Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday March 10 2018, @02:43PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-goes-up dept.

The out-of-control Chinese space station is now predicted to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere sometime around the beginning of April. Most of it will burn up on the way down, but it's possible some pieces of the 9-ton spacecraft could make it to the surface.

Tiangong means "Heavenly Palace" in English and Tiangong-1 was China's first space station, launched in 2011. The original plan for the craft's demise was a controlled re-entry that would allow it to burn up over an unpopulated section of the South Pacific, with any surviving fragments falling in the sea. 

But as early as March 2016, reports began to suggest that Tiangong-1 was malfunctioning and ground crews had lost control of the craft. In other words, there appears to be little chance of performing the maneuvers to steer it to a graceful breakup over the ocean. Instead, it's all up to chance.

According to a new projection from the European Space Agency on Tuesday, the space station is expected to make a likely uncontrolled re-entry roughly between March 29 and April 9. The ESA stresses that it won't be possible to make a precise prediction about exactly when or where Tiangong-1 will burn up and how much of it will get all the way through the atmosphere to the surface. 

That said, the Chinese space station is fairly easy to track and ESA says in an online FAQ that we should know about a day in advance of the craft's end which regions of the planet might be able to see it actually burning up in the sky. Predicting where any impact might occur is significantly more difficult, however. 

"Even 7 hours before the actual re-entry, the uncertainty on the break-up location is a full orbital revolution -- meaning plus or minus thousands of kilometers," writes ESA's Daniel Scuka.

Tiangong-1's orbit spans from 43 degrees north to 43 degrees south, or from the central United States down to the southern tip of Australia, according to Jay Melosh, a professor of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences at Purdue University. He explains that it could come down anywhere between the two points but is more likely to land at either extreme because the station spends more time there.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by cocaine overdose on Saturday March 10 2018, @04:36PM (14 children)

    Tiangong-1's orbit spans from 43 degrees north to 43 degrees south, or from the central United States down to the southern tip of Australia, according to Jay Melosh, a professor of earth, atmospheric and planetary sciences at Purdue University. He explains that it could come down anywhere between the two points but is more likely to land at either extreme because the station spends more time there.

    Those crafty china sets. They've been planning this for seven years, playing the long con. But I'm not having any of it, either Australia or America is getting hell fire when this thing begins its "uncontrolled" re-entry. Seven goddamn years, I bet it's gonna hit Cali. Wipe out all of our "innovators" (see: MONEY) all in one big hit. Then what's left? All the money's gone, all the "talent," what's left after the US brain drain has just been obliterated. There's nothing left of what made the US a super power. Maybe a military, but whatever retaliation that happens is just the equivalent of Israel's (may G-d be with) Samson Option. If we don't do anything, China wins and rises to be the world's top superpower. If we do something and take out China, then it's Russia that rises... And the top two world superpowers have just taken each other out... IT'S THE RUSSIANS. Those goddamn slavs and their space bees, destroyed the transmitters and hacked the satellite... JOSEPH ALLEN... PARIS... NO RUSSIAN.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Funny=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fritsd on Saturday March 10 2018, @04:57PM (12 children)

    by fritsd (4586) on Saturday March 10 2018, @04:57PM (#650558) Journal

    Maybe Bhutan is the world's only current superpower, with their focus on maximizing their population's happiness. [wikipedia.org]

    Did you ever consider that?

    But no, it's all about winning and who has the biggest rockets, right?

    • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by cocaine overdose on Saturday March 10 2018, @08:30PM (6 children)

      Bhutan? Ah yes, Bhutan. The soft white-bread cracker with spread sour cream and garnished with fresh dill. No? That's not what you were referring to? Well then wha- Ahh, "Bhutan" the indigenous tribelands of poo-land. Did you know that Bhutan has less people than McDonalds has employees? Or that Bhuton has less GDP than the amount of money Bill Gates has burned on "aiding" Africa? No? Did you also not know that Bhutin has a lower HDI than Estonia, Latvia, Chile, Qatar, and even goddamn Montenegro?

