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."
I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
Nothing to see here, move along (Score:3, Insightful)
*cough*THEL*cough*
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:Nothing to see here, move along (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nothing to see here, move along (Score:4, Informative)
Regardless of the 'real reason', shooting down the hydrazine is a GoodThing(TM).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Funny)
Oddly enough... (Score:5, Funny)
Good coverage (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good coverage (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/02/us_plans_test_of_anti-satellit.php [fas.org]
Re:Good coverage (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (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.
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: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:Good coverage (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Good coverage (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good coverage (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Good coverage (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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:Good coverage (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides, if it's the gear (rather than the fuel) that concerns them then why haven't they bothered shooting down other de-orbiting sats in the past?
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The best thing to do when a satellite needs to be removed from orbit is to de-orbit it with thrusters. Unfortunately, the computer on this satellite flaked completely soon after launch, and the de-orbit sys
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...why not build satellites with standard self-destruct for cases like this?
First, a self destruct mechanism would add mass to the satellite, which takes mass away from other gear you'd like to add.
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 th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Three reasons (Score:5, Interesting)
- They don't want a repeat of Skylab where parts landed in Australia and made us look bad.
- If it comes down in Russia (Russia spans 11 time zones so that's not too unlikely) they don't want the Russians to be able to figure out much from the debris.
- They want a chance to test their anti-satellite weaponry on a real target that isn't saying "Over here! I'm over here! Here I am! Yoo Hoo!"
There's actually a 4th reason - blowing stuff up is fun but they would never cop to it.Re:Good coverage (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good coverage (Score:4, Insightful)
Answers to some of the Hydrazine questions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good coverage (Score:5, Informative)
Hey, each shot is only 60% of the National Science Foundation's annual budget. Why not?
Re:Good coverage (Score:5, Informative)
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:4, Insightful)
(unlikely, but not impossible...)
Re:Good coverage (Score:4, Interesting)
Date confirmed (Score:3, Informative)
Conspriacy goldmine (Score:5, Funny)
Wow, who gets the movie rights for this one?
Re:Conspriacy goldmine (Score:5, Funny)
Destroy classified items (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Destroy classified items (Score:4, Funny)
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: (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 near
Re: (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.
Moon hiding behind megameters of solid rock (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep - Hawaii - UTC - 10, so 03:30 UTC is definitely during the afternoon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Moon hiding behind megameters of solid rock (Score:5, Interesting)
Yep, but by the time the debris orbits into the Earth's shadow, about 15 minutes after the impact if my guesstimate is right, it will be entirely dark in visible wavelengths, shining only by reflected light. At that point, the lunar eclipse hinders rather than helps things, by removing a light source. And the eclipse moves out of totality within another 15 minutes after that.
Short version: The timing relative to the lunar eclipse is pure coincidence.
Unless it's a critical part of the top secret plan to propitiate Nyarlathotep and force Great Cthulhu back into an uneasy aeons-long slumber among the cyclopean ruins of R'lyeh, the fabled city of the Old Ones, looming over the black abyssal plain that lies miles below the sparkling sunlit waters of the Pacific.
In which case, I don't want to know what's in the payload of that missile.
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!
Disappointing. We need to LASER it. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Disappointing. We need to LASER it. (Score:5, Funny)
The ill-tempered sea bass have a limited range, sorry.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'll think of something...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
...which may or may not (Score:5, Funny)
Re:...which may or may not (Score:4, Funny)
I'm Leonard Nimoy.
Woo! (Score:2, Redundant)
Sure it might be dangerous and stupid, too, but hey.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
good information there! (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Re:The Sorceror's Apprentice (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
An airplane needs an engine to fly, and when that engine is destroyed and crashes somewhere near where you shot it down. A satellite needs no engine to fly, and when you shoot at it, it becomes thousands of little satellites, all of which continue to "fly" at 25,000 miles per hour.
They might be counting on transferring enough momentum to the object for it to deorbit half an orbit later. That would put it over Africa, Asia and (possibly) Europe in longitude. I am not sure about latitude. I know that USA193 has an inclination of 60 degrees but that just ensures that it will be over land when crossing the longitude of Africa.
.
Re: (Score:2)
I liked the Itchy and Scratchy version better. It makes a better analogy too - when we breathe in the little tiny pieces of satellite, they will dissolve us from the inside out!
So (Score:2)
Isn't it obvious? (Score:5, Funny)
China: you see, we can blow up your satellites!!
USA: aha! We can blow up your satellites too!!
General public: Why are they blowing up satellites?
