According to LeoLabs, who monitor the Low Earth Orbit (LEO) environment, two satellites can potentially collide on January 29, at 23:39:35 UTC. The two satellites in question are the retired NASA Infrared Astronomical Satellite (IRAS) and a 1960's-era gravity gradient stabilization satellite GGSE-4. According to the LeoLabs data, the two satellites are predicted to come within 15 to 30 meters of each other, well within the margin of error for these kind of calculations. LeoLabs predicted a 1/100 chance of a collision. None of the collision by-products, should a collision occur, would survive reentry to the ground, but it would add to the existing mess of orbital debris and it portends a potential future where although space is vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big, it is getting crowded faster than ever before.
[Editor addition follows.]
From the article:
[...] the two spacecraft will pass within just 15 to 30 metres (50 to 100 feet) of each other at an altitude of around 900 kilometres or 560 miles. And because both are dead as doornails, there's no way Earth can communicate with them to conduct evasive manoeuvres.
"Spacecraft have taken evasive manoeuvres to avoid things that are only within 60 kilometres. So this is a really, really close encounter. And if this does actually come to pass, there's potentially a large amount of debris that will be created.
The NASA/NIVR IRAS satellite and the NRO/USN POPPY 5B satellite (aka GGSE 4) are predicted to make a close approach on Wednesday. POPPY 5B has 18-metre-long gravity gradient booms so a 15-to-30 metre predicted miss distance is alarming https://t.co/H1UckcoaAH
— Jonathan McDowell (@planet4589) January 27, 2020
And they're going fast. Their relative velocity is 14.7 kilometres per second (9.1 miles per second).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @07:41AM (5 children)
Where can the fireworks be observed?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:24AM (4 children)
RTFTwit
https://mobile.twitter.com/LeoLabs_Space/status/1221908253627412480 [twitter.com]
Directly above Pittsburgh, PA
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday January 29 2020, @02:37PM (3 children)
Wrong. No collision will happen this time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:18PM (2 children)
Is your comment based up updated predictions, or just a gut feeling?
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Wednesday January 29 2020, @03:28PM (1 child)
See TFS: "LeoLabs predicted a 1/100 chance of a collision."
Not the "winning the lottery impossible" type, still the chances of no collision are 99 times higher than the chances for the collision to happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:32PM
"Never tell me the odds!" - Han Solo
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:02PM (6 children)
Didn't we have, I don't know, some kind of Space Shuttle that could deal with satellites in orbit? Boy, just a faded memory now....
And yeah, I know that budget-wise that never really seemed feasible. The whole "we'll pick up a satellite in space and bring it back to ground" mission But shouldn't money be spent on lifting satellites with no function but excess thrust capacity that could intercept/grasp a nonfunctioning satellite and either deorbit or at least reorbit it safely? Actually this StackExchange [stackexchange.com] says that Palapa B-2 and Westar 6 were done exactly that way and there are other on-orbit servicing missions (Hubble) and others...
Maybe satellite owners should have to post a bond for the safe and correct removal of satellites and/or rescue deorbit missions? Why not inflate the costs a little further? :) :) Come on down to Crazy Lawn's De-Orbit Insurance Parlor! We Will Not Be Undersold!!! (or pay up... shhh.......)
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:03PM
"exactly that way" = "shuttle picked up in space when they failed their placement orbits and brought to ground"
This sig for rent.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ElizabethGreene on Wednesday January 29 2020, @04:12PM (1 child)
These satellites are at high inclination orbits ~900km above the Earth. The Shuttle had to push the envelope to reach Hubble at ~500km. We do not have nor have we ever had the ability to do a satellite repair or recovery in this orbit.
... which is a damn shame and a direct consequence of not having on-orbit refueling as a priority.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 29 2020, @05:58PM
Wonder what the math would be on an auxiliary booster satellite.... (plus what fuel reserve one would need for orbit matching and delta-v if one could latch on)? But yes, I didn't look at the orbital parameters on these particular satellites. And not untypical, "nobody's looking so we won't worry about the distant future," thinking - or maybe I'm totally wrong and it was thought about and disregarded for legitimate reasons. Maybe we haven't gotten into densities where the Kessler syndrome is a reality yet, and maybe we're getting smarter when it comes to proposals to orbit 10,000 CubeSats. Hopefully we learn before the density becomes great enough that we experience a real life Kessler syndrome.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Wednesday January 29 2020, @05:39PM
SLS to the rescue!
Any day now!
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @06:29PM (1 child)
I don't recall the shuttle being sold as a platform to bring stuff back from orbit for the purposes of deorbiting them. It just doesn't make sense from a resource perspective.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:58AM
I do. It was sold as a Space Truck. 25 tons to a space station in LEO, swap raw materials/supplies for space products*, land, few days to check it over and refuel, and do it again. Being able to land a significant payload was part of it. Refueling in space for much higher/further missions was touted as a future plan. Retrieving satellites for refuel/repair was definitely touted as a possible mission.
*Space products were going to be silicon chips, crystals, ball bearings, pharmaceuticals, and exotic alloys that would only mix in zero gee .
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.