Close Encounter: Warning of Possible Satellite Collision issued for Saturday Night
20 replies, posted
[QUOTE][IMG]http://spaceflight101.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/dmsp.png[/IMG]
Two satellites will come dangerously close to one another Saturday night and a collision can not be ruled out according to a warning issued by the Joint Space Operations Center that monitors all sizeable objects orbiting the Earth.
“The JSpOC has identified a close approach between two [B]non-maneuverable satellites[/B] in a sun-synchronous orbit (approximately 800km altitude) with a time of closest approach at 21:53:00 UTC on 7 January 2017,” the warning said. “[B]The probability of collision has been predicted as high as 44%[/B].”
Such warnings are extremely rare as close encounters of this kind do not occur frequently and active satellites typically maneuver out of harms way days or hours in advance to avoid the possibility of a collision. Without maneuvering capability, the two spacecraft involved in Saturday’s encounter have no way of avoiding the close approach.
...
[B]JSpOC did not identify the two satellites involved in Saturday’s conjunction but said the satellite operators were notified.[/B]
The publicly available SOCRATES conjunction assessment tool processes orbital data from all non-classified objects and shows a conjunction between the Transit 9 satellite and a piece of NOAA-16 debris at 21:53:54 UTC and analysis of non-public data shows possible candidate encounters between the DMSP F9 & OPS 3367A satellites and a potential head-on collision of DMSP F15 & Meteor 1-26 over Antarctica.
DMSP F15 and Meteor 1-26 appear to the the prime candidates for the encounter.
The 1,220-Kilogram DMSP F15 was launched in 1999 atop a Titan II rocket to join the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program as the first Block 5D3 satellite. Meteor 1-26 is a Soviet-era weather satellite orbited in 1976 with a launch mass around 2.2 metric tons.
Based on available orbital data, the two satellites will have a very close encounter at 21:53 UTC on Saturday, some 870 Kilometers above Antarctica. [B]If a collision occurs between these two, it will be mostly head-on – creating the highest possible relative velocity between the two objects.
[/B]...[/QUOTE]
Source: [URL]http://spaceflight101.com/close-orbital-encounter-january-7-2017/[/URL]
UPDATE:
The satellites missed each other: [url]https://twitter.com/Spaceflight101/status/817871225259249664[/url]
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome"]If you don't know why this is so dangerous.[/URL]
[QUOTE=1239the;51637536][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome"]If you don't know why this is so dangerous.[/URL][/QUOTE]
So basically, we might not be able to go to space because we our planet's orbit has too much garbage in it...
Couldn't we invest in some sort of laser that... or a shield which.... sigh...
[QUOTE=Zenreon117;51637570]Couldn't we invest in some sort of laser that... or a shield which.... sigh...[/QUOTE]
a better idea would be to stop making "non-maneuverable" satellites to prevent these sorts of rare collisions. in fact, the system to prevent these collisions should be autonomous.
Older [URL="http://spaceflight101.com/noaa-weather-satellite-suffers-in-orbit-breakup/"]article by them[/URL] when the satellite breakup was first detected.
Also, that thing will probably be traveling just shy of 7.4km/s
[QUOTE=Qaus;51637592]a better idea would be to stop making "non-maneuverable" satellites to prevent these sorts of rare collisions. in fact, the system to prevent these collisions should be autonomous.[/QUOTE]
But if the whole chain collision thing happens, then we would still need a way to clear most of that debris. Maybe nano-satellites that attach themselves and push the debris in freefall so that it burns up in the atmosphere.
[QUOTE=Qaus;51637592]a better idea would be to stop making "non-maneuverable" satellites to prevent these sorts of rare collisions. in fact, the system to prevent these collisions should be autonomous.[/QUOTE]
In a perfect world, yes.
The unfortunate fact of our present technology level is that we cannot supply satellites with an infinite amount of fuel. The ISS gets resupplied, but it is also massive.
The smaller the satellite, the less fuel it can hold (and the more impossible refueling becomes).
Until we find a reliable means of converting captured and stored amounts of solar or thermal (nuclear decay) energy into a significant amount of thrust, and an exosphere wide cloud to coordinate the satellites, it is a pipe dream.
The best solution is a moratorium on extraneous satellite launches, but that would require a planet-wide agreement on the matter.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;51637646]In a perfect world, yes.
The unfortunate fact of our present technology level is that we cannot supply satellites with an infinite amount of fuel. The ISS gets resupplied, but it is also massive.
The smaller the satellite, the less fuel it can hold (and the more impossible refueling becomes).
Until we find a reliable means of converting captured and stored amounts of solar or thermal (nuclear decay) energy into thrust, and a exosphere wide cloud to coordinate the satellites, it is a pipe dream.
