Speculation On the Doomed Satellite

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.

Re:Only one man would use the strawberry...

[Anonymous Coward]

Strawberry? STRAWBERRY?

It's raspberry for ***** sake!

Re: (Not in) My Backyard

[Zymergy]

I would hope that it does not contain an RTG or other nuclear components... but RTG's are said to be able to survive reentry... ,Ahem! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator [wikipedia.org]
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?

Your Nerd License is hereby revoked

[Anonymous Coward]

It is "Only one man would dare give me the Raspberry", not "Only on man would dare use the strawberry..."

Re:Which is it?

[Sub Zero 992]

Well, your options are not mutually exclusive.

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

Re:Will it burn up?

[clarkkent09]

I've always thought that things coming down from space have a tendency to burn up in the atmosphere, but on the other hand chunks of that space shuttle landed all over the place. Can someone who knows what they're talking about enlighten me as to how much of this satellite is likely to survive?

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: (Not in) My Backyard

[Zoxed]

> I would hope that it does not contain an RTG or other nuclear components.

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:Will it burn up?

[nacturation]

I've always thought that things coming down from space have a tendency to burn up in the atmosphere, but on the other hand chunks of that space shuttle landed all over the place.

The atmosphere isn't a lightsaber that will completely destroy everything that touches it. For a fast-moving object, it's more like a welding torch that tries to burn away as much as it can. If the object is large enough, not all of it will burn up before the object is slowed to the point where it no longer generates enough friction to burn.
 

Re: (Not in) My Backyard

[icebrain]

I really doubt you'll see any RTGs on an earth-orbit satellite. It's a lot cheaper and easier just to use solar panels; RTGs are reserved for deep space missions or other things where solar panels lose effectiveness due to distance (Jupiter/Saturn adn beyond), dust (MSL rover), or extended shadow (moon surface experiments).

Re:Bad design... was it made in china? haha

[got2liv4him]

they did... and it failed. they have been able to communicate with the satelite, which keeps reporting that it tries to reboot and fails each time

Re:Enough already (Beware Al Queda Humorists)

[An dochasac]

From the 517 pentagon case files, only 5% were picked up on the by American troops on battlefield. Only 8% are classified by Pentagon as Al Queda fighters. Out of nearly 600 men at Gitmo, only about 1-2 dozen men could provide useful information. The vast majority of the detainees were handed over by Pakistan and a significant number were detained as part of a bounty program. Al Queda bounties were higher than Taliban, so suddenly turning in your neighbor became much more profitable if you told the U.S. he is "Al Queda."

bzzt

[darkwhite]

Hydrazine powers rocket engines/orbital thrusters. RTGs power spacecraft electrical systems. Use of hydrazine in fuel cells is very rare. Nothing prevents a spacecraft from having both on board.

It's not clear, however, why a satellite in a highly elliptical orbit would use RTGs instead of solar panels. It's not like it gets a lot of stealth that way, since apparently it's still very visible by radar and even telescope.

Re:My Backyard

[evanbd]

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:Enough already

[Mr2cents]

I have to ask, if they refuse to participate in the process that could win their freedom and prove they shouldn't be held, then why should I care if they are being held? I mean it doesn't make them look less guilty by refusing to participate in the one thing that could secure their release.

Who says they refuse to participate? Their lawyer? The judge? Or could it by any chance be the military who's holding them in the first place?

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:Tracking the orbit

[Lincolnshire Poacher]

> Where can I track the orbit of this satellite?

http://www.heavens-above.com/orbitdisplay.asp?satid=29651&lat=48.59562&lng=2.92156&loc=Somewhere&alt=10&tz=GMT [heavens-above.com]

Change lat / long as appropriate.