hmm, let's see what I can google.....


unrelated Googlespew elided

Jonathan Googled a lot of stuff about possible future technologies, some
of which *might* not cause additional debris to be created. Still, I
agree that it was largely Googlespew which does not support his original
assertion.

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

"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

In article ,
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
--
" 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

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

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

"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