Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by Chris Peterson » Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:59 pm

iamlucky13 wrote:Either way, Iridium wagered that the best option was to do nothing.
It sounds like they had no real choice. With dozens of near misses each week in the same sort of uncertainty range, they pretty much have to respond to all, or to none. And if it was all, that means they'd rapidly run out of propellant (which is mainly there for functional mobility- moving their birds into orbit for replacements, out when they die, and generally maintaining the necessary orbital constellation.

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by iamlucky13 » Wed Mar 18, 2009 7:34 pm

bhrobards wrote:
Chris Peterson wrote:
bhrobards wrote:The SBX X band ABM fire-control radar is stationed in Adak, it can track an object "the size of a baseball over San Francisco from the Chesapeak Bay." No reason to believe the Russians are too far behind.
Size isn't the factor, but rather accuracy. And the radar fence system used to maintain the orbiting object catalog isn't generally going to give absolute position to better than a kilometer or so. Certainly, our government and others track critical assets with much higher precision. But there's no way they are tracking everything that accurately. Iridium is privately owned, and who knows exactly how the dead Russian communications satellite fit into their system. My point was that there's really no reason to think that either of these objects were being monitored by anything other than routine tracking systems.
Just a point of information about SBX accuracy it is fire control system designed to guide kinetic kill weapons to multimach warheads. It is exactly what you would use for a satellite intercept. I'm not saying it was, just that it can.
I believe the Ground Based Interceptor ABM missile uses the SBX, but it uses a terminal guidance system in the form of an infrared tracker built into the kill vehicle. SBX gets it in the vicinity, the seeker head finishes the job. I don't know the limits of the system, but the Air Force isn't relying on the accuracy of x-band alone.

Either way, Iridium wagered that the best option was to do nothing.

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by Jyrki » Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:23 pm

bhrobards wrote:
Just a point of information about SBX accuracy it is fire control system designed to guide kinetic kill weapons to multimach warheads. It is exactly what you would use for a satellite intercept. I'm not saying it was, just that it can.
In that case I hope that they have fixed the bug that nearly caused the DC area to be annihilated in one Tom Clancy novel :-> Don't remember the title? The bug was about the kill weapon logic being based on seeking the source of heat. Consequently it was zeroing in on the exhaust flames. Not the right thing to do at ballistic speeds, because the targeted missile was easily outrunning the cloud of explosions.

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by bhrobards » Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:46 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
bhrobards wrote:The SBX X band ABM fire-control radar is stationed in Adak, it can track an object "the size of a baseball over San Francisco from the Chesapeak Bay." No reason to believe the Russians are too far behind.
Size isn't the factor, but rather accuracy. And the radar fence system used to maintain the orbiting object catalog isn't generally going to give absolute position to better than a kilometer or so. Certainly, our government and others track critical assets with much higher precision. But there's no way they are tracking everything that accurately. Iridium is privately owned, and who knows exactly how the dead Russian communications satellite fit into their system. My point was that there's really no reason to think that either of these objects were being monitored by anything other than routine tracking systems.
Just a point of information about SBX accuracy it is fire control system designed to guide kinetic kill weapons to multimach warheads. It is exactly what you would use for a satellite intercept. I'm not saying it was, just that it can.

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by Doum » Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:54 pm

Hey i said it was a joke. I dont think it was premedited to collide. It's just an accident. Geeee.. :mrgreen:

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by iamlucky13 » Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:50 am

bhrobards wrote:I was under the impression Russian satellites are manueverable. If so, how do you know it was out of fuel? I woundn't discount the possibility of either side making a statement.
The satellite has been out of commission since 1995. That doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't be maneuvered, but that is assumed to be the case.
NoelC wrote:Without using "The Force" I'm not sure the computer could hit it...

"You must unlearn what you have learned."

-Noel
This is a subtly astute observation. I read elsewhere that Iridium stated they were aware these satellites would be in proximity, but tracking suggested with acceptable confidence they would miss. Things like exact position in space are probabilistic, and when you're working with probability, there's always a chance things won't work out quite like your predictions suggest they should. You can have three sigma confidence in something, but about 0.3% of the time you will be wrong.

Anyway, I don't buy any conspiracy theories on this one, except perhaps insurance fraud, but illegal dealings are lousy way to run major company in the long run, especially since this event probably raised their insurance rates (both because of additional debris in that orbit, and because they have one less spare, so the risk of losing more affecting their financial viability is greater).

Realistically, they couldn't have guided them into a collision confidently.

Follow up twisted quote:

"Cosmos 2251, you've switched off your targeting computer. Are you ok?"

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by Chris Peterson » Mon Mar 16, 2009 5:35 am

bhrobards wrote:The SBX X band ABM fire-control radar is stationed in Adak, it can track an object "the size of a baseball over San Francisco from the Chesapeak Bay." No reason to believe the Russians are too far behind.
Size isn't the factor, but rather accuracy. And the radar fence system used to maintain the orbiting object catalog isn't generally going to give absolute position to better than a kilometer or so. Certainly, our government and others track critical assets with much higher precision. But there's no way they are tracking everything that accurately. Iridium is privately owned, and who knows exactly how the dead Russian communications satellite fit into their system. My point was that there's really no reason to think that either of these objects were being monitored by anything other than routine tracking systems.

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by bhrobards » Mon Mar 16, 2009 1:09 am

Chris Peterson wrote:
bhrobards wrote:I was under the impression Russian satellites are manueverable. If so, how do you know it was out of fuel? I woundn't discount the possibility of either side making a statement.
The radar systems used by both countries for monitoring the majority of orbiting material are not accurate enough to be used for routine orbit corrections when near misses (or hits!) are predicted. So while both systems were maneuverable (assuming there was fuel), it's doubtful that either operator had enough information to actually justify repositioning their equipment.

The Cosmos satellite may or may not have had some remaining control ability, but was apparently out of operation for the last 14 years, so it seem likely that it was uncontrolled. The Iridium satellite was certainly under control, but didn't have good enough data to avoid the accident.
T

The SBX X band ABM fire-control radar is stationed in Adak, it can track an object "the size of a baseball over San Francisco from the Chesapeak Bay." No reason to believe the Russians are too far behind.

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by Chris Peterson » Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:20 pm

bhrobards wrote:I was under the impression Russian satellites are manueverable. If so, how do you know it was out of fuel? I woundn't discount the possibility of either side making a statement.
The radar systems used by both countries for monitoring the majority of orbiting material are not accurate enough to be used for routine orbit corrections when near misses (or hits!) are predicted. So while both systems were maneuverable (assuming there was fuel), it's doubtful that either operator had enough information to actually justify repositioning their equipment.

The Cosmos satellite may or may not have had some remaining control ability, but was apparently out of operation for the last 14 years, so it seem likely that it was uncontrolled. The Iridium satellite was certainly under control, but didn't have good enough data to avoid the accident.

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by bhrobards » Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:58 pm

Also the point of collision is very well covered by both countries radar suites.

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by bhrobards » Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:50 pm

I was under the impression Russian satellites are manueverable. If so, how do you know it was out of fuel? I woundn't discount the possibility of either side making a statement.

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by NoelC » Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:12 pm

Without using "The Force" I'm not sure the computer could hit it...

"You must unlearn what you have learned."

-Noel

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by Doum » Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:04 am

Hmmm, may be the russian one was still steerable and we have to strike back at them for that attack. :roll:

It's a joke here dont strike yet. :shock:

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by aristarchusinexile » Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:05 pm

bystander wrote:
neufer wrote:But there were probably lots of astronomers who wished Cosmic harm towards Iridium 33:
But only Iridium 33 was steerable. That would imply someone deliberately crashed it.
On the wild possibility side of things .. how about a hacker crashing satellites just for fun and games and chaos?

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by bystander » Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:08 pm

neufer wrote:But there were probably lots of astronomers who wished Cosmic harm towards Iridium 33:
But only Iridium 33 was steerable. That would imply someone deliberately crashed it.

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by neufer » Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:34 pm

bystander wrote:
aristarchusinexile wrote:Ah yes, but what if the collision was not an accident?
Why would anyone want to sabotage Kosmos 2251? It hadn't worked since 1995.
But there were probably lots of astronomers who wished Cosmic harm towards Iridium 33:
The Iridium satellites produce predictable Iridium flares, sun reflections from the solar cells,
which are visible along relatively narrow paths on the surface of the earth.
They can be a up to a intensity of -8.

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by bystander » Fri Feb 20, 2009 9:17 pm

aristarchusinexile wrote:Ah yes, but what if the collision was not an accident?
Why would anyone want to sabotage Kosmos 2251? It hadn't worked since 1995.

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by aristarchusinexile » Fri Feb 20, 2009 4:29 pm

Ah yes, but what if the collision was not an accident?

Re: Artificial satellites colliding

by Chris Peterson » Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:03 pm

Czerno wrote:I'd like to know if this collision was predicted correctly, how much in advance, and whether the predictions (if any) were given for certain or carried probability estimations ? Did the actual event confirm the advanced calculations (again, if any)?
It was not predicted, and apparently could not be economically predicted with the technology currently in place. It was reported that a post analysis showed a ~500 meter miss, with a several kilometer uncertainty. It was also reported that Iridium (which monitors for collisions) gets several hundred reports a week with similar results. That's far too many to make it practical to move the satellites- they would quickly run out of propellant.

I'm sure that some satellites are being tracked with great accuracy, and there's no doubt that things get moved around to avoid possible collisions. But there's no way right now to do that with everything in orbit.

Artificial satellites colliding

by Czerno » Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:33 am

<http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090218.html>

This is not too reassuring is it ?

I'd like to know if this collision was predicted correctly, how much in advance, and whether the predictions (if any) were given for certain or carried probability estimations ? Did the actual event confirm the advanced calculations (again, if any)?

Thank you for our daily bread, uh, picture, which is also food for thought !

--
Czerno

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by aristarchusinexile » Thu Feb 19, 2009 6:02 pm

neufer wrote: Unlike, say, the Vanguard and Triomphant.
Comforting that the world's existance is in the hands of such capable seamen.
Neuf wrote:Image
You're a good one, Neuf.

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by aristarchusinexile » Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:56 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
aristarchusinexile wrote:I'm glad I didn't throw money away on a GPS, because this is going to happen again. Planet earth is a garbage dump .. now space is too.
The world is massively dependent on GPS... it isn't going away, even if the satellites need frequent replacement. That said, the GPS satellites are not at risk, since they are in high orbits. The volume of spacecraft up there is low, there is little debris, and almost no possibility of collisions. And that's not likely to change. The problem is with satellites and debris in low Earth orbit.

So go ahead and get yourself a GPS. Wonderful on canoe trips <g>.
Thanks for the assurance Chris, but I'll paddle with maps .. well, I'll paddle with paddles, but use maps to paddle by. Drop a map overboard and it'll float, for one thing .. use a map to start an emergency fire .. use a map overhead to prevent sun stroke .. use a map as an umbrella .. cook a map into soup if an emergency. Impress young ladies with map reading skills .. (We are right here, uh, I think ...) Etc.

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by neufer » Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:32 am

codex wrote:I remember reading a few years back about a satellite that was about to be launched that carried a plutonium battery pack. The article stated that if the launch were to catastrophically fail, the battery's plutonium would be released into the air and that all life on earth would be destroyed. This was pre-APOD days, so I hadn't the wherewithal to ask anyone to confirm. My question here is; is this still a danger -with satellites crashing above our heads- that their lethal batteries and perhaps other dangerous payloads would be unleashed into the atmosphere?
We're pretty much OK so long as they don't crash land near a terrorist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Safety wrote:
<<A radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG, RITEG) is an electrical generator which obtains its power from radioactive decay. In such a device, the heat released by the decay of a suitable radioactive material is converted into electricity by the Seebeck effect using an array of thermocouples. RTGs can be considered as a type of battery and have been used as power sources in satellites, space probes and unmanned remote facilities, such as a series of lighthouses built by the former Soviet Union inside the Arctic Circle. RTGs are usually the most desirable power source for unmanned or unmaintained situations needing a few hundred watts or less of power for durations too long for fuel cells, batteries and generators to provide economically, and in places where solar cells are not viable.

RTGs may pose a minimal risk of radioactive contamination: if the container holding the fuel leaks, the radioactive material may contaminate the environment.

For spacecraft, the main concern is that if an accident were to occur during launch or a subsequent passage of a spacecraft close to Earth, harmful material could be released into the atmosphere; and their use in spacecraft and elsewhere has attracted controversy. However, this event is not considered likely with current RTG cask designs. For instance, the environmental impact study for the Cassini-Huygens probe launched in 1997 estimated the probability of contamination accidents at various stages in the mission. The probability of an accident occurring which caused radioactive release from one or more of its 3 RTGs (or from its 129 radioisotope heater units) during the first 3.5 minutes following launch was estimated at 1 in 1,400; the chances of a release later in the ascent into orbit were 1 in 476; after that the likelihood of an accidental release fell off sharply to less than 1 in a million. If an accident which had the potential to cause contamination occurred during the launch phases (such as the spacecraft failing to reach orbit), the probability of contamination actually being caused by the RTGs was estimated at about 1 in 10. In any event, the launch was successful and Cassini-Huygens reached Saturn.

The plutonium 238 used in these RTGs has a half-life of 87.74 years, in contrast to the 24,110 year half-life of plutonium 239 used in nuclear weapons and reactors. A consequence of the shorter half life is that plutonium 238 is about 275 times more radioactive than plutonium 239 (i.e. 17.3 Ci/g compared to 0.063 Ci/g). For instance, 3.6 kg of plutonium 238 undergoes the same number of radioactive decays per second as 1 tonne of plutonium 239. Since the morbidity of the two isotopes in terms of absorbed radioactivity is almost exactly the same, plutonium 238 is around 275 times more toxic by weight than plutonium 239.

