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."
Nothing to see here, move along (Score:3, Insightful)
*cough*THEL*cough*
The Sorceror's Apprentice (Score:4, Insightful)
I hope the people shooting at (not "down") this satellite have seen "Fantasia." In _The Sorceror's Apprentice,_ Mickey Mouse decides that the best way to deal with an out-of-control magic broom is to chop it into thousands of pieces... all of which just keep right on going, making the problem worse instead of better.
Re:Good coverage (Score:5, Insightful)
FAS always raises hell over weapons tests of any kind. What else is new.
The SM-2 to be used is actually being MODIFIED with new software to try to do the intercept. It's not certain it'll work. So I guess that makes it a test.
The eclipse likely makes it easier to spot the "target".
But at least we aren't leaving a shitload of crap to fuck up usuable orbit space like the ChiComms did in their ASAT test. This bird is coming down NOW so why not test on it. It's cheap, if it works maybe we have a new use for an existing system w/o spending millions, we clean up our own mess by shooting it down, the debris will come down (with some risk as it's smaller pieces) and not clutter the crap out of orbital space, and we trash anything secret the enemy might try to capture (assuming it survived re-entry..but why risk it?). Sounds like a bargin "test" to me.
Re:Nothing to see here, move along (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Pakistan funds its bloody nuclear program via nuclear equipment sales.
2) The international community eventually can no longer look the other way.
3) Khan steps forward. "Whoops, it was me! My bad. Every sale we made to every single country, I arranged, negotiated, and shipped everything, all with government aircraft, all of my own. No Musharraf involvement, nosiree!"
4) Bush and Musharraf: "Bad Khan! Well, that case is solved."
5) "House arrest", of the kind that lets you travel across the country. No charges pressed. Everyone wins.
Re:How Convenient (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to see here, move along (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good coverage (Score:5, Insightful)
The real benefit (to the US) is that turning a big, expensive satellite with lots of classified equipment on board into a bunch of little satellites means that the expensive bits are rendered unusable and far less likely to get to the ground intact, where they can be analyzed. It also provides a good opportunity to test a new missile system, and shows the Chinese that the US can play at their game, too.
Re:Good coverage (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Having a giant hydrazine tank land on someone's house would be a PR nightmare.
2. Having a spy satellite presumably filled with highly-classified stuff fall into the wrong hands is something They(tm) try to avoid.
3. Demonstrating to the rest of the world that we can blow their satellites into much less useful pieces is somewhat in line with the agenda of the Bush administration.
4. It can also be pointed to as a success of the missile defense program.
So I wouldn't write off the whole hydrazine tank issue entirely, but I doubt its the primary motivator.
And if it works? (Score:3, Insightful)
And if it works? What then? How many successful test intercepts do you need before you think that the thing might actually work? Seriously, the only reason some folks are arguing that they don't think missile defense can work is because they do not like the politics of it. Eventually, missile defense can and will work. It's just an engineering problem, after all.
I for one do not think the USA should be deploying interceptors in Poland to antagonize the Russians, but, I've got no problem with spending a bunch of billions a year to give the USA a unique capability in a world where every country is working to develop ICBMs.
Self-destruct - standard feature (Score:3, Insightful)
However, a self-destruct would also be useful in cases just like this, where the danger is not classified information, but hazardous materials. I am assuming that satellites are usually launched with the anticipation of decaying orbits, so why not build satellites with standard self-destruct for cases like this?
It seems like a relatively common occurrence (Skylab, anyone?) and seems like it would be a lot less expensive and require less logistical planning than having to time a missile interception.
Re:Good coverage (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Destroy classified items (Score:3, Insightful)
This is simply an excuse to play tit-for-tat w/the Chinese over their all ready having demonstrated alacrity at blowing sats out of the ionosphere.
Answers to some of the Hydrazine questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:N2H2: Weapon of Mass Destruction, or delicious? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well... This is one of those cases where there 'scientists' and 'experts' only tell half the truth - the half that supports an anti-Administration agenda. The other half of the truth is... all the cases they cite have roughly zip point nada in common with USA-193. In those cases, the tanks are empty or nearly so. In the case of USA-193, the tank is not only full - but frozen solid. The chances of it surviving re-entry intact or nearly so are much greater than previous incidents.
Insofar as the cost issue goes - it's pretty much a wash. Spend the money on the next test against a drone, or spend it on a test against USA-193.
Re:Nothing to see here, move along (Score:2, Insightful)
In 1997, President Clinton wasn't very interested in anti-missile defense, was he?
In 2008, President Bush has some new things to test. Go to MDA.mil -- your (US) tax $s hard at work.
Re:Good coverage (Score:4, Insightful)
(unlikely, but not impossible...)
Re:Nothing to see here, move along (Score:5, Insightful)
the only thing that's transparent is your bias. If they didn't try to shoot it down you'd claim it was "transparent" they didn't want to show the Chinese that they're capable of shooting it down, so they put lives at risk instead. In my opinion, you're one of those people who will criticize the US regardless of what it does.
"A) trying to upstage the Chinese." Here's a test of the system that will be used to shoot it down [youtube.com]. As you can see, they've already hit targets in space. So shooting the satellite isn't that much of a stretch. It's hardly fair to characterize it as "upstaging" anyone.
"B) prevent any tech from making it into the hands of hostile parties" yes, because it's a big secret that spy satellites contain (whispers) cameras. shhh, don't tell anyone. It'd be a disaster if Al Queda found out. They might mount the camera on a donkey and fire it into orbit with a catapult.
Come on people. Occam's razor. We know that hydrazine is actually deadly. We know that Columbia's hydrazine tanks survived reentry. Colubia's tanks were empty, but this satellite's tanks will be full. The simplest explanation is that attempting to shoot it down doesn't increase the risk, but may substantially reduce the risk to humans. There's no down side. So that's why they're doing it. Take off your tin foil hat.