How and Why Did Two Satellites Collide This Week?

by Nancy Atkinson on February 14, 2009

A simulated view of the debris clouds shortly after the collision on Feb. 10, 2009.  Image courtesy of Analytical Graphics, Inc. (www.agi.com)

A simulated view of the debris clouds shortly after the collision on Feb. 10, 2009. Image courtesy of Analytical Graphics, Inc. (www.agi.com)


The collision this week involving an active U.S. commercial Iridium satellite and an inactive Russian Cosmos 2251 satellite in low Earth orbit has, if nothing else, raised public awareness of the growing problem of space debris. But how and why did this collision happen? If NORAD, the U.S. Air Forces’s Space Surveillance Network, NASA’s Orbital Debris Program Office and other entities are tracking space debris, did anyone know the collision was going to occur? Those who analyze data and track satellites say predicting collisions is difficult because of changes in satellite orbits which occur due to solar radiation and the gravitational effects of the Moon and Earth. Therefore, the orbit analysis is only as good as the data, which may be imprecise. “The main problem here is the data quality for the data representing the satellites locations,” said Bob Hall, Technical Director of Analytical Graphics, Inc. (AGI), the company that released video and images on Thursday recreating the collision event. “Given the uncertainty in the accuracy of the TLE orbital data, I do not believe anyone was predicting or necessarily expecting an event.”

AGI has tools that run automatically every day such as SOCRATES – (Satellite Orbital Conjunction Reports Assessing Threatening Encounters in Space) which is based on the current space catalog supplied by NORAD to look for close approaches.

“This analysis is performed automatically every day and you can easily go in and search it,” Hall told Universe Today. “Because the analysis is performed with the public two-line element (TLE) set satellite catalog, the analysis is only as good as that imprecise data is. So when it shows conjunctions on any given day (and for Tuesday this Iridium event was not even in the ‘top 10’ close approach predictions!) this has to be taken with some uncertainty.”

Hall said the closest approach predicted for last Tuesday’s Iridium-Cosmos event was predicted to be 584 meters. “Again, as close as that sounds (and it is), there were at least 10 other on-orbit conjunction predictions that day alone with smaller miss distances,” Hall said.

Simulation of the satellite debris break-up. Image courtesy of Analytical Graphics, Inc. (www.agi.com)

Simulation of the satellite debris break-up. Image courtesy of Analytical Graphics, Inc. (www.agi.com)

The crash occurred on Tuesday 485 miles above northern Siberia in a crowded polar orbit used by satellites that monitor weather, relay communications and perform scientific surveys.

The International Space Station, as well as most satellites can be maneuvered out of harm’s way to avoid a possible collision, but a defunct satellite like the Russian Cosmos 2251 has no such ability.

Even with the uncertainties of tracking orbiting satellites, one group, the Secure World Foundation, is calling for the need to establish a civil space traffic control system.

“Unfortunately, it appears that there was data warning about the possibility of this collision beforehand,” noted Brian Weeden, Technical Consultant for Secure World Foundation. “However, it must be stressed that close approaches between satellites somewhere in Earth orbit occurs on almost a weekly basis…and until this event, have never before resulted in an actual collision.”

Weeden agreed that in every case it is impossible to give a definite answer on whether or not two objects will actually collide, only probabilities and potential risks.

“Getting the right information to the right authorities in time to make the right avoidance maneuver decision is a very complicated process that doesn’t entirely exist yet,” Weeden said. “The Secure World Foundation is working with many other organizations around the world to try and develop this process.”

The Secure World Foundation endorses the creation of a space traffic control system.

“This collision underscores in a dramatic way the importance of instituting an international civil space situational awareness (SSA) system as soon as possible,” said Dr. Ray Williamson Executive Director of Secure World Foundation.

Williamson said that such a civil SSA system could have been used to warn the Iridium operations managers of the danger of collision and allow them to take evasive action. “In the absence of reliable ways to clear debris from orbit, it will be increasingly important to follow all active satellites to prevent future preventable collisions,” he added.

Before this collision, another collision event happened in 1996, when a French spy satellite called Cerise was severely damaged by a piece of debris from the rocket that launched it.

The United States tracks debris or micro-meteorites down to 10 cm wide, but objects as small as a scrap of peeled-off paint can pose a threat once they start hurtling at orbital speeds through space.

Sources: Email exchange with Bob Hall of AGI, Secure World Foundation press release, Reuters

  • kymmy_cat

    sorry, comments.

  • dollhopf

    I suggest that in the future all satellites (of course except classified sats) have to be equipped with GPS. The sat then could itself issue the information of its position and direction with unmatched accuracy. And the sat itself is expected to report its position to the space control tower operator. Navigation systems do not weight much, so launch costs would hardly suffer an increase by it.

    But of course as soonas a sat goes into “dead mode” then the navi would also power off. But for operational sats this should work with excellence.

    And “kymmy_cat”, just relax :) Thanks in advance! Dollhopf

  • dollhopf

    Dear Mang, I am noticing that noone besides “Cronos D” did rate your February 15th, 2009 at 2:16 pm comment positive in an own comment till now. I am sorry about that.

  • Extrasolar Flapjacks

    How many other facts and figures that we live by are a result of poor data quality?

  • mike

    The GPS thing would work for commercial satellites but I doubt the military would agree to it since their satellite could then be easily tracked, although surely all governments technologically advanced enough to pose a threat already know our military satellite orbits. MOK

  • texasgirl

    would the collision have anything to do with my garmin gps is wacky like determining that for a 50 mile trip it will take 5.5 hours to drive 50 miles.

