Phobos Grunt, get the brolly out again

[Eric Mc]

Interesting list of passes over the UK over the next few days.



Date Mag Starts Max. altitude Ends
Time Alt. Az. Time Alt. Az. Time Alt. Az.
13 Jan 2.0 00:51:16 10 W 00:52:50 26 SSW 00:54:23 10 SE
13 Jan 0.8 21:12:32 10 WSW 21:14:09 48 SSE 21:15:47 10 E
13 Jan 0.3 22:43:42 10 W 22:45:22 81 N 22:47:04 10 E
14 Jan 1.7 00:15:00 10 W 00:16:32 29 SSW 00:18:04 10 SE
14 Jan 0.2 22:05:44 10 W 22:07:20 79 N 22:08:56 10 E
14 Jan 1.2 23:36:53 10 W 23:38:24 35 SSW 23:39:54 10 SE
15 Jan 0.1 21:25:55 10 W 21:27:30 78 NNE 21:28:59 10 E
15 Jan 0.7 22:56:57 10 W 22:58:26 44 SSW 22:59:54 10 ESE
16 Jan 0.0 20:44:17 10 W 20:45:45 86 NNW 20:47:13 10 E
16 Jan 0.2 22:15:11 10 W 22:16:37 58 SSW 22:18:02 10 ESE
17 Jan 3.0 18:30:49 10 S 18:31:39 13 SSE 18:32:28 10 ESE
17 Jan -0.1 20:00:49 10 WSW 20:02:15 77 SSE 20:03:37 10 E
17 Jan 2.9 23:02:52 10 WSW 23:03:31 12 SSW 23:04:10 10 S
18 Jan -0.2 20:46:11 10 W 20:47:30 83 NW 20:48:50 10 E
18 Jan 2.3 22:17:03 10 WSW 22:18:01 17 SSW 22:18:57 10 SSE
19 Jan 1.1 18:28:29 10 SW 18:29:45 35 SSE 18:31:01 10 E
19 Jan -0.2 19:58:57 10 W 20:00:15 76 N 20:01:31 10 E
19 Jan 1.5 21:29:35 10 W 21:30:41 25 SSW 21:31:46 10 SE
20 Jan -0.2 19:09:53 10 W 19:11:10 79 NNW 19:12:24 10 E
20 Jan 0.5 20:40:22 10 W 20:41:32 40 SSW 20:42:40 10 ESE
21 Jan 3.0 16:49:26 10 S 16:50:09 13 SSE 16:50:52 10 ESE
21 Jan -0.3 19:49:23 10 W 19:50:34 69 S 19:51:42 10 ESE
22 Jan 0.5 17:26:24 10 WSW 17:27:38 50 SSE 17:28:50 10 E
22 Jan -0.4 18:56:37 10 W 18:57:48 82 N 18:58:55 10 E

[Hoofy]

Eric Mc said:

The object is over 100 miles above his head, is smaller than a van and travelling at 17,5000 mph. Could you do any better?

Obviously not. Hence, I wouldn't have bothered either.

[Eric Mc]

Hoofy said:

Eric Mc said:

The object is over 100 miles above his head, is smaller than a van and travelling at 17,5000 mph. Could you do any better?

Obviously not. Hence, I wouldn't have bothered either.

But why dismiss what he has achieved just because you can't do it or want to do it?

A very strange atitude.

[Hoofy]

Eric Mc said:

But why dismiss what he has achieved just because you can't do it or want to do it?

A very strange atitude.

Because the end result wasn't worth the effort. I felt that I had wasted my time watching the video. So not a strange attitude at all.

[Eric Mc]

Hoofy said:

Eric Mc said:

But why dismiss what he has achieved just because you can't do it or want to do it?

A very strange atitude.

Because the end result wasn't worth the effort. I felt that I had wasted my time watching the video. So not a strange attitude at all.

Oh well.

Not everyone appreciates every one else's hobbies I suppose. I thought it was a good effort given the technical difficulties involved. You don't know until you try etc.

[Hoofy]

Eric Mc said:

Oh well.

Not everyone appreciates every one else's hobbies I suppose. I thought it was a good effort given the technical difficulties involved. You don't know until you try etc.

