Iridium 33 Cosmos 2251 Collision Not An Accident!

[Gsquare]

Good points Warren.....

You certainly know how to get my conspiracy theorist brain working.

First, it is well known the Cosmos 2251 (launched in 1993) was dead....usually that type (Strela-2M Military/intelligence communication sat) only lasted 24 - 36 months...including any fuel for navigational changes.

However, it is NOT neccessary for that Cosmos to be functional for the Russians to have caused this collision intentionally. ...All they needed is the encryption codes, etc. to communicate with the Iridium-33 Satellite....and they could have performed a minor Iridium orbital adjustment since Iridiums ARE alive and navigatable.

Having the communication codes is more than just a speculation....since this particular Iridium (33) was from a group that was launched from Russian on a Russian built booster (Proton 2) !!. Hello?

I've been to Russia both when it was Communist USSR and afterwards and have meet KGB personally....They make a point of knowing everything about every piece of equipment that comes within their borders. Can we suspect this was NOT the case with The Iridiums launched from within their country?

They had the motive and the means.....so why not suspect this as a new method of cheap anti-satellite warfare. Commodering an enemy's own resources for use against them is a lesson quickly learned in 9-11 . If the Russians are so willing to cut the natural gas of Europe off in dead winter to accomplish their objectives, do we think they wouldn't be willing to show us how they can so easily chop off the European cell phones?

Just as distrusting as you,
Gsquare

[Warren Platts]

you need to take this to another forum. I think Conspiracy theories would be more appropriate.

That's a cop-out! You asked me a direct question:

Iridium satellites are hardly worth destroying. Maybe you're suggesting we did it on purpose? The Russian satellite wasn't even functional.

I answered it. If my argument is so weak, then why are you complaining that my answer is out-of-bounds instead of addressing my point head-on: that Iridium scientists themselves had estimated the odds of a loss due to a random collision at 1 in 50,000,000!?! I guess I don't blame you. We both know that everyday someone wins a 1-in-50,000,000 lottery; but we both know that's because millions and millions of people play those lotteries everyday. (And correct me if I'm wrong but) we also know that no one we personally know has ever won a 1-in-50,000,000 lottery. It defies imagination--and so I don't blame you for ducking the argument. Here we have 66 "acquaintances"--the Iridium satellites--and one of them wins the lottery. I guess blessings happen, but I would rather one of the hundreds of people I know who have wasted their money on lottery tickets had won instead.

Let's look at the evidence again: everyone says that the Cosmos 2251 was "defunct" or "non functional", but I spent over an hour googling trying to find any concrete evidence Cosmos 2251 was actually out of fuel. It supposedly stopped working in 1995, yet it was replaced by the Strela-3 system in 1994. In other words, they simply stopped using it one year before it was scheduled to be shut down. Furthermore, at least one apparently knowledgeable individual on the net claims that Cosmos 2251 has been in a state of "negative decay" based on his analysis of published TLE (2-line elements: the raw numbers used to describe orbits of satellites). "Negative decay" is a euphemism for a satellite who's orbit keeps getting higher and higher. Very strange for a supposedly unpowered satellite, although I guess there are weird 14th order orbital resonances that might possibly account for that. And I've mentioned that the collision happened over Siberia; a recent space review article mentions the fact that the timing of the collision is uncanny in the light of recent geopolitical events. So the jury is still out. It is utterly foolish at this stage of the game to rule out the possibility of an intentional collision.

It would be nice if we lived in an orderly world where everything is as it seems to be. Maybe it really is. So maybe the collision was not intentional. OK. That leaves two alternatives: (1) Iridium 33 won the lottery; or (2) the 1-in-50,000,000 estimate of the rocket scientists and Ph.D. physicists was wildly off base. I would bet the farm that the latter is true; but that in itself doesn't rule out the possibility of an intentional collision.

Meanwhile, I suggest we allow the moderators to do their job themselves. Personally, it's not worth a bowl of beans to me which forum this thread is in.

