+Typhoid 231 Posted February 15, 2008 Is there any prediction as to WHERE it will crash should the intercepts fail? (Because as far as I've read they would assess wether to shoot a second after the first had been fired - a total of three SM-3's had been modified to be up to the task and are stationed aboard Aegis cruisers I think)... from having tracked many such decaying objects from Cheyenne Mountain in the past (Including Salyut7) - I can say with absolute confidence that this far out we can determine with absolute assurance that it will hit - somewhere on earth..... an uncontrolled orbital decay is really, really tough to determine and not until the orbit decays further and it comes lower will they be able to make any prediction as to even which orbit it may decay in, which will limit which plane of the earth is most threatened. Not until a couple of orbits out - meaning hours - will a prediction with any sort of accuracy be able to be made. Let me re phrase that, yes you do want it to burn up in the atmosphere. You do not want it unburned in the atmosphere, over a populated area. We had a Titan blow up 60 miles down range in 1994. Nice mess and we were thankful it was over the ocean. Over a populated area, it could of made people extrememly ill and depending on the concentration, deadly. absolutely agree. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest USNadpc Posted February 15, 2008 (edited) I'm more interested to see if we can hit it or not? From what I've read so far there is some speculation that we may or may not be able to hit it. Is that because we are not exactly sure at this time where the re-entry will occur or not sure the SM-3 has the capability, or both? Edited February 15, 2008 by USNadpc Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted February 15, 2008 I'm more interested to see if we can hit it or not? From what I've read so far there is some speculation that we may or may not be able to hit it. Is that because we are not exactly sure at this time where the re-entry will occur or not sure the SM-3 has the capability, or both? I'm speculating a bit here, but - SM-3 is designed to hit a re-entering warhead in a controlled Re-entry Vehicle (RV). An uncontrolled, tumbling chunk of metal will not be reacting to the atmosphere in a controlled, predictable manner. So they have to hit it exo-atmospheric. The SM-3 is designed to hit an exo-atmospheric RV - in a ballistic arc, not in LEO. So the challenge is to hit this before it re-enters and becomes unpredictable. Problem is, the SM-3 is not designed to go to LEO altitudes which is where this thing still is. So its a narrow window of when the atmospheric drag has slowed and lowered it enough for the SM-3 to be able to reach up and smack it - but not before it has started to tumble and react with the upper-atmosphere in the initial re-entry phase. so its sort of at the boundary layer where the orbital mechanics tracking algorithms are just starting to loose track and the Re-entry tracking algorithms haven't quite started to operate very well yet. which brings up an interesting - and politically intriguing on the international stage - question. Why not "contract the hit out" to those countries like Russia and China that have ABM-ASAT capabilities, or those countries that have "undeclared" ASAT/ABM programs, or use our larger, longer reach ABM system to smack it further up. (scattering additional space debris all over creation no doubt has a lot to do with that.) sort of the international, space arena version of yelling - "PULL"!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+CrimsonRoamer 1 Posted February 15, 2008 sigh....... "The entire satillite will be heated to several hudred degress celcius by re-entry and with enter a very violent multi-axis spin sue to iits nonaerodynamic shape. If the space shuttle's aluminium structure gets heated above 300 or so degrees, it becomes pliable enought that it can no longer support the aerodynamic forces of re-entry. Make no mistake, unless they keep the fuel in an safe with steel sides an inch thick, the fuel will either reach it's self-ignition temperature, burst into an easily ignited spray of hydrazine when the fuel tank breaks, or be dispersed so widely as to have no real effect whatsover." -------------------------- you know all this for a fact based on what scientific-engineering analysis? You know for certain that it is all made of aluminum? Pieces of shuttle landed all over the southeast when it broke up on re-entry. Satellite fragments have made it to the surface on many occasions and the debris from this one is expected to be scattered over several hundred miles. The concern on this one is that portions of the satellite, including the fuel tank, might survive. IF it were to survive more or less intact and vent unignited (which is considered a distinct possibility by the ENGINEERS who have worked this issue) then it would be, as USAMFTL has stated, incredibly hazardous within the local area. When metal gets hot, it loses strenths, and the aerodynamic forces will have a much easier time tearing it up, I assumed the fuel tank would be flimsy to save on massand I apologise, but the structure of the satellite will almost certainly be made of of an Aluminium alloy, like duraluminum, and one of the first hings you learn about duraluminum is that its strength is derived from a heat treatment process and falls sharply at higher temperatures. Just about every aircraft in the world uses aluminium alloys for the structure, and the shuttle is no different. And FYI, I am a second year engineering student, and while I don't know everything, I'm certainly not making it up Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted February 15, 2008 Could very well be the case. But having spent 2 years at Vandenberg loading satellites on to Titans, they are made of a lot more than just aluminium. Some of those things were huge. So I think its mass is what going to be issue here. If its the ones I think it is, these are not small by any means. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted February 15, 2008 (edited) case in point - when the shuttle broke up on re-entry a lot of stuff made it to the ground, most noteably several intact hydrazine fuel tanks. It was the post accident engineering investigation of that which probably led to the current assessment that the fuel tank of this vehicle may (the stress on may) survive intact. The frames of space vehicles are typically made of titanium for strength as are a number of structural components within the vehicle. There is a lot of aluminum alloys, but its not by any stretch ALL made of aluminum. The fuel tanks are, in fact, generally made of titanium within the satellite vehicles. "And FYI, I am a second year engineering student, and while I don't know everything, I'm certainly not making it up" and I, sir, am a space qualified, retired NFO with an additional decade of direct support engineering operations in support of aerospace defense including space tracking of satellites, tracking of decaying vehicles, space combat ops (SCUDS) in Desert Storm, Ballistic Missile defense developmental simulations and concept development, and a few other interesting events. The space tracking team for the Salyut7 deorbit were under my command. One of the Patriot battalion teams came by The Mountain after DS to award my missile warning team a plaque for providing them the alerting, tracking and look-angle for their engagements. That plaque has a fragment of a SCUD fuel tank mounted on it with the words "This SCUD's for you". I'm not making this up either. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt....... Edited February 15, 2008 by Typhoid Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted February 15, 2008 Been there, done that, got the t-shirt....... Um sir, and you still haven't sent me mine, you Airboner.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted February 15, 2008 Um sir, and you still haven't sent me mine, you Airboner.... I haven't sent you your what? ??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ironroad 218 Posted February 15, 2008 "Ooo heavens....clutch the pearls, I aint gonna touch it." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ironroad 218 Posted February 15, 2008 (edited) I do have a serious question though... If the missiles were to miss, could the fall of the sat and or debris be predicted? how much advanced warning would people in populated areas have? And finally, what type of precautions would people have to take...i.e. if water tables are contaminated or hydrazine/fuel is within their immediate vicinity? Edited February 15, 2008 by ironroad Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted February 15, 2008 I do have a serious question though... If the missiles were to miss, could the fall of the sat and or debris be predicted? how much advanced warning would people in populated areas have? And finally, what type of precautions would people have to take...i.e. if water tables are contaminated or hydrazine/fuel is within their immediate vicinity? as the event gets closer the ability to predict time and place will get better. But still more of a regional prediction until just prior to the event. Should be able to do a bit better than "what hit you was the satellite...." precautions will be publized as the event gets closer. Clearly if you see something coming down upwind of you - MOVE across the wind line!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted February 15, 2008 Clean up from a lost rocket is of course a lot worse than from a reentering satellite, but the fumes and substances are beyond dangerous. They're...um...REALLY dangerous. If anyone is interested, here's a small clip of one that did a lot of damage here just over 10 years ago when it suffered an...ahem..."anomaly" at launch. Gotta love that understatement... Keep in mind many cars were lost in this as the stuff fell back on the pad and for some odd reason the parking lot is located RIGHT NEXT to the pad. After this, launch rules were changed and you can't park anything there at launch time anymore. ROCKET.MOV Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gr.Viper 131 Posted February 15, 2008 That's how half of my launches in Race into Space end... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+CrimsonRoamer 1 Posted February 15, 2008 and I, sir, am a space qualified, retired NFO with an additional decade of direct support engineering operations in support of aerospace defense including space tracking of satellites, tracking of decaying vehicles, space combat ops (SCUDS) in Desert Storm, Ballistic Missile defense developmental simulations and concept development, and a few other interesting events. The space tracking team for the Salyut7 deorbit were under my command. One of the Patriot battalion teams came by The Mountain after DS to award my missile warning team a plaque for providing them the alerting, tracking and look-angle for their engagements. That plaque has a fragment of a SCUD fuel tank mounted on it with the words "This SCUD's for you". I'm not making this up either. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt....... Then I am happy to stand corrected by someone with experience of the real thing Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Syrinx 13 Posted February 15, 2008 Even if it's old, I suspect that it will still have a lot of top secret kit onboard. Lets' say it did survive re-entry reasonably intact I doubt that the controlling agency involved would want even the remotest chance of that falling into the wrong hands. If it comes down near you, you'll be in for a poor quality day, that's for sure. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted February 15, 2008 Even if it's old, I suspect that it will still have a lot of top secret kit onboard. Lets' say it did survive re-entry reasonably intact I doubt that the controlling agency involved would want even the remotest chance of that falling into the wrong hands. If it comes down near you, you'll be in for a poor quality day, that's for sure. It was launched in 2006 IIRC correctly. We had a MMII that was borrowed and was to be used as a re-entry target in 1993. Went out of the hole, got to about 500 ft and then started to tilt out of control. We hit the destruct package on it and it only blew out about 10 feet of the 1st stage. So it hit the ground mostly intact. Damn near burned the town of Goleta, we were picking up solid fuel for weeks. (In full chem suits in 90 degree heat.)Totally sucked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted February 15, 2008 Then I am happy to stand corrected by someone with experience of the real thing you keep me honest Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TX3RN0BILL 3 Posted February 16, 2008 Clean up from a lost rocket is of course a lot worse than from a reentering satellite, but the fumes and substances are beyond dangerous. They're...um...REALLY dangerous. If anyone is interested, here's a small clip of one that did a lot of damage here just over 10 years ago when it suffered an...ahem..."anomaly" at launch. Gotta love that understatement... Keep in mind many cars were lost in this as the stuff fell back on the pad and for some odd reason the parking lot is located RIGHT NEXT to the pad. After this, launch rules were changed and you can't park anything there at launch time anymore. LOL!!! And that squeaky voice also said there was a problem with the vehicle on the pad - as far as I can see it was already flying away from the pad when it blew up - and debris rained all over the entire launch area, not just the pad... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
super61 0 Posted February 16, 2008 I am old enough(Major Lee, StrikeEagle, Dave?) to remember the hubbub when Skylab falling (Australia?). All this sounds vaguely familiar Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted February 19, 2008 Not everything goes well in the launch business! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
