USA 193 Shootdown Set For Feb 21, 03:30 UTC 358
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."
Good coverage (Score:5, Informative)
Moon hiding behind megameters of solid rock (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How Convenient (Score:5, Informative)
Just the facts. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Good coverage (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Sorceror's Apprentice (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Isn't it obvious? (Score:2, Informative)
its not like there are pesky differences between the two, like one was in high orbit, one is about to enter the atmosphere with toxic cargo and the potential to kill people if it lands in the wrong area.
Re:Good coverage (Score:4, Informative)
Date confirmed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good coverage (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good coverage (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How Convenient (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Moon hiding behind megameters of solid rock (Score:4, Informative)
1) a light source above the observer's horizon hinders visibility (can you see satellites when the Sun is up?)
2) a light source below the observer's horizon but above the satellite's horizon helps visibility.
3) a light source below both horizons doesn't do anything.
The eclipse reduces (1) compared to the full moon that would sit there otherwise, so it helps visibility by reducing a light source.
Gotta love the scores in this thread. The Dumbing Of America!
Re:Good coverage (Score:3, Informative)
Do some basic research and don't believe everything you read on Slashdot. The missile they are firing (an SM-3) does not have an explosive warhead at all.
N2H2: Weapon of Mass Destruction, or delicious? (Score:5, Informative)
That's certainly believable if you can take Deputy National Security Advisor James Jeffrey at his word: Apparently man-made objects containing hydrazine propellant frequently rain down from the sky without incident, according to rocket scientists and space security experts [wired.com] who "scoff" at this rationale. And Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Gen. James Cartwright doesn't seem too impressed either. But surely our Deputy National Security Advisor knows something about hydrazine that we don't.
Now who is this man James Jeffrey, you may ask? Source: Wall Street Journal, [wsj.com] July 19, 2007, four months before the information in the Iran NIE would be exposed, having been known to the White House since 2006.
This guy sounds totally not full of shit at all!
Re:Good coverage (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Good coverage (Score:5, Informative)
Hey, each shot is only 60% of the National Science Foundation's annual budget. Why not?
Re:10 bucks (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good coverage (Score:5, Informative)
As someone whose day job is re-entry of large objects from near-orbital velocities I feel pretty qualified to respond to this. "vaguely predictable" is pretty generous. For the upper stage of a launch vehicle re-entering under an hour after launch (read: we know precisely where it is coming from, have the trajectory modeled, etc), there are thousands of miles in the "footprint" of the debris. And while most of it will come down in one or several big chunks, there will be a lot of scatter debris over that footprint. Now, think of something that's been in orbit for a number of years. Sure, we can observe it for a few months and try and nail the orbital parameters, but any way you slice it, it's an uncontrolled re-entry. We don't know with high precision the injection orientation, velocity, orientation, etc. That baby could have an uncertainty of 10,000 miles or more on it's footprint.
Also another note: big, dense, heavy things tend to break up very little on re-entry. They soak a lot of heat and come down hard and heavy. Big, light things like expended stages tear apart into little pieces and essentially dissipate in the atmosphere, leaving very little debris. And what debris remains, slows down very quickly, reducing scatter versus heavy pieces that just keep on flying. So there is a distinct advantage to breaking this thing into pieces. It will tear itself to shreds, versus coming down like a rock.
there's even the risk that the explosion might send pieces of debris upwards in the atmosphere, and it may even reach an altitude that will not allow it to fall back down for a very long time.
Don't believe everything you read on slashdot. What goes up must come down. The only way it will stay in orbit is if you give it the appropriate energy tangential to the surface of the earth to sustain an orbit, or more. That's it. I could shoot a bullet up into the sky right now at M=10,000, and it's either escaping the gravitational grasp of the earth or coming back to hit it. The chances of random pieces entering a stable orbit for the long term is slim. The chance of a few random pieces extending their stay? Granted, maybe for a few months to a year.
Re:Nothing to see here, move along (Score:4, Informative)
Regardless of the 'real reason', shooting down the hydrazine is a GoodThing(TM).
Re:How Convenient (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good coverage (Score:5, Informative)
In the event of a US-China War, expect China to shoot down GPS satellites before they even worry about air supremacy. And expect the US to launch them at a record pace.
Re:Nothing to see here, move along (Score:5, Informative)
We are not the immaculate custodians of space that you seem to be picturing. Why, do you think, did we not shoot down the Delta II second stage that reentered in 1997 with a large amount of residual hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide onboard? We have stages with signficant amounts of toxic residual fuel reenter all the time. Why, in the same year, when we had a Delta II explode *full* on liftoff, did the Air Force tell people in the *immediate area* that the smoke posed no danger? This was a *full launch vehicle*, not just a satellite's orbital maneuvering system. Do you have any idea how much beryllium we've had reenter? We sit by as large amounts of toxic materials enter all the time. As for the hydrazine itself, what do you think happens *on its own* to pressurized tanks of highly flammable fluids on reentry? I can't think of a *single* sizable object that's survived reentry still pressuretight.
The argument is completely bogus.
Re:Nothing to see here, move along (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good coverage (Score:4, Informative)
In other words, the best you would get is a highly elliptical orbit that still crosses through the point of the explosion, but it will be circularized by the atmosphere. If a piece of debris is shot "upwards", than it will actually be in an orbit that includes an even lower point. That is, if it's moving upwards from the point, then during its next orbit, it will necessarily be below the point.
Re:How Convenient (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Just the facts. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nothing to see here, move along (Score:3, Informative)
Second off, regarding the Delta II second stage, it was believed based upon its size, speed, trajectory and form that it would burn up on reentry so the belief was we were OK. We know for sure that the satellite will survive reentry so we are trying to be proactive.
Do we allow toxic material to reenter, Yes. Do we believe based upon size, speed, trajectory and such that the material will burn up, Yes. Can we send up a missile on everything that is reentering our atmosphere, No. At least we are trying (for whatever reason you want to believe) as compared to other nations so please take off the tin foil hat so your head can get a little air in hopes it allows you to think just that much more clearer.
Re:Self-destruct - standard feature (Score:3, Informative)
Secondly, if your satellite is not functioning, like this one, how would you activate the self-destruct mechanism?*
A possible third is security. What if "the enemy" were to get a hold of the self-destruct codes for all of our satellites? Shooting down a satellite with a missile is a much more costly and traceable event than sending out a radio signal and quietly killing them as they pass overhead.
*I can think of ways to do this, with pressure and temperature sensors to detect a decayed orbit or an entirely redundant receiver and power supply, but you're really adding mass here. For the extra mass to launch or the reduced capability of the satellite, it may be cheaper to just shoot down birds that don't work.
Re:Good coverage (Score:3, Informative)
Your logic is faulty. In a controlled reentry they would have positioned the satellite to land in the deepest water in the pacific they could reasonably hit thereby eliminating any sensitive information or equipment, not only that but decommissioning the bird would have been well after it's reasonable lifetime and the on board equipment would no longer be as unique. In addition the solar panels never deployed and are still wrapped around the bird. They would likely shield the bird for a portion of the reentry thereby greatly increasing the odds that more than the hydrazine tank will survive reentry, whereas in a controlled reentry the panels would be deployed and would break off and reenter separately.
Shooting this thing down 7 days before it reenters is for one purpose only. There is something on the satellite they don't want landing. You could argue the Hydrazine is the problem, my personal belief is they have calculated the reentry point and believe it's going to land in a nation that isn't an ally. This satellite also contains certain sensors or equipment that will at least partially survive reentry and that even if only a small piece of such equipment survives the very presence of it on the satellite will alert other nations about what technology is being used. I also believe this technology is either highly unique or it's application is something no one would think of until seen in operation. Given that the age of this spy satellite is only 2 years old it's almost certain that the nations most high tech spy gear is on board. There is also the secondary possibility that it contains weapons that would implicate the US in violation of the international militarization of space treaty.
IMO the hydrazine is just a cover for the real problem, there is something else on that bird (that they aren't talking about) such that knowledge of it's existence is perceived by the administration as a serious threat to the US.