Spy satellite

[~*Red*~]

Hey all

I had heard on the news this morning that the Americans were going to use a ballistic missile to knock out a spy satellite in space. Do you think it would be worth it to do something like this?

[Wio]

Hey all

I had heard on the news this morning that the Americans were going to use a ballistic missile to knock out a spy satellite in space. Do you think it would be worth it to do something like this?

Perhaps the missile is supposed to intentionally miss and land on Achmedinijad's house.

That would be undying American ingenuity for ya.

[Marshmallow Fluff]

Yes because it's a spy satellite.

[International 4-8818]

Uh, it is one of america's spy satellite that was shot off from Vandenburg air force base in 2006 and suffered technical difficulties in space and has been off line since then. With each rotation it is slowly getting closer to earth, so with these final rotations it was at risk of entering into earth and crashing. the problem was that satellites are powered by a fuel called hydrazine which is super toxic. If it has crashed it would have created an area of two football fields in length of hazardous waste that can cause cancer, health issues, or death.

One of my friends a couple of hours ago told me that it was a success and the satellite has been destroyed.

I am surprised that you saw the news about this and nothing else about the topic.

[Kaitou Ace]

The satellite had malfunctioned early on, and still had a lot of fuel onboard, which is why they were worried about having it burn up on re-entry, and release the fumes into the atmosphere. Also reports are that it was a success O_o;

[International 4-8818]

I have been looking all over the news and google but i have not found a piece of info that says so. I am only relying on my friend who has his "ways of getting information".

[~*Red*~]

I have to say that the missile destroying the satellite would have looked pretty impressive in space.

[Wio]

It was a success meaning that the satellite is out, or that Achmedinijad is sleeping with 72 virgins?

[KuroTan]

Yahoo has this article on their homepage.

Satellite shot down

[Daenerys]

You know what's funny? I knew about this almost a month ago, and I know the people who are going to be shooting it down.

But yeah, we're shooting it down because it's falling out of orbit.

edit:

Here's how they're going to do it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7nsgl27qtqQ

It's neato.

[chocovanilagal]

hm....well planning on knnocking a apy satellite in outer space is something wonderful to dream about ....but its nearly impossible to do that.....
But when we think of it the other way round...its qutie possible as when missiles kinda things have smashed meteroites and stuff into fragmets...then this is just a peice of cake....
but i say its not possible....but yes we can surely breakdown the programming of that spy satellite present in the outer space^^

[King_Shadow89]

Uh, it is one of america's spy satellite that was shot off from Vandenburg air force base in 2006 and suffered technical difficulties in space and has been off line since then. With each rotation it is slowly getting closer to earth, so with these final rotations it was at risk of entering into earth and crashing. the problem was that satellites are powered by a fuel called hydrazine which is super toxic. If it has crashed it would have created an area of two football fields in length of hazardous waste that can cause cancer, health issues, or death.

One of my friends a couple of hours ago told me that it was a success and the satellite has been destroyed.

I am surprised that you saw the news about this and nothing else about the topic.

Yes but if they shoot it down or blow it up, the toxin will still get out causing us to breath toxic. they should just make some type of bomb the when it hits the satellite it will decenergrate everything leaving no evedince that it ever was their. hum what I mean is the blast should be so powerful that it would burn up every type of molicules and materials. What do you think?

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

When I heard of this, I approved of it, simply because shooting things in space with missiles is neat.

[LittleMomo]

I simply agree, since nothing will happen on Earth....I think O.o; and plus blowing up something in space is safe rite? It's not like something bad will happen afterwards.

[demonplight]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/0...rss_topstories
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/0...rss_topstories

from what I can gather they the US NAVY shot down the because it had a faulty orbit, by blowing it up it cannot enter the atmosphere than release its toxic gases. instead the gases will enter the atmosphere where they will burn up upon entry. in addition the missile did not have a warhead on it, no EMP, or fall out.
my question is why did it have toxic gases on it to begin with?
I mean do you really need to use toxic gas to propel a satellite in space?
In addition the ability to knock down a satellite is in par with intercepting ICBM's, they must know the rest of the world was thinking that, ie China, and Russia.
in addition to this the gas would only effect people in an area about the size of 2 foot ball fields, depending where this was going to land, being that the majority of the earth's surface is water more than likely it would have been cheaper to pay the Dr. bills rather than shoot a missile. they probably wanted to accomplish something else either destroy the camera, or show that we can defend our selves, and allies from ICBM's from violent states. in either event, I am glad I can see my tax money doing something interesting for a change.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Yes but if they shoot it down or blow it up, the toxin will still get out causing us to breath toxic. they should just make some type of bomb the when it hits the satellite it will decenergrate everything leaving no evedince that it ever was their. hum what I mean is the blast should be so powerful that it would burn up every type of molicules and materials. What do you think?

Umm, while I'm sure what you wrote seems rational to you there are a number of reasons why it is unnecessary.
1) The intense radiation in space.
2) The intense temperature range in space.
3) Reentry.
4) The diffusion of the chemical, and the unlikelihood on any of it getting to earth in sufficient quantities to do anything in a reasonable amount of time.

Very few chemicals could survive the first 3, but the fourth is the reason we did it. Breaking everything down into elements is unnecessary, and the only not-hideously expensive way to accomplish it in space is via a Hydrogen Bomb, which everyone would cry bloody murder about (sending it into the sun would also work but it is still pretty hideously expensive).

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/0...rss_topstories
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/0...rss_topstories

from what I can gather they the US NAVY shot down the because it had a faulty orbit, by blowing it up it cannot enter the atmosphere than release its toxic gases. instead the gases will enter the atmosphere where they will burn up upon entry. in addition the missile did not have a warhead on it, no EMP, or fall out.
my question is why did it have toxic gases on it to begin with?
I mean do you really need to use toxic gas to propel a satellite in space?

Yeah. Pretty much. Most things don't explode well enough in a vacuum, which narrows it down a bit.

In addition the ability to knock down a satellite is in par with intercepting ICBM's, they must know the rest of the world was thinking that, ie China, and Russia.
in addition to this the gas would only effect people in an area about the size of 2 foot ball fields, depending where this was going to land, being that the majority of the earth's surface is water more than likely it would have been cheaper to pay the Dr. bills rather than shoot a missile. they probably wanted to accomplish something else either destroy the camera, or show that we can defend our selves, and allies from ICBM's from violent states. in either event, I am glad I can see my tax money doing something interesting for a change.

Not really. ICBM's tend to go about 25200 km/h in a giant arc, and you have only a half hour or so to do the math. Satellites on the other hand, go much slower or even remain stationary in relation to the location on Earth, and you have a great deal of time to do the math.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Sorry, ignore me- I am sleepy.

[Eris]

From a scientific point of view, this story makes no sense.

If it contains nasty stuff, and you blow it up, the nasty stuff will still be released into the atmosphere, no? And blowing it up with explosives won't accomplish something an uncontrolled re-entry wouldn't. Especially since this nasty thing (Hydrazine) breaks down at 150 C.

I'm with Russia on this. Some sort of weapons test.

[Kaitou Ace]

The gas in question Hydrazine, is a very common rocket fuel. Rocket fuels tend to be poisonous and unstable, those qualities go hand in hand with what makes something a good rocket fuel. It is one of the more common rocket fuels in use nowadays, and the space shuttles carry it as well.

While it does burn up easily, it was in a non-functional satellite, which means that the Hydrazine was frozen solid, and that would give it at least some chance of surviving re-entry (a similar tank from the Columbia survived, and there were a lot of worries about the effects of the gas at the time also).

Another reason is of course that it's a relatively new satellite (launched Dec 2006) so at least part of the goal was likely to make sure that the debris couldn't be recovered by another country.

As for the points above, I'd say 1-2 are null because it would've been designed to survive being in space.

It actually makes good scientific sense because larger surface area = easier to burn up. And while it does burn easily, it'd be a frozen solid inside an insulated tank otherwise. Letting it burn up into the atmosphere isn't a problem, having it fall to earth and be released in a concentrated area is.

The 'weapons test' theory doesn't make sense because this wasn't even an anti-satellite missile, but an anti-missile missile. The US already did the blowing up a satellite test sometime in 1985, and this one was in such a low orbit that it didn't require much more then a modification of one of the missile defense warheads.

[demonplight]

From a scientific point of view, this story makes no sense.

If it contains nasty stuff, and you blow it up, the nasty stuff will still be released into the atmosphere, no? And blowing it up with explosives won't accomplish something an uncontrolled re-entry wouldn't.

I'm with Russia on this. Some sort of weapons test.

it the container survived the reentry it could strike the surface and then leak it's content into the atmosphere where it would then become diluted with the air around it, making it less toxic, then benine.

as for striking a missile, they do move fast yes, but because of Norad we can track every thing from a bolt to the ISS. where as striking one down first thing to do is reach it. in addition because of multiple war heads like our Triton missile that I think carries 12 independent nuclear war heads, you cant just hit the missile you must blow it up, and the 12 different war heads with a nuke, now that we can track, then intercept a missile, a nuclear detonation in the imeadiate area will destroy the war heads, as well as the missile.
take into account the fact that the US is now putting an ICBM missile defense system into a few eastern European nations to make a wall between them and Russia. I want to argue that the US is starting a push to make NATO the future for democratic nations, not the EU. and now people are watching.

well it said that the Sat. went off line shortly after it went into orbit, with near all of its fuel unspent.
also it the missile in question did not have a warhead.

[Eris]

While it does burn up easily, it was in a non-functional satellite, which means that the Hydrazine was frozen solid, and that would give it at least some chance of surviving re-entry (a similar tank from the Columbia survived, and there were a lot of worries about the effects of the gas at the time also).
[...]
It actually makes good scientific sense because larger surface area = easier to burn up. And while it does burn easily, it'd be a frozen solid inside an insulated tank otherwise. Letting it burn up into the atmosphere isn't a problem, having it fall to earth and be released in a concentrated area is.

But Columbia didn't explode until late in re-entry. This one would have to fall all the way from space, with no thermal shielding, while Columbia was designed for re-entry.

The 'weapons test' theory doesn't make sense because this wasn't even an anti-satellite missile, but an anti-missile missile. The US already did the blowing up a satellite test sometime in 1985, and this one was in such a low orbit that it didn't require much more then a modification of one of the missile defense warheads.

But that is not something we can confirm. The US military says it was an anti-missile missile.

[Kaitou Ace]

Well we can't confirm that they used a missile at all, they could've used a happy rainbow beam on it. However the facts are that it was in low orbit, and not too far out of the range of the type of missile they said they modified for it, so it certainly makes sense to go with what they have on hand.

Maybe the satellite was taken over by aliens and they had to destroy it to save humanity itself. We can't confirm that it wasn't.

This tank wasn't as shielded as the one on Columbia, but it did have some shielding. Also while the Hydrazine was in it's liquid and easily burnable form on Columbia the gas here was a solid, which certainly increased its chances of being at least partially intact. Being as it was a non-zero chance of it hitting somewhere and the toxic nature of the propellant it still made sense to destroy it.

[Daenerys]

Maybe the satellite was taken over by aliens and they had to destroy it to save humanity itself. We can't confirm that it wasn't.

I love that.

I doubt they would have ever told us if it were a matter of security. I mean, they do so much stuff without informing the public at all, what's one more thing?

They're just trying to prove that the stellar athena thing is like, way awesome and it can abolish anything it needs to. So yeah, whereas I don't doubt it was falling out of orbit, I do think they just wanted to blow stuff up.

What Ship was the one kabooming? Was it the USS Decatur?

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

as for striking a missile, they do move fast yes, but because of Norad we can track every thing from a bolt to the ISS. where as striking one down first thing to do is reach it. in addition because of multiple war heads like our Triton missile that I think carries 12 independent nuclear war heads, you cant just hit the missile you must blow it up, and the 12 different war heads with a nuke, now that we can track, then intercept a missile, a nuclear detonation in the imeadiate area will destroy the war heads, as well as the missile.
take into account the fact that the US is now putting an ICBM missile defense system into a few eastern European nations to make a wall between them and Russia. I want to argue that the US is starting a push to make NATO the future for democratic nations, not the EU. and now people are watching.

NORAD tells you where are missile is (well, actually was, but anyway) not where it will be when you shoot at it. Detecting a missile and killing a missile are two very different things. If you wanted to prove you had ICBM-interception capability, this is not the way you'd do it. It's like shooting a squirrel and claiming it easily could have been a rhino.

Also, to go into Dr. Strangelove mode:

The whole point of a Missile Defense system is to be as open and public about it's existance as possible. "Hay guyz we have a missile defense system so don't bother." Keeping one secret is stupid. The only non-official plausible explanation I've heard is testing an anti-satellite missile. Not proving we have one, since both Russia and U.S. had plenty back in the cold war.

[Eris]

Well we can't confirm that they used a missile at all, they could've used a happy rainbow beam on it. However the facts are that it was in low orbit, and not too far out of the range of the type of missile they said they modified for it, so it certainly makes sense to go with what they have on hand.

Maybe the satellite was taken over by aliens and they had to destroy it to save humanity itself. We can't confirm that it wasn't.

We have to distinguish between plausible and possible. It is certainly plausible that the US is testing new anti-satellite weapons (China has been doing the same), aliens taking it over is not.

This tank wasn't as shielded as the one on Columbia, but it did have some shielding. Also while the Hydrazine was in it's liquid and easily burnable form on Columbia the gas here was a solid, which certainly increased its chances of being at least partially intact. Being as it was a non-zero chance of it hitting somewhere and the toxic nature of the propellant it still made sense to destroy it.

This situation is only marginally different from the satellites that frequently fall to earth. The risk of it actually hitting a populated area is not big enough to explain why the US military is spending millions of dollars on shooting it down. Just look at the numbers:

30% chance of hitting land (the rest of the planet is ocean).
86% of land is non-desert.
So, that's a 25% percent chance of hitting inhabitable land.

Then, there's the unknown "will it survive re-entry?"-factor. Since it's not made for re-entry, and does not have ceramic tiles, isn't aerodynamic, and does not have the right approach angle, this probability can't be very big. 10% is probably grossly exaggerated.

That lands us with less than a 2.5% percent of the hydrazine reaching a populated area. I find it hard to see how the US military can justify wasting taxpayer money on those odds.