Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Defunct Spy Satellite Falling From Orbit

Posted by kdawson on Sat Jan 26, 2008 07:26 PM
from the cue-the-chicken-little-jokes dept.
dnormant, among other readers, sent us word that a US spy satellite has lost power and propulsion and could hit the Earth in late February or March. Government officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the information is classified as secret. None of the coverage speculates on how big the satellite is, but Wikipedia claims that US spy satellites in the KH-11 class, launched up to the mid-90s, are about the size of the Hubble — which is 13 meters long and weighs over 11,000 kg. "The satellite, which no longer can be controlled, could contain hazardous materials, and it is unknown where on the planet it might come down... A senior government official said that lawmakers and other nations are being kept apprised of the situation."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Speculation On the Doomed Satellite 229 comments
scim writes "Intelligent speculation has led one knowledgeable observer to believe the satellite recently announced to have failed is a radar satellite named USA 193. According to an earlier story on the satellite: 'The experimental L-21 classified satellite, built for the National Reconnaissance Office at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, was launched successfully on Dec. 14 [2006] but has been out of touch since reaching its low-earth orbit.'" The ArmsControlWonk story leads off with what purports to be a photo from the ground of USA 193.
[+] US To Shoot Down Dying Satellite 429 comments
A user writes "US officials say that the Pentagon is planning to shoot down a broken spy satellite expected to hit the Earth in early March. We discussed the device's decaying orbit late last month. The Associated Press has learned that the option preferred by the Bush administration will be to fire a missile from a U.S. Navy cruiser, and shoot down the satellite before it enters Earth's atmosphere. 'A key concern ... was the debris created by Chinese satellite's destruction -- and that will also be a focus now, as the U.S. determines exactly when and under what circumstances to shoot down its errant satellite. The military will have to choose a time and a location that will avoid to the greatest degree any damage to other satellites in the sky. Also, there is the possibility that large pieces could remain, and either stay in orbit where they can collide with other satellites or possibly fall to Earth.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by oakbox (414095) on Saturday January 26 2008, @07:31PM (#22196574) Homepage
    Those stories about telling what brand of cigarettes a person was smoking from space seem a lot more plausible.

    • Jesus... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SpectreBlofeld (886224) on Saturday January 26 2008, @07:34PM (#22196594)
      No joke. I had no idea they were that massive.

      Do they use solar panels for power? Seems to me that they'd want to keep as low a profile as possible, which would eliminate the large profile created by solar panels.

      Which leaves radioisotope thermoelectric generation as the power source - which would mean there's plutonium (or another highly radioactive material) in these things.

      Yikes...
      • Re:Jesus... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by funwithBSD (245349) on Saturday January 26 2008, @07:40PM (#22196638)
        You don't need anything that exotic, the thruster fuel, hydrazine, is dangerous enough:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine [wikipedia.org]
      • Oh please (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ArchieBunker (132337) on Saturday January 26 2008, @07:47PM (#22196688) Homepage
        You think nobody thought of this scenario before shooting a billion dollar satellite into space? Look what happened a number of years ago in Florida when a rocket carrying a communications satellite exploded before it left the atmosphere. http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9808/27/rocket.blast2/index.html [cnn.com]
      • Re:Jesus... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 26 2008, @07:52PM (#22196736)
        Why keep a so-called "low profile"? What does that even mean for an object in a mathematically defined movement, made of metal, against the (essentially) empty radar background of space?

        It's not as if it's hard for the Russians/Chinese/etc to figure out where our satellites are. That's why the SR-71 was considered so valuable for so long - you didn't know days in advance when one was going to show up.
      • Re:Jesus... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 26 2008, @08:12PM (#22196856)
        Posting as AC for NDA reasons.

        It's common knowledge in NASA that lots of US satellites are nuclear powered. It's actually not that dangerous, if it blows in re-entry it will go over a big enough area to just fade into the background radiation, and if it comes down in one piece they can go gather it up. However, people are so worried about such things they would never admit it. This "may contain dangerous materials" is the closest you'll ever get to an admission.
        • We know who you are. Do not attempt to leave your house, turn off your computer, or unplug your microwave. We will be there shortly to bring you into custody.
        • Re:Jesus... (Score:5, Informative)

          by RaySnake (607687) on Saturday January 26 2008, @10:02PM (#22197432)
          Your post contains the sort of interesting truths and half-truths from which conspiracy theories grow. I'll try to add to the true parts while keeping things interesting. The US does currently have several nuclear powered space vehicles, all of them deep space missions and all of the powered by RTGs. (Voyager I/II, Poineer I/II, Cassini, New Horizon, etc) RTGs are different from reactors in that they are passive devices relying on spontaneous isotopic decay and therefore have a fairly constant (but decreasing) power output. Reactors meanwhile have a feedback loop controlling the energy and number of neutrons available to initiate fission and so have variable power output. The reasons RTGs are used for deep space vehicles are that they're economical and simple. Because of the pesky inverse square law for illumination intensity solar panels start becoming more expensive than RTGs somewhere around the asteroid belt. Relative to fast reactors like SNAP-10 and the Russian TOPAZ RTGs are child's play and dead safe. RTGs are also much less harmful in the case of a launch accident since the plutonium oxide fuel is an alpha emitter and is encased in metal anyway. The US has only launched one satellites a nuclear reactor, SNAP-10A which was expensive and only lasted 43 days. Since it was unreliable in addition to being horrendously expensive the US stopped pursuing reactors in space since since other technologies were better fits. Fortunately for us the Russians probably thought we turned it into a black program and started furiously testing nuclear reactors on satellites. Consequently the Russians have the most experience with reactors in space since they have launched over 30. If we ever need a space craft with over 100KW of power where reactors become cost effective I'm sure we'll be looking at their designs.
    • by BWJones (18351) * on Saturday January 26 2008, @07:41PM (#22196642) Homepage Journal
      Physics essentially defines how big an object is that can be resolved from space which is (until recently) about 10cm optimal given the best altitude, angle of the sun and angle of captured image with perfect atmospheric conditions. Currently most satellite in orbit are using standard optics. However, using a newer technology called adaptive optics, images can be obtained that allow for much higher resolution. Some examples of ground based adaptive optics imaging of satellites can be seen here [utah.edu], but space based adaptive optics work is an area of very active interest in a variety of fields from science to intelligence.

    • by theNAM666 (179776) on Saturday January 26 2008, @07:59PM (#22196772)
      From Yahoo! [yahoo.com]

      Pike, director of the defense research group GlobalSecurity.org, estimated that the spacecraft weighs about 20,000 pounds and is the size of a small bus. He said the satellite would create 10 times less debris than the Columbia space shuttle crash in 2003.

      Now, um, how did the darn thing "loose power?..." Bet that's a secret...

      In 2002, officials believe debris from a 7,000-pound science satellite smacked into the Earth's atmosphere and rained down over the Persian Gulf, a few thousand miles from where they first predicted it would plummet.

      Anyone wanna take bets on this one hitting Iran?
  • by Heem (448667) on Saturday January 26 2008, @07:33PM (#22196592) Homepage Journal
    OK, someone do the math:

      How thick of a tinfoil hat would I have to put on top of my house to protect it from a 12-ton satellite?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 26 2008, @07:34PM (#22196596)
    When Skylab hit the cow, the American government refused to compensate.
  • by Cordath (581672) on Saturday January 26 2008, @07:34PM (#22196600)
    The probability of this satellite landing on Osama bin Laden is probably higher than the probability of him being caught within the next couple of months. It's good to see the U.S. finally cracking down on that slimeball!
  • by russlar (1122455) on Saturday January 26 2008, @07:35PM (#22196604)
    I'm guessing these things don't just shut down on their own. So, readers of /., which is more likely the cause?

    1. Focused EMP from the surface?

    or

    2. It was running Windows.
  • here it is (Score:5, Informative)

    by lecithin (745575) on Saturday January 26 2008, @07:51PM (#22196722)
    That will be USA 193 (06-057A, #29651). This is it's current orbit:

    USA 193
    1 29651U 06057A 08022.26925691 0.00105000 00000-0 21306-3 0 07
    2 29651 58.5247 160.3977 0003288 53.6760 306.3240 15.98950761 06

    Lowest point is about 275 km above earth surface currently.

    This under the right conditions is an easy to see object: it can reach magnitude
    +1 and because of its low orbit is very fast, spectacular to see.

    source: Marco Langbroek

    picture in orbit:

    http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/satcom_transits/USA193Sepbw1.jpg [wanadoo-members.co.uk]

    http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/satcom_transits/193bw.jpg [wanadoo-members.co.uk]

    Note, no solar panels.
    • Note (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 26 2008, @08:12PM (#22196852)
      John added the solar panels in the first image.

      see the following note from him:

      http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2008/0204.html [satobs.org]
    • Re:here it is (Score:5, Interesting)

      by theNAM666 (179776) on Saturday January 26 2008, @08:27PM (#22196970)
      If USA-193, via Milcom [blogspot.com], it's only been up since DEC-06 and may be something other than the ordinary monitoring platform:

      USA-193/NROL-21 Launch specifics:
      Launch date/time: December 13, 2006 2100 UTC 16:00 EST
      Launcher: Delta 2/7920-10
      Launch location: Western Test Range, Vandenberg AFB, California
      Launch complex/pad: SLC2W
      International Designator: 2006-057A
      SSC #: 29651
      Latest orbital parameters: 376 by 354 km orbit (91.83 minute period), inclined 58.5 degress.

