What's new

Russian Satellite Hit by Debris from Chinese Anti-Satellite Test

Sigh.

Nobody has ever denied that (tiny) objects in space are being tracked. The whole issue is to corroborate the claim by proving that the object trajectories intercepted.

"Although the predicted distance would seem to preclude a collision, the fact that the close approach occurred within 10 seconds of the estimated change in orbit made it appear likely that this piece of Fengyun 1C debris actually collided with BLITS," Kelso wrote.
You probably are NOT a man of science. If you were, you would have known that scientists always leave room for speculation and criticism. This, so that their methods and knowledge improves by constant peer review and criticisms.
Even with the recent Higgs Boson discovery (a Sigma 6 level discovery!), the statements always read that "particle consistent with predicted properties of Higgs Boson was discovered". Get it?
 
Well these kind of farts rain down all over india specially in moonsoon season. In our part of country we call it rainy cloud though but as you wish.

This kind of fart is only in PDF....keep farting ...that is the best you can do....:pakistan:
 
This was the debris from the 2008 anti-satellite test by the US. US destroyed a much bigger satellite.
I'm glad we carried out the test in 2007, hopefully we carry out more.
Backward countries (you know who) can keep crying.
 
This kind of fart is only in PDF....keep farting ...that is the best you can do....:pakistan:

Its a natural body function so your choice if you want to hold it in. Secondly this discussion is stupid and off topic.
 
No, there is no resist for debris in space even very low gravity. So if any partical gain velocity due to any source than it could maintain that speed for a long time. So it is possible that debris from Chines AST could hit any satellite in its path, as it happen...... And most biggest factor which effect debris is drag not gravitation in space/even near space.

If it was not gravitational pull of the Eart then those fragments would not have been revolving around Earth.

By the way why do you think earth revolves around sun ??If it was not gravitational pull??In space gravitational pull very important part.
 
If it was not gravitational pull of the Eart then those fragments would not have been revolving around Earth.

By the way why do you think earth revolves around sun ??If it was not gravitational pull??In space gravitational pull very important part.

lol, I say low gravity. This force is not enough to bring down any particle in short time, which gained velocity by some means.
 
The satellite US destroyed was much bigger that what we destroyed, thus more debris. Blaming China for everything these fools.
 
Say,If India tests an A Sat weapon,Will you still say its legitimate??

However, the Treaty does not prohibit the placement of conventional weapons in orbit.

yup dude its in the treaty

Thank you Come again
 
You probably are NOT a man of science. If you were, you would have known that scientists always leave room for speculation and criticism. This, so that their methods and knowledge improves by constant peer review and criticisms.
Even with the recent Higgs Boson discovery (a Sigma 6 level discovery!), the statements always read that "particle consistent with predicted properties of Higgs Boson was discovered". Get it?

Not only am I a man of science, I also know about something called proof. And i know how legal matters are decided.

Next time you have an accident, go and say to the judge

It appears that Joe hit my car. I have no evidence other than my calculations that he was probably near my car.

Do let us know how quickly the judge throws you out of the court.
 
Not only am I a man of science, I also know about something called proof. And i know how legal matters are decided.
I doubt both.

Next time you have an accident, go and say to the judge

It appears that Joe hit my car. I have no evidence other than my calculations that he was probably near my car.

Do let us know how quickly the judge throws you out of the court.
Direct evidence is eyewitness evidence, even video recordings qualifies as direct evidence. A confession is also direct evidence.

Direct Evidence - Criminal Law Lawyer Source
An example of direct evidence would be the surveillance video of a person robbing a convenience store, or a witness who saw a person stealing a car.
But there are plenty of convictions based upon circumstantial evidences ALONE. No eyewitnesses. No confessions.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that doesn't establish guilt in a straightforward sense, but it gives a rise to an inference of guilt. For example, a receipt for purchasing a gun is direct evidence that a certain person owned the gun but indirect that he used it in committing a crime. Circumstantial evidence is not only sufficient, but may also be more certain, satisfying and persuasive than direct evidence.
Your fingerprints are indirect or circumstantial evidence. So if your fingerprints are on the murder weapon, along with the VISA receipt of the purchase of the gun, you are toast. All based on circumstantial evidence. DNA is another type of indirect or circumstantial evidence. So if the victim have your skin (DNA) under his fingernails, along with your fingerprints on the gun and the VISA receipt of the purchase of the gun, it will make it extremely difficult, if not outright impossible, for any jury to let you go.

In this situation, we know the debris field exists, also known are its scope and its orbit. The odds of a wayward asteroid tiny enough to escape radar detection and collided with the satellite is possible, but not probable.

The satellite US destroyed was much bigger that what we destroyed, thus more debris. Blaming China for everything these fools.
And it was also in a much lower orbit, so low that it was actually on the descent path into atmosphere. Any debris create were burnt up on inevitable reentry.
 
I doubt both.

Given your less-than-brilliant display on US Constitutional matters, that's a hoot and a half.

But there are plenty of convictions based upon circumstantial evidences ALONE.

It depends on the specific evidence in question. Just being in the neighborhood with no other factors does not qualify.

All your examples are about material evidence. If the Russians go up there and find a piece of the Chinese satellite orbiting the damaged Russian craft, that would fit into the category you described.

However, just (allegedly) passing by is not evidence.

In this situation, we know the debris field exists, also known are its scope and its orbit.

Reading always helps.

