6 ms·
Indeed, Intelsat 33e has a couple nearby neighbors in similar orbits and inclinations. ID Name Orbit Incl. 98050A ASTRA 2A
by accrual 2y ago
Indeed, Intelsat 33e has a couple nearby neighbors in similar orbits and inclinations.
ID Name Orbit Incl.
98050A ASTRA 2A 57.2 4.93
09017A WGS F2 (USA 204) 57.5 0.01
14023B KAZSAT-3 58.5 0.02
12008A BEIDOU-2 G5 58.7 2.10
16053B INTELSAT 33E (IS-33E) 60.0 0.04 <-- 20+ debris components
19014A WGS 10 (USA 291) 60.3 0.01
04007A ABS-4 (MOBISAT-1) 61.0 3.86
10008A EWS-G2 (GOES 15) 61.5 0.04
19049B INTELSAT 39 (IS-39) 62.0 0.02
https://www.satsig.net/sslist.htm https://www.satsig.net/sslist.htm
- nordsieck 2y agoLooks like WGS-10 is the closest. From Wikipedia, it looks like it's a USSF satellite launched in 2019 with a service life of 14 years. It provides wideband communications to DoD customers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-291 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-291
- bryanlarsen 2y agoIt's 0.3 degrees ahead in orbit. Which means the debris needs to speed up to collide. It's possible if the break-up was explosive, but most, if not all of the debris is more likely to stay at the same velocity or slow down.
- taftster 2y agoSo does that mean the other satellites "behind" it are in more danger?
- bryanlarsen 2y agoThe one behind it is 1000km away vs 200km away for the one in front.
- Aachen 2y agoSpeeding up does not work, that'll just put it in a higher orbit. My understanding of these issues is that introduced eccentricity gets you: if it takes the "inside corner" (is that the English word for binnenbocht/innenkurve?) around the earth, it could then then meet you on the other side where the orbits intersect. If it sped up (flying out of the corner, in this race analogy) and thereby took a longer way around, it'd rather be a danger to those immediately behind (with each orbit, progressively further back along the circular orbital path) Disclaimer: this comes from playing a self-made orbital mechanics game, I have no training whatsoever let alone professional experience with this
- bryanlarsen 2y agoAny velocity changes will only happen once so will result in an eccentric orbit where only one side of the orbit is raised or lowered -- the other side will still be in SSO.
- panki27 2y agoMy KSP experience supports your view :) Parts that were sped up have their opposite orbital side raised, parts that got slowed will have their opposite orbital side lowered.
- sangnoir 2y ago> Speeding up does not work, that'll just put it in a higher orbit Speeding up doesn't raise the orbit; it makes it (more) elliptical while still intersecting with the old orbit (shared with neighbouring satellites)- you need at least 2 maneuvers to raise an orbit. You're also assuming a perfectly pro-grade acceleration. In an explosion, different pieces go in different directions, I suspect there is a vector that results in faster speed in the same orbit, but I'm no rocket scientist.
- sangnoir 2y agoCorrecting an inaccuracy in the last sentence I introduced in an edit: Kepler's laws means you cant have different velocities in the same orbit - bit its possible for an explosion to cause a projectile to intercept a satellite that was ahead of it in a new orbit.
- lupusreal 2y agoMost of the debris will have eccentric orbits with varied periods which intersect geostationary orbits. Every satellite in a geostationary orbit is at risk, not just the ones near it.
- Reubachi 2y agoHow does one tell the dynamics of orbital objects/debris relative to forces acting on them? Is there a name for this type of field?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]