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China: you see, we can blow up your satellites!!
USA: Ahah! We can blow up our satellites too!!
Just the facts. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The radar is described by Lt. Gen Trey Obering (director of MDA) as being able to track an object the size of a baseball over San Francisco in California from the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia, approximately 2900 miles. The radar will guide land-based missiles from Alaska and California, as well as in-theatre assets.
The platform has many small radomes for various communications tasks and a central, large dome that encloses and protects a phased-array, 1,814 tonnes (4,000,000 pound) X band radar antenna. The radar is described as being 384 square meters, with "well over" 30,000 transmit-receive modules, which are arranged in a widely-spaced configuration. This configuration allows it to support the very-long-range target discrimination and tracking that GMD's midcourse segment requires. The array requires over a megawatt of power.
If I was a trillionare, I would buy TWO of them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
During the eclipse? (Score:5, Funny)
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 eng
My Tax dollars at work... (Score:2)
No?
OK fine. I would pay extra to put my lawn chair and cooler full of beer on the cruiser. I wanna big screen display hanging off the bridge with a feed from the ISS.
No! What? Regulations my Ass!
Fucking US government can't even generate revenue from what should be a spectacular PPV event.
Enjoy,
Get a Video! (Score:3, Interesting)
Oops, wrong button (and target) :o (Score:2, Funny)
What will they blame this on? Since they have already used "a ship dropped it's anchor on the wire" for the Middle East Internet blackout, so here's some good excuses for our classic government:
Outsource it (Score:5, Funny)
My dream... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:How Convenient (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Azimuth, zenith, and charge value will dictate what happens. Might be a clean kill. Might not. I wouldn't take the Army's word for much, however, they
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How Convenient (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How Convenient (Score:4, Interesting)
So imagine the satellite in a stable orbit. Then you blow it up. So some pieces go flying in all directions. If you work out the orbital mechanics, every one of those pieces will be in a different orbit, but all of those orbits will pass through the point of the explosion. Caveats: this isn't true of orbits that intersect the ground first, or bits that, as you noted, get flung out of orbit altogether - that is, they achieve escape velocity. Escape velocity is awfully fast though, so that's probably not an issue here, and if something does hit escape velocity then it's not going to be a problem for us because that chunk of satellite will be GONE.
That's the reason you can't fire things into orbit with a gun (railgun, whatever), by the way. Any "orbit" you can put it into will have a point intersecting your gun. In order to put something in orbit that way you'd have to fire it out of the gun, then have a rocket on board to fire later and put it into an orbit that doesn't intersect the ground.
You can't actually escape the gravitation of anything, much less a planet. Technically, Earth, the sun, your toothbrush, will all pull on you (very weakly) no matter how far away you get. What you're thinking of is escape velocity, the speed at which you will never fall back, but continue on (slower and slower) outward forever.
Things we send into space can go a few different ways. If it's above escape velocity (Voyager, say) then it will never come back. If it's in a nice high orbit, way above the atmosphere (like geosynchronous satellites) then it will stay up for a LONG time. It will probably eventually come down, because there are always a few stray particles and things, but not for a long, long time. Things on a suborbital trajectory will come back down without circling the planet. Like SpaceShip One. Or you can have a low orbit, like spy satellites and the space shuttle. The atmosphere at that altitude is really thin, but not non-existent, so without thrusters to boost the orbit those sats will come back down, often on a fairly short time scale. The space station is fairly high (and massive) but if I recall correctly, it's orbit will decay in something less than a year without periodic boosting.
The problem with the satellite is that they've lost control. It isn't responding to commands. So it has lots of fuel (hydrazine) but the controllers have no way to fire the thrusters.
As someone else pointed out, orbital mechanics is kind of a counterintuitive thing. You'd think you could shoot things into orbit with a big enough gun, or that blowing up a satellite could boost some bits of it into stable orbits, but it turns out not to work that way. Something else weird: when you thrust in the same direction as you're traveling you slow down. You gain altitude, but you slow down - the opposite of what we normally expect. These satellite bits are speeding up (and losing altitude) due to atmospheric friction.
In Soviet Russia, satellite shoots down you (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
ago are reverse engineered to make stealth cruise missiles
for the Bear Bombers that recently went back on patrol.
http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jsws/jsws0485.html [janes.com]
I have never looked at my shovel so fondly before.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't have to pay me, of course, especially since slashdot screws up the spacing making them useless for copy/paste. I pulled them from this page [calsky.com] by clicking on the little Orbital Elements (TLE) button.