[Warren Platts]

Warren Platts if you think there is a conspiracy regarding this satellite collision, then please open your own thread in the conspiracy theories section of this board.
The same holds for Gsquared (although you might be just making fun).

Well, actually, my latest theory is that it was the result of a lone, rogue hacker from Khazhackstan, and since only one person is involved, it's by definition, not a conspiracy.

But OK. No need to speculate about the motives of the Russian Federation. We can focus instead on the capabilities of Cosmos 2251 itself. I trust you won't ban Larry when he posts the results of his investigation on whether Cosmos satellites have ever exhibited maneuverability in the past.

Also, I trust that answering the mere question of whether Cosmos 2251 was really in a state of "negative decay" doesn't imply a conspiracy, since there are strange, rare, 14th-order natural processes that could cause an "unpowered" satellite to gain altitude.

Be that as it may: Great! We can talk instead about my favorite subject: how Ph.D. physicists don't always do the best job when it comes to risk estimates. I found this back-of-the-envelope calculation by Andrew Higgins (you're all welcome in advance):

The collision happened at 750 km altitude, which is the most populated part of earth orbit:

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2185/the-future-is-now

...from that histogram, it looks like there are about N_satellites = 300 satellites between 700 and 800 km altitude. For a collision to happen, two satellites have to be in the same place at the same time.

By "in the same place", let's say the two satellites would have to be in a cubical that is 2 m x 2 m x 2 m (satellite bus is usually smaller than this, but solar panels bigger, so this is a compromise) for a collision to happen. Between 700 and 800 km, how many of these "cubes" are there:

N_cubes = 4*pi*R^2*t_layer / V_cube (where t_layer is the "thickness" of the layer of LEO we are examining: 100 km) = 4 * 3.14 * ((6380+700)*10^3 m)^2 * 100*10^3 / (2 m)^3 = 7.9*10^18 cubes


By "at the same time", the residence time of a satellite moving through a 2 m cube at 7.5 km/s is

t_residence = 2 m / (7500 m/s) = 2.7*10^-4 s (or 270 microseconds)

In a given year, the number of these "timeslots" is:

N_timeslots = 365*24*60*60 seconds/t_residence = 1.2*10^11 timeslots

If satellites are more or less randomly bouncing around this volume of space (think of a gas where satellites are individual molecules), then the odds of any satellite being in the same cube as a particular satellite at a given instant is:

P_1sat = N_satellites / N_cubes = 3.8*10^-17


Very unlikely. But over the course of a year, the odds become


P_1satYear = N_timeslots * P_1sat = 4.57*10^-6

or "one in 200,000". But, there are N_satellites, so the odds of *any* satellite colliding with *any* *other* satellite over a year are

P_anySatYear = N_satellites * P_1satYear = 1.37*10^-3

or "one in 700".

Now, over the past 30 years of having a large number of satellites on orbit, the odds of satellite-satellite collision drop to:

P_SpaceAge = P_anySatYear * 30 years = 0.04

..."one in 25".

Entirely reasonable.

The only mystery is why this collision wasn't predicted and the orbit of the Iridium satellite tweaked well in advance.

Indeed.

[Warren Platts]

This possibility came up in another thread, and a moderator asked me to start a new thread in the CT forum. I wasn't too sure at first, but the more I look into it, the situation smells fishy. Evidence for an intentional collision can be summarized as follows:

• It is rather improbable that two satellites would collide by accident.
• The prediction for that day said the two craft should have passed each other by ~0.5 km.
• The supposedly unpowered spacecraft was in a state of "negative decay"--it was gaining altitude from some sort of power source.
• The Russian satellite's rated lifetime is 24-36 months, yet it was only used for 1 year; thus there may have been spare fuel to enable the Cosmos 2251 to maneuver.

Note also that Cosmos 2251 was a Strela 2M class satellite. "Strela" means "arrow" in Russian--kind of an odd name for a class of communications satellites; but quite appropriate for the class of shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles that also bear the same moniker. An irony not lost on at least one Russian commentator:

Arrow hits the target: Russia's defunct Strela-2M ("Arrow") satellite collided with a US Iridium communications spacecraft on Feb. 10, 2009. Both vehicles were instantly pulverized into a cloud of debris. In the aftermath of the incident, Western press was full of inaccurate depictions and wild speculations about the design of the Russian satellite, including a ludicrous claim by the Wall Street Journal about a nuclear reactor onboard the spacecraft. In reality, Strela-2M was powered by drum-shaped solar panels.

Another Russian in a discussion pointed out that a supposedly dormant satellite that had not been active for years "suddenly woke up" last summer, and that the Americans were aware of that fact. I haven't been able to independently confirm that yet. But if that checks out, it would raise the definite possibility that Cosmos 2251 was not dead, but was merely asleep.

Here's an article that mentions "unnamed Roskcosmos sources"

Star Wars: the collision of satellites above Siberia, it was a test of new weapons

[Argos]

Here's an article that mentions "unnamed Roskcosmos sources"

Star Wars: the collision of satellites above Siberia, it was a test of new weapons

Could you please be more specific on where exactly that link leads to, before I click it?

[Amber Robot]

• The prediction for that day said the two craft should have passed each other by ~0.5 km.
• The supposedly unpowered spacecraft was in a state of "negative decay"--it was gaining altitude from some sort of power source.
• The Russian satellite's rated lifetime is 24-36 months, yet it was only used for 1 year; thus there may have been spare fuel to enable the Cosmos 2251 to maneuver.

Can you give links to reliable sources for these statements?

[Scamp]

Kinda makes you think about the kind of damage a rouge nation could do by launching a few payloads of ball bearings into orbit....

[Warren Platts]

Could you please be more specific on where exactly that link leads to, before I click it?

It's just a Russian newspaper article (svpressa.ru)

[Warren Platts]

Can you give links to reliable sources for these statements?

Here's the link to original thread.. You'll find what you're looking for there. Maybe a moderator will be kind enough to split off the CT posts in the other thread and move them here.

[Jason Thompson]

It is rather improbable that two satellites would collide by accident.

But not impossible. Given that this is, as far as I know, the first collision* in 50 years of launching satellites into an ever-increasingly populated sky, I'd say we're doing pretty well.

The prediction for that day said the two craft should have passed each other by ~0.5 km.

What are the error margins for that prediction?

The supposedly unpowered spacecraft was in a state of "negative decay"--it was gaining altitude from some sort of power source.

Do you have more information on this?

The Russian satellite's rated lifetime is 24-36 months, yet it was only used for 1 year; thus there may have been spare fuel to enable the Cosmos 2251 to maneuver.

Assuming it was capable of manoeuvring at all. Its rated lifetime may have been related to the reliability of onboard electronics rather than availablilty of fuel.

Note also that Cosmos 2251 was a Strela 2M class satellite. "Strela" means "arrow" in Russian--kind of an odd name for a class of communications satellites;

No more odd than 'Iridium' if you ask me. To infer a link between an incident in 2009 and the name of the satellite that was launched forty years earlier seems like a stretch.

Another Russian in a discussion pointed out that a supposedly dormant satellite that had not been active for years "suddenly woke up" last summer, and that the Americans were aware of that fact. I haven't been able to independently confirm that yet. But if that checks out, it would raise the definite possibility that Cosmos 2251 was not dead, but was merely asleep.

Here's an article that mentions "unnamed Roskcosmos sources"

Unverifiable sources are useless.

* apart from known intentional collisions and collisions that occurred during docking attempts, i.e. in circumstances where the two objects were deliberately aiming to meet up.

[Warren Platts]

But not impossible. Given that this is, as far as I know, the first collision* in 50 years of launching satellites into an ever-increasingly populated sky, I'd say we're doing pretty well.

Still, the low probability means that possible hanky-panky cannot not be ignored. I saw an estimate put out by an Iridium person that rated the risk of loss from collision at about 1 in 50,000,000. Simple back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that that estimate is off by many orders of magnitude. Yet, insurance companies have not up till now taken into account the risk of random collision when figuring their rates. That in itself ought to tell you something.

What are the error margins for that prediction?

Big. Big enough to allow for plausible deniability.

Do you have more information on this?

I've applied to StarTrack so I can access the raw TLE data, but they've got to make sure I'm not a terrorist first. It'll take a couple of days. Meanwhile, a poster at armscontrolwonk.com said it was definitely moving upward--though he seems to think that some sort of orbital resonance is probably to blame. The guy knows what he's talking about. The other people over there are also smart, and no one has called baloney. Note that this contradicts the official NASA story; according to NASA spokesman Johnson, the Cosmos 2251 descended from a higher orbit into Iridium 33.

Assuming it was capable of manoeuvring at all. Its rated lifetime may have been related to the reliability of onboard electronics rather than availablilty of fuel.

The astronautix website says the Strela-2M's had some sort of guidance system. I don't know what that entails. The Strela-2M were primarily stabilized using the gravitational gradient technique. Nevertheless, it is not uncommon for satellites using gravitational stabilization to also include thrusters as well. Larry Jacks seems to think that Strela-2M's were incapable of maneuver. I don't know myself. I looked at some photos and there's nothing obvious. But I spent all day researching the dang things, and I can't find a definitive source that outright claims that Strela-2M's were utterly incapable of any sort of maneuver. That's the $64,000 question. Keep in mind that these are secret military spacecraft that we are talking about.

No more odd than 'Iridium' if you ask me. To infer a link between an incident in 2009 and the name of the satellite that was launched forty years earlier seems like a stretch.

Good one! Iridium: that's the stuff left over when dinosaur-killing asteroids hit the Earth. I never thought of that! However, Cosmos 2251 was launched in June of 1993--not 40 years ago--and was superceded by the Strela-3's in 1994, so Cosmos 2251 was simply shut down because they didn't need it anymore--not because it was broken. Again Larry Jacks--whose opinion I highly respect--seems to think that Strela-2M's give out mainly because their electronics go bad. But still, I cannot find a definitive source for that conjecture either.

Another Russian in a discussion pointed out that a supposedly dormant satellite that had not been active for years "suddenly woke up" last summer, and that the Americans were aware of that fact. I haven't been able to independently confirm that yet. But if that checks out, it would raise the definite possibility that Cosmos 2251 was not dead, but was merely asleep.

Unverifiable sources are useless.

They are useless only if they are truly unverifiable. The "waking up" of an old satellite isn't going to make the front page of the New York Times. I'm still digging. In any case, this point is not essential for the argument that the collision was in fact a test of an asymmetric anti-satellite capability.

[captain swoop]

Maybe the Iridium was used to take out the Russian. How do we know it was realy just an old Strela. Maybe it was some super secret satellite that only the DOD and the Russians know about and they needed to take it down before it was used for whatever it's purpose was.

[Warren Platts]

Maybe the Iridium was used to take out the Russian. How do we know it was realy just an old Strela. Maybe it was some super secret satellite that only the DOD and the Russians know about and they needed to take it down before it was used for whatever it's purpose was.

Maybe. The only problem with that theory is that Iridium satellites are privately owned.

[captain swoop]

OR are they? as you say 'plausible deniability'

[AGN Fuel]

Why that particular Iridium out of the entire flotilla of them currently in orbit?

Or are you suggesting this is the start of a concentrated campaign of Satellite Demolition Derby, with more events to come?


(Edited to note: I may have misinterpreted the OP. I read this as a deliberate targeting of that specific Iridium - apologies if that was not the intent).

[captain swoop]

Why not? who has the most in orbit?

[Rhaedas]

It's more surprising collisions haven't happened more. Granted, even space in orbit is huge, but low orbits are quick, so they have multiple chances per day to cross paths. Didn't one report somewhere state that these two were one of many reported that day to be close passes, and they didn't rate as high as some others on how close they'd be. Daily there are near misses. It's no wonder that finally there was contact somewhere.

The odds that have been quoted, in what context are they? For each pass? Well, flipping heads a few times in a row has low odds too, but it still happens, especially when you flip a bunch of coins a lot of times.

[NickW]

The question for me is, why purposefully destroy a communications satellite that covers some of your own territory?

I am sure there are better targets to go after in Earths orbit.

[Eoanthropus Dawsoni]

It is rather improbable that two satellites would collide by accident.

It is also improbable that French and British submarines would collide in the Atlantic, but it happened.

[dgavin]

IF this was still the ColdWar era, I would have to say it was a likely resonse to us (USA) launching our first anti-satellite, satellite.

However it isn't that era anymore, so I'm going to side with that it was an inevitable accident after 50 years of satellite launches.

If it had been a Chinesse or N.K. Sat. that had collided with ours, then I might be a little suspisious.

[Eoanthropus Dawsoni]

Kinda makes you think about the kind of damage a rouge nation could do by launching a few payloads of ball bearings into orbit....

We need to start bombing their ball bearing plants.

[Amber Robot]

Here's the link to original thread.. You'll find what you're looking for there. Maybe a moderator will be kind enough to split off the CT posts in the other thread and move them here.

Sorry, I'm not particularly interested in browsing through an entire thread trying to pick out these bits of information that seem to be the core of your argument in this thread. If you know these for a fact, you should be able to easily produce the references.

[tusenfem]

I have moved two of Warren Platt's posts from the original thread to this one. I think those were the only ones that needed to come here. If more are to be copied, please PM me.

[gwiz]

Good one! Iridium: that's the stuff left over when dinosaur-killing asteroids hit the Earth. I never thought of that! However, Cosmos 2251 was launched in June of 1993--not 40 years ago--and was superceded by the Strela-3's in 1994, so Cosmos 2251 was simply shut down because they didn't need it anymore--not because it was broken.

The Russians began using the Strela name for small comsats back in the 1960s. Cosmos 2251 was just one of dozens of the Strela 2M version launched.

[Jason Thompson]

Big. Big enough to allow for plausible deniability.

Also big enough to allow for the fact that the collision could still be a random accident.

Good one! Iridium: that's the stuff left over when dinosaur-killing asteroids hit the Earth. I never thought of that!

It's also the element with the atomic number the same as the intended number of satellites in the network, which was why the name was chosen. Somewhere in the planning stage the number was reduced, but they couldn't be bothered renaming it.

However, Cosmos 2251 was launched in June of 1993--not 40 years ago

I am aware of that, but the class of satellite, the point that you drew attention to, was named over forty years ago.

[galacsi]

Kinda makes you think about the kind of damage a rouge nation could do by launching a few payloads of ball bearings into orbit....

Ah "Rouge nations" , they are the worst !

[Warren Platts]

Ah "Rouge nations" , they are the worst !

No, "lipstick" nations are the worst!!

Big. Big enough to allow for plausible deniability.

Also big enough to allow for the fact that the collision could still be a random accident.

That's what we're trying to ascertain. If you've got proof that Cosmos 2251 was dead, as in broken-down dead-dead, then let's see it. That would settle the matter, and I would admit that I was wrong to question the motives of our Russian friends.

The Russians began using the Strela [Arrow] name for small comsats back in the 1960s. Cosmos 2251 was just one of dozens of the Strela 2M version launched.

That suggests that they might have had a "dual-use" in mind for these comsats from the very beginning. The idea of using old satellites as ASAT weapons is not new.

Sorry, I'm not particularly interested in browsing through an entire thread trying to pick out these bits of information that seem to be the core of your argument in this thread. If you know these for a fact, you should be able to easily produce the references.

