What is Digg?208 Comments
- tublo, on 02/11/2009, -1/+264Hmm the article said one of the satellites was Russian and launched in 1933. I'm pretty sure Sputnik 1 wasn't launched until 1957
- buxmeister, on 02/11/2009, -1/+150Original story
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SATELLITE_C ...
Breitbart rewrote the story and mistyped the thing..
Terrible.... - buxmeister, on 02/11/2009, -2/+146"and a Russian satellite launched in 1933 and believed to be non-functionning.."
Nice history.. nice spelling... - one1plus1one, on 02/12/2009, -4/+134You fools, stop criticizing. The article is absolutely correct.
That satellite was indeed launced by Russia in 1933 -- but not the Russia of our time stream.
In an alternate history, Russia launched their first satellite in 1933. That same alternate-Russia also conducted their first time travel, worm-hole experiment in orbit, in 2009, but it went wildly wrong, and accidentally linked to our version of 2009, and transmitted a bunch of space junk into our time-line, which collided with one of our satellites.
Just before the collision however, there was a blip of data that was downloaded from the 1933 satellite, advertising toploss Russian babes and free MP3 downloads from their timestream. (It also featured a never before seen list of "In Russia" jokes.)
Had we clicked on it quickly, we could have gotten viruses, music, jokes, and images of hot babes from another dimension, while the wormhole remained temporarily open.
Anyways... if you had done your proper research, you would have know all that. Jesh... get your facts straight before you start criticizing the author of this article. Brush up on your alternate history timelines -- please! - sockpuppets, on 02/11/2009, -1/+97and they spelled it "non-functionning."
What kind of crackhead wrote this article? - Swarms, on 02/12/2009, -9/+87I bet a woman was driving.
- inactive, on 02/12/2009, -2/+40Thats the first thing I thought when I read 1933; WTF?
- inactive, on 02/12/2009, -2/+371933? russians, americans, no one in the world had an orbiting satellite!!!
bad fact checking... - alphaterminus, on 02/12/2009, -1/+31In Soviet Russia, Model T Satellite launches you!
- spookyttws, on 02/12/2009, -1/+30That was a really short, uninformative, and apparently inaccurate stub of an article.
- chrisbarr, on 02/12/2009, -0/+25Yeah, I just finished watching Lost too.
- Brak710101, on 02/12/2009, -1/+26It should read 1993 instead of 1933 btw.
- samuraipizzacat, on 02/12/2009, -2/+241933?!
- ghank, on 02/12/2009, -0/+22Cut them some slack, that satellite controlled their spell checker.
- bioviral, on 02/12/2009, -3/+24It begins.
- sykotik, on 02/12/2009, -0/+20http://www.space.com/news/090211-satellite-collisi ...
1993* (near bottom)
"The 1,234-pound (560-kg) Iridium 33 satellite involved in the collision was launched in 1997; the 1,984-pound (900-kg) Russian satellite was launched in 1993 and presumed non-operational. It did not have a maneuvering system, NASA said."
I guess they mistyped it on the above linked article. That is how space.com reports it. - DrDigg, on 02/12/2009, -2/+21From the AP link above -
"Iridium also said it expected to replace the lost satellite with one of its eight in-orbit spares within 30 days."
That is amazing - 8 spare satellites. - mickstephenson, on 02/12/2009, -1/+19Yeah at a time over a decade before the V2 was able to just make it across the English channel Russia were launching satellites into space...
- Haoie, on 02/12/2009, -3/+17Space junk is actually a pretty big concern.
Much like Earth junk. - PhillyOC, on 02/12/2009, -2/+15*****! I just had it waxed!
- BossKey, on 02/12/2009, -0/+13That's not amazing, that's a business plan.
- winter360, on 02/12/2009, -2/+15Good catch? thats the most obvious mistake i have ever read. Russia was barely industrialized in 1933
- winter360, on 02/12/2009, -1/+14legitimate article
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/science/space/12 ... - saminfused, on 02/12/2009, -0/+12Uhm, I move at meters per second, just not very many.
- esteskid, on 02/12/2009, -1/+12lucky it wasn't a soviet satellite nuclear missle silo or they would have had to call clint eastwood
- RogerStrong, on 02/12/2009, -0/+10Which also has been known to happen.
- wonderchemist, on 02/12/2009, -0/+10Have enough bullets flying and its bound to happen.
- Swarms, on 02/12/2009, -0/+8You're right, I bet a woman WASN'T the one driving this satellite. You put me in my place.
- MAGZine, on 02/12/2009, -1/+9Never != very unlikely
Also: do the math... 8000++ isn't exactly overcrowding the atmosphere... you can still see the sun unobstructed, no? - theOguy, on 02/12/2009, -0/+8I didn't know vibrators had wheels.
- wishninja, on 02/12/2009, -5/+13Do you think the Drudge idiots that pay attention to that site will know the difference?
- ApokalypseNow, on 02/12/2009, -1/+9We should *all* give a *****. Ever heard of Kessler Syndrome? Basically, we have two objects in space that collide, just as in this case. Suddenly we have a *****-tonne of debris flying around at odd angles, some of which is no larger than a paint fleck, but when said fleck strikes another orbiting body at high velocity, can cause that other body to break apart to some degree, causing further orbital shrapnel, etc. Pretty soon it's a shooting gallery up there, with debris pin-balling about, destroying everything we have in orbit. The end result is that we have an impenetrable cloud of high-velocity debris orbiting the planet, none of which has enough of a cross-sectional area to allow for appreciable atmospheric drag, making orbit uninhabitable for centuries.
- KarlH, on 02/12/2009, -0/+7"It runs on steam."
- Tyrghast, on 02/12/2009, -5/+12Never believe the official story. It was aliens.
- davidsmero, on 02/12/2009, -3/+10Win
- RogerStrong, on 02/12/2009, -0/+7No, that was a sattellite hit by a missile. The US has done it too.
- one1plus1one, on 02/12/2009, -0/+7Now there's something like 29,932 pieces, including a bag of tools.
- dzneill, on 02/12/2009, -1/+8How the ***** this inaccurate rip-off of an article got to the front page is beyond me.
- chrisbarr, on 02/12/2009, -0/+7All all the space junk is made from earth junk.
- wonderchemist, on 02/12/2009, -0/+7Er... 7
- Larsonal777, on 02/12/2009, -0/+6Stalingrad? 1933... Really?
Damn them Russian's and their time machine. - soogy, on 02/12/2009, -0/+6Except that Earth junk is not moving at a rate of meters PER SECOND. This here is just another incident in our planet's long running history of learning how to ***** up our chances at space travel.
- Hipser, on 02/12/2009, -1/+7little known fact - the first satellite was actually launched in 1337, not 1933.
- alconebay, on 02/12/2009, -0/+5"Possible, though not probable"
- Wake101, on 02/12/2009, -0/+5dugg for the effort.
- soogy, on 02/12/2009, -0/+5Whoops! Good catch. I meant kilometers per second. Quite a big difference there. To be more precise, most LEO objects have a speed of just under 8 KM/s.
- l3lueMage, on 02/12/2009, -5/+10Pics or it didn't happen!
- theOguy, on 02/12/2009, -0/+5After a bottle of Jack Daniels, I can do anything.
- RedSaint, on 02/12/2009, -0/+4Dugg for expressing my thoughts as well.
There is even a whole anime series dedicated to this problem called "Planetes".
Here's an excerpt from the description: "Hachimaki (Hoshino Hachirouta) is just an ordinary salaryman. He works at a space station collecting debris. However, he has a dream of owning his very own space ship someday. And so he is spending his days collecting debris together with his colleagues Yuri, Fee and his friend Tanabe."
The reason for collecting debris? It might collide with crafts at very high speeds. - skinturtle, on 02/12/2009, -1/+5Everything always happens over Siberia.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 214 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is