Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intelsat 33e breaks up in geostationary orbit

spacenews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–147 of 147 posts

Re: Intelsat 33e breaks up in geostationary orbit

#141

Post by Aachen »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #112
Aachen wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speeding up does not work, that'll just put it in a higher orbit. My understanding of these issues is that introduced eccentricity gets you: if it takes the "inside corner" (is that the English word for binnenbocht/innenkurve?) around the earth, it could then then meet you on the other side where the orbits intersect. If it sped up (flying out of the corner, in this race analogy) and thereby took a longer way around,…

> this comes from playing a self-made orbital mechanics game My interest is piqued!

Thanks, but don't expect too much! (In particular on mobile where you can't zoom by scroll wheel or use arrow keys to fly.) I mentioned it in an earlier comment, probably easiest to refer back to that for some context/hints: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35763506

Re: Intelsat 33e breaks up in geostationary orbit

#142

Post by pavel_lishin »

Aachen wrote: post #141
pavel_lishin wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this comes from playing a self-made orbital mechanics game My interest is piqued!

Thanks, but don't expect too much! (In particular on mobile where you can't zoom by scroll wheel or use arrow keys to fly.) I mentioned it in an earlier comment, probably easiest to refer back to that for some context/hints: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35763506

Thanks! I'll check this out later today.

Re: Intelsat 33e breaks up in geostationary orbit

#143

Post by dylan604 »

idunnoman1222 wrote: post #138
dylan604 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember this taking a second to click in high school physics class. The initial thought is that after an explosion all of the pieces fly away from a stationary point. The satellite is not stationary, so the pieces "flying away" only have their speed subtracted from the speed of the satellite. The fact that orbital speeds are faster than explosions took a bit to sink in.

That’s tangential to you not being able to fly in a straight line from one Geo stationary orbit to another

How is it tangential? It's directly related. The satellite is moving in a straight line at a specific speed. The explosion does not negate that speed, rather it just applies a momentary bit of acceleration/deceleration along a new vector. So unless an explosion can provide more acceleration that can null out the original object's speed, the pieces will remain in orbit. That's just how fast orbital speeds are, and it took a bit for that to click

Re: Intelsat 33e breaks up in geostationary orbit

#144

Post by verzali »

ethbr1 wrote: post #78
anjel wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not place neighbors at appreciable risk but wouldn't debris still prevent replacing the failed satellite with another one at the same precious original address?

Wouldn't debris at the same address (after some time) therefore have zero relative motion?

Things in geo orbit aren't perfectly stable, since the Earth's gravitational field is not perfectly uniform. Without active station keeping things tend to gather at two particular longitudes over the equator. So eventually that debris will probably end up at those points.

Re: Intelsat 33e breaks up in geostationary orbit

#145

Post by verzali »

rapjr9 wrote: post #136

I was wondering if a geostationary satellite has ever broken up before. I found a NASA list of satellites that fragmented: History of On-orbit Satellite Fragmentations, 16th Edition https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220019160/downloads/HO... Searching that PDF for "geostationary" I found: "The Russian government’s disclosure of the Ekran 2 battery explosion on 25 June 1978 is the first known fragmentation in geos…

AMC-9 and Telkom-1 both broke apart fairly recently too.

Re: Intelsat 33e breaks up in geostationary orbit

#146

Post by idunnoman1222 »

dylan604 wrote: post #143
idunnoman1222 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s tangential to you not being able to fly in a straight line from one Geo stationary orbit to another

How is it tangential? It's directly related. The satellite is moving in a straight line at a specific speed. The explosion does not negate that speed, rather it just applies a momentary bit of acceleration/deceleration along a new vector. So unless an explosion can provide more acceleration that can null out the original object's speed, the pieces will remain in orbit. That's just how fast orbital speeds are, and it…

But we’re worried about the pieces hitting another satellite in goe stationary orbit further along the orbit. A single burn can’t do that in a direct way because there is no direct path between two satellites at the same orbital distance (speed)

Re: Intelsat 33e breaks up in geostationary orbit

#147

Post by thehappypm »

dylan604 wrote: post #25

From TFA, this bird is the 2nd in this "next generation" of satellites. The first one also failed because either "a meteoroid impact or a wiring flaw that led to an electrostatic discharge following heightened solar weather activity." That's a pretty specific flaw to then just write it off to a meteor. So they are 0 for 2. Does not instill confidence in this "next generation" at all.

“Either a strike from a meteor, OR this highly specific wiring problem. Could be either! ” is actually pretty funny
Post reply on HN