Falling sattelite Uh Oh!

[Falcon161 3]

Since I am sick today and cant go to school I browsed the internet for some info on sattelites for my story series and found an article that pretained to a Broken U.S. Spy sattelite that is supposed to crash sometime in march. The article also says that a U.S. Navy ship will try to shoot it down b4 it reaches the Earths Atmosphere. My mom read it and now she thinks it is the end of the world I however think that this satellite will be shot down with no side affects!

 

--------->Click here for the Article from the AP <----------

[Viggen 644]

Shame we don't have any more ASATs.

[Atreides 144]

I'm more concerned about the highly toxic fuel that its carries for the ummm(forget the term) positioning rockets, that crap is lethal to humans.

[+Typhoid 231]

the fuel is why we are going to "shoot it down".

 

I am presuming (based on past experience) that the intent would be to bust it up into pieces so that on re-entry they are more likely to burn up without reaching the surface.

 

the hydrazine fuel is bad stuff. but beyond a few blocks away would be no threat. Busting it up in space will cause it to burn up/disperse harmlessly.

 

definitely not the end of the world - just the glorious end of that non-functional billion dollar satellite.

[Gr.Viper 131]

This whole story reminds me of the Simpsons episode, in which Bart discovered a comet...

[+Typhoid 231]

This whole story reminds me of the Simpsons episode, in which Bart discovered a comet...

 

If we miss and it lands upwind of your town, the humor may be lost.....

Edited February 14, 2008 by Typhoid

[+CrimsonRoamer 1]

Sounds like a good opportunity for a Surface to Space interception test, don't have those too often for obvious reasons.

 

And it'll take more than one satellite with some leftover hydrazine to be a problem, the hydrazine with definitely ignite during re-entry, and the chemcal byproducts will be no more harmful than SUV exhaust

[Gr.Viper 131]

If we miss and it lands upwind of your town, the humor may be lost.....

 

I have a working oil refinery in clear sight - it's almost within city limits of Moscow. So one or two sattelites won't hurt.. might actually make the air a bit cleaner (and clearer - on some days I can't see anything at 3km already).

[+Typhoid 231]

the hydrazine with definitely ignite during re-entry, and the chemcal byproducts will be no more harmful than SUV exhaust

 

only if we bust up the tank before re-entry, which is why we are going to take the shot.

[+littlesmoke 64]

anyone seen the movie "Space Cowboys"? ....

[BUFF 8]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23166344/

[Atreides 144]

I vaguely recall an incident here in Canada where a Soviet military satellite crashed up north in an unpopulated area, I forget what the exact propellant was, either radioactive or some chemical that was quite dangerous, well we made the Soviet's clean up the mess up north, they paid for it and their people had to clean it up.

[+Typhoid 231]

I vaguely recall an incident here in Canada where a Soviet military satellite crashed up north in an unpopulated area, I forget what the exact propellant was, either radioactive or some chemical that was quite dangerous, well we made the Soviet's clean up the mess up north, they paid for it and their people had to clean it up.

 

it was a radar ocean surveillance satellite which had a nuclear generator. Usually those were boosted to a high parking orbit at end of life that will last longer than the radioactivity of the nuclear fuel. In that particular case, the boost didn't and it crashed in Canada.

 

if this comes down, it will be something somewhat similar in that the toxic fuel will be localized and cleaned up by hazmat teams. If it comes down in the water, the fuel will oxidize and disperse (although if it lands in the resevoir that you get your drinking water from.....)

[Atreides 144]

it was a radar ocean surveillance satellite which had a nuclear generator. Usually those were boosted to a high parking orbit at end of life that will last longer than the radioactivity of the nuclear fuel. In that particular case, the boost didn't and it crashed in Canada.

 

if this comes down, it will be something somewhat similar in that the toxic fuel will be localized and cleaned up by hazmat teams. If it comes down in the water, the fuel will oxidize and disperse (although if it lands in the resevoir that you get your drinking water from.....)

 

 

I apologise, I didn't know that it was an ocean surveillance satellite (though the only reason I suspect that it perhaps wasnt is why would you need a nuclear generator for a satellite that had purely civi application's) anyways, with regards to the U.S satellite if it were to "ideally" come down in the ocean which is harmless, do they know if it's in area for deep fishing lanes, I mean if the fish ingest that garbage and then people were to consume it...

[+CrimsonRoamer 1]

only if we bust up the tank before re-entry, which is why we are going to take the shot.

 

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.

