2 big satellites collide 500 miles over Siberia (Update)

February 11, 2009

(AP) -- 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.

Similar stories from PHYSorg:

As shuttle's career nears an end, NASA turns focus to satellites

19 hours ago | 4.3 / 5 (7) | 0

Astronauts blast off for Christmas space mission

Dec 20, 2009 | 5 / 5 (2) | 0

New results from a terra-ific decade in orbit

Dec 15, 2009 | 5 / 5 (1) | 0

A faint star orbiting the Big Dipper's Alcor discovered

Dec 10, 2009 | 5 / 5 (5) | 0

NRL's MISSE7 launched aboard STS-129

Dec 07, 2009 | 4 / 5 (1) | 0

• joex - Feb 11, 2009
  • Rank: 1.8 / 5 (4)
  False, the mass of each satellite is well over 1,000lbs. 500 miles above earth gravity is much different and their weight is significantly reduced.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• E_L_Earnhardt - Feb 11, 2009
  • Rank: 2.7 / 5 (3)
  "Dooms Day" is approaching for the "space fever! It will not be long before the area around earth is so full of junk its not expensive fun anymoor!
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• weewilly - Feb 11, 2009
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (1)
  We need some sort of street sweeper for the orbital paths that are used around the earth. Somebody is going to have to come up with a plan to do this. Maybe a big net?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• WolfAtTheDoor - Feb 11, 2009
  • Rank: 4.3 / 5 (7)
  Reports are the one satellite was txt'ing his g/f and wasn't paying attention.
  
  ...
  
  Too soon?
  
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Ashibayai - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
  I vote for a giant plate to orbit the earth in paths that will collect dense areas of debris. If they get embedded in it then most of the smaller debris can be taken care of.
  
  Still I think that's far too expensive for anyone to bother trying.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• freethinking - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
  They say it was an accident.... but Russian vs American Iridium used by the military... how sure are we it was an accident and not on purpose??? another anti sat test?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• barkster - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: 2 / 5 (1)

  We need some sort of street sweeper for the orbital paths that are used around the earth. Somebody is going to have to come up with a plan to do this. Maybe a big net?

  Some kinda huge aero-gel sweeper, a-la the Stardust mission?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Ashibayai - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
  ^ Exactly. Although at those speeds rubber might be as effective...
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• magpies - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: 2 / 5 (1)
  Foam with layers cheap lightweight... but not perfect.
  
  I think the leason to learn about this is that we should be thankful we dont have two moons.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Szkeptik - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  Launch some strong electromagnets and set them on decaying orbit while having them pass the densest scrap fields. they should be able to pull a lot of the smaller ones with them. The larger ones are easier to maneuver around.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• holmstar - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (2)

  We need some sort of street sweeper for the orbital paths that are used around the earth. Somebody is going to have to come up with a plan to do this. Maybe a big net?

  
  
  for the ones that are large enough to track, there really isn't much that we could do to get rid of them. They have so much kinetic energy that if we put our "net" into an opposing orbit, the space junk would most likely just plow right through it, and create more space junk by destroying the "net".
  
  So... the net couldn't be a typical physical object. Though I wonder if you could eject a cloud of gas into an opposing orbit, that would cause extra drag on the particles and debris, causing them to drop out of orbit more quickly.
  
  Of course this would have a similar effect on any satellites that share the orbit with the gas, so they would need to expend fuel to maintain speed. Some would probably be caused to de-orbit along with the debris.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• holmstar - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (2)

  I vote for a giant plate to orbit the earth in paths that will collect dense areas of debris. If they get embedded in it then most of the smaller debris can be taken care of.
  
  Still I think that's far too expensive for anyone to bother trying.

  
  
  Good luck getting your giant plate into orbit.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• holmstar - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: 3 / 5 (2)

  They say it was an accident.... but Russian vs American Iridium used by the military... how sure are we it was an accident and not on purpose??? another anti sat test?

  
  
  I seriously doubt it. Having a bunch of debris in orbit is no good for either of us. Russia wants to be able to use space too, and something like this would be counterproductive in that respect.
  
  

  Launch some strong electromagnets and set them on decaying orbit while having them pass the densest scrap fields. they should be able to pull a lot of the smaller ones with them. The larger ones are easier to maneuver around.

  
  
  since when are satellites made of steel? aluminum and titanium sure, but not much steel up there I bet.
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• RFC - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  Question: instead of "collecting" the debris, is it more feasible to knock, push or pull the debris into the atmosphere? Like a space snow-plow of sorts. Isn't the very definition of orbital space debris just junk that is too far out to fall?
  
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• zevkirsh - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  there is obviously a need for lasers of some sort to shoot small yet fast and threatening debris out of the way ( or out of existence). there is no practical way for any earth based system to do this.
  
  satelites or space stations must be equipped with tracking devices to spot and locate threatening material as it gets close and to zap it instantaneously. yes, space must be weaponized if not just to keep it viable for the very trash we produce in orbit threatens our ability to exist in orbit.
  
  how ironic that a problem here on earth ( the production of excessive trash threatening the environment in which we live and eventually us ) should be that much more extremely threatening in space...a place where there is infinite room for more trash than our planet. interesting eh?
  
  
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• am_Unition - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  I should have posted this here -
  
  http://i39.tinypi...k75z.gif
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Doug_Huffman - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  Just like the HST, junk in LEO will decay and reenter - someday. Much of the challenge of clean-up is from the low density of the trash. The space-sweeper would have to cover a lot of non-productive ground.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Mayday - Feb 12, 2009
  • Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
  A good way to clean it up naturally would be to institute a global culture of liberalism and socialism that is anti-space science and to constrict credit tightly to slow the global economy for a century or so, so no one can afford space travel, then just let all the orbits decay and...
  
  ... hey, wait a minute!
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• zevkirsh - Feb 14, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  hey mayday.....no one CAN afford space travel. all this money is government money and a scant few private sector companies with telecom infrastructure. if you remember..iridium went bust in the tech boom and sold their last remaining assets...their orbitting sattelites.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Mercury_01 - Feb 14, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  Has anyone done the math on this "accident"?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• docknowledge - Feb 15, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  The problem for something such as the space shuttle is that junk could come at it from practically angle in the same orbit -- as well as above -- and if the shuttle was descending, even from below (although at much small velocities). Consider a couple object meeting head on at thousands of miles an hour with another. But from ANY direction in 360 degrees. The shuttle would have to be shielded in EVERY direction, not just the direction it was traveling.
  
  Rather than netting junk, it's probably better to send "destroyer satellites" up to vaporize particles, or to knock them into a harmless orbit.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Ashibayai - Feb 20, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  I like the laser idea. I guess even a minuscule push in the right direction (being perpendicular to tangent of orbit ideally) would be enough to slowly accelerate the particles into the atmosphere.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• barkster - Feb 23, 2009
  • Rank: not rated yet
  holmstar,
  Would "opposing orbits" even be necessary?
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5