Big ass satellite due to crash to Earth this weekend

[Candlelight]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/5653757/Satellite-set-to-shower-debris-across-Earth

A defunct Nasa science satellite is expected to fall back to Earth on Friday (Saturday, NZ time), showering debris somewhere on the planet although scientists cannot predict exactly where, officials said.
The 6.5-ton Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite, or UARS, was carried into orbit during a space shuttle mission in 1991. It operated for 14 years, collecting measurements of ozone and other chemicals in the atmosphere.
Since completing its mission in 2005, UARS has been slowly losing altitude, tugged by Earth's gravity. On Friday, the 10.6-metres long, 4.5-metres diameter satellite is expected to plunge into the atmosphere, Nasa reported on its website.
While most of the spacecraft will be incinerated, scientists expect up to 26 pieces, with a combined mass of about 500kg to survive the fiery re-entry and fall down somewhere on Earth.
The satellite's orbit passes over most of the planet, from as far north as northern Canada to the southern part of South America.
Nasa said the chance a piece of UARS debris will strike a person is about one in 3200. The debris will mostly likely fall into an ocean or land in an uninhabited region of Earth.

Everyone get your ACME umbrellas ready...

 

[Deranged Nasat]

One in 3,200? I know little about probability, but that seems strangely high to me. Likely I'm just ignorant, but I thought the planet was bigger than that.

 

[TrekkieMonster]

I know this may seem naive of me, but I can't help wondering why we don't install "self destruct" mechanisms in these devices for situations like this. I mean, we clearly put them up there knowing they're coming back down at some point, and we track them closely enough to know when they're coming down. So, it seems to me that - as many aspects of these situations as we've historically been able to anticipate, -- if we placed some type of explosive devices aboard that could be triggered from the ground when we know they're coming down, it would minimize the risk of earth strikes by debris. Is there, perhaps, a concern that such explosives could detonate on the way up? Which could be legitimate, of course. but, I mean, it's not like it's 1863 and we were packing the things with nitroglycerin. Just one novice's thoughts.

 

[Marc]

I know this may seem naive of me, but I can't help wondering why we don't install "self destruct" mechanisms in these devices for situations like this. I mean, we clearly put them up there knowing they're coming back down at some point, and we track them closely enough to know when they're coming down. So, it seems to me that - as many aspects of these situations as we've historically been able to anticipate, -- if we placed some type of explosive devices aboard that could be triggered from the ground when we know they're coming down, it would minimize the risk of earth strikes by debris. Is there, perhaps, a concern that such explosives could detonate on the way up? Which could be legitimate, of course. but, I mean, it's not like it's 1863 and we were packing the things with nitroglycerin. Just one novice's thoughts.

but you could only destruct them once they'd begun to re-enter the atmosphere otherwise we're going to wind up with even more debris in orbit to worry about.

If the destruct didn't go cleanly you could wind up with large chunks floating about even it does you're going to have bits and pieced flung out at high speed and they won't stop until they hit something...

So if you're going to blow it up once it's entered the atmosphere you might as well let it burn up.

 

[scotpens]

One in 3,200? I know little about probability, but that seems strangely high to me. Likely I'm just ignorant, but I thought the planet was bigger than that.

Yes, those odds don’t seem right. Are you sure someone didn’t leave off a couple of zeros?

Re the thread title: “Big ass satellite” conjures up some interesting mental images.

 

[RoJoHen]

I know this may seem naive of me, but I can't help wondering why we don't install "self destruct" mechanisms in these devices for situations like this. I mean, we clearly put them up there knowing they're coming back down at some point, and we track them closely enough to know when they're coming down. So, it seems to me that - as many aspects of these situations as we've historically been able to anticipate, -- if we placed some type of explosive devices aboard that could be triggered from the ground when we know they're coming down, it would minimize the risk of earth strikes by debris. Is there, perhaps, a concern that such explosives could detonate on the way up? Which could be legitimate, of course. but, I mean, it's not like it's 1863 and we were packing the things with nitroglycerin. Just one novice's thoughts.

but you could only destruct them once they'd begun to re-enter the atmosphere otherwise we're going to wind up with even more debris in orbit to worry about.

If the destruct didn't go cleanly you could wind up with large chunks floating about even it does you're going to have bits and pieced flung out at high speed and they won't stop until they hit something...

So if you're going to blow it up once it's entered the atmosphere you might as well let it burn up.

I'd rather install a rocket and shoot it off in some other direction once it's finished doing its job.

 

[Candlelight]

One in 3,200? I know little about probability, but that seems strangely high to me. Likely I'm just ignorant, but I thought the planet was bigger than that.

Yes, those odds don’t seem right. Are you sure someone didn’t leave off a couple of zeros?

Re the thread title: “Big ass satellite” conjures up some interesting mental images.

If you live in a town of 32,000 people, potentially ten of you will die.

Or to put it another way, 1250 people may die if it hits New Zealand.

 

[spooky spice]

There are less than 2,000 people in the town that I live near.

And it's near the ocean.

I'm not liking these odds.

 

[Mark de Vries]

I forget where, but I read a commentary explaining those odds. Apparently, they are 3,200 to 1 that it's going to some person. That chances that they'll hit you or someone in your neighbourhood are quite a lot smaller.

Still, I'm not particularly well-versed in calculating odds, so take it for what it's worth.

 

[Mutai Sho-Rin]

I forget where, but I read a commentary explaining those odds. Apparently, they are 3,200 to 1 that it's going to some person. That chances that they'll hit you or someone in your neighbourhood are quite a lot smaller.

Still, I'm not particularly well-versed in calculating odds, so take it for what it's worth.

EXACTLY! 1/3200 is the chance that ANY one person on Earth will be hit by ANY piece of debris down to the microscopic. Your odds are better of being hit by a chunk of frozen airliner latrine leakage.

 

[the 4th hanson bro]

I know this may seem naive of me, but I can't help wondering why we don't install "self destruct" mechanisms in these devices for situations like this.

My first thought would be weight. The heavier it is, the more it costs to lift into orbit.

My second thought would be regarding calculated risk. The chances of a malfunction of a self-destruct circuit/ device are probably higher than the chances of a chunk of debris surviving the re-entry, striking land, striking land in a populated area, and causing damage.

I'm not a rocket scientist, though I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[Stephen!]

Or to put it another way, 1250 people may die if it hits New Zealand.

Or if it was Australia, they'd probably fine America for littering, as happened with skylab.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylab#End_of_Skylab

The Shire of Esperance fined the United States A$400 for littering, a fine which remained unpaid for 30 years.[15] The fine was paid in April 2009, when radio show host Scott Barley of Highway Radio raised the funds from his morning show listeners and paid the fine on behalf of NASA.

 

[Emher]

There are less than 2,000 people in the town that I live near.

And it's near the ocean.

I'm not liking these odds.

I'm sorry, but in combination with your avatar your post became hilarious to me

As for the odds...I'm pretty much dead every time I get in my car. And yet, here I am.

 

[Squiggy]

One in 3,200? I know little about probability, but that seems strangely high to me. Likely I'm just ignorant, but I thought the planet was bigger than that.

Yes, those odds don’t seem right. Are you sure someone didn’t leave off a couple of zeros?

Re the thread title: “Big ass satellite” conjures up some interesting mental images.

 

[Gryffindorian]

I'll be in my bunker.

 

[Darth Duck]

The odds of it hitting you are 1 in 21 trillion, so I think we're all safe.

knock on wood

 

[Deimos Anomaly]

If some part of this lands in your back yard can you sell it?

 

[Miss Chicken]

Is this much different to when Skylab came down back in about 1980? I was on a camping trip crossing the Nullabor Plains in Dec of that year and one of the roadhouses in the area it came down had pieces of Skylab for sale for $20 each (with a certificate stating they were from Skylab) They were only melted, twisted pieces of metal but i wanted to buy one but my then husband and father-in-law said they were a waste of money.

Who here would have bought one?

 

[Miss Chicken]

Skylab came down in 1979

According to Wikipedia the chance of debris from Skylab hitting a person was 152 to 1 to the power of 369.

A 17 year old Australian boy won $10000 by being the first person to get a piece of Skylah to the offices of the San Francisco Examiner.

 

[scotpens]

. . . I was on a camping trip crossing the Nullabor Plains in Dec of that year and one of the roadhouses in the area it came down had pieces of Skylab for sale for $20 each (with a certificate stating they were from Skylab) They were only melted, twisted pieces of metal but i wanted to buy one but my then husband and father-in-law said they were a waste of money.

Seriously, how do you verify the authenticity of something like that? Seems it would be pretty easy to fake.