Defunct Spy Satellite Falling From Orbit 312
dnormant, among other readers, sent us word that a US spy satellite has lost power and propulsion and could hit the Earth in late February or March. Government officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the information is classified as secret. None of the coverage speculates on how big the satellite is, but Wikipedia claims that US spy satellites in the KH-11 class, launched up to the mid-90s, are about the size of the Hubble — which is 13 meters long and weighs over 11,000 kg. "The satellite, which no longer can be controlled, could contain hazardous materials, and it is unknown where on the planet it might come down... A senior government official said that lawmakers and other nations are being kept apprised of the situation."
The size of the Hubble? (Score:5, Funny)
Jesus... (Score:5, Interesting)
Do they use solar panels for power? Seems to me that they'd want to keep as low a profile as possible, which would eliminate the large profile created by solar panels.
Which leaves radioisotope thermoelectric generation as the power source - which would mean there's plutonium (or another highly radioactive material) in these things.
Yikes...
Re:Jesus... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine [wikipedia.org]
Re:Jesus... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It may have lost power and thrust from hardware/software failure, not because it ran out of something. Not that spooks are the brightest people, but I would think if they were down to the last bit of fuel they would use it to de-orbit intentionally.
Re:Jesus... (Score:5, Funny)
That reminds me of Lance missile crew training. Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine was the fuel and inhibited red fuming nitric acid was the oxidizer.
Both are hazardous and there was a leak indicator on the missile containter. IIRC half turned one color for UDMH and the other half turned another color for IRFNA. This usually prompted a question from trainees about what would happen if both were leaking :-D
Oh please (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Better link (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Jesus... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not as if it's hard for the Russians/Chinese/etc to figure out where our satellites are. That's why the SR-71 was considered so valuable for so long - you didn't know days in advance when one was going to show up.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Ummm, why? Are you under the impression an artificial satellite can hide from radars and telescopes?
rj
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Jesus... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll pass this on from a trustworthy source.
They do that.
Some facilities shut down entirely, just to not be spotted by the satellite on it's regular orbits.
That's also why you'll never see any of the cool gear on the satellite photos over Area 51. They stick it away somewhere safe when they know an observation satellite is coming.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Consider the "Blackstar" project, which may or may not be disinformation. They had to build what was seen somewhere, and they needed a big runway to take off from. It never shows up.
I'm sure they hide plenty of projects out there, again, they just leave normal stuff out for folks to see. That's good security. Most people will be satisfied that they've seen "it all", so fewer questions will be drawn.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Still interesting though. It's not far from some pretty bloody big craters (look east). Maybe it was built before the stuff around it, as some kind of strange nuclear-blast proof thing to watch the tests from?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Jesus... (Score:5, Informative)
It's common knowledge in NASA that lots of US satellites are nuclear powered. It's actually not that dangerous, if it blows in re-entry it will go over a big enough area to just fade into the background radiation, and if it comes down in one piece they can go gather it up. However, people are so worried about such things they would never admit it. This "may contain dangerous materials" is the closest you'll ever get to an admission.
ATTN: Mike Williams aka "Anonymous Coward" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ATTN: Mike Williams aka "Anonymous Coward" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Jesus... (Score:5, Informative)
Nuclear Powered = Plutonium (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to think that the designers, when they designed the satellite, realized that re-entering a chunk of Plutonium was a bad idea and designed a mechanism to eject it in an escape orbit. Hopefully it's now-uncontrolled orbit is due to the eject
Re:Nuclear Powered = Plutonium (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nevertheless, apparently, those were hydrazine propellant driven satellites.
Interesting site:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/kh-11.htm [globalsecurity.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The highly ellipical orbi
Re:Jesus... (Score:5, Interesting)
Idiot.
>>As a result they have a nuclear power source, most likely similar to that on the soviet Kosmos series that performed the same role.
Not really. The solar panels would be blocked by the earth a significant amount of time each orbit, which would require more batteries charging faster to keep the whole mess from slowly bleeding power. That means the solar panes would have to be significantly larger the closer you orbited. Design and weight issues probably make nuclear a better option. Also, last thing you want is to lose your eyes in the sky during an engagement because some piece of space junk just tore a hole through your panels. Nuclear systems can be protected better, which is also far more important the closer you are to the planet, as years of space exploration debris make orbiting objects virtual pincushions.
