Satellites Collide Over Siberia

[FSTargetDrone]

Smashy-smashy:

2 big satellites collide 500 miles over Siberia

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. – Two big communications satellites collided in the first-ever crash of two intact spacecraft in orbit, shooting out a pair of massive debris clouds and posing a slight risk to the international space station.

NASA said it will take weeks to determine the full magnitude of the crash, which occurred nearly 500 miles over Siberia on Tuesday.

"We knew this was going to happen eventually," said Mark Matney, an orbital debris scientist at Johnson Space Center in Houston.

NASA believes any risk to the space station and its three astronauts is low. It orbits about 270 miles below the collision course. There also should be no danger to the space shuttle set to launch with seven astronauts on Feb. 22, officials said, but that will be re-evaluated in the coming days.

The collision involved an Iridium commercial satellite, which was launched in 1997, and a Russian satellite launched in 1993 and believed to be nonfunctioning. The Russian satellite was out of control, Matney said.

The Iridium craft weighed 1,235 pounds, and the Russian craft nearly a ton.

No one has any idea yet how many pieces were generated or how big they might be.

"Right now, they're definitely counting dozens," Matney said. "I would suspect that they'll be counting hundreds when the counting is done."

As for pieces the size of micrometers, the count will likely be in the thousands, he added.

There have been four other cases in which space objects have collided accidentally in orbit, NASA said. But those were considered minor and involved parts of spent rockets or small satellites.

Nicholas Johnson, an orbital debris expert at the Houston space center, said the risk of damage from Tuesday's collision is greater for the Hubble Space Telescope and Earth-observing satellites, which are in higher orbit and nearer the debris field.

At the beginning of this year there were roughly 17,000 pieces of manmade debris orbiting Earth, Johnson said. The items, at least 4 inches in size, are being tracked by the U.S. Space Surveillance Network, which is operated by the military. The network detected the two debris clouds created Tuesday.

Litter in orbit has increased in recent years, in part because of the deliberate breakups of old satellites. It's gotten so bad that orbital debris is now the biggest threat to a space shuttle in flight, surpassing the dangers of liftoff and return to Earth. NASA is in regular touch with the Space Surveillance Network, to keep the space station a safe distance from any encroaching objects, and shuttles, too, when they're flying.

"The collisions are going to be becoming more and more important in the coming decades," Matney said.

Iridium Holdings LLC has a system of 65 active satellites which relay calls from portable phones that are about twice the size of a regular mobile phone. It has more than 300,000 subscribers. The U.S. Department of Defense is one of its largest customers.

The company has spare satellites, and it is unclear whether the collision caused an outage. An Iridium spokeswoman had no immediate comment.

Initially launched by Motorola Inc. in the 1990s, Iridium plunged into bankruptcy in 1999. Private investors relaunched service in 2001.

Iridium satellites are unusual because their orbit is so low and they move so fast. Most communications satellites are in much higher orbits and don't move relative to each other, which means collisions are rare.

Iridium Holdings LLC, is owned by New York-based investment firm Greenhill & Co. through a subsidiary, GHL Acquisition Corp., which is listed on the American Stock Exchange. The shares closed Wednesday down 3 cents at $9.28.

___

AP science writer Seth Borenstein in Washington and AP technology writer Peter Svensson in New York contributed to this report.

[fnord]

Wouldn't the Iridium sat's low orbit mean the debris is low enough to quickly enter the atmosphere and thus not be a long term problem?

[Scottish Ninja]

As the amount of orbital debris increases, it makes me wonder how to deal with it. What are some potential options for actually clearing some of this junk out of orbit, and how feasible are they? I imagine that there's no simple and cheap proposals to look at, otherwise we might have done something about it before now. But what could we be looking at having to do in the future, when continued space launches have only exacerbated the problem?

[FSTargetDrone]

Can anyone speak of the responsibility these companies/countries/other entities in question may have with respect to seeing that their satellites aren't a danger to others? Or is it more a sense of, "once it's up there, you don't really have to worry about getting it down again"? Assuming there isn't a technical issue with malfunction thrusters, etc., is it feasible to regularly de-orbit useless satellites in such a way that they burn up? Or can some part of the satellite survive, causing potential problems on the ground?

[Akkleptos]

As the amount of orbital debris increases, it makes me wonder how to deal with it. What are some potential options for actually clearing some of this junk out of orbit, and how feasible are they? I imagine that there's no simple and cheap proposals to look at, otherwise we might have done something about it before now. But what could we be looking at having to do in the future, when continued space launches have only exacerbated the problem?

Maybe it's just me being hysterical, but what is even more worrisome, IMHO, is that we're nowhere near a Kessler Syndrome scenario, it is telling of how big the problem can get if something isn't done to prevent it, and -if it does get much worse- how it could affect the future of satellites and even space exploration. Which prompts the question: how much worse does it have to get to bring about a Kessler Syndrome situation?

The Kessler Syndrome, according to Wikipedia:

The Kessler Syndrome is a scenario, proposed by NASA consultant Donald J. Kessler, in which the volume of space debris in Low Earth Orbit is so high that objects in orbit are frequently struck by debris, creating even more debris and a greater risk of further impacts. The implication of this scenario is that the escalating amount of debris in orbit could eventually render space exploration, and even the use of satellites, too prone to loss to be feasible for many generations.

There's a scary image here.

[Sky Captain]

As the amount of orbital debris increases, it makes me wonder how to deal with it. What are some potential options for actually clearing some of this junk out of orbit, and how feasible are they? I imagine that there's no simple and cheap proposals to look at, otherwise we might have done something about it before now. But what could we be looking at having to do in the future, when continued space launches have only exacerbated the problem?

I have heard proposals to use very powerful ground based laser to vaporize those peaces of junk that threaten operational satellites or manned spacecraft. However I can imagine various political problems with development of such system because it would also give ability to destroy operational satellites of potential enemy country.

Anyway accidental collision between two satellites seems really fluke accident given how unlikely is that both satellites happened to be at the same time where their orbits intersected.

[Sea Skimmer]

The real problem is simply that dangerous pieces of debris can easily be too small to track by any means from the ground. Even with space based sensors, you might not notice everything. If you can't see it, you can't vaporize it. Several nations do already have lasers, abet chemical ones, powerful enough for the job, and which have already been life fire tested against spacecraft like the USN’s MIRACL.

[TheLostVikings]

The real problem is simply that dangerous pieces of debris can easily be too small to track by any means from the ground. Even with space based sensors, you might not notice everything. If you can't see it, you can't vaporize it. Several nations do already have lasers, abet chemical ones, powerful enough for the job, and which have already been life fire tested against spacecraft like the USN’s MIRACL.

And if we do reach kessler syndrome conditions any space based sensors will most likely be overwhelmed by micrometeorite impacts and don't last long, then themselves turn into even more debris, only making the problem worse.

[Phantasee]

How hard would it be to make a 'space-dozer'? Just a huge satellite with maybe a plow type thing on the front/back, and it just pushes debris down towards earth as it goes through it's orbits? That way the stuff would burn up in the atmosphere.

[General Zod]

How hard would it be to make a 'space-dozer'? Just a huge satellite with maybe a plow type thing on the front/back, and it just pushes debris down towards earth as it goes through it's orbits? That way the stuff would burn up in the atmosphere.

With current fuel constraints? HAHAHAHAHA. Ahem. Not terribly likely.

[Sarevok]

How hard would it be to make a 'space-dozer'? Just a huge satellite with maybe a plow type thing on the front/back, and it just pushes debris down towards earth as it goes through it's orbits? That way the stuff would burn up in the atmosphere.

Watch cartoons too much ?

Space is big. By the time your space plow thingy actually strikes something worthwhile satellites would have gigaton shielding, turbolasers and hyper drives.

[General Zod]

Not necessarily. A foam balloon might be able to do the job. Take a small, lightweight container with some chemicals inside like the ones used to fill holes in walls or archery targets. Launch that up on the rocket and once it is up there, inflate it and trigger those reactions so it gets up to size.

Then let the debris collide with it and be safely caught up in the foam until it falls.

I haven't done the math, but nothing about that should be terribly expensive (relative to current space flight in general); remember inflatable space stations are being designed too and they aren't considered infeasible. I also haven't calculated if such a thing would actually serve to capture debris. I'm not really qualified to calculate it either.

How much distance do you think there is between debris fragments for it to cover, and how would it track where to go? Even the shuttle isn't equipped to travel very far outside of its projected course when it launches. I can't help but imagine something like this being incredibly fuel intensive even with the best available tracking equipment.

[Sky Captain]

The real problem is simply that dangerous pieces of debris can easily be too small to track by any means from the ground. Even with space based sensors, you might not notice everything. If you can't see it, you can't vaporize it. Several nations do already have lasers, abet chemical ones, powerful enough for the job, and which have already been life fire tested against spacecraft like the USN’s MIRACL.

Does`t the US already have a giant radar set (I mean that big one mounted on a modified floating oil rig) capable of tracking peaces of junk smaller than one centimeter in size at over 1000 km distance.

[erik_t]

The real problem is simply that dangerous pieces of debris can easily be too small to track by any means from the ground. Even with space based sensors, you might not notice everything. If you can't see it, you can't vaporize it. Several nations do already have lasers, abet chemical ones, powerful enough for the job, and which have already been life fire tested against spacecraft like the USN’s MIRACL.

Does`t the US already have a giant radar set (I mean that big one mounted on a modified floating oil rig) capable of tracking peaces of junk smaller than one centimeter in size at over 1000 km distance.

Lethal debris could be much smaller than 1cm. NASA considers a 2mm object potentially lethal. A smaller object, hitting in the wrong spot, could probably do the same if you're having a real bad Monday.

[Phantasee]

Well, there's not much you can do about the tiny pieces, but that's not a reason to ignore the problems with the larger pieces.

And Destructionator got what I was saying, it wouldn't bulldoze it's way across the sky, it'd just be in an orbit that set it to collide with as much debris as it could on every go around. I was thinking of putting something big and hard on the front to help it push stuff down, so it could keep going around, but his idea of a foam ball that just sticks to debris is probably a better idea.

[General Zod]

Well, there's not much you can do about the tiny pieces, but that's not a reason to ignore the problems with the larger pieces.

And Destructionator got what I was saying, it wouldn't bulldoze it's way across the sky, it'd just be in an orbit that set it to collide with as much debris as it could on every go around. I was thinking of putting something big and hard on the front to help it push stuff down, so it could keep going around, but his idea of a foam ball that just sticks to debris is probably a better idea.

The problem is that it's not going to be so useful if the debris is scattered about different orbital paths (most likely). You still have to worry about fuel consumption to navigate to the paths in order to intercept the debris in the first place, and every last drop counts for space work.

[Kanastrous]

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. – Two big communications satellites collided in the first-ever crash of two intact spacecraft in orbit,

*ahem*

[FSTargetDrone]

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. – Two big communications satellites collided in the first-ever crash of two intact spacecraft in orbit,

*ahem*

Hm, yes, well, looks like the writer of the article at the top will need to amend that to "first unintentional crash of two intact spacecraft resulting in their mutual destruction."

[TheLostVikings]

Both the "dozer" and "balloon" concepts presented here are not really even remotely realistic imho, space is just way to big for any of that to be feasible. Also, many of the micrometeorites are essentially just specs of paint, just colliding with your baloondozer would probably knock of part of the surface to make more micrometeorites anyhow.

Something that I've seen proposed earlier is a cleaning satellite essentially consisting of a decent sized laser powered by solar panels and sitting in relatively high orbit. As a piece of debris passes below it start vaporising the top of it, the hot gases venting upwards causing the debris to gradually move to a lower orbit.

Make it a wavelength that's mostly absorbed by the atmosphere to reduce the cries of "death ray in orbit!", and remove the risk of hitting planes by accident, and I can see it working easily.

Doesn't need to be all that powerful of a laser either, just need enough power in it's capacitors to be able to vaporise a tiny amount of metal, essentially pinpricking the debris with hundreds of successive blasts until they eventually get low enough that aerobraking takes over and they burn up in the atmosphere.

[Kanastrous]

Make it a wavelength that's mostly absorbed by the atmosphere to reduce the cries of "death ray in orbit!",

Or make the laser tunable so that you can have a death ray in orbit, just on the off chance you should need one.

[Sarevok]

Why put a laser into a satellite instead of using ground units that already have come a long way in zapping things in space ? Is it even possible to put a laser capable of vaporizing other satellites into a package small enough to be launched and cheap enough not to bankrupt several smaller nations ?

[TheLostVikings]

Why put a laser into a satellite instead of using ground units that already have come a long way in zapping things in space ? Is it even possible to put a laser capable of vaporizing other satellites into a package small enough to be launched and cheap enough not to bankrupt several smaller nations ?

You don't need a laser capable of "vaporizing other satellites," just being able to vaporise their paint, and the upper few millimeters of outer skin/wipple shields would be more than enough to gradually nudge them into lower and lower orbits.

A ground based laser would vaporise the debris from the underside, which thanks to Newtons pesky laws would push it into higher orbits instead of safely deorbiting it to burn up in the atmosphere.

Since the majority of space debris in orbit around the earth atm is quite literally specs of paint, or other scrap smaller than a lugnut, you would not need a very powerful laser to deorbit them. Note that you don't need to have a laser powerful enough to deorbit them with a single burst, a laser in geostationary orbit would be able to repeatedly snipe the same pieces of debri each time they made a pass beneath it.

For larger pieces of space junk, like actual satellites, this would probably not be powerful enough. But not long ago the US demonstrated microsatelites able to rendezvous and land on other satelites. So the capability of forcefully deorbiting larger space junk by pushing it down is something that we could do today if the various space agencies gave a damn about cleaning up all the thrash they are leaving around up there. (of course they don't care at the moment)

But actual junked satellites are large enough that they can reliably be traced from the ground, so they are not as big a threat (ironically) as the micrometeorite sized debris. The latter of which are both hard to track, and much more numerous in numbers.

[Starglider]

A ground based laser would vaporise the debris from the underside, which thanks to Newtons pesky laws would push it into higher orbits instead of safely deorbiting it to burn up in the atmosphere.

I doubt the delta-V generated by the slow vaporisation of a few millimetres of material is going to make a difference anyway. A few m/s perhaps, which won't modify the orbit much.

[TheLostVikings]

A ground based laser would vaporise the debris from the underside, which thanks to Newtons pesky laws would push it into higher orbits instead of safely deorbiting it to burn up in the atmosphere.

I doubt the delta-V generated by the slow vaporisation of a few millimetres of material is going to make a difference anyway. A few m/s perhaps, which won't modify the orbit much.

Well the majority of space debris are surprisingly small:

3). How much orbital debris is currently in Earth orbit?
Approximately 17,000 objects larger than 10 cm are known to exist. The estimated population of particles between 1 and 10 cm in diameter is greater than 200,000. The number of particles smaller than 1 cm probably exceeds tens of millions.

So there are tens of million of relatively tiny pieces of debris which could most likely be disposed of this way, and with a slightly more powerful laser you could jump up a level and take out those 1-10cm objects too, leaving only the pieces of debris which are most easily tracked (and thus avoided).

While I readily admit it isn't a catchall method (unless you get a really powerful laser ), it would serve as house cleaning so you can focus on more important stuff. More microdebris will undoubtedly continue to be generated, so having a broom capable of sweeping them away is imho desirable.

[frogcurry]

I thought you could achieve a good affect by using a ground based laser and firing at the front face of satellites as they come above the horizon repeatedly? This would lead to de-orbiting by reducing orbital velocity.

Alternatively the satellite could just a giant mirror and some solar panels. Re-shape the mirror then fire an earth laser at it, bounce off onto target to get a much larger but still cheaper effect. This also avoids putting an actual expensive and delicate weapon in space, you just have a somewhat delicate mirror instead.