The best solution is a moratorium on extraneous satellite launches, but that would require a planet-wide agreement on the matter.
We may very well be approaching the great filter. Earth becomes too inhospitable due to climate change, but the conditions of the worst-case satellite destruction scenario prevent anybody from being able to safely or reliably escape.
Our species dies out, trapped between our loss of resources and the impossibility of leaving in great enough numbers to survive anywhere else.[/QUOTE]
We can definitely leave even in the worst case scenario.
[quote]However, even a catastrophic Kessler scenario at LEO would pose minimal risk for launches continuing past LEO, or satellites traveling at medium Earth orbit (MEO) or GEO.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Qaus;51637592]a better idea would be to stop making "non-maneuverable" satellites to prevent these sorts of rare collisions. in fact, the system to prevent these collisions should be autonomous.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but one big issue with this is that satellites often use a lot of fuel for station keeping. Once at the end of their lives (or most of their fuel has been used) they are usually moved into a graveyard orbit (Usually pretty high up, like these two satellites are) Or put onto a reentry trajectory. If the satellite becomes non responsive, or doesn't have the fuel to get there, you wind up with situations like this.
Space is big, so usually it's incredibly rare for objects to ever come close to one another. It is just a little annoying that this happens because there are only so many useful orbits.
To talk science fiction, it would be super cool if the EMdrive actually turns out to work well, as a reactionless drive would allow these satellites to maneuver with impunity as long as we can still communicate with them.
Encounter happened 5 minutes ago, don't know whether they missed or not. I'll update with confirmation when I find it, but it may take a while for information to get out there.
[QUOTE=Amez;51637685]We can definitely leave even in the worst case scenario.[/QUOTE]
Oh - I learn something new every day.
I feel a bit foolish having never really researched it beyond what I have heard about it from what I consider to be 'reliable sources.'
I suppose that's what one gets when one's degree program is almost entirely focused on literature written more than a hundred years ago.
Still, it's not really an excuse for the prophetically apocalyptic post that came from some easily curable misinformation.
[QUOTE=FreakyMe;51637829]Oh - I learn something new every day.
I feel a bit foolish having never really researched it beyond what I have heard about it from what I consider to be 'reliable sources.'
I suppose that's what one gets when one's degree program is almost entirely focused on literature written more than a hundred years ago.
Still, it's not really an excuse for the prophetically apocalyptic post that came from some easily curable misinformation.[/QUOTE]
You're all good man! On a whim I was already reading the wiki article and then saw your post. The threat of satellites and their debris is still very serious though so you weren't entirely wrong or anything.
Glad this one went by without issue. But I guess it's time to add satellite collisions to my long list of stuff to worry about.
How close did the satellites get?
[QUOTE=Qaus;51637592]a better idea would be to stop making "non-maneuverable" satellites to prevent these sorts of rare collisions. in fact, the system to prevent these collisions should be autonomous.[/QUOTE]
Its actually incredibly hard to predict an orbit perfectly. Different perturbations and the fact that the Earth isn't perfectly uniform means that the orbit isn't actually perfectly elliptical and predictable. Its possible to predict where an object is but to predict where it will be after these effects in the future makes it much harder.
As said earlier some of these satellites are no longer maneuverable as well. Its not like whoever owns these satellites are looking at this going "I don't want to move, make him move", they physically can't move due to a lack of fuel or they've been disposed of and setup so they can't be contacted again.
[QUOTE=1239the;51637536][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome"]If you don't know why this is so dangerous.[/URL][/QUOTE]
the universe has been here longer than us; debris isnt dangerous
[QUOTE=sYnced;51639355]the universe has been here longer than us; debris isnt dangerous[/QUOTE]
That's like saying fire has been around longer than us and isn't dangerous. It absolutely is dangerous, but we can prevent danger if we're smart. I've always wanted Earth to have rings, but a coating of garbage tearing through ship hulls at high speed isn't exactly what i had in mind.
[QUOTE=DeVotchKa;51639549]That's like saying fire has been around longer than us and isn't dangerous. It absolutely is dangerous, but we can prevent danger if we're smart. I've always wanted Earth to have rings, but a coating of garbage tearing through ship hulls at high speed isn't exactly what i had in mind.[/QUOTE]
i agree. let me also apologize for my post because it was meant as an indirect jab at climate deniers.
[QUOTE=sYnced;51640871]i agree. let me also apologize for my post because it was meant as an indirect jab at climate deniers.[/QUOTE]
I was 100% bewildered at your first post and was halfway through a response before I saw this
poe's law, I suppose. :disappoint:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.