Slashdot Log In
Speculation On the Doomed Satellite
Posted by
kdawson
on Mon Jan 28, 2008 04:47 AM
from the nro-doa dept.
from the nro-doa dept.
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.
Related Stories
[+]
Defunct Spy Satellite Falling From Orbit 312 comments
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."
Firehose:Info on the Doomed Satellite by Anonymous Coward
[+]
USA 193 Shootdown Set For Feb 21, 03:30 UTC 4 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Amateur satellite watcher Ted Molczan notes that a "Notice to Airmen" (NOTAM) has been issued announcing restricted airspace for February 21, between 02:30 and 05:00 UTC, in a region near Hawaii. Stricken satellite USA 193, which the US has announced plans to shoot down, will pass over this area at about 03:30. Interestingly, this is during the totality of Wednesday's lunar eclipse, which may or may not make debris easier to observe."
This discussion has been archived.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.
My Backyard (Score:5, Funny)
Re:My Backyard (Score:5, Funny)
Re:My Backyard (Score:4, Funny)
Nah, not unless they have a cell that's one milimeter high and fifty meters in radius, otherwise he wouldn't fit.
Re:Enough already (Score:5, Funny)
If he did, he'd probably get stuck into Gitmo for violating national security.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Enough already (Score:4, Informative)
And I have to ask, how exactly are you supposed to defend yourself if you're not charged with anything?
PS: <sarcasm>They do have a lawyer, don't they?</sarcasm>
Re:My Backyard (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, have fun with the hydrazine.
Personally, I wouldn't want to keep anything that's flammable, explosive, toxic, corrosive, carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic. At least it's not radioactive...
Re:My Backyard (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe it will 'accidentally' land on Iran's nuke facility! I wish our peeps were that smart.
Re:My Backyard (Score:5, Insightful)
Odd reasoning there. I can think of quite a few countries that are most definitely not legitimate democracies - China (who basically bankrolls the US thus ensuring it is free to oppress its population), North Korea (who pokes its nose at the US every other week, to no reaction whatsoever, while murdering its own citizens), Burma (saw all those dead monks? did the US government do anything about it?), Russia (and each day under Putin makes it worse, but the US president has 'seen into his soul', so that makes it alright), most of the former USSR republics in Central Asia, along with pretty much most of Africa, plus whatever I forget now (it's snowing and I'm having a warm cup of sake). Yes, Iran is a theocracy, and an evil one too - your point is? How do you decide who to fuck with, and in what order?
Please don't say oil.
Re:My Backyard (Score:4, Insightful)
The US is in a location not easily attacked by anyone else. Our nearest neighbors are Canada and Mexico, and Siberian Russia. No sane government would dare attack us on our soil, and no insane government would have the means to do so. And quite frankly, if we weren't poking our noses around the world trying to enforce our rebranded form of colonialism, nobody would have attacked us at all.
Yes, certain things may require our assistance. I know I'm invoking Godwin, but the rise to power of the Nazis was one of them. But our assistance was requested. We were actively engaged in the war through the shipping of war supplies even before Pearl Harbor, and the Europeans practically begged for us to send troops over by the time the US began its counteroffensive.
But such are very special cases where by gaining control of the Atlantic ocean, US security would be threatened by Nazi Germany, and of the Pacific ocean, US security would be threatened by Imperial Japan (albeit not terribly much without ICBM's). Other than that, there has been no instance since where the US's security was threatened, only US "interests," which is a better word for "people who have lots of money and give lots of it to our corrupt politicians."
The answer you gave is why the rest of the world won't shed a single tear if another 9/11 happened. Because they've already seen through the moral, humanitarian, security facade, and they know us for the greedy, self-serving bastards that we actually are--which isn't the problem in and of itself if we only didn't pretend to be the righteous saviors of the rest of the world and try to stick our "morality" into everyone else's asses whenever we do intervene. If everyone here thought the same as you, I wouldn't be surprised if the US implodes upon itself trying to stop the mass wave of terrorists at our front door. In fact, that might already be happening.
Re:My Backyard (Score:4, Informative)
I suppose I wasn't clear on the details.
Hydrazine is more flammable than gasoline, by a wide margin. Flammability limits in air are approximately 2% to 100% -- It's a monopropellant, so it doesn't actually need oxygen to burn (it's a fuel, though, so it will burn faster and hotter with oxygen). That makes it more flammable than even hydrogen. Fortunately it has a lower vapor pressure, so the flash point is somewhat elevated. As a fire hazard, I'd call gasoline worse, but hydrazine is plenty bad enough.
Hydrazine is explosive by itself, without any additions of components. However, it's relatively insensitive, so this is really only a concern to industrial handlers, not to someone who finds a satellite crashed in their yard.
Hydrazine is toxic well beyond the level of bleach. LD50 for skin contact is somewhere around a teaspoon -- a fairly minor spill. At levels well below that, it will cause *permanent* damage to your liver, kidneys, and probably others. There's nothing in your house where a small splash on your skin warrants a trip to the ER (and if there is, you must have some neat hobbies!).
Hydrazine isn't as caustic as some household cleaners; this is mostly relevant when engineering with it, not for hazards of encountering it. It does mean it will eat away many sorts of gloves you might wear -- which makes the previous point and the next three relevant.
It's not just that hydrazine is carcinogenic. Lots of things are carcinogenic in large quantities; a few are in any quantity. Hydrazine is one of the latter (obviously risk level depends on exposure). Some chemicals your body can safely metabolize small amounts of without any increased risk; hydrazine is not one of these. What makes hydrazine so nasty is that, combined with the degree of potency. Monomethyl hydrazine (I don't have data handy for straight hydrazine, which is less nasty; the satellite could well be using straight hydrazine as a monopropellant or MMH or UDMH as a fuel in a bipropellant; all three are commonly used) is one of the most potent carcinogens known. One study showed that a carefully sized single drop of MMH on the skin of lab rats caused cancer in 90%. They had to be careful to keep the drop size down so that it didn't kill the rats by being toxic, though.
Mutagenic and teratogenic are nasty at similar levels; the effects are just slightly different than being carcinogenic. Planning on having kids you want to be healthy? Don't handle hydrazine derivatives.
Now, all that said, with sufficient budget and in the right setting it can be handled mostly safely. "Some thing landed in my backyard; I think I'll get a souvenir" is not that setting. And, depending on the design of the satellite, it's entirely possible a mostly undamaged propellant tank could survive reentry -- similar components have done so previously on other satellite reentries, and on Columbia.
You're surrounded by low level background risks, and things that you shouldn't drink. Hydrazine goes well beyond that -- you'd do better to think of it as a chemical weapon that happens to be to slow to be useful as such. It's only mildly less potent than some of them.
Re: (Not in) My Backyard (Score:5, Informative)
Recall that some of our older satellites had Polonium 210 coatings applied to some surfaces which could not be allowed to become frozen (batteries, etc.) in the deep cold of space (including parts of our Apollo Lunar Rover if my memory serves). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium [wikipedia.org]
Wait a minute!!!, Wasn't this the secondary plot to G.I. Jane?
Re: (Not in) My Backyard (Score:4, Informative)
This was the first thing I thought of when I read the same story at BBC News [bbc.co.uk]. But that article says the fuel is hydrazine.
(But as the source was anonymous, and the satellite is US Military, that leak could just be a PR move !!)
Re: (Not in) My Backyard (Score:5, Informative)
bzzt (Score:3, Informative)
It's not clear, however, why a satellite in a highly elliptica
The Chinese Can Handle It (Score:4, Interesting)
Will it burn up? (Score:5, Interesting)
Which brings me to something else: do these satellites have some sort of self destruct mechanism? What was to stop, say, the Soviets or Chinese from going up and physically stealing a very expensive satellite that presumably contains technology/information we don't want them getting their hands on?
Re:Will it burn up? (Score:5, Informative)
Most of it will burn up on reentry. Depending on how large it is and the materials used, there will probably be many small pieces of debris reaching the ground across hundreds of miles.
Which brings me to something else: do these satellites have some sort of self destruct mechanism? What was to stop, say, the Soviets or Chinese from going up and physically stealing a very expensive satellite that presumably contains technology/information we don't want them getting their hands on?
The same thing that stops them from say seizing a US ship somewhere on the ocean and ripping out its radar and other technology. Its piracy and it would invite if not all out war then at least some sort of major retaliation by the US.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Will it burn up? (Score:5, Funny)
oh no!! (Score:5, Funny)
Intelligent Speculation? (Score:3, Funny)
But I thought that god did not play dice...
Your Nerd License is hereby revoked (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Which is it? (Score:5, Informative)
Most likely:
a) its solar wings failed to deploy
b) it is therefore in deep sleep
c) what goes up (and remains within the Hill Sphere) must come down
ymmv