"Although the predicted distance would seem to preclude a collision, the fact that the close approach occurred within 10 seconds of the estimated change in orbit made it appear likely that this piece of Fengyun 1C debris actually collided with BLITS," Kelso wrote.
 
Given your less-than-brilliant display on US Constitutional matters, that's a hoot and a half.
In your case, less-than-brilliant is more than enough. Any more and it would make your head explode.

It depends on the specific evidence in question. Just being in the neighborhood with no other factors does not qualify.

All your examples are about material evidence. If the Russians go up there and find a piece of the Chinese satellite orbiting the damaged Russian craft, that would fit into the category you described.

However, just (allegedly) passing by is not evidence.



Reading always helps.

"Although the predicted distance would seem to preclude a collision, the fact that the close approach occurred within 10 seconds of the estimated change in orbit made it appear likely that this piece of Fengyun 1C debris actually collided with BLITS," Kelso wrote.
This is the satellite in question...

BLITS Satellite Collision January 2013 - SPACEFLIGHT101
The spacecraft is a 7.53 Kilogram nanosatellite that was built to support Laser Ranging Experiments by the International Laser Ranging Service. The satellite itself consists of two hemispheres, one is made of low-refraction index glass (n=1.47) and an inner ball lens of a high-refraction index glass (n=1.76). The radius of the outer sphere is 85.11 millimeters while the inner ball has a radius of 53.52mm. Half of the outer ball is covered in a reflective coating. The satellite was planned to have a 5-year mission duration to support scientific studies in geophysics & geodynamics and to provide a testbed for satellite laser ranging applications. The satellite was designed for laser ranging at a wavelength of 532nm (green light).

The satellite was inserted into a 832-Kilometer Sun-Synchronous orbit and started its mission back in 2009 with regular laser-ranging experiments made by several ground stations. The satellite was spinning at a spin period of 5.6 seconds, allowing laser light to be reflected in short bursts because only half of the satellite is covered in a reflective coating.
It means this ball have no method of maneuvers. Figuratively, it just sits in one place and spin. But of course, I have no doubt you would take what I said to mean literally -- sits. :lol:

A sudden 120-meter decrease in mean altitude and a change in spin rate and orientation was observed.
So if this ball that have no method of maneuvers suddenly have a change in spin rate and attitude, what else can it be but from an external force?

...Yurasov and Nazarenko began an optical and photometric analysis that determined that the sudden orbit change occurred on January 22 at approximately 7:57 UTC.
All they have to do is correlate this sudden change in spin rate and attitude against any known debris piece large enough to be tracked by radar and the odds of certainty increases.

Reading is good. But try reading and thinking. It gets even better. I guarantee it. :lol:
 
In your case, less-than-brilliant is more than enough. Any more and it would make your head explode.

I always enjoy your displays of "brilliance", especially about US legal matters.

So if this ball that have no method of maneuvers suddenly have a change in spin rate and attitude, what else can it be but from an external force?

Duh! No one is denying that a collision occurred.

The issue is to provide conclusive evidence about what exactly collided with the satellite.

It could be pieces of the Chinese satellite, it could be something else. The assertion that it was the Chinese satellite has not been proven given the evidence presented so far.

Try understanding a topic before jumping in so we don't have to endure such "brilliance" from you.
 
I always enjoy your displays of "brilliance", especially about US legal matters.

Duh! No one is denying that a collision occurred.

The issue is to provide conclusive evidence about what exactly collided with the satellite.

It could be pieces of the Chinese satellite, it could be something else. The assertion that it was the Chinese satellite has not been proven given the evidence presented so far.

Try understanding a topic before jumping in so we don't have to endure such "brilliance" from you.
And it could be a micro probe droid launched by Darth Vader's flagship.

Fengyun 1C Debris Collided with BLITS Satellite | Space Safety Magazine
A tracked piece of Fengyun 1C was expected to pass within 3.1 km of BLITS within 10 seconds of the observed trajectory change. Given the available data, CSSI technical program manager Dr. T.S. Kelso concluded that the two bodies must have been closer than anticipated. The Joint Space Operations Center (JSpOC) apparently agrees: it released the first two line elements (TLE) for BLITS debris on March 3.

Even if the collision had been predicted, no preventative measures would have been possible. BLITS is a passive nanosatellite without propulsive capability.
Just as you were ignorant that circumstantial evidences can convict in the legal system, now you are dismissive of credible technical data that weighs in favor of the current hypothesis. By your reasoning, when the ISS or Space Shuttle had to plan a 'debris avoidance maneuver' it could have been because of anything.

The problem is bad enough that NASA have a quarterly publication on how much junk in orbit, not just in sizes that can be tracked, but also of inferred objects too small for radar detection but are known to came from larger objects.

Orbital Debris Quarterly News

You think may be the Chinese space program managers subscribed since they are going to need the info for their future space flights?

China alert on U.S.-Russian satellite collision_English_Xinhua
BEIJING, Feb. 12 (Xinhua) -- The debris left by a satellite collision above Siberia, Russia, poses a threat to China's solar synchronous satellites on the orbit, Chinese scientists told Xinhua reporters on Thursday.

The debris cloud may affect solar synchronous satellites moving in an orbital area of 700-900 kilometers above the Earth, including China's Fengyun-1 meteorological satellite and Ziyuan-1 observatory satellite, according to the expert.
So even the Chinese are aware of the danger and do their own calculations regarding their national assets.

Yeah...You are a 'man of science', eh? :lol: I guess in desperation to suck up to the Chinese and remove them from this problem, no quackery is off limits to you.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom