Military Review

Trash puzzle

39
Clearing the near space is much more difficult than it seems at first glance


The problem of pollution of outer space worries the entire aerospace community. Such a hypothetical development of events in near-earth orbit, like Kessler's syndrome, predicting the formation of space debris out of control, stirred up even popular media. It is clear that there is a need to conduct basic research in order to understand the danger that even a small fragment carries in it, and calculate how much we are willing to pay for the cleaning of outer space.

Currently, politicians, scientists, technicians and the general public are deeply aware of the problem of space debris. Thanks to the fundamental work of JK. Liouville and Nicholas Johnson, published in 2006 year, we understand that the level of contamination is likely to continue its growth in the future, even if you stop all launches. The reason for such steady growth are collisions, which, according to the expected forecasts, will take place between satellites and rocket stages that are already in orbit. This greatly worries many satellite operators, who are forced to take appropriate measures to protect their assets.

Some experts believe that these incidents will only be the beginning of a series of collisions that will make access to low Earth orbit almost impossible. Usually, this phenomenon, which was first described in detail by NASA consultant Donald Kessler, is called Kessler syndrome. But the reality is likely to be very different from similar predictions or events shown in the feature film Gravity. Indeed, the results presented to the Interdepartmental Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) at the 6th European Conference on this topic showed an expected increase in the amount of debris by only 30 percent during 200 years with continuous launches.

Collisions will still occur, but the reality will be far from the catastrophic scenario that some fear so much. The increase in the amount of space debris can be reduced to quite a modest level. IADC’s ​​proposal is to widely disseminate and strictly adhere to the guidelines for the prevention of space debris, especially regarding the neutralization of energy sources that should be fully produced by the end of the flight, and disposal after the end of the flight. Nevertheless, from the point of view of the IADC, the expected increase in the amount of garbage, despite the efforts being made, still requires the introduction of additional measures to combat the existing risk factors.

No progress?


Significant interest in the reclamation of the space environment was noted nine years after the publication of the work of Liouville and Johnson. In particular, certain steps have been taken around the world to develop methods for removing objects from a low earth orbit. The European Space Agency, for example, recently announced its intention to win support from the government in order to de-orbit the European spacecraft in the next decade. The agency has conducted numerous studies to determine rational and reliable ways to achieve the goal. A key element of the planning was computer models of clogged space, which showed that the growth of the debris population could be prevented by removing a certain spacecraft or rocket stages. In computer simulations, these objects are identified as the most susceptible to collision, therefore, after their removal from orbit, the number of collisions should sharply decrease, which would prevent the emergence of new debris as a result of debris scattering.

Trash puzzleAlmost ten years have passed since the publication of the work of Liouville and Johnson, and it is surprising that no methodological principles have been presented at the international or national level that clearly define measures to eliminate the consequences of pollution of near-Earth space. There seems to be some apathy towards the development of a garbage disposal procedure methodology, despite calls for action. But is it really?

But in fact, the situation is not as simple as it seems. With regard to the space debris removal procedure, there are some fundamental questions that have yet to be answered. Of particular concern are issues related to property, responsibility and transparency. For example, many technologies proposed for removing debris can also be used to remove or disable an active spacecraft. Therefore, one can wait for the charges that these technologies are weapons. There are also questions regarding the cost of a consistent garbage disposal program. Some technical experts estimated it at tens of trillions of dollars.

However, perhaps the most important reason for the lack of adequate methodological principles lies in the fact that we do not yet know how to carry out the reclamation, which, in practice, means the cleaning of outer space. But this does not mean that we do not know what technologies we need.

Algorithms for single use have already been developed. The real problem arises from a seemingly simple task: to identify the “right” garbage for removal from orbit. And until we can solve this problem, it seems that we will not be able to recultivate the cosmos.