[+Dave 2,322]

or be dispersed so widely as to have no real effect whatsover.

 

You are 100% incorrect sir. Hydrazine is deadly. You do not want it burning up in the atmosphere. This particular satellites mass warrents the precautions we are taking. The PSRE on a Minuteman III uses hydrazine for fuel and if it was to vent, you are dead in seconds. (I have 3 years ICBM maint on MMIII, I am well versed in the use of hydrazine)Parts of the F-16 use it too. This is very serious indeed and not some propaganda stunt.

[JediMaster 451]

There are so many toxic chemicals used in rockets and satellites it's a wonder people want to work around them at all.

Some of them smell strongly, giving you at least a few seconds warning (I say seconds because generally speaking if you smell it then it's already damaging your insides), but a few are odorless.

Even though I don't work on the pads we all have to take the same safety courses about things like the emergency breathers and the eyewash stations.

I remember one guy from the Test Sq telling a story about being out at a pad doing an inspection with his team and then thinking, "Who brought a tuna sandwich out here??" (That's what he thought he smelled.) Next thing he did was shout "LEAK!" and they all cleared datum PDQ!

[TX3RN0BILL 3]

You are 100% incorrect sir. Hydrazine is deadly. You do not want it burning up in the atmosphere. This particular satellites mass warrents the precautions we are taking. The PSRE on a Minuteman III uses hydrazine for fuel and if it was to vent, you are dead in seconds. (I have 3 years ICBM maint on MMIII, I am well versed in the use of hydrazine)Parts of the F-16 use it too. This is very serious indeed and not some propaganda stunt.

 

So, will whatever device that will be used to shoot it down render it harmless or not?

 

What's the SOP and TO&E to be used in this type of situation?

Edited February 15, 2008 by TX3RN0BILL

[+CrimsonRoamer 1]

Well thanks for that USAFMTL, you're knowledge combined with the fact that the interception will take place almost directly above me has certainly eased my mind

[+Dave 2,322]

Well thanks for that USAFMTL, you're knowledge combined with the fact that the interception will take place almost directly above me has certainly eased my mind

 

 

Duck and cover.....

[+Dave 2,322]

So, will whatever device that will be used to shoot it down render it harmless or not?

 

What's the SOP and TO&E to be used in this type of situation?

 

Depends on the altitude they hit it at. That is the key.

[+Typhoid 231]

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.

 

note - when a Titan II blew up in its silo and vented hydrazine all over the landscape - somehow life went on beyond the immediate downwind area. The danger is an unignited venting within the localized impact point. If it ignites - problem over (unless it ignites as it comes through your roof).

 

so the intent of the shot is to bust up the tank so that it vents and burns up on re-entry in the upper atmosphere.

 

 

"What's the SOP and TO&E to be used in this type of situation?" this is a first - so no SOP. "Winging it" so to speak.

 

------------------------

"or be dispersed so widely as to have no real effect whatsover.

 

You are 100% incorrect sir. Hydrazine is deadly. You do not want it burning up in the atmosphere. "

------------------------

 

you do want it to burn up in the atmosphere. Then it no longer exists. That is the plan.

 

 

"This particular satellites mass warrents the precautions we are taking. " absolutely correct!! Its a big, solid satellite.

 

"f it were to "ideally" come down in the ocean which is harmless, do they know if it's in area for deep fishing lanes, I mean if the fish ingest that garbage and then people were to consume it"

 

it would disperse and interact with the seawater turning into ammonia and then harmless compounds. Not a danger.

 

"So, will whatever device that will be used to shoot it down render it harmless or not?" if we hit it and bust it up into smaller fragments and fracture the fuel tank, it will be much more harmless. Some components could still survive but it would be much the same as the other fragments of satellites and the shuttle that landed. Not good if it comes through your roof, but overall not much of a threat.

 

Odds are - with 70% of the surface of the earth being ocean, it will land in the ocean with no problem. Of course, it lands in the resevoir that your city drinks from, you might be using bottled water for awhile!

[Hawk MMS 0]

U.S. Officials Defend Plan to Shoot Down Satellite

Friday , February 15, 2008

 

 

WASHINGTON —

 

Taking a page from Hollywood science fiction, the Pentagon said Thursday it will try to shoot down a dying, bus-size U.S. spy satellite loaded with toxic fuel on a collision course with the Earth.

 

The military hopes to smash the satellite as soon as next week — just before it enters Earth's atmosphere — with a single missile fired from a Navy cruiser in the northern Pacific Ocean.