      Ted Molczan posted the preliminary orbital elset below on SEESAT-L:

      USA 193 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 v
      1 29651U 06057A 06350.25405986 .00011325 00000-0 10000-3 0 03
      2 29651 58.4865 114.2852 0013244 81.7541 278.5044 15.68046894 05
      WRMS error = 0.026 deg

      Ted noted the following observations in his post:

      "The ground track nearly repeats every 2 days (30.92 revs), enabling frequent revisit of observational targets of interest. The first four Lacrosses behaved similarly (28.9 revs in 2 days). Lacrosse 5 makes 43.05 revs in 3 days. Keyholes nearly repeat every 4 days; NOSS every 4 days."

      Looking at the early Lacrosse satellite missions, Ted is correct, but, of course, the Lacrosse radar imaging missions are launched into much higher altitude orbits (nearly double the height of NROL-21).

      Intl Desig SSC # USA Number Period Inc Apogee Perigee
      *1988-106B 19671 USA 034 97.91 56.98 660 657
      1991-017A 21147 USA 069 98.00 68.00 667 660
      *1997-064A 25017 USA 133 98.22 57.35 674 673 [Replaced Lacrosse 1]
      2000-047A 26473 USA 152 98.47 67.99 690 681 [Replaced Lacrosse 2]
      *2005-016A 28646 USA 182 99.08 57.01 718 712 [Replaced Lacrosse 3]
      * Indicates a 57 degree inclination orbit, just 1.5 degree off the Lacrosse 57 deg inc plane.

      As Jonathan McDowell points out in his Jonthan's Space Report Next Issue Draft:
      "In contrast to most secret launches, analysts appear to have little clue as to what this payload may be."

      My best guess, at this early stage, is that this is probably some sort of mission sensor platform other than a visual photo recon imaging mission. It also could be a new sensor development mission. But that is "only" a best guess!
  • KH-11 details (Score:5, Informative)

    by Cliff Stoll (242915) on Saturday January 26 2008, @08:21PM (#22196920) Homepage
    KH-11 series spacecraft were called the Key Hole satellites - they were the first large reconnaissance spacecraft to send images directly to earth; previous spy satellites used film return (clumsy, slow, and unreliable). KH-11's used CCDs - quite advanced for a system developed in the late 1970's.

    The seven KH-11 spacecraft had primary mirrors of 2.3 to 2.4 meters. The system provided an ultimate ground resolution between 15 to 50 cm at closest approach (perigee); actual resolution was quite a bit worse.

    There's no nuclear battery on board -- power came from 11 unfolded solar panels (which, on the first Key Hole satellites didn't provide quite enough power during downlinks!). I assume the main danger to earthlings is due to the reentry of the main mirror. Since the KH-11s are in polar orbits, the debris could come down anywhere on earth, with a one-in-four chance of hitting land.

    The KH-11 spy satellites were developed in parallel with the Hubble Space Telescope, and the same contractors worked on both. In fact, the KH-11 uses much the same hardware (carbon-graphite support system, front door hatch system, data-relay dish through communications satellites). Because of the secrecy surrounding the KH-11 development, the Space Telescope project often saw similar secrecy. Indeed, astronomers were discouraged (or barred) from much of the engineering of the Hubble Space Telescope.

  • Insurance (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Whiteox (919863) <htcstech&gmail,com> on Saturday January 26 2008, @11:01PM (#22197676) Journal
    Most insurance cover specifically includes statements that any space debris (including falling satellites) will not be covered.
    So it's every geek for themselves!
    I believe the clause was written in years ago when Sputnik fell to Earth. That goes for meteors, blue ice, rocket stages and acts of God (whatever that means).
        • Re:why do we care (Score:5, Informative)

          by Deadstick (535032) on Saturday January 26 2008, @08:19PM (#22196914)
          historically these things tend to land in the ocean

          Hardly surprising, since "in the ocean" means 80% of the Earth's surface...

          To put this in perspective, consider that over thirty thousand meteorites have been found on the ground. There's one in Oregon that weighs sixteen tons; the rate of impacts, found and unfound, has been estimated at 500 per day worldwide.

          Know anybody who's been hit?

          Actually, a few people -- a very few -- have. The surface of the Earth is a big place, and not a very big fraction of it is covered by people.

          rj