Here’s an interesting tidbit from a recent Defense News article on the mysterious X-37B space plane; the craft has seven, yes, seven dents in it from collisions with space debris!
“For the first flight, we’re extremely pleased with the outcome of the entire mission of the X-37B,” said Richard McKinney, the deputy under secretary of the Air Force for space programs.
The only physical damage seen so far has been seven areas where space debris collided with the aircraft. It also blew out a tire upon landing.
We’ve been warned for a long time that space debris is becoming a huge, potentially deadly problem. I’ve heard Air Force leaders repeatedly say that a collision with even a tiny object in space can have disastrous consequences.
So seven hits over the course of the nearly eight months that the X-37B was in space. Are collisions in space that common? If so, has the X-37B already taken a serious step toward mitigating that problem by using extra tough coatings? Or is this just an indicator of how bad things are up there?
Here’s the piece.
{ 48 comments… read them below or add one }
So I wonder what happens if your NASA space shuttle somehow blew up in space, like… explode. Does it become debris too? Even so, how do we get rid of the debris? o.O
Giant space hoov-vacs
Russians are planning to put up some sort of system to bump debris into the atmosphere, so it burns up.
like they'll ever afford that. good idea though.
Yes, every additional collision or explosion creates more fragments, and a greater chance of those fragments hitting other satellites or spacecraft and creating even more fragments. There is a tipping point where it gets kind of runaway, and you end up with low earth orbit full of half-gram or less bits of debris flying around at a few kilometers per second.
Think we'd have more space up there.
Not when many satellites follow nearly the same orbits over generations.
I'd be curious to hear what those in the "know" have to say, but I was under the impression that with the huge velocities at play in orbit, collisions (even with tiny objects) tend to be more catastrophic than just "dents." I suppose there are any number of explanations, including among them, (1) that the craft was lucky and just happen to have collisions with debris where there was not a huge difference in velocity/direction; (2) that the craft has a very tough hide; or (3) something else. I'm curious whether the "something else" might perhaps give us some idea of what this thing was doing — perhaps getting up close and personal with other satellites and getting dented as a result?
T
The important factor is the *relative* velocities with respect to the vehicles. It's the same principle in car crashes; head on collisions between two vehicles moving in opposite directions at the same speed are much worse than a collision between a vehicle moving at that speed and a stationary vehicle.
Exactly, the least damage might come from the space craft hitting debris moving in the same direction in the same orbit; as opposed to the most which would be a head on collision with the two moving into each other.
Nothing in the article mentions how big the debris that hit the space craft were. The hull may not be that tough, the debris may have just been really small "fast" objects.
Total mass and relative density also play a role.
Our satellites survive up in orbit….shouldn't a space PLANE be able to evade debris better
What makes you think it isn't being operated ballistically in orbit? Aka launch and put it into an orbit for a while and then de-orbit for landing.
satellites orbit a bit higher and at lower speeds, avoiding fatal damage.
Now if only it had something… like a laser to blast that "junk" before they collided. So it would be pure for self defense.
The debris causing dents are typically in the range of millimeters in width. Moving at 17,500 mph. I don't know of any radar system that could detect and track such small objects before impact.
Bumping in to other countries satellites and performing ah………….modifications??????????
We've all seen the vast amount of dexterity required by space walking astronauts while making repairs/modifications to Hubble. And while adding equipment to the ISS. So, remote/automated in orbit modifications to other countries satellites seems like a bit of a stretch.
That said, the prospect of attaching some type of sensor package, to a previously classified "dead" satellite, would be an useful method of hiding/camouflaging systems.
But then again, the Air Force can just be doing long duration/returnable tests, as they have stated.
It's could use some new body work, early warning device detection and automatic crash and collision flight prevention for future mission.
that would suck for the pilot since teh device would go off 24/7!
Maybe it was designed to maneuver and hit objects in orbit.
I am pretty sure that they put most satellites in orbits that tend to avoid debris, which makes me think that Hunter78 is right. Apparently it changed orbit four times, which is a lot in so few months. It probably hit the debris while changing paths. A maneuverable satellite would be a godsend.