I now understand how technically difficult it is. I guess I am spoilt by CGI. That said, even if it were a high resolution video, not sure I'd have been any more impressed now that I consider what we're looking at.

[Eric Mc]

What would have impressed you?

[Hoofy]

Eric Mc said:

What would have impressed you?

In this context, I don't know. I guess I was expecting to see more when I ran the video.

[BuzzLightyear]

So a 13 1/2 tonne spacecraft is heading for a crash landing on Earth at several thousand miles per hour?

Lucky for us that scientists inform us that "it is unlikely to cause disruption."

Well, that's alright then.

[Eric Mc]

BuzzLightyear said:

So a 13 1/2 tonne spacecraft is heading for a crash landing on Earth at several thousand miles per hour?

Lucky for us that scientists inform us that "it is unlikely to cause disruption."

Well, that's alright then.

They are absolutely correct.

[Jinx]

Eric Mc said:

They are absolutely correct.

Of course "unlikely" has a specific value of likely. Given the earth is 2/3 water there's only 1/3 chance of it hitting land. The chance of it hitting populated land falls in the "unlikely" department. So absolutely correct but given it is Friday the 13th you might want to duck

[Eric Mc]

Jinx said:

Eric Mc said:

They are absolutely correct.

Of course "unlikely" has a specific value of likely. Given the earth is 2/3 water there's only 1/3 chance of it hitting land. The chance of it hitting populated land falls in the "unlikely" department. So absolutely correct but given it is Friday the 13th you might want to duck

Oops - I forgot that.

[BuzzLightyear]

Yes, I know that the chances of it hitting a populated area are statistically low but it strikes me as a spectacularly un-scientfic thing to say, given that, at least as far as I am aware, there is no indication of the location of its' re-introduction to the surface of our planet.

Therein lies the elusive matter known to some as "irony".

[jingars]

Seeker UK said:

Bedazzled said:

Is that Johnny Morris?

A genuine laugh out loud moment

[Seeker UK]

BuzzLightyear said:

.. at least as far as I am aware, there is no indication of the location of its' re-introduction to the surface of our planet.

The UK Space Agency are doing some prediction work with ESA and the IADC (http://www.esa.int/esaMI/Space_Debris/SEMJS2KX3XG_0.html)

http://www.bis.gov.uk/ukspaceagency/news-and-event...

However, predicting the path of a goup of randomly sized bits falling through the atmosphere is a bit tricky and the UK Space Agency is about as accurate as you'll get at this stage. If you read the bulletin, they are also predicting that most of it will burn up anyway.

[quote]Most of the spacecraft will break-up/burn-up on re-entry. The aluminium fuel tanks are expected to melt and the unused fuel destroyed/dispersed in the upper atmosphere.

[BuzzLightyear]

Precisely.

So IF it does end up raining red-hot debris travelling at huge velocities over some unfortunate area of population, scientists can shrug their shoulders and say "Aah, that was unlucky, statistically, that shouldn't have happened! "

Sleep well, all.

[Seeker UK]

BuzzLightyear said:

Sleep well, all.

I will, I'm at a higher latitude than 51 degrees north. ;-)

[Eric Mc]

BuzzLightyear said:

Precisely.

So IF it does end up raining red-hot debris travelling at huge velocities over some unfortunate area of population, scientists can shrug their shoulders and say "Aah, that was unlucky, statistically, that shouldn't have happened! "

Sleep well, all.

By the time the debris is close to the ground (under 40,000 feet or so) most of its velocity will be gone. OK, getting thumped by a lump of metal at 400 mph will still ruin your day - but it won't be travelling at 17,500 mph.

[Hoofy]

Eric Mc said:

By the time the debris is close to the ground (under 40,000 feet or so) most of its velocity will be gone. OK, getting thumped by a lump of metal at 400 mph will still ruin your day - but it won't be travelling at 17,500 mph.

Would this really make a difference? A 1kg lump hitting my house at 400mph or 17,500mph is going to still have me making an insurance claim (act of God? Science proving God exists?), assuming it doesn't pass through me while I sit at my desk.

[Eric Mc]

If something sizeable hit your house at 17,500 mph, your house would be vapourised.

At 400 mph your house would suffer damage.