# Out-of-Control Satellite Threatens Spacecraft



## LarryFlowers

Intelsats Galaxy 15 satellite has lost communication with ground control and is moving "cross orbits" out of control at 36000KM.

The satellite had been a slot at 133 degrees when apparently an intense solar storm damage the satellite. The satellite itself is fully functional just out of control. The first threatened satellite is AMC-11 which controllers are attempting to move as far out of Galaxy 15's path without losing contact with its customer.


----------



## matt

Whoa! That is crazy!

Oh that sucks, it had lots of life left too. At least they have a spare.


----------



## RobertE

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36919374/ns/technology_and_science-space/?gt1=43001



> PARIS - An adrift Intelsat satellite that stopped communicating with its ground controllers last month remains out of control and has begun moving eastward along the geostationary arc, raising the threat of interference with other satellites in its path, Intelsat and other industry officials said.
> 
> In what industry officials called an unprecedented event, Intelsat's Galaxy 15 communications satellite has remained fully "on," with its C-band telecommunications payload still functioning even as it has left its assigned orbital slot of 133 degrees west longitude 36,000 kilometers over the equator.
> 
> Galaxy 15 stopped responding to ground controllers on April 5. The satellite's manufacturer, Orbital Sciences Corp. of Virginia, has said an intense solar storm in early April may be to blame. It was launched into space in 2005.


----------



## spartanstew

Whew, I thought this was about D12


----------



## sigma1914

spartanstew said:


> Whew, I thought this was about D12


D12 is next, shhhhhh!


----------



## matt

The most discussion so far is in the D12 thread...


----------



## Nick

See the movie, "_Attack of the Killer Satellites!_" coming soon to a theater near you.


----------



## Stewart Vernon

_Topics merged..._


----------



## phrelin

Nick said:


> See the movie, "_Attack of the Killer Satellites!_" coming soon to a theater near you.


Syfy has their own version scheduled for next Saturday.


----------



## Davenlr

OK you rocket scientists, please explain why (according to the article referenced above) an out of control satellite stops at one of two points, rather than just keeping on drifting across the globe? Ive never heard of this:



> Even if Monday's action succeeds, Galaxy 15 will remain a problem as it continues to wander the geostationary arc. But it is a problem that satellite operators know how to deal with. Industry experts say there are several dozen spacecraft, sometimes called "zombiesats," that for various reasons were not removed from the geostationary highway before failing completely.
> 
> Depending on their position at the time of failure, these satellites tend to migrate toward one of two libration points, at 105 degrees west and 75 degrees east. Figures compiled by XL Insurance of New York, an underwriter of space risks, say that more than 160 satellites are gathered at these two points, which Bednarek described as the orbital equivalent of valleys.


----------



## matt

Ok now that all 3 threads on this have been merged, my LOL comment is retracted.


----------



## James Long

Fortunately the other satellites can move out of its way as it passes by ... hopefully they can get the payload turned off so it doesn't interfere with the signals being broadcast.

It looks like a manageable "threat".


----------



## Lee L

Davenlr said:


> OK you rocket scientists, please explain why (according to the article referenced above) an out of control satellite stops at one of two points, rather than just keeping on drifting across the globe? Ive never heard of this:


Not a rocket scientist, but here is why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point

I assume something happens on a smaller scale due to the moon and earth, but I am sure someone can explain it better.


----------



## James Long

A couple more quotes from the article focusing on the slowness:


> Alan Young, chief technology officer at SES World Skies, said the company's best estimate is that Galaxy 15 will enter AMC-11's neighborhood - meaning one-half of one degree distant - May 23. It will continue traveling at its own pace through the AMC-11 slot, exiting on the east around June 7.





> After it leaves the vicinity of AMC-11, Galaxy 15 is expected to approach Intelsat's Galaxy 13 satellite, at 127 degrees west, around July 13. On July 30, it will enter into the Galaxy 14 satellite's orbital territory at 125 degrees west before heading toward Galaxy 18 at 123 degrees in mid-August.


Looks like a summer of chasing a slow moving bird.


----------



## JACKIEGAGA

Too bad


----------



## cheesedjdj

well this isn't good


----------



## sepaperson

Gee, wasn't the space shuttle designed to go into space and possibly help with a problem like this? Oh, yeah, that's right, they're dumping that program. Guess they could send one of the Russian cargo pods up to bump it around on its way to to the space station.


----------



## James Long

sepaperson said:


> Gee, wasn't the space shuttle designed to go into space and possibly help with a problem like this? Oh, yeah, that's right, they're dumping that program. Guess they could send one of the Russian cargo pods up to bump it around on its way to to the space station.


The space shuttle doesn't fly high enough to help.


----------



## dirtyblueshirt

http://www.lyngsat.com/amc11.html

A list of AMC-11's customers, including:

Lifetime Networks
Hallmark
C-Span
Scripps (HGTV, DIY, FLN, etc)
QVC
A&E Networks
The Weather Channel
NESN
MTV Networks
Showtime Networks
Univision Networks
NBCU Networks (cable channels, not nat'l feeds or locals, with the exception of WNBC)


----------



## Grentz

sepaperson said:


> Gee, wasn't the space shuttle designed to go into space and possibly help with a problem like this? Oh, yeah, that's right, they're dumping that program. Guess they could send one of the Russian cargo pods up to bump it around on its way to to the space station.


The shuttle can fly up to around 600 miles at absolute max (most missions are in the 100-400 mile range, ISS is around 200 miles up I believe).

The geostationary orbit is at around 22,000 miles up :eek2:


----------



## digitalfreak

As long as I don't lose D* channels or D12, I could care less. :grin:


----------



## tedb3rd

I would say it's Bush's fault but... No, it's BP's fault!

Seriously... I read another article on this earlier today (can't remember where) and it said that it's an issue but not the 'end of the world.' If it does turn into a reception issue, that it will be predictable and the different companies involved are working together to minimize any outtages that could occur... It also said there's more 'space junk' up there floating around than most people realize.


----------



## dengland

Ahhh.... a target for the X-37B


----------



## ATARI

I knew D12 was in trouble!!

Oh, wait, this isn't about D12?

Nevermind...


----------



## Rob

Rogue satellites? Does Cyberdyne have anything to do with this?


----------



## Beerhouse

We need to fly in the best off-shore drillers in the business and launch them up there.


----------



## bosco10021

Satellite Is Out of Control.....didn't I see this on an Army commercial ?


----------



## GoPokes43

Lee L said:


> Not a rocket scientist, but here is why. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point
> 
> I assume something happens on a smaller scale due to the moon and earth, but I am sure someone can explain it better.


Is that correct that two of the libration points associated with the moon and earth just happen to be located on the geosynchronous plane? That seems highly unlikely. This drawing indicates that they are not: http://www.permanent.com/t-theory.htm

Is there something else that causes there to be two libration points on the geosynchronous orbit?


----------



## HIPAR

The satellite also relays augmentation (WAAS) signals to enhance GPS accuracy. WAAS was developed by the FAA to facilitate GPS assisted landing approaches. This service will lost for the Pacific and Alaska.

--- CHAS


----------



## mystic7

spartanstew said:


> Whew, I thought this was about D12


I thought it was about 2012! 

Seriously, I thought the Sun was in a prolonged period of quiet. Where did this solar flareup come from? Oh, and btw, I read where in 2012, yes 2012, solar flareups will become so intense that we really might lose all satellite communications. Not joking, people.


----------



## Nick

Thanks for the heads-up. They oughtta make a movie... :sure:


----------



## Nick

bosco10021 said:


> Satellite Is Out of Control.....didn't I see this on an Army commercial ?


Air Force


----------



## prushing

Time to see if the Air Force has a earth to space missile


----------



## russ9

bosco10021 said:


> Satellite Is Out of Control.....didn't I see this on an Army commercial ?


It's what the do, everyday.................


----------



## ITSec_Guy

Beerhouse said:


> We need to fly in the best off-shore drillers in the business and launch them up there.


Bruce and his crew are a bit busy in the Gulf right now


----------



## Satelliteracer

Galaxy 15 provided services like HBO to DIRECTV, Echostar and others.


----------



## boylehome

Didn't Ronald Reagan put up space platforms called, "Space Wars" or something like that to blast missiles that are threatening? Maybe the military could give it the test.


----------



## Carl Spock

I'm looking for the smiley in that last post and don't see it. I hope your humor is drier than your knowledge of recent history.

If not, the answer is, no, despite previous posts on this thread, this is not a Bruce Willis or even a George Lucas film and "Space Wars" does not exist.


----------



## boylehome

Carl Spock said:


> I'm looking for the smiley in that last post and don't see it. I hope your humor is drier than your knowledge of recent history.
> 
> If not, the answer is, no, despite previous posts on this thread, this is not a Bruce Willis or even a George Lucas film and "Space Wars" does not exist.


Better take a look at the link I've attached. There is much more information from different sources on the Internet if you want to refresh your memory. Here is the 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/23/newsid_2794000/2794525.stm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/space-war1.htm


----------



## Carl Spock

Whoa. You were serious.

Read your own links. The Strategic Defense Initiative (aka Star Wars) was an R&D program in the '80s and '90s. It never came close to deployment and in many ways was a bust. Its execution was outside of the technology of the time. It was canceled by President Clinton and turned into an achievable land based anti-ballistic missle program in 1993 (research on more experimental systems continues) . No space platforms were built by President Reagan, as your first post asks.


----------



## Nick

Now this from today's *SkyReport*:


> After our story on Monday ... which took an admittedly lighthearted approach to a serious subject ... the folks at Intelsat want to make clear that their Galaxy 15 is NOT going to collide with SES' AMC-11. Actually, what we said is that the drifting satellite is going to enter the same orbital space as the AMC-11 and thus could collide. Intesat disagrees, noting that they know "exactly where the satellite is" and thus it "cannot" collide ... although they agree that the satellite is not responding to signals from the ground. Nonetheless, the more serious danger is one of potential interference which is being monitored closely in order to avoid any disruptions for customers.


www.mediabiz.com


----------



## James Long

Nick said:


> Now this from today's *SkyReport*:www.mediabiz.com


SkyReport reporting the sky isn't falling?


----------



## LarryFlowers

Unfortunately, as both the Military and NASA were designed by Congress (a multilegged creature with no brain) neither is capable of dealing with any threat above a 1000 miles or so... certainly not the altitude at which the geosynchronous satellites are located.


----------



## audiomaster

LarryFlowers said:


> Unfortunately, as both the Military and NASA were designed by Congress (a multilegged creature with no brain) neither is capable of dealing with any threat above a 1000 miles or so... certainly not the altitude at which the geosynchronous satellites are located.


But do you doubt that the NSA doesn't have its surveillance sats protected by some sort of Ionic pulse beam weapon or some such Star Wars device? So if this sat suddently disappears completely, I guess we will know what happened. It drifted too close to something that was "never there" !:eek2:


----------



## audiomaster

Rob said:


> Rogue satellites? Does Cyberdyne have anything to do with this?


Yes but the governator of CA is on top of it! He is going to ride a rocket out of Edwards, grab it, pull it back into proper orbit, and use the reward to balance the CA budget! Yippee!


----------



## scooper

At least someone has a sense of humor about it....


----------



## James Long

scooper said:


> At least someone has a sense of humor about it....


If the rocket scientists are not worried, what? Me worry?


----------



## Davenlr

ZombieSat shutdown attempt fails:
http://www.space.com/news/zombiesat-galaxy-15-shutdown-fails-sn-100505.html


----------



## Lee L

Ok, so now I see the why it was such a last ditch effort. They were not really sending some special command to the satellite, they were sending very high power signals such that when the sat tried to amplify them, it could cook something in the signal chain or cause some circuit to trip so it would shut down. Yeah, I guss you would want to be quite careful about doing that around other birds.


It still seems quite funny on some levels to me that there is this satellite that is drifting around just amplifying anything it takes in and beaming it back, for who knows how many years until it runs out of power.


----------



## scooper

Lee L said:


> Ok, so now I see the why it was such a last ditch effort. They were not really sending some special command to the satellite, they were sending very high power signals such that when the sat tried to amplify them, it could cook something in the signal chain or cause some circuit to trip so it would shut down. Yeah, I guss you would want to be quite careful about doing that around other birds.
> 
> It still seems quite funny on some levels to me that there is this satellite that is drifting around just amplifying anything it takes in and beaming it back, for who knows how many years until it runs out of power.


When you read that space.com article a bit further / deeper - you'll see that eventually "ZombieSat" will lose alignment with the sun for it's solar panels, which then won't be able to charge the onboard batteries, which will eventually "kill" the transmitter section. Not being a satellite operator type person, I don't know how long that process would take, but my rough guess would be not over 2-3 months at the very outside.


----------



## Lee L

Yeah, I saw that also, I just wonder how long it will take?


----------



## Guest

since is the out-of-control satellite is probably a total loss anyway,
why don't they let it become a practice target for the US Air Force?

if the Chinese People's Liberation Army was able to shoot down
one of its own aging weather(a.k.a. spy) satellite not too long
ago, I'm sure the US can use some practice as well....

when these satellites were initially launched, did they have to 
sign organ-donor cards or something like that? (in case of satellite
failutre) 










*in other news, Taco Bell has put an empty barge out to sea and
towing it towards the middle of Gulf of Mexico. If the failed 
satellite crashes and lands on the barge, everyone in North 
American can get a free Taco(up to 99 cents) at participating
Taco Bell locations.*


----------



## hdtvfan0001

quietmouse said:


> since is the out-of-control satellite is probably a total loss anyway,
> why don't they let it become a practice target for the US Air Force?
> 
> if the Chinese People's Liberation Army was able to shoot down
> one of its own aging weather(a.k.a. spy) satellite not too long
> ago, I'm sure the US can use some practice as well....
> 
> when these satellites were initially launched, did they have to
> sign organ-donor cards or something like that? (in case of satellite
> failutre)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *in other news, Taco Bell has put an empty barge out to sea and
> towing it towards the middle of Gulf of Mexico. If the failed
> satellite crashes and lands on the barge, everyone in North
> American can get a free Taco(up to 99 cents) at participating
> Taco Bell locations.*


:lol::lol::lol: !rolling !rolling !rolling

...especially that last part...


----------



## Christopher Gould

quietmouse said:


> since is the out-of-control satellite is probably a total loss anyway,
> why don't they let it become a practice target for the US Air Force?
> 
> if the Chinese People's Liberation Army was able to shoot down
> one of its own aging weather(a.k.a. spy) satellite not too long
> ago, I'm sure the US can use some practice as well....
> 
> when these satellites were initially launched, did they have to
> sign organ-donor cards or something like that? (in case of satellite
> failutre)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *in other news, Taco Bell has put an empty barge out to sea and
> towing it towards the middle of Gulf of Mexico. If the failed
> satellite crashes and lands on the barge, everyone in North
> American can get a free Taco(up to 99 cents) at participating
> Taco Bell locations.*


because you dont really shoot them down. it just makes a large debris field in orbit with the rest of the working satellites.


----------



## James Long

Christopher Gould said:


> because you dont really shoot them down. it just makes a large debris field in orbit with the rest of the working satellites.


It is easier to track (and avoid) one large boulder than a million pebbles.

The Star Trek vaporize phaser setting would come in handy some times.


----------



## Skyboss

Carl Spock said:


> Whoa. You were serious.
> 
> Read your own links. The Strategic Defense Initiative (aka Star Wars) was an R&D program in the '80s and '90s. It never came close to deployment and in many ways was a bust. Its execution was outside of the technology of the time. It was canceled by President Clinton and turned into an achievable land based anti-ballistic missle program in 1993 (research on more experimental systems continues) . No space platforms were built by President Reagan, as your first post asks.


Kids. :nono2:

Don't they teach anyone anything anymore?

On a lighter note.... I think they shoudl extend the life of the shuttle program. Set up a few missions for the sole purpose of capturing this stuff, attaching some small engines to it and lauching it to the moon or sun something. Its starting to get rather messy up there.


----------



## audiomaster

Its starting to get rather messy up there.>>
Shuttle couldn't get to an orgit that high. But since a lot of the stuff IS in the same height orbit, you could build a sat that could capture stuff for several months and then put it into a trajectory into the sun. But who would pay to have that done?


----------



## georule

Okay, so if the bird was parked, why did it suddenly go on walk-about? Control circuits got scrambled and it did a squirt on its own? I know you have to continue doing some minor station-keeping with these things, but is its current motion really left over station-keeping inertia or from something else?


----------



## scooper

wikipedia "Lagrange points" for a better explanation


----------



## GoPokes43

scooper said:


> wikipedia "Lagrange points" for a better explanation


Could you explain? Lagrange points are no where near geosynchronous orbit.


----------



## James Long

GoPokes43 said:


> Could you explain? Lagrange points are no where near geosynchronous orbit.


That is where lost satellites tend to go when they lose their station keeping abilities. When ground control lost the ability to make the minor adjustments needed to keep it in it's box it started moving toward the nearest natural resting spot. It will take months to get there and everything in its way will have to move to let it pass. But it should all turn out fine.


----------



## GoPokes43

James Long said:


> That is where lost satellites tend to go when they lose their station keeping abilities. When ground control lost the ability to make the minor adjustments needed to keep it in it's box it started moving toward the nearest natural resting spot. It will take months to get there and everything in its way will have to move to let it pass. But it should all turn out fine.


