Live data from Hacker News

Kosmos 482: questions around a failed 1972 Venera lander still orbiting Earth

thespacereview.com

41–50 of 75 posts

Re: Kosmos 482: questions around a failed 1972 Venera lander still orbiting Earth

#41
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't. edit: It's obvious the quoted person had no idea what they were doing -- even a few seconds at arms' length from a fresh nuclear reactor core would be fatal. And quite a few satellites in that era were nuclear-powered. It's not as if accurate knowledge of radiation was readily available, in the 1970's.

They didn't shoot nuclear reactor cores into space. RTGs are still dangerous but people do stand next to them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...

Believe it or not, lots of nuclear fission satellites in the 1960's-70's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_space#Fission...

Re: Kosmos 482: questions around a failed 1972 Venera lander still orbiting Earth

#43
post #38

Is this the origin of the name for the film SPACEBALLS?

The movie came out 15 years later and I doubt anyone remembered or knew about titanium balls falling on New Zealand. Spaceballs was always meant to be a direct parody of Star Wars.

I remember from that time people were more freaked out about Skylab falling down to earth--there were novelty t-shirts with a big target and "Skylab target" printed on them, all the late night TV hosts joked about it, etc. Skylab falling back to earth was a big event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoVXuKQ__0s

Re: Kosmos 482: questions around a failed 1972 Venera lander still orbiting Earth

#44
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't. edit: It's obvious the quoted person had no idea what they were doing -- even a few seconds at arms' length from a fresh nuclear reactor core would be fatal. And quite a few satellites in that era were nuclear-powered. It's not as if accurate knowledge of radiation was readily available, in the 1970's.

They didn't shoot nuclear reactor cores into space. RTGs are still dangerous but people do stand next to them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...

Some of the Russian satellites had full-on liquid cooled nuclear reactors, not RTGs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPAZ_nuclear_reactor

The flight profile did indeed have the reactor core being ejected into a graveyard orbit before deorbiting the satellite:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954

The US ran a couple of experiments but otherwise didn't officially use them:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A

Re: Kosmos 482: questions around a failed 1972 Venera lander still orbiting Earth

#45
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tritium is itself radioactive and used in watches to make a luminescent material glow. I think zinc sulphide was common and it would probably glow if lit up enough. Not sure you want to be near something that makes your watch dial markings glow visibly more than the radium or tritium that's in the paint, though.

The tritium interacts with a phosphor through beta decay, so presumably if you hung a watch near it the phosphor would glow brighter with higher concentration of beta decay. Basically a sort of visual Geiger counter.

Sure, but run the inverse-square law on the difference between a ~100 micron paint layer and a source that's ~1 meter away.

Re: Kosmos 482: questions around a failed 1972 Venera lander still orbiting Earth

#47
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't shoot nuclear reactor cores into space. RTGs are still dangerous but people do stand next to them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_ge...

Believe it or not, lots of nuclear fission satellites in the 1960's-70's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_space#Fission...

You're right, I didn't realize they fired quite that many (31?!) BES-5s into space and those are really the only non-experimental ones. Still, the chances of one of those falling out of orbit as a functioning reactor are about nil.

Re: Kosmos 482: questions around a failed 1972 Venera lander still orbiting Earth

#48
post #30

Can anyone explain how it's possible for the apogee to reduce so much, while the perigee barely changes? Wouldn't the air resistance that lowers the apogee also affect the perigee? Or is it specifically because the object is being slowed at perigee, that the apogee lowers, while the perigee doesn't change much because the apogee is in vacuum?

the atmospheric drag at perigee happens perpendicular to the object speed, which is tangential to the gravity field, so the object doesn't get shifts on it's vertical speed, only it's energy, having less to convert in potential energy (i.e. apogee height)

in the thereabout of perigee you have two arms, one inbound and one outbound. the horizontal component of the drag for both is all in the direction against the travel and slow the craft without changing the vertical component of its speed

the vertical component of the drag (for as long as the craft has the energy to get's outside of the dense atmosphere) kind of cancels out, as the drag force inbound pushes against your down velocity vector and the drag force outbound pushes against your up velocity vector.

there is however a small energy loss due to the fact that the journey trough the atmosphere isn't perfectly simmetrical, since you're losing speed along all the way, the inbound leg is shorter than the outbound leg, causing the vertical component of the drag going outside to slightly exceed the component of the vertical drag coming in - so your perigee does change little by litte due this (and other more nuanced effects, but we're painting with a large brush here) - this asymmetry gets stronger the more you stay in the atmosphere and the furthest you dip in the dense area, until you ultimately don't have the energy to escape anymore.

the fact that the atmosphere isn't on/off like that but has a long boundary layer stretching far from the dense parts kinda complicates things a little more, because drag is applied the whole circle, but not by that much.

Re: Kosmos 482: questions around a failed 1972 Venera lander still orbiting Earth

#49

An interesting note right at the end, so in case anyone missed it: this same launch is believed to be the source of 5 titanium "spaceballs" that fell onto New Zealand in 1972. While the odds are low of any space debris hitting land, it was the photo in this article that surprised me - I was thinking billiard ball size debris, not this - http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/4542804/Government-report-o...

Wild coincidence or destiny?

I’m in the space industry. I’ve wanted to visit NZ for ever. Here now, finally. 3 days ago I toured the Ashburton museum and saw this ball.

Now this gets posted on HN which I’ve been ignoring for the last year.

Re: Kosmos 482: questions around a failed 1972 Venera lander still orbiting Earth

#50
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Believe it or not, lots of nuclear fission satellites in the 1960's-70's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_space#Fission...

You're right, I didn't realize they fired quite that many (31?!) BES-5s into space and those are really the only non-experimental ones. Still, the chances of one of those falling out of orbit as a functioning reactor are about nil.

The posterior probability, given that you've already found a very rare piece of space debris, would have been high.

https://xkcd.com/795/

(By the way, there's an documented instance [0] mentioned in the sibling comments. The hazard is much worse than you'd think: the space reactor didn't simply fall in one piece, but left a trail of fragments 600 km long, some of which were lethally radioactive. It's pretty lucky this one happened in an uninhabited wasteland).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954

Post reply on HN