This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
What about the terms planetoid and planetesimal? Where do they fit into the schema? -- Dante Alighieri 09:10 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Does anyone really call planets "debris"? -- Oliver P. 10:39 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
When the article says "paint chips," does it mean so literally? -- NeuronExMachina 05:23, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Does anyone know the story of how that glove got lost? I'm curious too. Wadsworth 03:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
In 1965, during the first american space walk, the Gemini 4 astronaut Edward White, lost a glove. For a month, the glove stayed on orbit with a speed of 28,000 km / h, becoming the most dangerous garment in history Mr_mattyp 17:53, 26 February 2006 (GMT)
Isn't a space debri example? why it isn't even mencioned on the article??? 200.233.133.203 11:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
What is the source for the item in the History section stating
In 2006, wreckage from a plummeting Russian spy satellite whizzed dangerously close to a Latin American Airbus carrying 270 passengers. ?
The NZ Herald 29 March 2007 printed news of a LAN Chile flight reporting seeing satellite debris five nautical miles in front of and behind the plane. Next day the story was that experts doubted the debris was from a Russian satellite and that NASA said the satellite reentered at the expected time 12 hours earlier.
See
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=82&objectid=10431449 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=82&objectid=10431624
Taringi ( talk) 02:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
"In 2006, wreckage from a Russian spy satellite passed dangerously close to a Latin American Airbus carrying 270 passengers, reentering over the Pacific Ocean which is considered among the safest places in the world to bring down satellites due to its unpopulated vastness."
From what I read the point of view of the pilots made them think it was much closer... Enough so that they had to preform evasive maneuvers when in actuality it was some hundred km away. Should we make some note to this effect? Cs302b ( talk) 10:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
There ought to be a section on Collisional Cascading instead of the somewhat miss-named Kessler Syndrome link. The proper reference is abstracted at ADS:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991AdSpR..11...63K
--aajacksoniv 15:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aajacksoniv ( talk • contribs)
I tried to put things in the right order. I moved Gabbard diagrams section to within Tracking section. I am not sure if it belongs in Measurement section, but at least it fixes the white space problem that existed before.
I put creation and impact events under Incidents section. If anyone wants to monkey around with this layout, please be my guest.-- Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a section on this article covering the clean up of space debris?-- Hontogaichiban ( talk) 03:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I find this article hard to read because it just keep going and going with example after example. Sometimes I think "didn't I read this example a couple of paragraphs back?" I think it would be more easily scanned, and hence more comprehensible, if there were more bulletted lists. Do you agree or disagree? Matthew C. Clarke 08:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz has asked me to pop in and do a bit of copy editing for this article. If I have any questions with respect to content or context, or suggestions that will significantly alter the format of the article, I will leave them here. Thanks for the opportunity to pitch in, this is a very interesting subject and I can see a lot of work has gone into this article. Risker ( talk) 23:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The article includes the word "crebit". Is there such a thing, or is that a typo? Matthew C. Clarke 07:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Is the reference to tons supposed to be tonnes? If so can someone update the page. If it is infact tons can someone convert it to tonnes and remove the tons altogether. Imperial measurements should end at 99km, there is no need for such a primitive and senseless measurement system in relation to space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.111.162.127 ( talk) 20:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |