Hacker News Reader

Comment by accrual | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

Looks 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

It'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.

So does that mean the other satellites "behind" it are in more danger?

The one behind it is 1000km away vs 200km away for the one in front.

Speeding 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

My 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.

Any 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.

> 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.

Correcting 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.

> this comes from playing a self-made orbital mechanics game

My interest is piqued!

Thanks, but don't expect too much! (In particular on mobile where you can't zoom by scroll wheel or use arrow keys to fly.) I mentioned it in an earlier comment, probably easiest to refer back to that for some context/hints: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35763506

Thanks! I'll check this out later today.

Most 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.

How does one tell the dynamics of orbital objects/debris relative to forces acting on them? Is there a name for this type of field?

Ballistics.

Astrodynamics

Reply on news.ycombinator.com