Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommy
Actually, they do keep track of every object large enough to observe. I developed software systems that did that very thing way back when I was in the North American Air Defense Command in the mid 1970s. What makes the job manageable is that the orbit of an object will not change rapidly unless it has maneuvering thrusters or it hits something. So, once you know the orbit of an object, you can predict its future path with a high degree of accuracy. .... BTW, there's plenty of room up there unless you want to put your satellite in the very same popular orbit other people already use.
|
Tommy,
That does shed a different light on things. Pretty cool. While I posted mostly in jest, I did wonder what was being done to protect some of our more critical objects. Apparently, then, of these two satellites, one of them was first. Then shortly (or belatedly) after the second made orbit, it could, or was, determined there would likely be a collision. Almost sinister. A little sneakier than China's 2007 anti-satellite missile test. Can anyone shed a little more light on things?
For the debris, I suppose it really always depends on the violence of the collision. Were they going the same direction, which would imply nearly identical velocity(think 5mph bumper), or were they at right angles to one another or even opposite vectors. Opposite seems unlikely since most orbits are more easily achieved by being enhanced by planet rotation.
I imagined that some of the high velocity debris may be the size and mass of a tire valve cap. Much of the debris should fall out of orbit because of new unfavorable trajectories. But I find it hard to believe that small, shotgun pellet sized debris could be tracked. In spite of tracking and sparcity of objects, there seems at least a slight additional danger of more impacts that can only get worse.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ron
Originally Posted by Wes Tausend
...
Elementary, my dear Ron. All that red dust.
You know how easily dust is attracted to lenses.
Wes
...
Wes,
When I was referring to them sending the telescope 1,000,000 miles out, what I meant is if they can do that, why can't they land probes and people on Mars with any regularity as it is so much closer. Maybe use politicians for the first people so they could have a Govt established when the working class gets there. 
Ron |
I know better, Ron. I was just having fun since your original wording conjured up visions of a really expensive scope hopelessly covered in dust. Not that they would ever make a foolish scope error.
I think Mars is 35 to 36 million miles out(varies), instead of 1 million. It will be easier to quickly communicate with a satellite that is closer and it only need be clear of planet atmospheric effects for clarity. But further out enhances the ability to view a distant object from two more widely separated angles (Parallax displacement: opposite points on the orbit circle) which helps determine true distance.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Joe Wicked
But Ron, if they send only politicians to Mars and no working class, then how are the politicians supposed to survive? No one will be there to do anything that needs to be done to keep life...
Ohhhhhhhhhh, never mind. How many can fit in a space ship at 1 time?
|
Joe,
I think you've already hit upon it. It might be easier to ship politicians. They cannot help but take their own hot air with ...and they are like clowns and can be packed very tightly. And, of course, the soil will be very fertile by the time workers arrive.
Wes
...