>>The highly ellipical orbit is so that they can get close to take high resolution images.
It's to save fuel. You can get/stay close, but you're going to be burning through fuel at an enormous rate. On the other hand, an elliptical orbit allows you to move the focal point of your trajectory outside where most people would assume it was. This allows you to follow/lag the planet as it orbits the sun, using earth's gravity well to propel your spacecraft. Basically, you keep aiming for where the planet will be, using the earth's mass to slingshot you around each time as both objects arrive and "pass" each other.
>>The theoretical resolving power of a perfect lens at a given wavelength is determined by distance - so it does not matter how good the optics are the closer you get the better the image you can get.
You've obviously never used a pair of high power binoculars inside. You're right about the lens, but most of these "lenses" aren't wavelength specific, if any are. They're far more likely to cover a fairly large range of wavelengths, even if they're marketed as just infrared, ultraviolet, etc. In those cases, the theoretical perfects are meaningless. Most of these aren't single lens systems anyway, even the older ones used multiple and movable lensing systems, as flexibility is often the real design goal, far above perfection. You could design a lens that can count the hairs on your head, but if it only has the ability to view that resolution, you're pretty much hosed for 99% of your missions. Same for single use systems, such as optical or wavelength-specific viewers.
And getting close isn't always a good idea. The recent Chinese gaming is a good example. If close was a panacea, they'd be designing these things to rip through the atmosphere at incredible speeds, essentially doing a kind of reentry every so often. If their orbits were designed correctly they wouldn't necessarily even burn that much fuel, they'd just take forever to complete each orbit as they restored momentum. Would be a little unnerving to see fireballs tear through the sky every couple minutes, but like everything else, I suppose we'd even adapt to the sonic booms.
Nope, the whole idea of spy satellites is stealth. Everyone knows they're up there, but they're used with the idea that you'll either forget about them, assume they're pointed elsewhere, or screw up somehow. Having them flash through the sky on a regular basis would only enhance the measures you'd take to cover your tracks, and no resolution can correct for that.
Oh, and most of them are more geared towards communications intercepts anyway, picking up handhelds and other local command communication devices. Photos are good, but knowing what your enemy is going to do next is much more fun.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Looks like I aimed too high :(
I'm not sure where that came from - it looks like there is no common ground here at all :(
My point, which was horribly missed, is that the best possible optics produce better results when you get closer. For this reason the satellites come down low. They can
Hazardous Material (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The size of the Hubble? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The objective is to estimate wavefront distortion along the viewing path caused by "atmosphere." These distortions are compensated for by a deformable mirror (and usually a tip-tilt mirror). But I do not believe that you can do better than what is predicted assuming diffraction limited optics... I will have to pull out my Tyson book to check. (Or rather, someone else can...)
There are algorithms that use blind deconvolution to "bac
Size: more like a 10ton 'Small Bus' (Score:5, Funny)
Pike, director of the defense research group GlobalSecurity.org, estimated that the spacecraft weighs about 20,000 pounds and is the size of a small bus. He said the satellite would create 10 times less debris than the Columbia space shuttle crash in 2003.
Now, um, how did the darn thing "loose power?..." Bet that's a secret...
In 2002, officials believe debris from a 7,000-pound science satellite smacked into the Earth's atmosphere and rained down over the Persian Gulf, a few thousand miles from where they first predicted it would plummet.
Anyone wanna take bets on this one hitting Iran?
Re:Size: more like a 10ton 'Small Bus' (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever, bad timing, the Hadj is already over, the circus left town, so to speak.
Yes, the size of the Hubble (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the 90's the MS terraserve project was putting full resolution images online. Well, a school that was built on old Airforce property that was given to the city under the condition that it would only be a park had some chemicals leaking into the basement. Of course it was a hasmat situation and all and I was using the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
why do we care (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:why do we care (Score:5, Informative)
Hardly surprising, since "in the ocean" means 80% of the Earth's surface...
To put this in perspective, consider that over thirty thousand meteorites have been found on the ground. There's one in Oregon that weighs sixteen tons; the rate of impacts, found and unfound, has been estimated at 500 per day worldwide.