We play in the wreckage

In order to understand the problematic nature of solving such a seemingly simple task as identifying garbage to be removed, we use the analogy of playing a deck of 52 ordinary playing cards. In this analogy, each map is an object located in outer space that we may want to remove to prevent a collision. After the cards are dealt, we place each card face down on the table. Our goal now is to try to identify the aces and remove them from the table, since these very cards are satellites or other large objects of space debris that may become participants in a collision at some point in the future. We can remove as many cards from the table as we want, but whenever we remove one card, we have to pay 10 dollars. In addition, as we move away, we have no right to look at the map (if the satellite is removed from orbit, we cannot say with certainty that it was he who could become a participant in the collision). Finally, we have to pay 100 dollars for each ace that remains on the table, which represents potential losses resulting from collisions involving our satellites (in reality, the cost of replacing a satellite can range from 100 thousand dollars to two billion).

Well, how do we solve this problem? On the reverse side, all the cards are the same, so there is no way to establish where the aces are, and the only way to make sure that we removed all the aces is to remove all the cards from the table. In our example, this will cost a maximum of 520 dollars. In outer space, we face the same problem: we don’t know exactly which objects may be involved in collisions, but it’s too expensive to remove them all, so we have to choose. Let's assume that we have decided to choose: in order to remove one card for the sum of 10 dollars, what is the probability that we removed an ace? Well, the likelihood that a card is an ace is four divided by 52, in other words, approximately 0,08 or 8 percent. Thus, the probability that the card is not an ace is 92 percent. That is the probability that we have wasted our 10 dollars in vain.

What happens if we take the second card this time (which will cost us another 10 dollars)? The likelihood that the second card is an ace depends on the fact whether the first card was an ace. If this were the case, then the probability that the second card is also an ace is divided into three by 51 (because now there are only three aces left in the deck, which has decreased by one card). If the first card is not an ace, then the probability that the second card is an ace: divide four by 51 (because there are still four aces left in the decreased deck).

We can use this method to determine the probability that we have removed both aces - simply multiply the probabilities to find the answer: 4 / 52 multiplied by 3 / 51, which gives us the probability of 0,0045 or 0,45 percent of the cost of 20 dollars for two remote cards. Not very encouraging.

However, we can also determine the probability of removing at least one of the aces. After removing two cards, there is a probability of 15 percent that we successfully removed at least one of the aces. This sounds more encouraging, but the odds are not particularly good now either.

It turns out that in order to increase the chances of removing at least one of the aces, we need to remove more than nine cards (worth 90 dollars) or more than 22 cards (worth 220 dollars) if we want to be sure of 90 percent that we removed one of the aces. Even if we succeed, the three aces still remain on the table, so in total we still have to pay 520 dollars, which coincidentally make up the same amount that we had to pay if we had chosen the option of deleting all cards.

The games are over.

Upon returning from our analogy back to the real space environment, the situation seems more alarming. Currently, using the United States network of space stations for observing outer space, approximately 20 000 objects are tracked, about six percent of which are objects with a mass of more than one tonne that can hypothetically participate in the collision and which we might want to remove . In the card analogy, our problem is that the “shirt” of all the cards is the same and the probability that one is the ace of spades is the same as the probability that the other is also ace. There is no way to identify the cards you need and remove them from the table. In fact, our chances of preventing collisions are much higher than in a card game, because there is a chance that some objects are involved in collisions in orbit and we can focus our attention on them. For example, objects that are in densely populated orbits, such as heliosynchronous, at altitudes between 600 and 900 kilometers are most likely to be involved in collisions due to congestion in this zone. If we focus our attention on similar objects (and others on similarly overloaded orbits) and take into account the predictions of the possibility of their collision, it turns out that we have to remove objects near 50 in order to reduce the expected number of catastrophic collisions by only one unit, which follows from the research results undertaken by members of the IADC space agency.

And it turns out that even if several objects may be subject to removal by a single spacecraft “cleaner” (and five targets appear to be a universal alternative), many flights — often complex and pretentious — will have to be undertaken only to prevent one collision.

Why are we unable to more accurately predict the probability of collisions and delete only those objects that, as we know for sure, will be dangerous? There are many parameters that can affect the satellite trajectory, including the orientation of the satellite, whether it is random motion or space weather (which can affect the aerodynamic drag experienced by the satellites). Even small errors in the initial values ​​can lead to large discrepancies in the results of calculating the satellite position compared to reality, and after a relatively short period. In fact, we use the same methodology as forecasters: we will use models to generate probabilities of specific results, but not the fact that these results will ever be obtained.

Thus, we have technologies that can be used occasionally to remove space debris. Such is the position taken by the European Space Agency with their planned e.Deorbit mission, but there are still problems that need to be solved to identify the objects most suitable for removal. These problems must be solved before the necessary directives and methodological principles can be provided to those who are interested in preparing a long-term space debris removal program, which is necessary for the effective restoration of the environment.

Methodological principles in terms of specific facilities, their quantities, requirements and limitations are important to increase the likelihood that efforts made to restore the environment will be effective and expedient. To develop such methodological principles, we must reconsider our unreasonable expectations of a favorable outcome.
Author:
Originator:
http://vpk-news.ru/articles/27725
39 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ia-ai00
    ia-ai00 1 November 2015 06: 52 New
    +9
    As soon as a person "enters" where he is, he shits everywhere, and to remove beyond his personal threshold, always "hands do not reach." The mountain of "products" of human life is growing exponentially on Earth, in the seas and oceans, and now in the near-earth airspace ... But once this "mountain" can fall on its head. what
    1. Sterlya
      Sterlya 1 November 2015 21: 00 New
      +3
      Quote: ia-ai00
      As soon as a person "enters" where he is, he shits everywhere, and to remove beyond his personal threshold, always "hands do not reach." The mountain of "products" of human life is growing exponentially on Earth, in the seas and oceans, and now in the near-earth airspace ... But once this "mountain" can fall on its head. what

      This is capitalism. Extraction max. arrived. And then be as it will.
      Humanity does not live correctly, carelessly to the point of disgrace. All Big People with cockroaches thinking
      1. zennon
        zennon 2 November 2015 00: 43 New
        0
        Quote: Sterlya
        This is capitalism. Extraction max. arrived.

        What does "capitalism" have to do with all this? What is the relation to all this have, for example, Germany, Italy, Argentina and T, D? Space was dirtied by only a few countries. Moreover, the lion's share of the garbage was brought in by the USSR. And we, as you know, did not have any capitalism.
  2. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 1 November 2015 07: 08 New
    +5
    Not addressed yet another aspect of the problem: geopolitical. The whole world knows that without space technology, the US army is practically not operational. Consequently, until the United States ceases its imperialist policy and reduces its armed forces (and significantly), no one will ever sign any convention on the purification of near-Earth space. Rather, third-world countries are already preparing to bombard their lower orbits with buckets with nuts and bolts. After all, it is in the lower and middle orbits that all US reconnaissance satellites operate, which make it possible to determine individual targets and direct aircraft at them.
    Further in the epistemological aspect. All world thinkers are unanimous that humanity does not have the right to go out into wide space without uniting within itself and not having solved all internal problems. And here you have a tool that impedes the cosmic expansion of mankind.
    1. Igor39
      Igor39 1 November 2015 07: 40 New
      +6
      What a wide space? We haven’t been to the moon yet. Only dreams so far.
      1. kalibr
        kalibr 1 November 2015 09: 46 New
        0
        Well, they were on the moon, no need to repeat another "conspiracy theory". But our possibilities are really very limited.
        1. LEX SU
          LEX SU 1 November 2015 10: 50 New
          +5
          I doubt very much about the moon ...
          what is easier from the surface of the earth in a powerful telescope to see the landing module and moon scout! because they stayed ...
          WHERE ARE THEY???? WHERE THESE PICTURES CAN BE LOOKED ??? !!!
          You know that by March 8 at 19 .. one year, one of the Lunokhods twisted the eight on the lunar surface - such as a gift for women. And ANYONE could see this eight in an amateur telescope! And then what?

          did not tolerate. I add =)
          mattresses flew to the Moon like five times !!!
          WHERE is the lunar soil in tons ??? where are some of the research results that made the expedition (otherwise why five expeditions) ???
          Where are the books written by the "legendary" TEN astronauts ???? They love to write great books about themselves ...
          1. sa-ag
            sa-ag 1 November 2015 10: 53 New
            0
            Quote: LEX SU
            what is easier from the surface of the earth in a powerful telescope to see the landing module and moon scout! because they stayed ...

            It’s not even easier, resolution is not enough
            1. Throw
              Throw 1 November 2015 19: 52 New
              +9
              Gambler smile , who wrote the article, forgot to emphasize that it’s clean where there is no litter.

              One of the significant factors in the contamination of the zone of low and medium orbits with pieces of iron is games in anti-satellite weapons.

              True, sometimes there was a common approach. The USSR, for example, after a series of tests of the Kosmos series interceptor, ceased to detonate the destructive charge, but was limited to fixing the approach sufficient to defeat. Then he carefully brought the interceptor and the target out of orbit. But they managed to spawn debris.

              Earlier, the Americans decided not to trifle at all and rushed over their territory in low orbit to a vigorous fool, if memory serves, megatons and a half ...
              Not only that, in some city of their kind, all the light bulbs on the lanterns burst, they also carried out a third (!) Of the satellite constellation in low orbits, both ours and ours, with an explosion (EMR).
              On a note of the Union in the style of "What are you, morons ?!" fool ", the Americans replied," Do not deny sad ", after which such" experiments "were stopped. But the dead satellites smoked space for a long time until they left their orbits.

              In this century, the Chinese "comrades" cheerfully joined the process, and in 2007 they smashed their old meteorological satellite with the KT kinetic interceptor to the Feng Shui, which caused wild waves of mate from all countries. the meteorological trough scattered in all possible orbits into more than 3000 debris! Most of which are still dangling somewhere ...

              The amers decided to keep up with the Feng Shui too, and in 2008 the SM-3, which had lost control of the optical reconnaissance satellite, was shot down. Nevertheless, when indicated by other countries about their sexual orientation, the Americans provided a destruction scheme with calculated tracks of debris, according to which the latter seemed to be burned in the atmosphere in the coming months. What kind of like otmazyvatsya.

              However, the process is gaining momentum, as inevitable. The absence of tests of space weapons for countries with ICBMs and satellite constellations means a lag, which in the current situation no one can afford.
              So there will be a lot of raking.
              hi
            2. Bayonet
              Bayonet 1 November 2015 20: 18 New
              +2
              Quote: sa-ag
              It’s not even easier, resolution is not enough

              You would have explained to the mind easier, he did not hear about the resolution smile
              1. LEX SU
                LEX SU 2 November 2015 01: 19 New
                +5
                sure sure
                explain to me!

                for 50 years, optics have not gone anywhere ... and a day for 50 years has not stood out with the conditions for a photo ... and a second was not found at the telescopes ...

                the region is known, at certain positions of the sun and moon the SHADOW from a small object of 6 * 6 meters and a height of about 1.5-2 meters will reach a length of 30 meters ... (roughly) total object (spot) measuring 30m2 + 90m2 = 120m2
                1. LEX SU
                  LEX SU 2 November 2015 01: 41 New
                  +4
                  FIVE LANDING MODULES ON THE MOON!

                  this is to the viability of the Lunar program in the 60s (okhuilliard dollars - multiplied by 5)

                  PS not counting (and not reading) the links that the respected Scoundrel posted

                  PPP, I would believe in one go, chesslovo! I just want to believe that in the 60s people thought that everyone could and could! and do not care what the FSA! I would be happy ... Strugatsky wrote books well in my childhood ...
                  But not FIVE times! and there were no failures ... like astronauts were driven to a neighboring state ... but where is the famous "Houston we have problems"
            3. LEX SU
              LEX SU 2 November 2015 01: 17 New
              +2
              I doubt very much ... but where is the photo from the orbit of the moon ???
              at least where is the photo from the Earth's orbit ??? (from the ISS for example) - proudly "fluttering" under the lunar wind a star
              for the conceit of the exceptional - that would be cool ... but quietly something ...
              hi
          2. cast iron
            cast iron 2 November 2015 02: 27 New
            0
            What are the tons of soil? When designing a spaceship, they fight for every gram saved, and you're talking about transporting soil from the Moon to Earth .. This is the finish.

            The flights themselves and operations about take-off and landing, as well as work on the lunar surface, are research. You do not know?