 

The dramatic maneuver may well trigger international concerns, and U.S. officials have begun notifying other countries of the plan — stressing that it does not signal the start of a new American anti-satellite weapons program.

 

Military and administration officials said the satellite is carrying fuel called hydrazine that could injure or even kill people who are near it when it hits the ground.

 

That reason alone, they said, persuaded President Bush to order the shoot-down.

 

"That is the only thing that breaks it out, that is worthy of taking extraordinary measures," said Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a Pentagon briefing.

 

He predicted a fairly high chance — as much as 80 percent — of hitting the satellite, which will be about 150 miles up when the shot is fired.

 

The window of opportunity for taking the satellite down, Cartwright said, opens in three or four days and lasts for about seven or eight days.

 

"We'll take one shot and assess," he said. "This is the first time we've used a tactical missile to engage a spacecraft."

 

Deputy National Security Adviser James Jeffrey discounted comparisons to an anti-satellite test conducted by the Chinese last year that triggered criticism from the U.S. and other countries.

 

"This is all about trying to reduce the danger to human beings," Jeffrey said. "Specifically, there was enough of a risk for the president to be quite concerned about human life."

 

There might also be unstated military aims, some outside the administration suggested.

 

Similar spacecraft re-enter the atmosphere regularly and break up into pieces, said Ivan Oelrich, vice president for strategic security programs at the Federation of American Scientists.

 

He said, "One could be forgiven for asking if this is just an excuse to test an anti-satellite weapon."

 

A key issue when China shot down its defunct weather satellite was that it created an enormous amount of space debris.

 

"All of the debris from this encounter, as carefully designed as it is, will be down at most within weeks, and most of it will be down within the first couple of orbits afterward," said Jeffrey. "There's an enormous difference to spacefaring nations in ... those two things."

 

He and others dismissed suggestions that this was simply an attempt by the U.S. to flex its muscles, and that officials were overstating the toxic fuel threat.

 

Left alone, the satellite would be expected to hit Earth during the first week of March. About half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft would be expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and would scatter debris over several hundred miles.

 

If the missile shot is successful, officials said, much of the debris would burn up as it fell. They said they could not estimate how much would make it through the atmosphere.

 

They said the largest piece that would survive re-entry would be the spherical fuel tank, which is about 40 inches wide — assuming it is not hit directly by the missile.

 

The goal, however, is to hit the fuel tank in order to minimize the amount of fuel that returns to Earth, Cartwright said.

 

A Navy missile known as Standard Missile 3 would be fired at the spy satellite in an attempt to intercept it just before it re-enters Earth's atmosphere.

 

It would be "next to impossible" to hit the satellite after that because of atmospheric disturbances, he said.

 

Known by its military designation US 193, the satellite was launched in December 2006. It lost power and its central computer failed almost immediately afterward, leaving it uncontrollable. It carried a sophisticated and secret imaging sensor.

 

Software associated with the Standard Missile 3 has been modified to enhance the chances of the missile's sensors recognizing that the satellite is its target. The missile's designed mission is to shoot down ballistic missiles, not satellites.

 

Other officials said the missile's maximum range, while a classified figure, is not great enough to hit a satellite operating in normal orbits.

 

"It's a one-time deal," Cartwright said when asked whether the modified Standard Missile 3 should be considered a new U.S. anti-satellite technology.

 

He said that if an initial shoot-down attempt fails, the military would have about two days to reassess and decide whether to take a second shot.

 

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told reporters that analysis shows the hydrazine tank would survive a fall to Earth under normal circumstances, much as one did when the space shuttle Columbia crashed.

 

"The hydrazine which is in it is frozen solid, as it is now. Not all of it will melt," he said.

 

If the tank hits the ground it will have been breached because the fuel lines will have broken off and hydrazine will vent out, he said.

 

Jeffrey said members of Congress were briefed on the plan earlier Thursday and that diplomatic notifications to other countries were being made by the end of the day.

 

"It should be understood by all, at home and abroad, that this is an exceptional circumstance and should not be perceived as the standard U.S. policy for dealing with errant satellites," said House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton.

Edited February 15, 2008 by USMC Hawker

[TX3RN0BILL 3]

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)...

[+Dave 2,322]

You are 100% incorrect sir. Hydrazine is deadly. You do not want it burning up in the atmosphere. "

------------------------

 

you do want it to burn up in the atmosphere. Then it no longer exists. That is the plan.

 

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.