Space crash: Commercial and Russian satellites collide in orbit

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


A commercial satellite collided with a Russian satellite over Siberia yesterday, yielding a cloud of fragments, according to a NASA scientist tracking space debris. The collision between the commercial satellite, belonging to the American communications firm Iridium, and the Russian satellite, believed to be defunct based on its advanced age, was the first of its kind, says Nicholas Johnson, chief scientist at the NASA Orbital Debris Program at Johnson Space Center in Houston. (A spokesperson for Iridium said a statement on the incident would be released shortly.)*

"In the past almost 20 years, there have been three other accidental collisions between objects in orbit, but they've all been very minor," Johnson says. "The most debris ever produced in an event was like four debris, and this is two intact spacecraft colliding, and we have hundreds of debris out there. We don't know exactly how many yet."

According to Johnson, the military sky-watchers who track satellites in orbit picked up the collision 490 miles (790 kilometers) above Earth Tuesday. "One of the things that they discovered yesterday afternoon ... was all of a sudden, where two satellites used to be, there were two clouds of debris," he says. The actual crash appears to have occurred just minutes before noon, Eastern Standard Time.

Johnson says NASA has already determined that the debris cloud poses "no significant new risk to the International Space Station." The next space shuttle mission, which may launch as early as February 22, should be in the clear as well, according to the space agency.

Such a collision between two intact spacecraft may be unprecedented, but it is not completely unexpected. "There are no rules of the road in space," Johnson says. "Anybody can fly anywhere they want." Even concerted efforts to track and guide spacecraft in orbit are subject to some uncertainty in trajectory estimates. At seven miles (11 kilometers) per second, Johnson says, "a little error means a lot."

*UPDATE (7:10 P.M.): Iridium's statement confirms the loss of the satellite, calling the crash an "extremely unusual, very low-probability event." The company says its network of 66 satellites plus in-orbit spares "is uniquely designed to withstand such an event, and the company is taking the necessary steps to replace the lost satellite with one of its in-orbit spare satellites."


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Image credit: ©iStockphoto/cristimatei

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe