and also break a fully functional American satellite with a broken 1993 one

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090211/ap_on_sc/satellite_collision

good job guys!

Awesome .

Quote from ThatGuy

and also break a fully functional American satellite with a broken 1933 one

1993, man. and this is ****ed up..

Great ...

Quote from ThatGuy

and also break a fully functional American satellite with a broken 1933 one

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090211/ap_on_sc/satellite_collision

good job guys!

"and a Russian satellite launched in 1993 and believed to be nonfunctioning."
*Cough*

I don't see how they "****ed up space for the next 10,000 years." The debris has little to no risk of damaging the space station.

lawl thats stupid funny.

Quote from Flood

"and a Russian satellite launched in 1993 and believed to be nonfunctioning."
*Cough*

hey what's up

i already corrected him

leave him alone

Quote from Strelok

I don't see how they "****ed up space for the next 10,000 years." The debris has little to no risk of damaging the space station.

Just because it won't affect the space station doesn't mean it won't affect the launches of other satellites and shuttles that reach the orbiting distance of the debris. God knows how long the debris will be there...

Quote from Ampersand

Just because it won't affect the space station doesn't mean it won't affect the launches of other satellites and shuttles that reach the orbiting distance of the debris. God knows how long the debris will be there...

Er, if you think that's the only piece of junk in space then you are dead wrong.

Quote from Strelok

Er, if you think that's the only piece of junk in space then you are dead wrong.

oh grace us with your infinite wisdom, for you most certainly know more than science.
this isn't just your average space junk, it's about 3200 pounds of variously sized debris


i said 1933 because i read it in another article, it must have been misprinted

Quote from ThatGuy

oh grace us with your infinite wisdom, for you most certainly know more than science.
this isn't just your average space junk, it's about 3200 pounds of variously sized debris


i said 1933 because i read it in another article, it must have been misprinted

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/11/space-debris-illustrated-the-problem-in-pictures/

Faggot.

congratulations on further proving my point?

Quote from ThatGuy

congratulations on further proving my point?

I fail to see what you mean. I was only pointing out that there was more junk in space than this one incident.

Faggot.

you said that it wouldn't **** up space for the next 10,000 years because there's already debris out there. while that is true, this collision created a ****ton more debris, which will no doubt have a considerable impact, maybe you didn't see the part about the size of these two satellites.

faggot