Two Satellites Collide

[garyw]

Even in such a breeding area I would expect the wildlife to be rather widespread.
If I deorbit a rocket stage, and it hits a whale by accident, why make such a fuss over me when other countries kill whales on purpose under the guise of it being "scientific"?

I'm not talking about a whale getting hit on the head. I'm talking about the systematic poisoning of marine life due to space junk being rained down all over the planet.

 

[SiberianTiger]

The youtube movie animating the collision and debris spreading:

 

[TSPenguin]

The only question is if their debris model is nearly anywhere near beeing accurate.
But that is something for the experts to comment on.

 

[Urwumpe]

The only question is if their debris model is nearly anywhere near beeing accurate.
But that is something for the experts to comment on.

Looks generally good, but the third lobe of debris is lacking. Also, the clouds seem to have pretty low velocity spread, this could be higher. The Russian satellite was twice as massive as the Iridium satellite.

 

[garyw]

It looks like the two debris lobes interact with each other - Is that the case and could it cause even more debris?

 

[T.Neo]

I'm not talking about a whale getting hit on the head. I'm talking about the systematic poisoning of marine life due to space junk being rained down all over the planet.

Isn't that happening already?

Won't the toxic stuff (fuel, etc) get vaporized in the upper atmosphere?

 

[garyw]

Isn't that happening already?

Won't the toxic stuff (fuel, etc) get vaporized in the upper atmosphere?

If that was the case the USA wouldn't have needed to shoot down USA-193. In many satellites the hydrazine tank is put quite deep inside the vessel to stop thermal stresses causing it to rupture. This also means it can survive entry.

 

[Quick_Nick]

If that was the case the USA wouldn't have needed to shoot down USA-193. In many satellites the hydrazine tank is put quite deep inside the vessel to stop thermal stresses causing it to rupture. This also means it can survive entry.

Would the tanks still be 'deep inside' the satellite after a collision over 1km/s?
(Although I don't believe we yet know how much of each satellite was destroyed... do we?)

 

[T.Neo]

If that was the case the USA wouldn't have needed to shoot down USA-193. In many satellites the hydrazine tank is put quite deep inside the vessel to stop thermal stresses causing it to rupture. This also means it can survive entry.

Argue all you want, but the hydrazine tank was a pretty weak excuse for USA-193, probably an ASAT test.
You didn't see hundreds of people die from Columbia, that was also carrying toxic fuel (not hydrazine per say, but N204 and MMH are still pretty nasty).

And this stuff is all going to come down anyway, so you won't avoid the problem of toxic chemicals.

And I would also imagine that old satillites would be
A: low on fuel anyway
B: empty having used up the last of the fuel during the deorbit burn.

 

[Urwumpe]

N2O4 is even more nasty than Hydrazine. Hydrazine has not the habit of igniting anything organic.

 

[T.Neo]

N2O4 is even more nasty than Hydrazine. Hydrazine has not the habit of igniting anything organic.

Yes, but was it in enough quantity on the debris to do so?

 

[garyw]

Would the tanks still be 'deep inside' the satellite after a collision over 1km/s?
(Although I don't believe we yet know how much of each satellite was destroyed... do we?)

My response was based on T.Neo's question about deorbiting.


-----Post Added-----

Argue all you want, but the hydrazine tank was a pretty weak excuse for USA-193, probably an ASAT test.
You didn't see hundreds of people die from Columbia, that was also carrying toxic fuel (not hydrazine per say, but N204 and MMH are still pretty nasty).

Pointless ASAT test because the satellite was so low anyway. Checkout the difference in altitude between USA-193 and SOLWIND-P1

And I would also imagine that old satillites would be
A: low on fuel anyway
B: empty having used up the last of the fuel during the deorbit burn.

[/quote]

Neither of which are true. Many satellites have too much propellant. You can't guarantee it's all used due to prop slosh.

 

[TSPenguin]

Neither of which are true. Many satellites have too much propellant. You can't guarantee it's all used due to prop slosh.

Wouldn't it be possible to calculate the deorbit burn to use all remaining fuel?

 

[SiberianTiger]

Wouldn't it be possible to calculate the deorbit burn to use all remaining fuel?

It's simple: keep a roughly retro attitude, kick it on and leave so.

 

[T.Neo]

Pointless ASAT test because the satellite was so low anyway. Checkout the difference in altitude between USA-193 and SOLWIND-P1


Neither of which are true. Many satellites have too much propellant. You can't guarantee it's all used due to prop slosh.

USA-913 carried a 400kg prop tank, how much did propellant did Columbia carry?
Did columbia kill anyone?

I still think the hydrazine tank on USA-193 was a weak explanation.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

China: billions of dollars, months of research, very specialized system, working, controlled satellite in stable orbit.
US: 40 million dollars, one week, generic missile, out of control satellite in decaying orbit.

Draw your own conclusions!

 

[garyw]

USA-913 carried a 400kg prop tank, how much did propellant did Columbia carry?

USA-193.

Did columbia kill anyone?

Yes. The environmental damage hasn't been researched.

I still think the hydrazine tank on USA-193 was a weak explanation.

That's as maybe. Either way USA-193 wasn't destroyed by an ASAT.

 

[Urwumpe]

I still think the hydrazine tank on USA-193 was a weak explanation.

It was a weak explanation. The tank was full, so it had a rather bad ballistic coefficient - it would not slow down early high in the atmosphere at low temperatures, so it could survive, but get more heating than usual tanks. Even if the tank would be made of titanium, it would get destroyed during reentry.

 

[SiberianTiger]

China: billions of dollars, months of research, very specialized system, working, controlled satellite in stable orbit.
US: 40 million dollars, one week, generic missile, out of control satellite in decaying orbit.

Draw your own conclusions!

Conclusion: you don't count the initial investment.

 

[T.Neo]

Yes. The environmental damage hasn't been researched.

So, are you suggesting, that in the absence of evidence, Columbia caused environmental damage?

If you object to dumping debris in the ocean, what is your alternative?
Making space unaccessable for the next 300 years?

I don't think telecom companies would like that very much. You'd have more trouble from them then a bunch of environmentalists. Space pays.