Know anybody who's been hit?
Actually, a few people -- a very few -- have. The surface of the Earth is a big place, and not a very big fraction of it is covered by people.
rj
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not personally, but the BBC does [bbc.co.uk].
W
Re: (Score:2)
The first link on my search returned TIME magazine's article from skylab a good read [time.com].
At the Houston center, Skylab's final orbit (No. 34,981) looked ideal to Harlan, since it was over the ocean and sparsely populated areas.
I suppose this being a spy satellite the "final orbit" is likely to be over populated areas and a maybe a bit less likely to land in the ocean, unless they were primarily spying on boats.
Anyways, it's a good read and puts aside several of my original optimisms.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If a rock would burn up on reentry, why not a hunk of metal?
It's a function of things like the heat of ablation, suface area and mass relationships, and where in the spacecraft the object begins.
Rocks like to break up into lots of little things with reasonable heating areas and masses; satellites not so much. Ti bolts don't like to go because of low heating area and high ablation temps. Ti Fuel tanks don't because they again don't ablate, have high area to low mass which makes it less likely to go because they come down slower, and the rest of the sat has to g
Re: (Score:2)
physics problem (Score:5, Funny)
How thick of a tinfoil hat would I have to put on top of my house to protect it from a 12-ton satellite?
Re: (Score:2)
17,000 mph
[breaking out the "really big" calculator]
Ummm.
REALLY thick.
I suggest at least a mile, and don't be under it when it hits.
Do you have a good supplier for tin foil?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
These things kill. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It should have been, but NASA got the angle wrong and Skylab was released 9.8 meters above ground. It only stayed up for six years because of its, er, very high velocity that put it into an ultra-eccentrical orbit. Yes. My story is absolutely scientifically sound and it only doesn't appear in any publication because of the vast conspiracy to hide it. Everything I say is entirely trustworthy.
LOOK, BEHIND YOU! *runs away*
Look out Osama! (Score:5, Funny)
EMP or BSOD? (Score:5, Funny)
1. Focused EMP from the surface?
or
2. It was running Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:EMP or BSOD? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:EMP or BSOD? (Score:5, Funny)
It was hit by a chair.
here it is (Score:5, Informative)
USA 193
1 29651U 06057A 08022.26925691 0.00105000 00000-0 21306-3 0 07
2 29651 58.5247 160.3977 0003288 53.6760 306.3240 15.98950761 06
Lowest point is about 275 km above earth surface currently.
This under the right conditions is an easy to see object: it can reach magnitude
+1 and because of its low orbit is very fast, spectacular to see.
source: Marco Langbroek
picture in orbit:
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/satcom_transits/USA193Sepbw1.jpg [wanadoo-members.co.uk]
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/satcom_transits/193bw.jpg [wanadoo-members.co.uk]
Note, no solar panels.
Note (Score:5, Informative)
see the following note from him:
http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2008/0204.html [satobs.org]
Re:here it is (Score:5, Interesting)
USA-193/NROL-21 Launch specifics:
Launch date/time: December 13, 2006 2100 UTC 16:00 EST
Launcher: Delta 2/7920-10
Launch location: Western Test Range, Vandenberg AFB, California
Launch complex/pad: SLC2W
International Designator: 2006-057A
SSC #: 29651
Latest orbital parameters: 376 by 354 km orbit (91.83 minute period), inclined 58.5 degress.
Ted Molczan posted the preliminary orbital elset below on SEESAT-L:
USA 193 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 v
1 29651U 06057A 06350.25405986
2 29651 58.4865 114.2852 0013244 81.7541 278.5044 15.68046894 05
WRMS error = 0.026 deg
Ted noted the following observations in his post:
"The ground track nearly repeats every 2 days (30.92 revs), enabling frequent revisit of observational targets of interest. The first four Lacrosses behaved similarly (28.9 revs in 2 days). Lacrosse 5 makes 43.05 revs in 3 days. Keyholes nearly repeat every 4 days; NOSS every 4 days."
Looking at the early Lacrosse satellite missions, Ted is correct, but, of course, the Lacrosse radar imaging missions are launched into much higher altitude orbits (nearly double the height of NROL-21).