            Where are the books written by Leonovy, Titov, Grechko, Tereshkova, Gagarin?
            1. gjv
              gjv 4 November 2015 09: 17 New
              0
              Quote: cast iron
              Where are the books written by Leonovs

              A. Leonov, V. Lebedev. Perception of space and time in space. - M .: Nauka, 1968 .-- 114 p.
              A. Leonov, V. Lebedev. Psychological features of the activities of astronauts. - M .: Nauka, 1971. - 255 p.
              A. Leonov, V. Lebedev. Psychological problems of interplanetary flight. - M .: Nauka, 1975 .-- 248 p.
              A. Leonov. I go out into space. - Kid, 1980.
              A. Leonov, A. Sokolov. Life among the stars. - M .: Young Guard, 1981.
              A. Leonov. Sunny wind. - 1977.
              A. Leonov. Earth and space painting. - 2004.
            2. gjv
              gjv 4 November 2015 09: 23 New
              0
              Quote: cast iron
              Where are the books written ... Grechko

              G.M. Grechko, A.I. Melua, A.B. Peshkov, N.P. Selivanov. Earth is our home in the universe. Stroyizdat, 1983.
              G.M. Grechko, A.I. Melua. In the frame is a planet. Soviet Russia, 1984.
              G.M. Buckwheat. Start in the unknown. True, 1989.
              G.M. Buckwheat. Cosmonaut No. 34. From the torch to the aliens. OLMA Media Group, 2013.
            3. gjv
              gjv 4 November 2015 09: 23 New
              0
              Quote: cast iron
              Where are the books written ... by Titov

              G. S. Titov. "700 kilometers in space" (series "Library" Ogonyok "). - M., 000.
              G.S. Titov. Seventeen Cosmic Dawns. - M.: LPN, 1962.
              G.S. Titov. Aviation and space. - M .: Military publishing house of the Ministry of Defense of the USSR, 1963.
              G.S. Titov. The first astronaut of the planet. - M.: “Knowledge”, 1971.
              G.S. Titov. My blue planet // "Roman newspaper." - 1972. - No. 24. In 1973 she published a separate book at the Military Publishing House of the USSR Ministry of Defense.
              G.S. Titov. In stellar and terrestrial orbits. - M .: Children's literature, 1987.
            4. gjv
              gjv 4 November 2015 09: 27 New
              0
              Quote: cast iron
              Where are the books written ... Tereshkova

              V.V. Tereshkova. The path to the stars. - RMP, 2012.
            5. gjv
              gjv 4 November 2015 09: 28 New
              0
              Quote: cast iron
              Where are the books written ... by Gagarin

              Gagarin Yu.A. The road to space. - M .: Military Publishing House, 1978.
        2. bastard
          bastard 1 November 2015 10: 58 New
          +3
          Quote: kalibr
          Well, they were on the moon, no need to repeat another "conspiracy theory".

          Sorry, I can not object to you! We are offered to BELIEVE that the Americans were on the moon, but the word faith, as you know, has nothing to do with science, it’s about priests.
          Please go here, if you, of course, are not too lazy to read multibukaf and tsyfar:
          To begin with: what is radiation, general ideas sufficient to pass the exam, an introductory course, so to speak (from here, by the way, my profile picture wassat ):

          http://lurkmo.re/Радиация

          Further, the results of analyzes of the radiation component during the passage of the Van Allen belts, stay outside the Earth's magnetosphere and on the surface of the Moon:

          http://oko-planet.su/science/sciencecosmos/225516-chelovek-na-lune-dozy-radiacii

          -pri-polete-na-lunu.html

          Well, for dessert (well, very interesting!):

          http://www.manonmoon.ru/articles/st80.htm

          http://andrew-vk.narod.ru/public/Apollo_FCS/fcs.html

          http://www.manonmoon.ru/articles/st9b.htm

          http://usa-moon.ru/

          http://www.manonmoon.ru/book/3.htm

          Well, and so on. . .
          I personally have some complaints about the design, materials and characteristics of their moon shaitan-arba. I have already outlined them somehow, but I can repeat them even in a more expanded form.
          Enjoy your time while reading the above materials! hi
          1. sa-ag
            sa-ag 1 November 2015 11: 11 New
            +3
            And you can read Boris Chertok
            1. bastard
              bastard 1 November 2015 15: 20 New
              -2
              Quote: sa-ag
              And you can read Boris Chertok

              Can. And it is necessary!
        3. fennekRUS
          fennekRUS 1 November 2015 13: 43 New
          +6
          Quote: kalibr
          But our possibilities are really very limited.

          ... people - and d and about s. They did a lot of stupid things: they came up with costumes for dogs, the position of an advertising manager and things like the iPhone, having received in return nothing but a sour aftertaste. But if we developed science, mastered the Moon, Mars, Venus ... Who knows what the world would be like then? Mankind has been given the opportunity to surf the cosmos, but it wants to engage in consumption: drink beer and watch TV shows. - (From an interview with the newspaper Arguments and Facts) R. Bradbury
          1. bastard
            bastard 1 November 2015 15: 35 New
            10
            Quote: fennekRUS
            They did a lot of stupid things: they came up with costumes for dogs, the position of an advertising manager and things like the iPhone, having received in return nothing but a sour aftertaste.

            Buying an iPhone, in fact, is a purchase of a lot of good money and a whole bunch of show-offs for big money, which in the midst of managers and office plankton, as a rule, is a manifestation of the most common monkey dominance.
            Many people often ask me why I still haven't thrown my old (2006), in their opinion, Nokia into the trash, to which they hear: "It works." Ponty is not only an expensive thing, but also harmful.
    2. Megatron
      Megatron 1 November 2015 17: 54 New
      0
      What thinkers? Which association? What are you talking about? Have you read cheap fiction?
  3. sohosha
    sohosha 1 November 2015 07: 45 New
    +2
    For what they fought for it and ran, conspiracy ....
  4. sa-ag
    sa-ag 1 November 2015 08: 32 New
    +1
    Laser for anti-trifle, for guidance of the millimeter-wave radar
    1. KG_patriot_last
      KG_patriot_last 1 November 2015 10: 27 New
      +4
      This laser and radar need to be lifted into space again, it should be outside the atmosphere. And the power supply is most likely an atomic reactor, because you need so much energy ... And this, in turn, raises the question of cooling so that the apparatus itself does not melt ... Anyway, after laser evaporation, there will still be some material (dusty) ...
      It is better then with mirrors to create the effect of "magnifying glass on a sunny day" ...
  5. Russian Uzbek
    Russian Uzbek 1 November 2015 08: 46 New
    +5
    the problem will be addressed then - when the real obstacles to navigation in orbit begin ... when several expensive and valuable objects are lost ...
    those. when the damage becomes unacceptable, and it’s painful, expensive pleasure - to remove garbage from orbit
  6. mark2
    mark2 1 November 2015 10: 07 New
    +4
    Well, yes, another global problem))) 20000 debris ... yes, I go out on the road every day, there are hundreds of objects that impede my movement per hour, in the immediate vicinity and everyone moves along conditionally predictable trajectories.
    Will fall sooner or later. everything will return dust to dust. and do not worry
  7. LEX SU
    LEX SU 1 November 2015 10: 53 New
    +6
    and the article is interesting. I know that ballistics specialists begin almost 3 months before calculating the "window" in order to launch a payload into orbit without problems
  8. Old26
    Old26 1 November 2015 11: 01 New
    +5
    Quote: Jurkovs
    The whole world knows that without space technology the US army is practically not combat-ready

    Now any army without space technology is "incapable of combat" (do not exaggerate the dependence of the American army). Yes, Americans are the most widely used of such technologies, but others are trying to keep up with them, and Russia is in the forefront. Without communication satellites, cartographic, reconnaissance, early warning system, there is no escape. There are indeed problems, but alas, they have not yet been resolved.

    Quote: Jurkovs
    Rather, third world countries are already preparing to bombard their lower orbits with buckets with nuts and bolts

    If they throw it, but there are not so many who are capable of throwing cargo into orbit
  9. resh
    resh 1 November 2015 11: 10 New
    +3
    In the price of a new car lay utilization fee. By analogy, create a commission at the UN concerned with this problem.
    1. zennon
      zennon 2 November 2015 00: 49 New
      0
      Quote: resh
      By analogy, create a commission at the UN concerned with this problem.

