Has any man-made satellite or space vehicle ever been hit by a natural meteoroid?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
$begingroup$
For precision I'm excluding artificial meteoroids and satellite debris (which is discussed in another question) of all kinds. I'm also considering collisions large enough to produce a noticeable impact or scar (not truly microscopic dust that can only be detected from wear of the surfaces). Say something carrying at least 1J of kinetic energy.
meteoroid
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For precision I'm excluding artificial meteoroids and satellite debris (which is discussed in another question) of all kinds. I'm also considering collisions large enough to produce a noticeable impact or scar (not truly microscopic dust that can only be detected from wear of the surfaces). Say something carrying at least 1J of kinetic energy.
meteoroid
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
If a satellite does not respond to radio signals anymore, how should we know what hapened?
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Jan 19 at 22:53
3
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why haven't more spacecraft/satellites been hit by debris? TL;DR: there's been plenty of macroscopic pitting from impacts.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Jan 19 at 23:12
2
$begingroup$
Those answers mostly talk about debris, this question specifically excludes that.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Jan 19 at 23:19
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For precision I'm excluding artificial meteoroids and satellite debris (which is discussed in another question) of all kinds. I'm also considering collisions large enough to produce a noticeable impact or scar (not truly microscopic dust that can only be detected from wear of the surfaces). Say something carrying at least 1J of kinetic energy.
meteoroid
$endgroup$
For precision I'm excluding artificial meteoroids and satellite debris (which is discussed in another question) of all kinds. I'm also considering collisions large enough to produce a noticeable impact or scar (not truly microscopic dust that can only be detected from wear of the surfaces). Say something carrying at least 1J of kinetic energy.
meteoroid
meteoroid
edited Jan 20 at 0:08
Steve Linton
asked Jan 19 at 22:47
Steve LintonSteve Linton
7,43211742
7,43211742
$begingroup$
If a satellite does not respond to radio signals anymore, how should we know what hapened?
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Jan 19 at 22:53
3
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why haven't more spacecraft/satellites been hit by debris? TL;DR: there's been plenty of macroscopic pitting from impacts.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Jan 19 at 23:12
2
$begingroup$
Those answers mostly talk about debris, this question specifically excludes that.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Jan 19 at 23:19
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If a satellite does not respond to radio signals anymore, how should we know what hapened?
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Jan 19 at 22:53
3
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why haven't more spacecraft/satellites been hit by debris? TL;DR: there's been plenty of macroscopic pitting from impacts.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Jan 19 at 23:12
2
$begingroup$
Those answers mostly talk about debris, this question specifically excludes that.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Jan 19 at 23:19
$begingroup$
If a satellite does not respond to radio signals anymore, how should we know what hapened?
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Jan 19 at 22:53
$begingroup$
If a satellite does not respond to radio signals anymore, how should we know what hapened?
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Jan 19 at 22:53
3
3
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why haven't more spacecraft/satellites been hit by debris? TL;DR: there's been plenty of macroscopic pitting from impacts.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Jan 19 at 23:12
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why haven't more spacecraft/satellites been hit by debris? TL;DR: there's been plenty of macroscopic pitting from impacts.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Jan 19 at 23:12
2
2
$begingroup$
Those answers mostly talk about debris, this question specifically excludes that.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Jan 19 at 23:19
$begingroup$
Those answers mostly talk about debris, this question specifically excludes that.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Jan 19 at 23:19
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Hypervelocity impacts on the space shuttle Orbiters were analyzed over the years to determine their origin.
After the post-flight inspection is completed, JSC
personnel analyze samples extracted from the impact
sites using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) equipped
with energy dispersive X-ray spectrometers (EDXA). Such techniques
allow engineers to determine whether the impactor was a naturally
occurring meteoroid or man-made orbital debris.
The paper ANALYSIS OF THE NASA SHUTTLE HYPERVELOCITY IMPACT DATABASE breaks down the source of the impacts for various regions of the Orbiter.
The majority of the hits are from debris, but some are attributed to meteoroids. Here's an example, a chart showing the results from the Reinforced Carbon-Carbon areas of the Orbiters (mostly the wing leading edges and nosecap).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A History of Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Impacts On The Space Shuttle lists the "top 20" strikes on space shuttle windows and radiators from 1992 to 2000; most of them are from debris but 4 appear to be from meteoroids. The biggest meteoroid hit appears to be a 5mm hole in a radiator from an 0.7mm meteoroid.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Source: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/camera-on-nasas-lunar-orbiter-survived-2014-meteoroid-hit
The above image is from one of the Narrow Angle Cameras on NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. The very top of the image is clear. The rest shows jagged artifacts. Unlike the digital cameras one can buy in a store, the Narrow Angle Cameras are pushbroom sensors. The scan a line of pixels at a time instead of taking a 2D image. Because a scanned line is orthogonal to the satellite's motion, the next line will be over a slightly different spot, and so on, building an image over time.
The oldest lines in the above image are at the top. The top portion of the image is clear -- but then something happened. Per NASA, that something was most likely a micrometeoroid, probably a 0.8 mm coarse grain of sand moving at 7 km/s relative to the spacecraft. If NASA is correct, that coarse grain of sand imparted about 18 joules of energy to the camera.
A relative velocity of 7 km/s is not that high and a joule is not that much energy. In low Earth orbit, relative velocities between a spacecraft and a meteoroid can be ten times that 7 km/s. At that speed, even a very fine grain of sand would impart one joule of energy.
In addition to the impact described above, NASA has brought several items that were in space back to Earth and looked at them for impacts. Two of the answers describe impacts with the Shuttle. In addition to the Shuttle, NASA has retrieved the Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 and solar arrays from Hubble and the Long Duration Exposure Facility. All exhibited multiple impacts, some of which were from micrometeoroids, and some of those were large enough to have easily tipped the one joule threshold raised in the question.
And that's just what is known. There are unknown unknowns as well; a number of satellites have prematurely gone permanently offline for no known reason. Some fraction of those were almost certainly due to micrometeoroid damage.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33712%2fhas-any-man-made-satellite-or-space-vehicle-ever-been-hit-by-a-natural-meteoroid%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Hypervelocity impacts on the space shuttle Orbiters were analyzed over the years to determine their origin.
After the post-flight inspection is completed, JSC
personnel analyze samples extracted from the impact
sites using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) equipped
with energy dispersive X-ray spectrometers (EDXA). Such techniques
allow engineers to determine whether the impactor was a naturally
occurring meteoroid or man-made orbital debris.
The paper ANALYSIS OF THE NASA SHUTTLE HYPERVELOCITY IMPACT DATABASE breaks down the source of the impacts for various regions of the Orbiter.
The majority of the hits are from debris, but some are attributed to meteoroids. Here's an example, a chart showing the results from the Reinforced Carbon-Carbon areas of the Orbiters (mostly the wing leading edges and nosecap).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hypervelocity impacts on the space shuttle Orbiters were analyzed over the years to determine their origin.
After the post-flight inspection is completed, JSC
personnel analyze samples extracted from the impact
sites using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) equipped
with energy dispersive X-ray spectrometers (EDXA). Such techniques
allow engineers to determine whether the impactor was a naturally
occurring meteoroid or man-made orbital debris.
The paper ANALYSIS OF THE NASA SHUTTLE HYPERVELOCITY IMPACT DATABASE breaks down the source of the impacts for various regions of the Orbiter.
The majority of the hits are from debris, but some are attributed to meteoroids. Here's an example, a chart showing the results from the Reinforced Carbon-Carbon areas of the Orbiters (mostly the wing leading edges and nosecap).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Hypervelocity impacts on the space shuttle Orbiters were analyzed over the years to determine their origin.
After the post-flight inspection is completed, JSC
personnel analyze samples extracted from the impact
sites using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) equipped
with energy dispersive X-ray spectrometers (EDXA). Such techniques
allow engineers to determine whether the impactor was a naturally
occurring meteoroid or man-made orbital debris.
The paper ANALYSIS OF THE NASA SHUTTLE HYPERVELOCITY IMPACT DATABASE breaks down the source of the impacts for various regions of the Orbiter.
The majority of the hits are from debris, but some are attributed to meteoroids. Here's an example, a chart showing the results from the Reinforced Carbon-Carbon areas of the Orbiters (mostly the wing leading edges and nosecap).
$endgroup$
Hypervelocity impacts on the space shuttle Orbiters were analyzed over the years to determine their origin.
After the post-flight inspection is completed, JSC
personnel analyze samples extracted from the impact
sites using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) equipped
with energy dispersive X-ray spectrometers (EDXA). Such techniques
allow engineers to determine whether the impactor was a naturally
occurring meteoroid or man-made orbital debris.
The paper ANALYSIS OF THE NASA SHUTTLE HYPERVELOCITY IMPACT DATABASE breaks down the source of the impacts for various regions of the Orbiter.