      Perhaps you looked at Bhutun's GINI coeffcient and went "Woe! How the mighty superpowers of today have fallen. Russia, China, and the US all over, have less a GINI than humble BOOTAN!" That's the only thing Bhuten has going for it over some western countries. Besides that, I really have no idea why you would pick Bhutyn as your evidence for "maximizing happiness." Homos are still shot (rather, arrowed) in the streets. People live on average to 60. And this "Gross National Happiness," what are you, China? How can you look at measuring happiness and enforcing it as anything but propaganda? "Ah yes, it looks like Dupakmeiweenur has a happiness quotient .5 SDs from the mean." "Well, it's unfortunate, I really liked Dupakmeiweenur and his collection of petrified feces [author's note: this has been translated and made more eloquent. It is doubtful the drives-on-the-left-side savages of Pootine make a distinction between feces and food.]". "Alright, let's go throw his ass off a cliff. We've got quarterly predictions to uphold! Wouldn't want Teshring Tobgay [author's note: Yes, the priminster of Butthan's last name is Tobgay] to get into a hissy." Or maybe "Hello, fellow tribesman. It looks like you answered you 'no, I am not the happiest person in the world' on the yearly census questions. Please follow me to the reeducation hut."

      Get out of here, it's always been about who has the biggest rockets. As Descartes said, everything in human history revolves around the phallus. The dickus, the dongus, the bongus, and the longest. Happiness? That's a women's metric. Men don't know what happiness is. There's only two states: 1, being content that you have proven to your peers, that in-fact, your dickus is the bickust; 2, fear that there is another man with a bigger dickus than you in the room. That's it.
      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday March 10 2018, @11:05PM (5 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday March 10 2018, @11:05PM (#650670) Journal

        That sounds like a worthless existence. Do you really speak for all men, though?

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 1) by cocaine overdose on Saturday March 10 2018, @11:40PM (4 children)

          Begone foul waifu! You are nothing but a drawing drawn up for the sole purpose of making the drawer money! Your 00's art style belongs in the same place as Hatsumi Azuma --

          the trash!
          • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday March 10 2018, @11:56PM

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday March 10 2018, @11:56PM (#650687) Journal

            Wait a minute, you actually know who this avatar is? I'm using it/her as a callsign for any of my friends in meatspace who remember me from 10+ years ago. Have we met somewhere?

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 11 2018, @12:36AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 11 2018, @12:36AM (#650703)

            That crazy is sensitive about her silly nick. I addressed her as "Hazuki" some time back, and she started gushing like a nympho schoolgirl. And, she's gone off on that other crazy from Arkansas for intentionally misspelling her nick. If you were to post a haiku, she would probably volunteer to perform deviant sex acts for you.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 11 2018, @11:47AM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 11 2018, @11:47AM (#650890) Journal

      Maybe Bhutan is the world's only current superpower, with their focus on maximizing their population's happiness.

      Two things to note. First, power != happiness. I think that goes without saying.

      Second, seeking happiness is not the same as finding it. For example, I consider a lot of human emotion (worry, fear, etc) as an evolved immune system against tribulation. If as an attempt to make more people happy, one removes everything that they had worried about and feared, then I believe most will find new worries and fears. It's human nature to have these emotions even if one doesn't have any rational target for them.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by fritsd on Sunday March 11 2018, @02:39PM (3 children)

        by fritsd (4586) on Sunday March 11 2018, @02:39PM (#650921) Journal

        Sure. And I don't actually have an idea how the Bhutanese plan ti implement it.

        If I think about these kind of things (not often), I tend to think of Maslow's pyramid of needs, and of the KISS principle. I.e. do the simplest policies that *clear obstacles* to attaining happiness.
        Some people are naturally "glass half empty" (me included I guess), so actual happiness is not as important a policy goal as the "level playing field".