I can see why people have voted my comment down. They don't like my username of ViolentCannibal. Right? Yeah that's why. Yeah well guess what? I hate you too for hating me. Not everyone is going to be the same as you or have the same things in common as you. No one is going to have the same opinions as you or even like the same things as you. Everyone's going to be different. So you better learn to accept it. You just hate me for being different. :| One of these days I'm going to rule the world and you will all bow down to me!
I read your name as Violet Cannonball, sounds way cooler.
I don't even look at people's names. But you're right, that's much cooler. Sounds like the name of a band.
Uh……….
Damn son, you sound like one of the gay guys or girls whining about DADT.
Or some flamer whining about someone switching his bum numb for Ben Gay…
Please go back to MySpace.
You wanna know why people voted down your comment?
Answer: It was retarded. If something is in space and nobody is using it, it is debris. I thought this site was for smart people. The f!?
you are my favorite kind of crazy.
Don't take it so hard. You won't see us tomorrow and we don't pay your salary. Actually, none of us will see each other at all but you get my point right? Anyway , violent cannibal is kind of stupid – not the worst I've seen but you know it's like clothes, it creates an impression. However I think the reason you got so many vote downs was the question – it was fairly pointless and you seemed to answer your own question. At any rate, calm down and have a snack; pickled eyeballs perhaps.
So much for the old myth that one piece of space junk just the size of a pea will destroy whatever it hits in orbit.
OK, I will ask, how many non-mission effecting dents are in other LEO sattelites? My guess is we don't know. Could be thousands since they didn't effect the mission. Might be instructive to compare it with how many small impacts were found on Hubble or the ISS before we start declaring the sky is falling.
Justakinoutthagarba'ge…
…was that a 2×4 box around the front landing gear?? kindatechnicallookinaitn'tit !
ONE TIME the Space Shuttle came back after a "training" mission…and all of the tires were squished about one-half flat from a heavily loaded experiment bay…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaz
counldn'tbenuttinuptharnow ( ; )
…and I do have my flameproof tinfoilhat secure with a rubber band….just in case !
Where were the damages?
If (almost) all are outside of the re-entry heat shield, I'd consider the possibility that experimenting with debris hits was probably part of the mission.
That makes a lot of sense, especially considering the shuttles' history.
The Russians plan to spend $2billion on a spacecraft that will "push" debris out of orbit.
An orbit is mainly determined by velocity (also by mass), so a satellite in a single orbit won't really get hit by much, unless the debris is slowing down from a larger orbit. Maneuvering in orbit, on the other hand, means moving between orbits slowly. Hitting orbiting debris while performing a maneuver would leave a small dent. Hitting orbiting debris while standing still would cause massive damage, but it's not likely. Hope this clears stuff up.
That doesn't make sense. Orbits are not discrete paths that one moves between. Everything up there is in orbit, the problem is when those orbits intersect. Whether you are making changes to your orbit or not would not change your odds of being hit by debris.
An orbit is determined only by velocity, not by mass. All objects in the same orbit have the same velocity, but they could go in opposite directions. Also orbits intersect if they have equal radio.
But if debris has a mass of only few grams collisions should not be catastrophic.
What we need is an EMT field to "repel " objects away from the craft…..an Electomatic shield if you will….even if it only works on metal objects and subtances that contain metals….the elimination of those would help greately…
The space station is covered in dents. It's so common that during that space walks are orchestrated to put the astronaut behind parts of the station to protect him from being hit.
Perhaps they should fit a bull bar
i’d assume some form of false hull or hull sponge armor is going to be
needed longer term in this type of space flight.
if the smaller particles/pieces whizzing by don’t have
enough force or momentum to penetrate the X-37B hull, the military
ought to consider itself lucky only a dent was the result.
Momentum is defined as mass times velocity (p=mv).
how about the very latest in space debris collision protection, would that be phototropic deflector shielding, I hear you cry, some form of exotic energy shielding straight out of a sci fi programme, nope, It's called ICE, that's right frozen water!!!
How would you spray water in space? It freezes as soon as it leaves the nozzle. Then there is the weight of the water to deal with.
I notice this thing also has tiles. Is there a reason they can't make large shaped body sections? I mean tiles? C'mon, the little green men – gray in most cases, gotta be laughing out of their mouth slits.