  • Salacious B. Crumb

    My gps says more like; 80.467 kilometres trip takes 5.5 hours to drive 80.457 kilometres
    Clearly not the same problem!

    Sala

  • robbi

    Salacious B. Crumb- you are right, there’s no reason for anyone to ‘crash’ their vehicles with anyone else, as the ending results and the ‘gains’ by the ‘offending’ collider will be zero when their vehicle eventually collides with the junk pieces they created. Anyone believing in a ‘conspiracy’ theory should realize there’s no such thing as ‘quick’ manuvering of any vehicles in Earths’outer space with the current proplusion technology available, besides, any craft has a very limited amount of fuel/power available.
    The manuvering ability of any ‘remote controlled ‘ satillites makes the ultra-large petroleum supertankers seem like a 1 person powered craft!. GPS after the fact! We have to find some ways to get rid of the space junk. .

  • robbi

    Salacious B. Crumb-I’ve read an interesting previous link you’rve posted on how satillites just ‘corrodes’ due to the solar winds,cosmic-rays.etc- with over 10-11K pieces ‘detectable’ junk pieces with todays technology, it is impossible with the keep tabs of all-the only orbitiing vehicles that will be monitored for possilbe hits are manned, high priority satilites then other priority satillites. It appeared the US already had ‘redundant’
    Iridium satellites ready to take the place of the destroyed one quickly. Ground control do make mistakes, just human nature,what ground control looks for is some satillite or ‘junk’ that appeared to change orbits and something unexpected except to know it may be a possible ‘satilitte killer’. Again, it takes quite a period of time and distance for any satillite or ‘junk’ to manuver- forget about what you see in these SiFi Movies, those don’t exist — a manned vehicle fully powered by nuclear power-still a distant dream!!!!!

  • dollhopf

    “although surely all governments technologically advanced enough to pose a threat already know our military satellite orbit”

    Dear Mike,

    since science is funded by government in most cases, who should have more advanced methods than any governmental agency?

    I would like to remind you on what is possible already on tracking objects in earth’s vicinity. Do you remember the article “A Possible Answer to Flyby Anomalies” (January 20th, 2008) here on this UT webserver?

    “So, when Galileo completed gravity assist past Earth on December 8, 1990, to speed it toward Jupiter, you can imagine NASA’s surprise to find that Galileo had accelerated suddenly, and for no apparent reason. This small boost was tiny, but through the use of the Deep Space Network, extremely accurate measurements of the speeding craft could be made. Galileo had accelerated 3.9 mm/s.”

    Crazy, isn’t it?

    texasgirly,

    you could try to break down the problem. There are fully operational vehicles, there are dead satellites, there is debris larger than 10, there is debris smaller than 10 cm. And there is every possible combination of collision. The main problem is the collison of a fully operational space vehicle – be it a sat or a shuttle or the ISS – with any other one. Thus, if only the orbit of fully operational vehicles would be determined more accuratelly then the need for a path correction or not would be more obvious.

    I wonder how small you do think that the possibilities of GPS are!

  • John

    So – given there are some pro- and some anti- conspiracists out there, and a bunch of people who said “hey, it couldn’t have been predicted but it wasn’t guided, how about another thought altogether.

    Think of a person in a field with a butterfly net, catching butterflies. After that person is finished, the butterfly population of the field is greatly reduced.

    Then, think of a company (or group of companies) that would like to make a lot of money by somehow, metaphorically of course, doing something similar in space around the earth.

    First off, you say: well, butterflies are light. They don’t fly very fast. Their paths, although somewhat chaotic are reasonably predictable in the short run.

    The bits of crud in space can be anything from something very tiny to something very large. In either case, it is the relative speed that counts for the most part: you immediately think of momentum – “the product of a body’s mass and its velocity”. Therefore, a fleck of paint going extremely fast can, in fact have an enormous momentum. The “net” you’ve got has to be something in a class of “things” or “materials” we haven’t created yet.

    In a sense, mass per se isn’t a huge problem: that is, if you are in an exactly matching orbit. Nonetheless, it will almost certainly take special _handling_ that a fleck of paint wouldn’t. And where do you put it once you’ve grabbed it?

    I could elaborate on this theme further, but I believe by now you’ve got the basic point. An organization that could “clean up space” in an effective manner might well have an incredible ROI once they’ve done their research properly.

    So – they watch the skies, they know that collisions and near-collisions tend not to be terribly predictable. BUT: that isn’t quite the problem. What they’d look for is the probable NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES of “fairly close” or “definite” collisions.

    I seem to remember everyone evacuating to the Soyuz for a while for protection. The shuttle has been moved about several times for the same reason, The nearly invaluable Hubble telescope is basically in that rather perilous portion of space. Gosh. Who cares WHAT goes boom or who did it or how. The real question is what might happen afterward.

    Oh – space civil control is just fine for launching new stuff and controlling those devices that are controllable.

    But the incredibly expensive rates charged by the space janitors and prognosticators: I’d think that -could- be big bucks.

    Just a thought.

  • John

    I forgot to mention: obviously, prognostication isn’t enough. The spaceships with the red crosses on them that have a cask of rum hanging off of their nose who are somewhat like ambulance chasers, but they do their work in advance of a possible accident (ah! the entrails of the chicken are green! your spaceship may encounter terrible luck!), might be a part of the whole deal.

Previous post:

Next post: