Bus Sized Satellite Heading For Earth

[G✇JI☈A]

www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-17/giant-satellite-plunging-to-earth/2903978


Bus-size satellite heading for Earth
North America correspondent Lisa Millar
Posted September 17, 2011 08:42:00




Map Data - Terms of Use

▼Map
MAP United States
A 20-year-old satellite the size of a bus has fallen out of orbit and is expected to crash somewhere on Earth next week.

NASA says the giant satellite is plunging to earth more quickly than anticipated and will crash during a three-day window around September 24.

The satellite was shut down in 2005 after completing its mission and was expected to fall to earth some time this year, but experts have now narrowed it down.

Hurtling at eight kilometres per second, it could land anywhere between 57 degrees north and 57 degrees south of the equator - most of the populated world, including Australia.

NASA says the risk to life from the satellite is just 1 in 3,200 as most of the satellite will break or burn up before reaching Earth.

Scientists have identified 26 separate pieces that could survive the fall through the Earth's atmosphere and debris could rain across an area 400 to 500 kilometres wide.

Isn't this how a zombie apocalypse starts?

[Sir Woodrow]

If we're lucky it's ALF, but it's most likely the Cloverfield Monster so unless we're in New York we should be fine.

[Baixo Astral]

There is sure to be a half empty one 30 seconds later.

[I *still* ✡ Johnny]

Knowing my luck, it'll land on me.

[Cela]

And we can't launch one frikking jet to blow this thing up why?

[Deleted]

Quick, play the Song of Time!

[Deleted]

This time clark kent there is no escape MUAHAHAHAHAHA.

[Yami Daimao]

Sept 16, 2011 19:06:10 GMT -5 Sir Woodrow said:

If we're lucky it's ALF, but it's most likely the Cloverfield Monster so unless we're in New York we should be fine.

Well seeing as how I live near NY, that does not bode well with me.

[Drillbit Taylor]

Normal Bus or "Special" Bus?

[hassanchop]

[Sir Woodrow]

Sept 16, 2011 22:56:20 GMT -5 Yami Daimao said:

Sept 16, 2011 19:06:10 GMT -5 Sir Woodrow said:

If we're lucky it's ALF, but it's most likely the Cloverfield Monster so unless we're in New York we should be fine.

Well seeing as how I live near NY, that does not bode well with me.

You will be missed

[Yami Daimao]

Sept 16, 2011 23:45:53 GMT -5 Sir Woodrow said:

Sept 16, 2011 22:56:20 GMT -5 Yami Daimao said:

Well seeing as how I live near NY, that does not bode well with me.

You will be missed

I'll be sure to record the entire event for all the broskis and broskettes here.

Except I won't be an annoying douche like Hud.

[hassanchop]

Sept 16, 2011 22:56:20 GMT -5 Yami Daimao said:

Sept 16, 2011 19:06:10 GMT -5 Sir Woodrow said:

If we're lucky it's ALF, but it's most likely the Cloverfield Monster so unless we're in New York we should be fine.

Well seeing as how I live near NY, that does not bode well with me.

[CaptainFall]

Don't these things burn up in the atmosphere?

[Dean-o]

If The Simpsons taught me anything, its that we'll have nothing to fear. By the time it lands on Earth, it'll be the size of a rock.

[The Booty Disciple]

Sept 16, 2011 19:20:54 GMT -5 Cela said:

And we can't launch one frikking jet to blow this thing up why?

Generally speaking, jets don't fly at orbital or sub-orbital altitude.

If you mean scrambling a fighter jet to intercept an incoming satellite, that's easier said than done, since the de-orbiting object will be moving much faster than the top speed of a fighter and/or any ordinance that can be launched, among other factors.

If you're talking about using a missile to intercept and destroy the object as it de-orbits, this would be a possibility, but I'm guessing that the government has indicated that it will be a low enough risk factor that its not worth the cost and resources that would be necessary. Not saying their right, but that's likely the situation.

[Deleted]

Sept 16, 2011 23:11:13 GMT -5 Drillbit Taylor said:

Normal Bus or "Special" Bus?

[Dr. T is an alien]

Blowing the satellite up will not reduce the risk, but rather expand it. Most of the satellite, outside of 26 parts at the most, will burn up whether it falls unimpeded or is shot. The rest will continue to fall whether the satellite breaks up in the atmosphere or as a result of a missile. Unfortunately, however, if you shoot it with a missile not only will those big pieces spread out over a larger area but you will eject additional debris into orbit that can disable other satellites.

[Cela]

Sept 17, 2011 11:00:25 GMT -5 The Booty Disciple said:

Sept 16, 2011 19:20:54 GMT -5 Cela said:

And we can't launch one frikking jet to blow this thing up why?

Generally speaking, jets don't fly at orbital or sub-orbital altitude.

If you mean scrambling a fighter jet to intercept an incoming satellite, that's easier said than done, since the de-orbiting object will be moving much faster than the top speed of a fighter and/or any ordinance that can be launched, among other factors.

If you're talking about using a missile to intercept and destroy the object as it de-orbits, this would be a possibility, but I'm guessing that the government has indicated that it will be a low enough risk factor that its not worth the cost and resources that would be necessary. Not saying their right, but that's likely the situation.

Point taken. I just grew up under an Edwards Air Force Base flight zone, and figured with the amount of wasted resources they spent on daily flyovers, they could divert just one jet to catch it on the way and blow it out of the sky over the ocean. But easier said than done.

[theryno665]

We might be able to throw the satellite off its trajectory but we would need to program a random number generator from 1 to 20. And that would be impossible...