the Rods from God are amazing really.Niccolo said:Interesting that someone else knows of that plan - but I hearda rumour in the wind that they were possibly scrapping that one.Caliostro said:-Snip of kinetic bombardment post
Anyway, the mass of one of the rods from God is approximately 3.1 US tons - 2.8 metric tonnes. However, they're tipped in a tungsten alloy that's ridiculously heat-resistant so as to stop it from burning up - so most of those three tons hits whatever was targeted.
Satellites aren't exactly fireproofed, since there's no real need to fireproof something designed for a world where fire is physically impossible barring magic, which means they mostly burn up and vaporise on the way in.
They tend to break up into lots of little pieces, too. While this is still not exactly the ideal situation, it's a hell of a lot better than a bigass dart hitting someone square in the face.
Yeah, but some fish are gonna have a really bad day..mrdude2010 said:35 meters isn't that big in the global scheme of things. the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs was 50 times that big
also remember the earth is like 73% water, so i mean chances are it won't even hit anything important
this is what i thought too. An object has to be pretty gorram big to be of significant size by the time it gets through the atmosphere.Filiecs said:Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't most of it burn up? Or is it not high enough for that to happen?
Personally, I don't really think there is much to worry about as NASA probably built it to fall apart upon descent.
It will burn up. I'm not concerned about that at all.Doclector said:This is treading a delicious line between funny and terrifying.
Also, touch nothing? I call zombies, dammit!this is what i thought too. An object has to be pretty gorram big to be of significant size by the time it gets through the atmosphere.Filiecs said:Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't most of it burn up? Or is it not high enough for that to happen?
Personally, I don't really think there is much to worry about as NASA probably built it to fall apart upon descent.
Because they can't predict what kind of effect, if any, wind will have on it. I'm sure they know where it'll fall if there is no interference from the wind, but factor in the weather conditions of where the satellite passes and nobody will know what'll happen until it actually happens.crystalsnow said:Can't predict exactly where it will land? I call bullshit. This thing is on a set orbit, and the laws of physics are being applied constantly. *I* could figure out where it would land if given all the variables NASA knows, why the hell can't the top scientists in the country figure it out?
Because traveling into space is really really really really really expensive. And spending so much money just to go up and pick up obsolete satellites... well I think you get the idea.Jabberwock xeno said:...And why can't we pick up the debris?
Is there a reason, or do they just want their stuff back?
If you remember correctly... Project Thor is a conceptual idea, or a theory. Not actually tested.Caliostro said:Nothing to worry about guys. It's just 6.5 ton piece of metal falling from the sky. That never hurt anyone.
Never you mind things like Project Thor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment].
Yes, kinectic bombardment is essentially dropping things from space, like what's going to happen to this satellite.
Yes, they achieved the equivalent of tactical nuclear strikes with rods roughly the size of telephone poles which, if I remember correctly, weighted nowhere near 6 tons.
Yes, this kind of strike is nigh impossible to defend against since there's no guidance system to jam, it's just something falling, and you can't really intercept it since it's falling at roughly 9 km per second (for comparison a Barrett M82 .50 cal sniper rifle [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barret_50_cal] has a muzzle velocity of roughly 853 m per second).
...so I guess what they're saying is something like "don't worry about it, if it lands on you, you're just fucked".
Heads up.
I know what they mean, but I couldn't help laughing at this.Greg Tito said:But again, don't worry. There's never been a problem with objects falling from space before.
I nominate this poster for winner of the thread. +25 Awesome.The_root_of_all_evil said:
Basically, just run.
Thanks for calling him out on this.Jaime_Wolf said:Snip
And yet the US Military sees it as an absolute necessity to rewire an anti-ballistic missile to shoot down a satellite that is degrading just cos it has about 10 lbs of hydrazine fuel. They reasoned that it could cause harm to people, because it actually is stupidly-toxic. However, as said before, the chances of hitting a person or anything like that is so impossibly-low that it's a waste of time and money unless you need an excuse to test an anti-satellite missile.Khundes said:Now, as for why NASA's insisting so much about the safety of the story? If they weren't, don't you think media outlets would be chewing them out about "potential risks"? (And I full well assume a certain Faux Noise will get on that regardless) They mean it when they say it poses no risk to human life, and that insistence is because NASA kind of needs public support to do what it does. Plus as stated earlier, managing space debris beyond the scope of "Will it break something we have functioning up there?" is a pure waste of money, and NASA sure as hell doesn't want to be pressured into using it's razor-thin budget on crap like that.