An anonymous reader writes "Amateur satellite watcher Ted Molczan notes that a NOTAM announcing restricted airspace has been issued for February 21, between 02:30 and 05:00 UTC, in a region near Hawaii. Stricken satellite USA 193 will pass over this area at about 03:30. Interestingly, this is during totality of Wednesday's lunar eclipse, which may or may not make debris easier to observe."
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
It's like I've been living a lie, going about my business, gleefully affixing live bees to my face, and never for a moment even dreaming that dead satellites were being blown up with missiles in the heavens above me. I repeat: "satellites being blown up with missiles!" If that doesn't prompt you to get the telescope out of your closet, I don't know what will. Could somebody knowledgeable please opine as to the usefulness of launching a missile at a satellite, as opposed to just letting it burn up in the atmo
The claimed reason is that, unlike most satellites, this one has a large quantity of hydrazine on board, which is at least a theoretical danger. If you don't quite believe the Pentagon, there are at least 2 other theories:
It could be intended to prevent classified technology finding its way into foreign hands - USA 193 is a very recent satellite and likely to contain state of the art tech
It could be a target of opportunity for a missile test
Or all of the above? Plus a burning (sorry) desire to have any effects distributed over as wide an areanot inhabited by US citizens as possible. Australians for example have been peppered with space junk for decades on the basis of population density and ease of recovery if juicy bits do survive, but this one is clearly more important then most.
Astronomical fireworks (Score:2)
Could somebody knowledgeable please opine as to the usefulness of launching a missile at a satellite, as opposed to just letting it burn up in the atmo
Re: (Score:2)
The claimed reason is that, unlike most satellites, this one has a large quantity of hydrazine on board, which is at least a theoretical danger. If you don't quite believe the Pentagon, there are at least 2 other theories:
Re: (Score:1)