YET ANOTHER rogue satellite to crash to Earth.....wtf

Don't want to sound mean but this time I want the satellite to hit land somewhere. We need some good doom none of this water stuff where no one can videotape it, lol.

SS.

Lol, just asked Jeeves where it'll crash. Guess what came up?

[link to www.legalwills.co.uk]


Last Edited by Blueacres on 10/19/2011 01:56 PM

same thing recently with:

Nuclear shutdown's
mass animal die off's
those record tornados
the endless flooding/fires
the quakes/volcano activity
the aircraft decompressions
now the satellites/ISS falling down

It's like each topic gets 15mins of fame, then just stop and no one notices the drop in coverage. yea, wtf?

"Klinkrad said the major factor affecting a satellite's fall from orbit is solar activity. Energy unleashed from the sun causes Earth's atmosphere to heat up and expand, generating more drag for satellites in low orbits."

[link to www.spaceflightnow.com]

I have a feeling satellites diving back to Earth will be common news from now on ...

If it were the next one to decay, it would be the 29th satellite this year, not counting spent rocket bodies or bits of debris. For comparison, 54 satellites decayed in the year 2000, not counting rocket bodies or debris.

That gives me an idea. Someone should run a live simulation of ROSAT's position from the NORAD data, but account for atmospheric effects between updates. Orbiter Spaceflight Simulator should give a reasonably good approximation of when re-entry occurs as long as its run in realtime and updated with the TLE sets as they're published.

Makes plenty of sense, but (and I hate to bring this up) don't forget Marshall Masters' idea that the more older of infrastructure (bridges,pipes) has been 'perturbed'. He has been terribly RIGHT about these "red dust storms."

Bring on the doom.

:Truth444:

Last Edited by AlphA Canis Majoris on 10/19/2011 03:23 PM

The atmospheres expands and contracts in sync with the solar cycle. This has been known for over 50 years.

Thanks Astro.....ya lost me at that.

I know what he means. I wonder what it would show ... I have the program.

solar cycle, come a bit early?

Not when it comes to satellites:

From Wiki "End of life

When satellites reach the end of their mission, satellite operators have the option of de-orbiting the satellite, leaving the satellite in its current orbit or moving the satellite to a graveyard orbit. Historically, due to budgetary constraints at the beginning of satellite missions, satellites were rarely designed to be de-orbited. One example of this practice is the satellite Vanguard 1. Launched in 1958, Vanguard 1, the 4th manmade satellite put in Geocentric orbit, was still in orbit as of August 2009.[17]

Instead of being de-orbited, most satellites are either left in their current orbit or moved to a graveyard orbit.[18] As of 2002, the FCC now requires all geostationary satellites to commit to moving to a graveyard orbit at the end of their operational life prior to launch.[

Something fishy is going on regarding the sudden de-orbitting of Satellites. Mankind has been launching since 1957 or so, and the United States very first satellite is STILL IN ORBIT, and that was back in 1958.

Soooo........ Me thinks there are little spacemen playing a giant game of shoot 'em up or something.

how about Zuccotti Park?

I know what you mean. I appreciate what Astro says but it just seems strange with everything else at the moment. Doom everywhere, and the rumours of doom.

2011 has been a good year 4 doom, it's not over yet!

Actually, USA's first satellite, Explorer 1, re-entered the atmosphere some 41 years ago. You're probably thinking of Vanguard 1, which was not the first but is still the oldest satellite up there (not functional anymore of course). Its perigee was over 650 kms high, higher than ROSAT ever was, but it doesn't even spend that long at that altitude because its apogee was a whopping +3900 km high, which is why it has remained up there for so long.

Not all orbits decay equally fast. Satellites with sufficiently high perigees and very high apogees like Vanguard can remain in orbit for hundreds of years. ROSAT, on the other hand, orbited at a lower altitude and had a circularized orbit.

Last Edited by Astromut on 10/19/2011 04:15 PM

I do not like that I see the word:

ROAST

in a capitals in ROSAT.

Thread: Satelite

:marvufo:

Hmm. strange coincidence so many Satelites fail in one month maybe the Solarstorms where stronger then some thought, whats also wierd is that they cant predict the entry point correct, makes it look like they lost control and track of em saying oh it´s gonna be somewhere 53north 53south is like erm yes it can land everywhere.

In 2000 we had a total of 54 satellites re-enter the atmosphere. That's an average of 4.5 per month.

That's not unusual at all. It's not that they lost track of its current position, but its future altitude is dependent on the density profile of the earth's upper atmosphere which in turn varies with solar activity. If you recall, Skylab ended up re-entering much sooner than NASA originally predicted, which contributed to its loss; the original plan was to re-boost it with the space shuttle and continue using it.

Yes, you are correct, it was the 4th Satellite to be launched that is still up there, Vanguard 1.