Intl Desig SSC # USA Number Period Inc Apogee Perigee
*1988-106B 19671 USA 034 97.91 56.98 660 657
1991-017A 21147 USA 069 98.00 68.00 667 660
*1997-064A 25017 USA 133 98.22 57.35 674 673 [Replaced Lacrosse 1]
2000-047A 26473 USA 152 98.47 67.99 690 681 [Replaced Lacrosse 2]
*2005-016A 28646 USA 182 99.08 57.01 718 712 [Replaced Lacrosse 3]
* Indicates a 57 degree inclination orbit, just 1.5 degree off the Lacrosse 57 deg inc plane.
As Jonathan McDowell points out in his Jonthan's Space Report Next Issue Draft:
"In contrast to most secret launches, analysts appear to have little clue as to what this payload may be."
My best guess, at this early stage, is that this is probably some sort of mission sensor platform other than a visual photo recon imaging mission. It also could be a new sensor development mission. But that is "only" a best guess!
Reboot problems ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Wed Mar 7, 2007 10:17 AM IST
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. officials are likely to declare a Lockheed
Martin Corp. spy satellite a total loss after efforts to restore its
ability to communicate failed repeatedly over the past three months,
two defense officials told Reuters on Tuesday.
The experimental L-21 classified satellite, built for the National
Reconnaissance Office (NRO) at a cost of hundreds of millions of
dollars, was launched successfully on Dec
Re: (Score:2)
An excellent post, thank you for it. But don't blow it with the bad grammar. See my sig.
give credit where credit is due (Score:2)
Don't want to be the conspiracy theorist but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Furthermore, what sort of liability applies for a rogue space satellite if it crashes into your house? I'm sure the government will pay for it just to keep the media at bay, but still, an interesting tort question. I'd assume the government would be strictly liable. -TwoHundredOK
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to be a "conspiracy theorist" to point out the obvious!
Besides, the only problem with "conspiracy theorists" is that they spend way too much time and effort on the wrong conspiracies!!!! The real conspiracists love it because the nut cases make them practically "invisible". It's the boy who cried wolf syndrome...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Comparative Characteristics of Imagery Satellites (Score:3, Informative)
Example: The Lacrosse satellite [wikipedia.org] (KH-12 is the other designation) weighs 14-16 tons.
"Lacrosse and Onyx are the code names for the United States' National Reconnaissance Office terrestrial radar imaging reconnaissance satellite. While not officially confirmed by the NRO or anybody in the U.S. government, there is widespread evidence to confirm its existence."
"Due to overruns, the cost of the Lacrosse-1 radar reconnaissance satellite launched in 1988 from the Space Shuttle exceeded $1 billion. In the opinion of experts, it was designed, above all, to search for mobile launchers for Soviet ICBM's and track strategic weapon systems beyond staging bases. The radar images were transmitted to the processing center via TDRS repeaters located under the management of NASA and deployed in a geostationary orbit. The Lacrosse-2 was launched in 1991 using a Titan-4 booster rocket from the Western Missile Test Range, which made it possible to increase the orbit inclination and, consequently, the zone of coverage from 57 to 68 degrees."
U.S. Secrets more important than human lives? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chances are it's going to land in the ocean. Chances are that if it doesn't land in the ocean it's going to hit unoccupied land.
Causing an international incident really is the biggest worry here. Worrying about somebody getting killed by this thing is equivalent to worrying that somebody who lives on a back-road in the s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So not only did you not RTFA, but you didn't even RTFS?
The thing ran out of fuel. It's rather difficult to control the de-orbiting of a satellite which has no fuel.
With that said, though, before servicing satellites in orbit became common-place (mostly thanks to the CANADARM), the US military used to catch de-orbiting satellites using transport aircraft. Sounds weird, I know, but it's true. What's the chances that this satellite might have been outfitted
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, horsecrap! (Score:2)
And, from having been involved in a satellite launch that failed and had the pot
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On condition of anonymity... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
KH-11 details (Score:5, Informative)
The seven KH-11 spacecraft had primary mirrors of 2.3 to 2.4 meters. The system provided an ultimate ground resolution between 15 to 50 cm at closest approach (perigee); actual resolution was quite a bit worse.
