• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Big ass satellite due to crash to Earth this weekend

Regardless. If a piece of space junk crashes onto your property you know it is not yours so taking it would be stealing. That's pretty much the definition of stealing.

If after a few weeks NASA doesn't come to claim it then their ownership of it is forfeit and then you can keep the potentially radioactive piece of space debris.
 
If someone picks up some litter that I threw away it isn't stealing. NASA has not tried to retrieved this satellite, they have abandoned it.

Maybe the American government call tell their people that keeping a piece of it is stealing but I don't see they can dictate it is theft if it ends up in another country.

As far as i know Australia has no laws relating to space debris at all.
 
I did a little research and it would seem that the launching country does own the space junk but a person doesn't have to report finding it and only has to give it back if they are asked to. Therefore finding it and keeping it isn't theft unless the agency concerned decides to approach you for its return and you refuse to do so. One can even put ot up on eBay without it being theft but the agency concerned could ask for the auction to be stopped and for the item to be returned to them.

NASA didn't ask for pieces of Skylab to be returned and the first sale was made within three days.

Columbia was different because it wasn't space junk. Hence people trying yo sell itcould be charged.
 
Yeah, it seems to me that a crashing satellite should be considered abandoned property and therefore salvage; I wonder how that would stand up in court.
 
RJDiogenes said:
Yeah, it seems to me that a crashing satellite should be considered abandoned property and therefore salvage; I wonder how that would stand up in court.
Click to expand...

I just find it amazing that a country (or countries) can litter space, allow something this large to fall back to Earth and not have a plan to avoid human death.

It's like working on an iceberg then cutting it lose into shipping lanes. Sure it might drift through unscathed before it melts but it could also sink a ship.

It's just irresponsible.
 
One would think that NASA could come up with a plan to fire the remaining maneuvering thrusters and plunge the satellite into the atmosphere at a time and place of their choosing in order to have this burn-up and crash in the most remote place possible. The Russian's brought Mir down pretty safely, why cannot NASA in this situation? My two cents.....

Q2
 
Candlelight said:
I just find it amazing that a country (or countries) can litter space, allow something this large to fall back to Earth and not have a plan to avoid human death.

It's like working on an iceberg then cutting it lose into shipping lanes. Sure it might drift through unscathed before it melts but it could also sink a ship.

It's just irresponsible.
Click to expand...

The plan is that no one has ever been killed from man-made space debris falling to Earth because the odds of it striking a person (or being fatal even if it does) are so miniscule. It's not like releasing an iceberg into known shipping lanes at all. It's more like releasing a couple blocks of ice, some snowballs, and some ice cubes over some random hundreds of miles wide conical section of land or sea somewhere on Earth.

Even much more frequent meteorites very rarely strike people and can be perfectly survivable:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/boy-survives-being-struck-by-a-meteorite/

A few pieces of this are big enough to kill or severely injure, but most are small enough and will slow down enough that they would probably not be fatal even if they did defy the odds and hit someone.

Q2UnME said:
One would think that NASA could come up with a plan to fire the remaining maneuvering thrusters and plunge the satellite into the atmosphere at a time and place of their choosing in order to have this burn-up and crash in the most remote place possible. The Russian's brought Mir down pretty safely, why cannot NASA in this situation?
Click to expand...

Mir was massive and already had to be resupplied/refueled on a frequent basis, so de-orbiting it safely was just a continuation of existing fairly standard operations. Satellites aren't designed to require constant upkeep like that and to do so would make them impractical and expensive. Plus, as big a satellite as this is, it's nowhere near the size or survivability of Mir.

I'm guessing the fuel in the maneuvering thrusters was probably used up when they did the final orbit-lowering burn in 2005 and deactivated the few remaining working systems (it was launched in 1991, and only intended to last three years, but instead some systems worked that whole fourteen years). This is supported by the fact that the International Space Station had to use its own thrusters to avoid a collision with this satellite in 2010, rather than using the satellite's own fuel supply (which is a moot point since it was shut down and uncontrollable).

It's not practical to carry enough fuel for a burn up over the ocean, nor is it practical to fly up to steer it to a safe burn up.
 
Candlelight said:
Squiggy said:
Candlelight said:
If they're lax enough to allow space debris to potentially kill someone, it's mine. Not on American soil, tough shit.
Click to expand...

Then, if NASA chose to enforce their ownership rights it would be a matter between you, your government, and the United States.
Click to expand...

Rights of salvage.
Click to expand...
Not applicable if it lands on land. If it lands in water also not applicable because I doubt you're able to conduct an underwater salvage operation.

Candlelight said:
Plus if a Chinese satellite hit American soil I highly doubt an American would rush to return it.
Click to expand...
Probably not. But you're not American and we're not China.
 
Update #8
Thu, 22 Sep 2011 04:44:51 AM GMT-0700


As of 7 a.m. EDT Sept. 22, 2011, the orbit of UARS was 115 mi by 120 mi (185 km by 195 km). Re-entry is expected sometime during the afternoon of Sept. 23, Eastern Daylight Time. The satellite will not be passing over North America during that time period. It is still too early to predict the time and location of re-entry with any more certainty, but predictions will become more refined in the next 24 to 36 hours.
Click to expand...

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/uars/index.html
 
Locutus of Bored said:
It's not practical to carry enough fuel for a burn up over the ocean, nor is it practical to fly up to steer it to a safe burn up.
Click to expand...

A thought: how about a mirror for a slow correction into an ocean? More wackily, how about a ground-based laser system that would slowly ablate material and provide thrust? Feasible?
 
^^ The second idea would be more theoretically feasible. Actually, a (possibly motile) space-based laser would probably be more practical since there would be no atmospheric diffusion.

M'Sharak said:
Update #8
Thu, 22 Sep 2011 04:44:51 AM GMT-0700


As of 7 a.m. EDT Sept. 22, 2011, the orbit of UARS was 115 mi by 120 mi (185 km by 195 km). Re-entry is expected sometime during the afternoon of Sept. 23, Eastern Daylight Time. The satellite will not be passing over North America during that time period. It is still too early to predict the time and location of re-entry with any more certainty, but predictions will become more refined in the next 24 to 36 hours.
Click to expand...
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/uars/index.html
Click to expand...
Oh, well. I guess I won't be getting the afternoon off.
 
RJDiogenes said:
^^ The second idea would be more theoretically feasible. Actually, a (possibly motile) space-based laser would probably be more practical since there would be no atmospheric diffusion.
Click to expand...

Motile? Do we really want powerful lasers moving around of their own volition? Next thing you know, they'd be taking contracts out on Sarah Connor rather than obsolete satellites with big butts and no sense of civic pride.
 
Jay Leno last night:

"There's a satellite that's going to crash into the Earth this weekend, and it still has a better chance of landing in the end-zone than the Kansas City Chiefs."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dryson
Black Holes at the Edge of the Universe
Replies
2
Views
491
Robert Bruce Scott
Robert Bruce Scott
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top