        After the bottom rungs of Maslow's pyramid we get to a few that I think have to do with sociology, something I know almost nothing of. So I'll make up my own definitions, I'm sure they'll overlap with some tiles of Maslow's pyramid:

        - The feeling that, when you walk through your town/city, you are allowed a minimum of respect, allowed to be there, accepted for that you also belong in your society, and will not be persecuted/spat at/molested
        This one does not actually cost money. Freedom from authoritarian populist leaders and religions is all that is needed to protect you from the mob.

        - The feeling that, when you go to bed at night, when you wake up you will be able to feed yourself and your family, your short term future is secured and protected by your society, if calamities happen that there will be a safety net of sorts so that you and your family won't starve.
        This one costs loads of money, that taxes will have to provide (social security). Or strong social pressure, that your peer group provides for your needs as long as you conform to it, of course.

        - The feeling that, when conflicts inevitably happen between your family and your surrounding society, there will be an impartial arbitration according to rule of law. That you can trust judges.

        - The feeling that, when you walk through your town and you get mugged, the police will listen to your complaint and try to punish the perp. Feeling of a limited state-guaranteed level of security, where the security forces are on the side of the common people.
        This one costs load of money (police) and good oversight (transparency).

        - The feeling that your government represents the common people of your society, but, despite that, implements plans for long-term survival of your society against real threats like global warming and warmongering and unsustainable economic practices. As opposed to an oligarchy that only cares about its own class and screw the plebs.

        - Lastly, the feeling that certain types of work, that are appreciated by your society, earn you more respect and make you feel like a valued cog in the great machine of your society. Including such work as washing old people's bums, sorting garbage at a recycling plant, investigating tax law abuse, raising kids, speaking truth to power, or defending perps in a court of law.

        That would be a nice NWO. Why are we governed by lawyers instead of by sociologists, btw??

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 11 2018, @03:47PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 11 2018, @03:47PM (#650936) Journal
          So why do you think that Bhutan does a better job of that than the US? Paying lip service to happiness doesn't guarantee happiness. For example [soylentnews.org]:

          Coined in 1972 by Bhutan’s reformist “Dragon King” Jigme Singye Wangchuk, who later led the country’s transition to constitutional monarchy, Gross National Happiness [GNH] was conceived as a heterodox metric and an alternative to GDP that would help Bhutan maintain its cultural and national identity in the face of Westernization and modernization. Through this concept, evaluations of national wealth by the GNH Commission became based on a measurement of happiness derived from a Buddhist-inspired rubric, spanning psychological well-being, standard of living, good governance, health, education, community vitality, cultural diversity, time use, and ecological diversity. These categories were initially designed to motivate the political system to address specific issues the monarchy viewed as essential to the country’s future as it began the process of democratization. While some data is collected through an elaborate questionnaire issued to Bhutanese people across the country, other information is gathered through traditional means to assess topics like economic or environmental sustainability.

          Superficially, this seems like an admirable approach to measuring a country’s success: Bhutan’s leaders appear to have eschewed a myopic focus on material growth in favor of sustainable and equitable development and cultural preservation. However, despite the positive reception of GNH throughout the global community and a current “happiness” rating of 90 percent within Bhutan, the concept has helped promote a dubious economic and social record. Specifically, Bhutan has struggled with an array of social and economic issues that include youth unemployment, declining GDP growth, the highest rate of alcoholism in Southeast Asia, increasing drug use, and gang violence in the capital Thimphu.

          Moreover, the country is experiencing the effects of high income inequality — the top 20 percent hold eight times the wealth of the bottom 20 percent — and a weak education system that exacerbates such inequality further. However, the incessant discourse centered on GNH and the need to preserve Bhutanese culture has inhibited constructive discussions about practical policy changes. Instead, conservative elites have used GNH to promote a political trajectory narrowly focused on the maintenance of antiquated agrarian lifestyles and social norms. The consequences of this are very problematic: instead of addressing income inequality, government corruption, or socio-economic freedom — including the unyielding discrimination and subjugation of the LGBTQ+ community — the Bhutanese political system is marred by tawdry appeals to GNH as an unequivocal solution to all the country’s issues. To put it simply, Gross National Happiness has not simply been employed as a tool for examining the success of the Bhutanese political system; it is the very basis on which that system operates.

          Why are we governed by lawyers instead of by sociologists, btw??

          Neither sound appealing to me, but what would be the difference between the two? Let us remember that a fair number of politicians and lawyers have sociology backgrounds (for example, while glancing through the education of several US presidents I saw several with sociology-related education (including political science and history), for example, of the presidents over the last century, we have Reagan, Clinton, Kennedy, Obama, Wilson, and G. W. Bush.

          • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Sunday March 11 2018, @04:17PM (1 child)

            by fritsd (4586) on Sunday March 11 2018, @04:17PM (#650947) Journal

            Lawyers interpret the rules written down by previous generations, but those written-down rules can sometimes be at odds with what the current generation of citizens finds important. Especially in the USA with the "corporations have first amendment rights" law suit precedent (sorry, I don't remember the name of that law suit)

            Sociologists study what the people are *actually doing* and describe and model that.

            For example: maybe according to the law mariuana is illegal (previous generation compelled the government to write a law forbidding it), but maybe (a) people use it anyway, or (b) studies reveal that the damage it does to society is less than the damage done to society by forbidding it.

            Laws have to change if they're not good for the country. After the prohibition of alcohol in the USA, Al Capone had a whole state in his pocket, I thought. So maybe the theory of alcohol prohibition was humanitarian, but the results of its implementation were dreadful and "the cure was worse than the disease". A lawyer wouldn't want to change that, because it's good for lawyering business, and the law is the law.

            In the EU we currently have the Brexit issue, where the UK wants a strong border on the French side and a weak border on the Irish side (I know; it's idiotic). If they don't amend their plans, it's going to be a strong border on the Irish side as well. However, criminals and terrorists will greatly benefit from a strong border because it will make smuggling very profitable. (My granny once smuggled butter and cigarettes over the Belgian border, and I had an uncle who didn't dare to drive the 5 km to Belgium for fear to be arrested and put in jail, so I have an idea what I speak about, for a change)

            People are happy when there's rule of law (one of the many pre-requisites), however rule of law means: don't make laws that you *know* your people are going to break anyway. So the police only needs to be bothered with enforcing important laws.

            I don't follow all the news about "SJW" et cetera, but I thought that in the US there is a focus on laws to which toilet a person who is trans-gender can go. Why bother?!?!? How many of them are there, and does it really matter? Meanwhile the country is robbed blind by its government of millionaires, but noo... pay attention to the trans-gender toilet visitor instead!

            Hm. It turned out more ranty and off-topic than I meant to. Sorry khallow.

            Oh and about your first quote: IIRC it was "the Economist Magazine" that complained about Bhutan's dubious economic record.
            Who cares. 500 years ago people worried about how many scholastic angels could dance on a pin. Now they worry about the economy. Who knows what they will worry about in 500 years if there are people left. I don't think it will be "The Economy".
            About Bhutan's dubious social record: yes, that is a valid criticism by The Economist Magazine.

            • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday March 11 2018, @04:25PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 11 2018, @04:25PM (#650949) Journal

              Lawyers interpret the rules written down by previous generations, but those written-down rules can sometimes be at odds with what the current generation of citizens finds important.

              That's a dangerous slide from rule of law to "rule of men". Law can and is changed all the time through well-established, formal practices precisely because someone found them wanting, but done in a way that relatively well respects democratic traditions. We don't need sociologists upending the law on a whim.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @05:32PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 10 2018, @05:32PM (#650566)

    The crazy... it hurts...