The alpha radiation emitted by either isotope will not penetrate the skin, but it can irradiate internal organs if plutonium is inhaled or ingested. Particularly at risk is the skeleton, the surface of which is likely to absorb the isotope, and the liver, where the isotope will collect and become concentrated.

There have been six known accidents involving RTG-powered spacecraft. The first one was a launch failure on 21 April 1964 in which the U.S. Transit-5BN-3 navigation satellite failed to achieve orbit and burnt up on re-entry north of Madagascar. Its 17,000 Ci (630 TBq) plutonium metal fuel was injected into the atmosphere over the Southern Hemisphere where it burnt up, and traces of plutonium 238 were detected in the area a few months later. The second was the Nimbus B-1 weather satellite whose launch vehicle was deliberately destroyed shortly after launch on 21 May 1968 because of erratic trajectory. Launched from the Vandenberg Air Force Base, its SNAP-19 RTG containing relatively inert plutonium dioxide was recovered intact from the seabed in the Santa Barbara Channel five months later and no environmental contamination was detected.

Two more were failures of Soviet Cosmos missions containing RTG-powered lunar rovers in 1969, both of which released radioactivity as they burnt up. There were also five failures involving Soviet or Russian spacecraft which were carrying nuclear reactors rather than RTGs between 1973 and 1993 (see RORSAT).

The failure of the Apollo 13 mission in April 1970 meant that the Lunar Module reentered the atmosphere carrying an RTG and burnt up over Fiji. It carried a SNAP-27 RTG containing 44,500 curies (1,650 TBq) of plutonium dioxide which survived reentry into the Earth's atmosphere intact, as it was designed to do, the trajectory being arranged so that it would plunge into 6-9 kilometers of water in the Tonga trench in the Pacific Ocean. The absence of plutonium 238 contamination in atmospheric and seawater sampling confirmed the assumption that the cask is intact on the seabed. The cask is expected to contain the fuel for at least 10 half-lives (i.e. 870 years). The US Department of Energy has conducted seawater tests and determined that the graphite casing, which was designed to withstand reentry, is stable and no release of plutonium should occur. Subsequent investigations have found no increase in the natural background radiation in the area. The Apollo 13 accident represents an extreme scenario due to the high re-entry velocities of the craft returning from cislunar space. This accident has served to validate the design of later-generation RTGs as highly safe.

To minimize the risk of the radioactive material being released, the fuel is stored in individual modular units with their own heat shielding. They are surrounded by a layer of iridium metal and encased in high-strength graphite blocks. These two materials are corrosion and heat-resistant. Surrounding the graphite blocks is an aeroshell, designed to protect the entire assembly against the heat of reentering the earth's atmosphere. The plutonium fuel is also stored in a ceramic form that is heat-resistant, minimising the risk of vaporization and aerosolization. The ceramic is also highly insoluble.

The most recent accident involving a spacecraft RTG was the failure of the Russian Mars 96 probe launch on 16 November 1996. The two RTGs onboard carried in total 200 g of plutonium and are assumed to have survived reentry (as they were designed to do). They are thought to now lie somewhere in a northeast-southwest running oval 320 km long by 80 km wide which is centred 32 km east of Iquique, Chile.

Many Beta-M RTGs produced by the Soviet Union to power lighthouses and beacons have become orphaned sources of radiation. Several of these units have been illegally dismantled for scrap metal resulting in the complete exposure of the Sr-90 source, fallen into the ocean, or have defective shielding due to poor design or physical damage. The US Department of Defense cooperative threat reduction program has expressed concern that material from the Beta-M RTGs can be used by terrorists to construct a dirty bomb.>>

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by codex » Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:44 am

I remember reading a few years back about a satellite that was about to be launched that carried a plutonium battery pack. The article stated that if the launch were to catastrophically fail, the battery's plutonium would be released into the air and that all life on earth would be destroyed. This was pre-APOD days, so I hadn't the wherewithal to ask anyone to confirm. My question here is; is this still a danger -with satellites crashing above our heads- that their lethal batteries and perhaps other dangerous payloads would be unleashed into the atmosphere?

Re: Iridium, Cosmos collision (APOD 2009 Feb 18)

by neufer » Thu Feb 19, 2009 3:39 am

apodman wrote:Everyone knows starship crews have Naval ranks.
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Starfleet_ranks
apodman wrote:If another ship's bearing remains constant (if it stays over the same spot on your rail) as it gets larger, you are on a collision course. I'll bet neither of these satellites had a proper rail nor a trained navigator.
Unlike, say, the Vanguard and Triomphant.

Image

Top