There's no nuclear battery on board -- power came from 11 unfolded solar panels (which, on the first Key Hole satellites didn't provide quite enough power during downlinks!). I assume the main danger to earthlings is due to the reentry of the main mirror. Since the KH-11s are in polar orbits, the debris could come down anywhere on earth, with a one-in-four chance of hitting land.
The KH-11 spy satellites were developed in parallel with the Hubble Space Telescope, and the same contractors worked on both. In fact, the KH-11 uses much the same hardware (carbon-graphite support system, front door hatch system, data-relay dish through communications satellites). Because of the secrecy surrounding the KH-11 development, the Space Telescope project often saw similar secrecy. Indeed, astronomers were discouraged (or barred) from much of the engineering of the Hubble Space Telescope.
Space Cowboys (Score:2, Funny)
Called a troll when I raised doubts (Score:2)
I'd be more than happy to see those that labeled me say something meaningful about this. Worse still, we might have to deal with toxic substances.
Lame article (Score:2)
Or, how the leap was made from spy satellite to keyholes are falling......
Or, the spokesman had to speak from anonymity due to security?
The posts here are about a bazillion times more insightful and informati
The reactor components (Score:2)
When it hits (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is the cause of death? (Score:2)
Insurance (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's every geek for themselves!
I believe the clause was written in years ago when Sputnik fell to Earth. That goes for meteors, blue ice, rocket stages and acts of God (whatever that means).
Satellite ID NROL-21, a.k.a. US 193 (Score:4, Interesting)
Given that its NRO and that size, I'd guess its a multi-sensor platfrom.
Pretty sad - those things run about $2 Billion. And you can bet that its absence will leave holes in intelligence coverage and really contrain intelligence gathering due to restriction of resources.
Give that plutonium power sources are pretty robust - few moving parts, but low earth orbit stuff doesnt need that - solar and batteries are usually sufficient. So its likely solar powered.
Seems the NRO has not learned to diversify, still putting its eggs in one big basket. That and that the Aerospace companies that sell them to the Govt only know how to make One Big Rocket instead of managing constellations of more numerous but smaller and chaeper satellites. (Pet Peeve of mine).
I bet they had solar arrays, but from amateur images there werent any deployed at any time. That would be the reason why the satellite died - something broke in the solar arrays or deployment process. Since its that new of a satellite (2006), I bet they had equipment failures from the start if its power that is the issue.
Tinfoil hat time: Take all of my above speculation (I used to work in Aerospace and the military) with a grain of salt - they could be using "power" as a cover some classified event that trashed the satellite, like a collision with junk from the Chinese anti-missle mess. That would be very politically inconvenient for the Bush administration right now, and this would be a nice excuse to make that problem go away.
Whatever the case is, the US intelligence community is out 2 billion, and a lot of capacity that was supposed to come online is not there. Could make for problems.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That debris field was the first thing that crossed my mind when I saw the headline too. I have no idea how frequently new, big satellites decide to plummet but it strikes this layman as a pretty big coincidence t
USA 193? (Score:2)
I'll be wearing a hard hat until this blows over (Score:3, Funny)
Wait. Check that. If I'm asleep and horizontal, I probably take up more like 12 square feet. That increases the chance of having 20,000 tons of heavy metal land on me to 1 in 457,531,937,280,000. In other words, if you lie down, you are increasing the chances of being hit by a giant spy satellite by an order of magnitude. I don't know about you guys, but I'll be sleeping standing up from now on.
Small consolation, I suppose, if it lands 10 feet West of you and the shock wave turns you into a fine mist.
Re:Peru? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, those hazardous materials were all natural and already in the ground: Meteor Crash in Peru Caused Mysterious Illness [nationalgeographic.com]. Noxious fumes created by hot meteor smashing into arsenic-tainted water.
Re:Peru? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Peru? (Score:5, Funny)
https://freeinternetpress.com/mirrors/usaf/airforce-id-chart.jpg [freeinternetpress.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Finally a use for our anti-missile defense syst (Score:2)
I'm not sure how this B-2 scenario is going to work if the satellite falls deep within the territory of China or Russia. Gary Powers [wikipedia.org] does not work for the US Government any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no! The humanity!