The majority of the hits are from debris, but some are attributed to meteoroids. Here's an example, a chart showing the results from the Reinforced Carbon-Carbon areas of the Orbiters (mostly the wing leading edges and nosecap).
edited Jan 19 at 23:35
answered Jan 19 at 23:26
Organic MarbleOrganic Marble
56.3k3152242
56.3k3152242
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A History of Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Impacts On The Space Shuttle lists the "top 20" strikes on space shuttle windows and radiators from 1992 to 2000; most of them are from debris but 4 appear to be from meteoroids. The biggest meteoroid hit appears to be a 5mm hole in a radiator from an 0.7mm meteoroid.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A History of Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Impacts On The Space Shuttle lists the "top 20" strikes on space shuttle windows and radiators from 1992 to 2000; most of them are from debris but 4 appear to be from meteoroids. The biggest meteoroid hit appears to be a 5mm hole in a radiator from an 0.7mm meteoroid.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A History of Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Impacts On The Space Shuttle lists the "top 20" strikes on space shuttle windows and radiators from 1992 to 2000; most of them are from debris but 4 appear to be from meteoroids. The biggest meteoroid hit appears to be a 5mm hole in a radiator from an 0.7mm meteoroid.
$endgroup$
A History of Micrometeoroid and Orbital Debris Impacts On The Space Shuttle lists the "top 20" strikes on space shuttle windows and radiators from 1992 to 2000; most of them are from debris but 4 appear to be from meteoroids. The biggest meteoroid hit appears to be a 5mm hole in a radiator from an 0.7mm meteoroid.
answered Jan 19 at 23:28
Russell BorogoveRussell Borogove
85.1k3286369
85.1k3286369
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Source: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/camera-on-nasas-lunar-orbiter-survived-2014-meteoroid-hit
The above image is from one of the Narrow Angle Cameras on NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. The very top of the image is clear. The rest shows jagged artifacts. Unlike the digital cameras one can buy in a store, the Narrow Angle Cameras are pushbroom sensors. The scan a line of pixels at a time instead of taking a 2D image. Because a scanned line is orthogonal to the satellite's motion, the next line will be over a slightly different spot, and so on, building an image over time.
The oldest lines in the above image are at the top. The top portion of the image is clear -- but then something happened. Per NASA, that something was most likely a micrometeoroid, probably a 0.8 mm coarse grain of sand moving at 7 km/s relative to the spacecraft. If NASA is correct, that coarse grain of sand imparted about 18 joules of energy to the camera.
A relative velocity of 7 km/s is not that high and a joule is not that much energy. In low Earth orbit, relative velocities between a spacecraft and a meteoroid can be ten times that 7 km/s. At that speed, even a very fine grain of sand would impart one joule of energy.
In addition to the impact described above, NASA has brought several items that were in space back to Earth and looked at them for impacts. Two of the answers describe impacts with the Shuttle. In addition to the Shuttle, NASA has retrieved the Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 and solar arrays from Hubble and the Long Duration Exposure Facility. All exhibited multiple impacts, some of which were from micrometeoroids, and some of those were large enough to have easily tipped the one joule threshold raised in the question.
And that's just what is known. There are unknown unknowns as well; a number of satellites have prematurely gone permanently offline for no known reason. Some fraction of those were almost certainly due to micrometeoroid damage.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Source: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/camera-on-nasas-lunar-orbiter-survived-2014-meteoroid-hit
The above image is from one of the Narrow Angle Cameras on NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. The very top of the image is clear. The rest shows jagged artifacts. Unlike the digital cameras one can buy in a store, the Narrow Angle Cameras are pushbroom sensors. The scan a line of pixels at a time instead of taking a 2D image. Because a scanned line is orthogonal to the satellite's motion, the next line will be over a slightly different spot, and so on, building an image over time.
The oldest lines in the above image are at the top. The top portion of the image is clear -- but then something happened. Per NASA, that something was most likely a micrometeoroid, probably a 0.8 mm coarse grain of sand moving at 7 km/s relative to the spacecraft. If NASA is correct, that coarse grain of sand imparted about 18 joules of energy to the camera.
A relative velocity of 7 km/s is not that high and a joule is not that much energy. In low Earth orbit, relative velocities between a spacecraft and a meteoroid can be ten times that 7 km/s. At that speed, even a very fine grain of sand would impart one joule of energy.
