A 1,300-Pound NASA Spacecraft To Re-Enter Earth's Atmosphere (bbc.com)
- Reference: 0180949368
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/26/03/11/0026235/a-1300-pound-nasa-spacecraft-to-re-enter-earths-atmosphere
- Source link: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9gwdgg38vo
> The spacecraft is projected to re-enter around 19:45 EST (00:45 GMT) on Tuesday the U.S. Space Force predicted, according to Nasa, though there is a 24-hour margin of "uncertainty" in the timing. [...] The spacecraft and its twin, Van Allen Probe B, were on a mission to gather unprecedented data on Earth's two permanent radiation belts. It was not immediately clear where in Earth's atmosphere the satellite is projected to re-enter. NASA and the U.S. Space Force has said it will monitor the re-entry and update any predictions. [...] Van Allen Probe B is not expected to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere before 2030.
[1] https://science.slashdot.org/story/12/08/30/1323240/nasa-launches-twin-radiation-belt-storm-probes
[2] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9gwdgg38vo
Go to the source (Score:5, Insightful)
The NASA homepage says:
> The risk of harm coming to anyone on Earth is low — approximately 1 in 4,200.
So, I guess my risk is about 1/8,000,000,000 times that. [1]https://www.nasa.gov/missions/... [nasa.gov]
[1] https://www.nasa.gov/missions/van-allen-probes/nasa-van-allen-probe-a-to-re-enter-atmosphere/
Re: (Score:3)
The average risk is also determined by latitude bounds. With about a 10-degree inclination, this spacecraft will reenter somewhere +/-10 from the equator. Here's a fairly recent paper on the [1]subject [nasa.gov].
The high eccentricity of the probe's orbit makes it a little hard to predict. As I write this, I see it could have reentered a couple of hours ago, +/-9 hours.
[1] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20170008876
Re: (Score:3)
This... if I had points, I'd be +1(informative) you here.
As the parent stated; the odds of 1:4200 is that *someone*, *somewhere*, gets harmed. In 4199 cases, anything reaching ground/sea level misses humanity entirely. Not remotely the same to say 1:4200 chance that any *one individual*, specifically, gets harmed; then we'd be looking at rougly 2M people expected to be harmed; hardly a negligible concern!
A quick search says that 20-25% of the world's population lives within 10 degrees of the equator (than
But IF YOU DO GET HIT (Disclamer) (Score:3)
That does not -- repeat, does not make you a part of any radiation belt.
Re: (Score:2)
> That does not -- repeat, does not make you a part of any radiation belt.
But...the galaxy is on Orion's belt...
Did we really go to the moon (Score:2)
I wonder how much radiation these probes will report. The high radioactivity of the Van Allen belt is one of the reasons given to indicate some or all of the moon missions were a hoax. Van Allen himself claimed the belt wouldn't kill astronauts, but honestly .. I'm still 50/50 on the whole thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more complicated than a Bayesian "dinotd we go?" but the government at the time was lying to the people about absolutely everything so the official truth must be a lie.
Watch Dr. G's body language analysis of the post-flight press conference. Those guys should have been joyous and triumphant having accomplished the most tremendous task in all of human history in this epoch.
Re: (Score:2)
Radiation != radioactivity
Free Tacos?? (Score:2)
Can Taco Bell put out their floating target again so we can get free tacos in the event of a bullseye! Please Taco Bell!!!
[1]https://spacenews.com/free-tac... [spacenews.com]
[1] https://spacenews.com/free-tacos-for-us-if-mir-hits-floating-taco-bell-ocean-target-taco-bell-sets-40-by-40-foot-target-in-south-pacific-for-mirs-re-entry/
Re: (Score:2)
That was the most brilliant advertising stunt of all time. I hope they do it again when the ISS deorbits.
In contrast (Score:3)
Yet millions of people believe itâ(TM)s a good bet to play 1 in 36,000 odds and happy to win a hundred bucks.
1 in 4200 (Score:5, Insightful)
"The space agency said there is a one in 4,200 chance of being harmed by a piece of the probe"
Who is more foolish? The author, the proof-reader (is that still a thing?), or the Slashdot editor who copy-pasted this without question?
I think I can improve my odds by staying indoors.
BTW, 600 kg is tiny. Skylab was 90 ton.
Re: 1 in 4200 (Score:3)
You just don't know statistics very well. This is only an average, and if you do the math it means there will be about 8.4B/4200=2M people injured by the falling spacecraft. ;-/
Don't blame the slashdot ed (Score:3)
It says 1/4200 on the BBC page so it must be true!
BBC news reporting about science and technical issues these days is about as reliable as a tabloid unfortunately. But then this is the "public service" organisation that has binned most of its science programs unless it involves Attenborough and when they do show any it usually involves a lot of guff about the actual scientist, not their discovery, particularly if its a woman. It also binned its sole 30 min computer program Click recently just as AI is takin
Re: (Score:3)
Standard british word yankee. Try getting out more.
Re: (Score:3)
> It says 1/4200 on the BBC page so it must be true!
> BBC news reporting about science and technical issues these days is about as reliable as a tabloid unfortunately. But then this is the "public service" organisation that has binned most of its science programs unless it involves Attenborough and when they do show any it usually involves a lot of guff about the actual scientist, not their discovery, particularly if its a woman. It also binned its sole 30 min computer program Click recently just as AI is taking off.
Thinking about that - yes, you are right. The "hot female scientist" meme has taken over a lot of modern science in the last decade or so.
Don't get me wrong - I'm as appreciative of feminine beauty as anyone, and beauty does not equal incompetence. But as I watched a documentary about something geological, their must have been 15 minutes of video involving the woman scientist walking around from behind, which might have been entertaining, but I ended up forgetting what the theme of the show was about.
S
Re: (Score:2)
I math'd it to be about 1 in 6 million assuming it has to hit within a 10 square meter area surrounding a human.
Re: (Score:1)
what makes you think the distribution is even around the earth?
Re: (Score:2)
Ya, think I'll stay inside too. I hope the hospitals are on alert!
Re: (Score:2)
1 in 4200 what? does this mean that 1 in 4200 NASA spacecraft will statistically hit you?
Re: (Score:2)
> 600 kg dropping at terminal velocity? That ain't a "tiny" impact event no matter what the comparison is.
Except 600 kg won't be dropping at terminal velocity. Go back and read TFS again. While most of it is expected to burn up during descent, some components may survive.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see... there is a *much* lower than 1 in 4,200 chance of my toy drone injuring anyone or damaging anyone's property but it's controlled by very strict regulations that are supposed to be their for the public's safety and hugely constrain where and when I can fly it.
Someone explain how this works.