I understand that there are natural resting places on the geosynchronous orbit, but I am wondering why those locations exist and why they are where they are? Obviously it's not the moon or sun, since neither remain stationary in relation to those naturual resting places. Is it a function of the shape or density of earth?


----------



## scooper

GoPokes43 said:


> I understand that there are natural resting places on the geosynchronous orbit, but I am wondering why those locations exist and why they are where they are? Obviously it's not the moon or sun, since neither remain stationary in relation to those naturual resting places. Is it a function of the shape or density of earth?


It's the physics of 2 relatively large bodies and one relatively small body and how the gravitational forces play out.


----------



## GoPokes43

scooper said:


> It's the physics of 2 relatively large bodies and one relatively small body and how the gravitational forces play out.


That is what lagrangian points are. There are five lagrangian points related to two relatively large bodies. With respect to the moon and earth, three are in the moon's orbit, one is slightly beyond the moon and one is slightly inside the moon (all five travelling with the moon's orbit). Side note: none of them can hold a satellite in place indefinately because the sun disturbs them somewhat and a satellite would need to engage in station-keeping maneuvers.

So, none of these points are on the geosynchrous orbit and none of them are stationary. Therefore, there seems to be no relation between the earth-moon Lagrangian points and the points at which satellites would naturally aggregate at 105 degrees west and 75 degrees east along the geosynchronous orbit.

So, back to the question. Why do they congregate at these two points? (I realize that some reports refer to these points as libration points and that's fine since libration simply means to balance or sway, but they certainly are not Lagrangian points.)

So, as I was typing this, I did find another internet discussion that indicates these libration points on the geosynchronous orbit are perhaps related to gravity wells on earth and the slightly elliptical nature of mass distribution within the earth. So, I guess I've answered my own question...


----------



## Stewart Vernon

Since nobody else is going to say it... I will.

To quote ZZ Top...

"There's a lot of nice girls out there"...

RE: LaGrange


----------



## Lee L

GoPokes43 said:


> That is what lagrangian points are. There are five lagrangian points related to two relatively large bodies. With respect to the moon and earth, three are in the moon's orbit, one is slightly beyond the moon and one is slightly inside the moon (all five travelling with the moon's orbit). Side note: none of them can hold a satellite in place indefinately because the sun disturbs them somewhat and a satellite would need to engage in station-keeping maneuvers.
> 
> So, none of these points are on the geosynchrous orbit and none of them are stationary. Therefore, there seems to be no relation between the earth-moon Lagrangian points and the points at which satellites would naturally aggregate at 105 degrees west and 75 degrees east along the geosynchronous orbit.
> 
> So, back to the question. Why do they congregate at these two points? (I realize that some reports refer to these points as libration points and that's fine since libration simply means to balance or sway, but they certainly are not Lagrangian points.)
> 
> So, as I was typing this, I did find another internet discussion that indicates these libration points on the geosynchronous orbit are perhaps related to gravity wells on earth and the slightly elliptical nature of mass distribution within the earth. So, I guess I've answered my own question...


I kind of wondered about this also as when you look up Libration point on Wikipedia, it forwards to Lagrange ponit, which are not the same thing, at least in this case.


----------



## Nick

From SkyReport:


> "A Loud Drunken Satellite"
> 
> Just how bad is the potential fallout from Intelsat's Galaxy 15 thus far uncontrollable meander through space? Near Earth analyst Hoyt Davidson (compares) the satellite, which was apparently knocked out of orbit by a solar flare, to "a loud drunken satellite whose broadcasts threaten to create severe interference to other geostationary satellites in its path."
> 
> It's a "black swan" event, he notes, and one that could happen to any company in the industry. While Intelsat and Galaxy 15 manufacturer Orbital Sciences struggle to get their arrant bird back under control, operators in the satellite's path are making plans for a potential interference period that could last roughly three months.


MediaBiz.com


----------



## James Long

> operators in the satellite's path are making plans for a potential interference period that could last roughly three months.


The entire passage to 105 will take that long ... but passing each satellite will take less time. It will be like a very long solar conjunction for each satellite that is passed by Galaxy 15 (until G15 shuts down). The broadcast interference will only affect satellites using the same band as G15. All the DBS providers need to worry about is physical interference. Adjusting their orbits to let the drunk satellite pass by.


----------



## Lee L

So, eventually the satellite lost earth lock, the solar panels were not able to charge the battery, it ran out of juice and then reset. I guess it then drifted enough so that it charged the battery and it started responding to commands and began station keeping.

Now they think they can upload new software and actually use it. 

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=35643


----------