In addition to the impact described above, NASA has brought several items that were in space back to Earth and looked at them for impacts. Two of the answers describe impacts with the Shuttle. In addition to the Shuttle, NASA has retrieved the Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 and solar arrays from Hubble and the Long Duration Exposure Facility. All exhibited multiple impacts, some of which were from micrometeoroids, and some of those were large enough to have easily tipped the one joule threshold raised in the question.
And that's just what is known. There are unknown unknowns as well; a number of satellites have prematurely gone permanently offline for no known reason. Some fraction of those were almost certainly due to micrometeoroid damage.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Source: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/camera-on-nasas-lunar-orbiter-survived-2014-meteoroid-hit
The above image is from one of the Narrow Angle Cameras on NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. The very top of the image is clear. The rest shows jagged artifacts. Unlike the digital cameras one can buy in a store, the Narrow Angle Cameras are pushbroom sensors. The scan a line of pixels at a time instead of taking a 2D image. Because a scanned line is orthogonal to the satellite's motion, the next line will be over a slightly different spot, and so on, building an image over time.
The oldest lines in the above image are at the top. The top portion of the image is clear -- but then something happened. Per NASA, that something was most likely a micrometeoroid, probably a 0.8 mm coarse grain of sand moving at 7 km/s relative to the spacecraft. If NASA is correct, that coarse grain of sand imparted about 18 joules of energy to the camera.
A relative velocity of 7 km/s is not that high and a joule is not that much energy. In low Earth orbit, relative velocities between a spacecraft and a meteoroid can be ten times that 7 km/s. At that speed, even a very fine grain of sand would impart one joule of energy.
In addition to the impact described above, NASA has brought several items that were in space back to Earth and looked at them for impacts. Two of the answers describe impacts with the Shuttle. In addition to the Shuttle, NASA has retrieved the Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 and solar arrays from Hubble and the Long Duration Exposure Facility. All exhibited multiple impacts, some of which were from micrometeoroids, and some of those were large enough to have easily tipped the one joule threshold raised in the question.
And that's just what is known. There are unknown unknowns as well; a number of satellites have prematurely gone permanently offline for no known reason. Some fraction of those were almost certainly due to micrometeoroid damage.
$endgroup$
Source: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/camera-on-nasas-lunar-orbiter-survived-2014-meteoroid-hit
The above image is from one of the Narrow Angle Cameras on NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. The very top of the image is clear. The rest shows jagged artifacts. Unlike the digital cameras one can buy in a store, the Narrow Angle Cameras are pushbroom sensors. The scan a line of pixels at a time instead of taking a 2D image. Because a scanned line is orthogonal to the satellite's motion, the next line will be over a slightly different spot, and so on, building an image over time.
The oldest lines in the above image are at the top. The top portion of the image is clear -- but then something happened. Per NASA, that something was most likely a micrometeoroid, probably a 0.8 mm coarse grain of sand moving at 7 km/s relative to the spacecraft. If NASA is correct, that coarse grain of sand imparted about 18 joules of energy to the camera.
A relative velocity of 7 km/s is not that high and a joule is not that much energy. In low Earth orbit, relative velocities between a spacecraft and a meteoroid can be ten times that 7 km/s. At that speed, even a very fine grain of sand would impart one joule of energy.
In addition to the impact described above, NASA has brought several items that were in space back to Earth and looked at them for impacts. Two of the answers describe impacts with the Shuttle. In addition to the Shuttle, NASA has retrieved the Wide Field and Planetary Camera 2 and solar arrays from Hubble and the Long Duration Exposure Facility. All exhibited multiple impacts, some of which were from micrometeoroids, and some of those were large enough to have easily tipped the one joule threshold raised in the question.
And that's just what is known. There are unknown unknowns as well; a number of satellites have prematurely gone permanently offline for no known reason. Some fraction of those were almost certainly due to micrometeoroid damage.
answered Jan 20 at 21:08
David HammenDavid Hammen
30.7k169130
30.7k169130
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Space Exploration Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f33712%2fhas-any-man-made-satellite-or-space-vehicle-ever-been-hit-by-a-natural-meteoroid%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
If a satellite does not respond to radio signals anymore, how should we know what hapened?
$endgroup$
– Uwe
Jan 19 at 22:53
3
$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Why haven't more spacecraft/satellites been hit by debris? TL;DR: there's been plenty of macroscopic pitting from impacts.
$endgroup$
– Russell Borogove
Jan 19 at 23:12
2
$begingroup$
Those answers mostly talk about debris, this question specifically excludes that.
$endgroup$
– Organic Marble
Jan 19 at 23:19