Sorry Amber. Here are a few links for you:

Pictures of a Strela-2M:
http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/c.../IMG_9003.html

Astronautix article documenting presence of "guidance equipment":
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/strela2m.htm

Space Review article on the timing of the collision:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1309/1

ArmsControlWonk blog including claims by Allen Thomson that
Cosmos 2251 was "drifting" higher rather than lower as initially claimed by NASA.
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2185/the-future-is-now

IF this was still the ColdWar era, I would have to say it was a likely resonse to us (USA) launching our first anti-satellite, satellite.

However it isn't that era anymore, so I'm going to side with that it was an inevitable accident after 50 years of satellite launches.

If it had been a Chinesse or N.K. Sat. that had collided with ours, then I might be a little suspisious.

I think you underestimate Putin, the former KGB head. He's about as Machiavellian as they come. Also keep in mind recent events: e.g., shutting off gas to Europe in the middle of winter, the invasion of Georgia, warships to Cuba and Venezuala, not backing us up with Iran and its nuke program, etc. See the Space Review article above on how an intentional collision would be of a piece with recent events. In any case, even if the collision were an accident, it still sends a message that using old satellites to ram your enemy's satellites could in fact be an effective means of denying space to your foe.

It is also improbable that French and British submarines would collide in the Atlantic, but it happened.

My point exactly. As an armcontrolwonk article put it with regard to the sub collision: "When something is, statistically speaking, unbelievable, I usually don’t believe it." My guess is that the French boat was shadowing the British boat which then pulled a "Crazy Ivan" maneuver causing the collision. Maybe there are Crazy Ivans in space.

Why that particular Iridium out of the entire flotilla of them currently in orbit?

Or are you suggesting this is the start of a concentrated campaign of Satellite Demolition Derby, with more events to come?

(Edited to note: I may have misinterpreted the OP. I read this as a deliberate targeting of that specific Iridium - apologies if that was not the intent).

The question for me is, why purposefully destroy a communications satellite that covers some of your own territory?

I am sure there are better targets to go after in Earths orbit.

I'm thinking that if the collision was intentional, Iridium 33 was simply a target of opportunity. On my theory, Cosmos 2251 happened to still have some maneuvering fuel left because they only used it for one year, and Iridium 33 just happened to be the closest target for the "Arrow" to hit.

[Argos]

Regarding this supposedly intentional move, the question is: how come everybody is silent about this issue? No hint of it in the press, no official word. Even organizations as the Union of Concerned Scientists [which has good resources on satellites] don´t seem to raise the possibility.

So, what do we know that these folks don´t?

[Warren Platts]

OK, I found a description of thrusters used for Russian interplanetary probes here:

http://www.mentallandscape.com/L_Luna3.htm

If you'll scroll down about halfway down the page, you'll see a nice clear photo of the jets. These were powered by a tank of nitrogen gas pressurized to 150 psi. Notice the tubes feeding the microjets.

Now check out this picture of part of a Strela-2M

http://www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru/c.../IMG_9002.html

Near the bottom of the bracket, there is a small cylindrical, chrome object pointing outward that looks like it could be a microjet. Note also the apparent feeder tube leading up to it.

Although the Strela-2M was gravity-gradient stabilized (the same principle that keeps one side of the Moon always facing the Earth), it would seem that they would want at least a minimal capacity to maneuver the thing, in case it started tumbling, for example, and to have it slowly spin (spin stabilization is sometimes combined with gravity-gradient stabilization). Note how the satellite was wrapped all around with solar panels so that it would have continous power even if it was rotating. Rotation would also reduce thermal disequilibrium due to the Sun's rays.

[Gigabyte]

Regarding this supposedly intentional move, the question is: how come everybody is silent about this issue?

Umm, have you checked Google? There are thousands of commentaries that mention conspiracy in regards to the collision.

The destruction of the two satellites has prompted everything from calls for more "space traffic" regulations to the development of conspiracy theories concerning the crash.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=89283