Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ggrieves t1_j0c0uhc wrote

Why meteorite and not space debris? I don't think there's a way they can tell the difference, but saying it's space junk raises fears

−3

KerPop42 t1_j0c18q2 wrote

Micrometeroites can be natural or artificial

30

abecido t1_j0fhxeb wrote

Yes and it sounds nicer than space debris. We should not use that bad word, right?

0

Asterlux t1_j0kdxjg wrote

Hi, I work on the ISS Meteoroid/Orbital Debris Team. In this case we actually can tell the difference.

Firstly, I must state that we don't know it was an impact that caused the leak. Anyone saying otherwise is jumping the gun. Won't know until we get better imagery and even then might not know definitely.

A major reason we know it's not orbital debris (man made) is that the leak location is on the wake-side of the vehicle (opposite the "ram direction"). The vast majority of orbital debris threats to the ISS come from a cone about 30 degrees off either side of the velocity vector. Impacts from behind don't really happen as it would likely be co-orbital with the ISS and not approaching at a substantial relative velocity.

I can also say it likely wasn't one of the Geminid meteoroids (the leak occurred during the Geminid Meteor Shower) as the leak was on the starboard side of the Soyuz and the Geminid radiant vector was on the port side for the entire duration of the meteor shower.

But again, still not sure it was impact-induced. If it was though, likely a random background flux meteoroid.

3

ggrieves t1_j0n0juc wrote

Interesting, thank you. That extra info wasn't in this article

2

BlueCyann t1_j0gt8jm wrote

Because, if nothing has changed from original reports, the location of the strike is consistent with something moving faster than the speed of anything in orbit at that altitude. (It hit from behind.) Orbital debris is more often a head on or sideways hit from a crossing orbit.

2