      To which the vast majority of countries, such as Burkina Fasa, will say, but we didn’t clog anything! You are the USSR, and then Russia, you’re fucked up, sort it out! And all your commissions will be right for us.
  10. Steppe
    Steppe 1 November 2015 13: 42 New
    +3
    what Where does this garbage in space come from? We must learn to utilize the satellites that have served their term, to make them so that they can be returned to the earth in any case, even if they are not fully operational; Do not throw candy wrappers into space, etc.
    1. litus
      litus 1 November 2015 14: 27 New
      +1
      Quote: Steppe
      what Where does this garbage in space come from?

      And you ask the Chinese :-) These wiseacres like to grind with their rocket over some satellite. It would be better to learn to clean up after themselves, bastards
  11. _my opinion
    _my opinion 1 November 2015 16: 26 New
    +3
    I remembered how our decommissioned satellite demolished an Amer operating military satellite ... wink
    here is less garbage laughing
    1. zennon
      zennon 2 November 2015 00: 52 New
      +1
      Quote: _my opinion
      I remembered how our decommissioned satellite demolished an Amer operating military satellite ... wink
      here is less garbage laughing

      You are mistaken. It became hundreds of times larger - instead of 2 satellites, hundreds of fragments appeared.
    2. ia-ai00
      ia-ai00 2 November 2015 06: 01 New
      0
      _my opinion RU
      ... demolished amersky active military satellite ... wink
      here it’s less garbage laughing

      I think the meaning of your opinion is understandable! I completely agree with you! yes
  12. Yak-3P
    Yak-3P 1 November 2015 19: 50 New
    +2
    beyond the trajectories of the orbits of the satellites and all that the planet can’t turn around there ... the destruction of the 1st - the expansion of fragments with their orbits and chaos will begin in the near space .. to fly apart all of us have already come across once barely managed to remove .. they say then everyone was lucky . and then there’s a bunch of rubbish there worse than any pro .. and the defenses aren’t speed it’s terrible .. even you lift the tank down ..
  13. Old26
    Old26 1 November 2015 20: 31 New
    0
    Quote: villain
    Well, and so on. . .I have

    You quoted the second guru that the Americans were not on the moon. The first is Mukhin, the second is Popov. Delirium mixed with reality. Sorry, but if the author says about the 11-day flight of "Gemeni" that it was not - sorry, but this is a clinic

    Quote: Yak-3P
    beyond the trajectories of the orbits of the satellites and all that the planet can’t turn around there ... the destruction of the 1st - the expansion of fragments with their orbits and chaos will begin in the near space .. to fly apart all of us have already come across once barely managed to remove .. they say then everyone was lucky . and then there’s a bunch of rubbish there worse than any pro .. and the defenses aren’t speed it’s terrible .. even you lift the tank down ..

    Damn, a set of letters without any thought

    Quote: _my opinion
    I remembered how our decommissioned satellite demolished an Amer operating military satellite ... wink
    here is less garbage laughing

    Do not voice the names? Especially when you consider that the orbits of our and American satellites often vary
    1. zennon
      zennon 2 November 2015 00: 55 New
      +2
      Quote: Old26
      Do not voice the names? Especially when you consider that the orbits of our and American satellites often vary

      With pleasure:
      The collision of the Cosmos-2251 and Iridium 33 satellites is the first known case [1] of a collision of two artificial satellites in space. The collision occurred on February 10, 2009 over the territory of the Russian Federation (over the Taimyr Peninsula, over the point 72,5 ° N, 97,9 ° E), at an altitude of 788,6 kilometers. The speeds of both satellites were approximately equal and amounted to about 7470 m / s, the relative speed was about 11,7 km / s. The artificial satellites are Cosmos-2251, which belonged to the Russian Space Forces, launched into orbit in 1993 and operated until 1995, and Iridium 33, one of the 72 satellites of the Iridium satellite communications operator, launched into orbit in 1997 , as a result of the collision collapsed completely. The mass of the American satellite "Iridium" was 600 kg, and the Russian satellite "Cosmos-2251" - 1 ton. As a result of the collision, about 600 fragments were formed.