Russia: It isn't just us – a bit of an old US rocket might get as close as 5.4km to the ISS
- Reference: 1638385506
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2021/12/01/iss_debris/
- Source link:
In a [1]report that entirely failed to mention the debris cloud created by a [2]Russian Anti-Satellite Test a few weeks ago, space agency Roscosmos was quoted as saying: "No decision has been made on the need to carry out an avoidance manoeuvre.
"Specialists of the Flight Control Center and the Main Information and Analysis Center continue keeping the situation under control."
[3]
So that's OK then.
[4]
[5]
Russian media also noted the last time that debris approached the station was on 25 November, "when a US Falcon 9 rocket fragment flew at a distance of more than 5km from the orbital outpost."
As a reminder, the ISS crew was forced to take shelter in November after [6]Russia destroyed one of its old space satellites , spewing debris over Earth orbit. The [7]insanity of the move was, frankly, breath-taking. And the safe haven used by the ISS crew? As former [8]Space Shuttle program manager Wayne Hale put it : "As Capt Young used to term some of our Shuttle abort procedures 'It's something to do while you're waiting to die.' Safe Haven is the best that can be done, it might even be of some use. But don't kid yourself."
[9]ESA's Solar Orbiter sails safely past Earth despite orbiting debris concerns
[10]Russia's orbital insanity is almost beyond redemption – but there's space for improvement
[11]ESA's Solar Orbiter will swing past Earth this week – sure hope nobody created a big cloud of space junk up there
[12]Now that's a splash down: Astronauts spend 8-hour trip to Earth in diapers after SpaceX capsule toilet breaks
The latest emission from TASS follows some [13]lurid accusations made late last week when another Russian publication was quoted (citing anonymous sources) as alleging the [14]mystery hole in the habitation compartment of Soyuz MS-09 had been drilled by NASA astronaut Serena Maria Auñón-Chancellor for personal reasons.
The cause of the hole has never been made public, and in 2018 Roscosmos boss Dmitry Rogozin insisted the agency had never accused NASA of the damage, taking to the [15]TASS mouthpiece to say : "I categorically deny these allegations as totally untrue."
[16]
NASA has yet to comment on the latest accusations in Russia media, nor on the source of the debris that caused yesterday's [17]abrupt spacewalk scrub . A few more ill-conceived ASAT incidents, and the mystery of who punched a hole in the Soyuz will be the least of the ISS's problems. ®
Get our [18]Tech Resources
[1] https://tass.com/science/1369351
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/11/iss_debris_burn/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2Yaf@o2OaCMEeAfknhPQHxwAAAEI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Yaf@o2OaCMEeAfknhPQHxwAAAEI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33Yaf@o2OaCMEeAfknhPQHxwAAAEI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/16/russia_satellite_iss/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/22/russias_orbital_insanity/
[8] https://waynehale.wordpress.com/2021/11/30/everything-i-know-about-orbital-debris-almost/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2021/12/01/esa_solar_orbiter_flyby/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/22/russias_orbital_insanity/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/25/solar_orbiter_debris/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/09/broken_toilet_spacex/
[13] https://tass.com/science/1366691
[14] https://www.theregister.com/2018/09/14/hole_in_soyuz_caused_by_crew_says_russian_media/
[15] https://tass.com/science/1031588
[16] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44Yaf@o2OaCMEeAfknhPQHxwAAAEI&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[17] https://www.theregister.com/2021/11/30/iss_debris/
[18] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Skills in practice: "what about."
In this case, "what about" is a 56 year old booster launched before Kessler did his calculations, before we had a clue about space debris, before there was an ISS to intentionally involve in a orbital path of debris purposely created and long after we knew better.
Falcon upper stages left behind now mostly in service of the orbital kitty video delivery system? That's a legitimate problem, but not one the authors of "what about" worry over, based on their own seemingly pointless action. It's worth noting also that upper stages made by SpaceX passivate as part of their normal procedure, won't fragment unless struck. Unlike the Fregat still used by the "what about" authors which routinely fragments after use, and the continuing problem of SOZ ullage motors which continue to be deployed and continue to routinely fragment due to "we don't care."
Indeed, the puzzle answer for _why_ the Russians did this might lie in work also done decades ago, the exploration of geopolitical posturing with nuclear weapons by Herman Kahn and others. Sending a message to the effect of "we're crazy" can have a strategic purpose.
But the "what about" authors can depend on the reliability of ignorance. That fog can be penetrated in this case by visiting ARES' https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/quarterly-news/
[I think I've got my spacecraft mixed up here; the Pegasus stage in question is probably the later Northrop-Grumann variety. But: passivates, isn't intentionally fragrmented in a dangerous manner.]
Generally, we've been filling up low orbit and to some extent high orbit for decades without giving it much thought. It seems like it's only been in the last 10 years or so where we are having more and more launches every month. The sats that the Musky one is launching 50 or so at a time is also a problem... a big problem.
While it's true that what goes up will (for the most point) come back down but that's a function of us sitting back and waiting unless someone comes up with a cheap and reliable way to de-orbit all the junk and dead sats.
I suspect that in not too many years that space will be off-limits to us Earthlings since the risk of collision will be too high.
Dead sats aren't really a problem statistically, I would guess. And de-elevating old sats is actually feasible, although there is not much monetary incentive.
Tiny junk is a big problem both in terms of statistics and the impossibility of de-elevation.
It has already reached the stage where launch windows need to be adjusted to factor in "known" space debris orbits to allow for probable safe passage. And even then a tiny fleck of space junk that is not currently being tracked (anything that is smaller than 5 centimetres or 2 inches in diameter) could easily be travelling ~29,000 kilometres per hour (~18,000 miles per hour), or over 5 times the maximum speed of the highest velocity rifle bullets on earth (~1500 meters, or ~5000 feet, per second), could do enough damage to destroy most launches.
I'll leave this here in case you have not seen it: [1]http://stuffin.space/
[1] http://stuffin.space/
Do-orbiting
The Starlink sats are designed to de-orbit at the end of their service lives, so they will not be left around as junk for any significant amount of time (though it's not "instantaneous", as that requires a lot of propellant). I know it's going the other way, but Scott Manley [1]has a good video showing how they are moved into orbit - around about 7 minutes in, it mentions that if any aren't working correctly after initial deployment, they can simply be commanded to re-enter the atmosphere.
Similarly, the Falcon 9 second stages are intended to de-orbit once they have deployed. One or two have suffered failures that means this hasn't happened, but that's very rare.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIQr1UyhwWk
Your concern is about space debris for which every major participating country carries the blame or you are doing a preventive therapy in regards to "whatabouts"?
Bah!
So a rocket will pass the ISS at 3.3 miles distance?
Hardly a buttock clencher.
Re: Bah!
Note also that they said "more than" 5km ... I, personally, will be passing the ISS more than 5km away several times per day. Or, if you prefer, "a minimum distance of 5.4km" ... so about as close as Paddington is to The City[0][? Ohhh ... scary!
Propaganda. Or, in the words of the prophet, "smells like bullshit to me".
[0] As the crow flies, of course.
Re: Bah!
Depends on how comfortable you are with estimates and "margin of error".
Given Russia's infamous Quality Control
No doubt the hole was drilled during construction and filled with chewing gum, which finally gave way once in orbit.