Flaming Space Junk Narrowly Misses Airliner

[doodlebug 3]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=07...;show_article=1

Flaming space junk from a Russian satellite narrowly missed hitting a Chilean airliner over the Pacific Ocean, reports said Wednesday.

The pilot of a LAN Chile Airbus A340 en route to New Zealand told air traffic controllers he had seen pieces of flaming space junk falling about eight kilometres (four miles) in front of the plane and behind it, TV3 said.

The aircraft was not struck by any of the debris and later landed safely in Auckland.

Airways New Zealand, which manages New Zealand's air traffic, said it had been warned by Russian authorities that an obsolete satellite was due to fall into the Pacific Ocean on Wednesday.

But the debris had apparently fallen into the area 12 hours earlier than the time advised by the Russians.

A spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority, which is responsible for air safety, said it would launch an inquiry after it was advised of the details of the incident.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Now, for those who ride airplanes across a major ocean will freak from hearing this news.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Airways New Zealand, which manages New Zealand's air traffic, said it had been warned by Russian authorities that an obsolete satellite was due to fall into the Pacific Ocean on Wednesday.

But the debris had apparently fallen into the area 12 hours earlier than the time advised by the Russians.

12 hours earlier? Would be funny if there was a screwup in the AM/PM somewhere.

[almaty 19]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=07...;show_article=1

Flaming space junk from a Russian satellite narrowly missed hitting a Chilean airliner over the Pacific Ocean, reports said Wednesday.

The pilot of a LAN Chile Airbus A340 en route to New Zealand told air traffic controllers he had seen pieces of flaming space junk falling about eight kilometres (four miles) in front of the plane and behind it, TV3 said.

The aircraft was not struck by any of the debris and later landed safely in Auckland.

Airways New Zealand, which manages New Zealand's air traffic, said it had been warned by Russian authorities that an obsolete satellite was due to fall into the Pacific Ocean on Wednesday.

But the debris had apparently fallen into the area 12 hours earlier than the time advised by the Russians.

A spokesman for the Civil Aviation Authority, which is responsible for air safety, said it would launch an inquiry after it was advised of the details of the incident.

\i am sure Putin blame it on the chechens..or Georgia..etc.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Airways New Zealand, which manages New Zealand's air traffic, said it had been warned by Russian authorities that an obsolete satellite was due to fall into the Pacific Ocean on Wednesday.

But the debris had apparently fallen into the area 12 hours earlier than the time advised by the Russians.

12 hours earlier? Would be funny if there was a screwup in the AM/PM somewhere.

Nasa (subcontractor) screwed up metric/standard for a Mars probe if I remember.

[William33 110]

Why don't they jettison that garbage into outer space?

Clearly, we have the technology to build in rocket boosters to escape the Earth's gravitational pull, when the satellite becomes obsolete.

Why bring garbage home, if you don't have to?

[Dan J 277]

BBC has a better article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6505143.stm

Most likely metors not space junk.

[~Chad~ 0]

Now, for those who ride airplanes across a major ocean will freak from hearing this news.

I fly out next wednesday

[Dr_LHA 3]

Why don't they jettison that garbage into outer space?

Clearly, we have the technology to build in rocket boosters to escape the Earth's gravitational pull, when the satellite becomes obsolete.

Why bring garbage home, if you don't have to?

Because escaping the Earth's pull requires large rockets, very large ones. Large rockets require fuel. Fuel is heavy and the cost of launching a satellite is proportional to how heavy the satellite is. Basically its all about size and money, and when we're talking launching satellites the cost is, if you'll excuse the pun, astronomical.

Actually satellites above a certain weight are required to have some sort of booster attached to them to allow controlled re-entry to avoid random crashes. I doubt this was the case for this Russian satellite.

Edited March 29, 2007 by dr_lha

[William33 110]

Why don't they jettison that garbage into outer space?

Clearly, we have the technology to build in rocket boosters to escape the Earth's gravitational pull, when the satellite becomes obsolete.

Why bring garbage home, if you don't have to?

Because escaping the Earth's pull requires large rockets, very large ones. Large rockets require fuel. Fuel is heavy and the cost of launching a satellite is proportional to how heavy the satellite is. Basically its all about size and money, and when we're talking launching satellites the cost is, if you'll excuse the pun, astronomical.

Actually satellites above a certain weight are required to have some sort of booster attached to them to allow controlled re-entry to avoid random crashes. I doubt this was the case for this Russian satellite.

Understood. But, if the collective space agencies really cared about our limited environment, they would pay the $$$.

Now, many countries launch satellites on the cheap. 10-15 years from now, they will rain on our heads.

[Mirorgate 0]

Understood. But, if the collective space agencies really cared about our limited environment, they would pay the $$$.

Now, many countries launch satellites on the cheap. 10-15 years from now, they will rain on our heads.

Agencies care other than their bottom line? Take a laught point. you deserve it.

Second, by the time 10-15 yrs comes around, there could very well be a "Space trash agency" that collects such stuff before it renters orbit.

[Dr_LHA 3]

Understood. But, if the collective space agencies really cared about our limited environment, they would pay the $$$.

Now, many countries launch satellites on the cheap. 10-15 years from now, they will rain on our heads.

Its all about cost-benefit analysis. The fact is that the benefit of doing something like you suggest is miniscule compared to the cost. Most satellites burn up in the atmosphere and do no damage at all.

Its not an environmental issue, the damage to the environment would be much higher due to larger amount of fuel needed to send up these heavier satellites. The enviromental impact of a satellite burning up is small. Also the rockets we use to send up satellites also re-enter the atmosphere and burn up, you can't attach rockets to the rockets to boost those up into space as well!

[William33 110]

Understood. But, if the collective space agencies really cared about our limited environment, they would pay the $$$.

Now, many countries launch satellites on the cheap. 10-15 years from now, they will rain on our heads.

Agencies care other than their bottom line? Take a laught point. you deserve it.

Second, by the time 10-15 yrs comes around, there could very well be a "Space trash agency" that collects such stuff before it renters orbit.

Yes, I know.

But at least in the US and Europe, these programs are funded with taxpayer money.

If people stepped up, maybe they would listen.

In the meantime, I need to get my business plan together for space trash!!

[Dr_LHA 3]

Agencies care other than their bottom line?

Indeed. NASA and the like are government and therefore tax payer funded. Saving money is what they're all about.

[William33 110]

Understood. But, if the collective space agencies really cared about our limited environment, they would pay the $$$.

Now, many countries launch satellites on the cheap. 10-15 years from now, they will rain on our heads.

Its all about cost-benefit analysis. The fact is that the benefit of doing something like you suggest is miniscule compared to the cost. Most satellites burn up in the atmosphere and do no damage at all.

Its not an environmental issue, the damage to the environment would be much higher due to larger amount of fuel needed to send up these heavier satellites. The enviromental impact of a satellite burning up is small. Also the rockets we use to send up satellites also re-enter the atmosphere and burn up, you can't attach rockets to the rockets to boost those up into space as well!

I understand what you are saying and fully support the cost-benefit analysis mentality.

This allows things to get done, not only in Government, moreover; in the corporate world, where P&L will make or break a company.

I only wonder if some of the mysteriously downed airliners of the past or any future incidents, possibly related to space trash, would not cause uproar. Most issues do.