Pentagon to Have Dead Satellite Shot Down

[bobblebob]

Isnt this rather hypocritical of them after they had a go at China for doing the same thing?<br /><br />Also is blowing it up to protect against it hitting someone on Earth, or to protect the details and technology of the satellite /mission?

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="yellow">bobblebob - Isnt this rather hypocritical of them after they had a go at China for doing the same thing? </font><br /><br />No.<br /><br />They're talking about a straight-shot kinetic kill at 130 nautical miles where most of the debris will enter the atmosphere over a few days and the all the rest will re-enter not too much longer afterwards.<br /><br />The chinese hit their sat at over 800 nautical miles where most of the debris is going to sit around for a long, long time. I don't recall if their warhead was a hit-to-kill or area effect atm. Area effect would be worse because it counts on releasing multiple projectiles like a shotgun blast. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[pmn1]

The Chinese test was at around 530 miles, how long is the debris from that expected to stay up? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

They may have said "over 800 km" and I mis-translated. Not sure.<br /><br />As far as debris staying up, NewScientist says 10+ years. <br /><br />Anti-satellite test generates dangerous space debris<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[pmn1]

Just done a search and figures of up to 100 years are quite common. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[pmn1]

A piccie of it according to Spaceweather<br /><br />http://spaceweather.com/swpod2008/14feb07/Friedrich-Deters1.gif?image_name=Ralf-Vandebergh-P27_20080211t_1202860383.jpg&PHPSESSID=8vj56hcdo8st25k5upi4trhb52 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[3488]

Passing to the north of Scorpius. Antares / Alpha Scorpii to the right of the path of USA 193.<br /><br />Wonder when that was taken?<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<i>You, as usual and typical for North-Americans, overboasted your capabilities.</i><br /><br />Ditto. Coming from someone who's nation's MBT autoloader systems would try here and there to load the loader into the breech. <br /><br />Yeah, you guys are the Doyens of all things technical. <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[grdja]

Ah yes, from the mouth of great expert Tom Clancy...

 

[yevaud]

Try 6 years 1 month Army, Combat Veteran. Thanks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

Bummer, I hope they don't shoot it down, I was looking forward to having a chance of acquiring a super-dupa telephoto lens for my SLR camera <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[3488]

Article from Spaceflightnow.com.<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

What, do you disagree what I said? The problem I mentioned was commonly known, and frankly your tech was not superior to ours. Comparable in many ways perhaps, but not superior. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[nimbus]

Looks like a troll to me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

Nah. He and I are Nationalists, wrt our respective nations. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[jimglenn]

This could be a political event, not a technical one, of interest, will get to that. I've read this whole thread and no one has pointed out that these giant spysats are the very best we can build, probably Hughes. Worlds best parts and design, backups galore, self repairing computers. What happened?<br /><br />Have they failed before? I'd say a russian or chinese laser punched holes in the control system. The Pentagon doesn't want to talk about it.<br /><br />So they calculated they had a 1/3 chance of hitting it with that tiny missile, geez, get something bigger already, like an Atlas with a nice nuke on it. So they will have 3 rockets which gives you a 100% chance (backyard statistics).<br /><br />But judging from their past performance, about 50%, hell, one interceptor did not even take off, the Estes igniter broke probably, this will have problems. The timing is too critical, the hardware and software is still experimental.<br /><br />All this points to another spur of the moment political demonstration, motivated by china's satblast, which clearly has riled the entire intel and mil system. Something has to be done, this is it. They really don't care what happens. They will photoshop the image data to show one or more of the missiles hitting it, then crow about our superiority.<br /><br />Yawnnnn. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> They are NOT doing this to protect secret information or eqiupment. That will NOT survive on impact. </i><br /><br />I agree with everything in your post except this point. The obvious reason the Navy is taking pot-shots at this bird is because of the advanced systems onboard. Testing the SM3 is nice, as is preventing any hydrazine poisoning, but those are both side benefits. The Joint Chiefs were going on today about protecting people from dangerous fumes, when they are really protecting our technological edge. <br /><br />This is an interesting test, and if it happened without the Chinese ASAT previously I wouldn't think twice about it. However, all space activity happens under the glare of international politics. The last thing we need is a broad-based ASAT conflict. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[ryancrierie]

<b> But judging from their past performance, about 50%, hell, one interceptor did not even take off, the Estes igniter broke probably, this will have problems. The timing is too critical, the hardware and software is still experimental.</b><br /><br />Not really. SM-3 is a proven design with several successful intercepts under it's belt. And that's what Shoot-Shoot-Look-Shoot is for. If one missile malfunctions, that's what the other two are for.<br /><br /><b>They will photoshop the image data to show one or more of the missiles hitting it, then crow about our superiority</b><br /><br />Like this?<br /><br />The Missile Defense Agency and the Navy conducted a successful flight test in the continuing development of a Sea-based Midcourse Ballistic Missile Defense System on January 25, 2002. Flight Mission two involved the launch of a developmental Standard Missile 3 and kinetic warhead interceptor from an Aegis cruiser and an Aries target missile launched from Kauai, Hawaii. A hit-to-kill intercept occurred.<br /><br />Snappy 1<br />Snappy 2<br />Snappy 3<br />Snappy 4<br />

 

[areslite]

Minor quibbling point about the Challenger's flight recorder surviving reference, as well as the other references concerning it: The Challenger did not face the same reentry profile this satellite would; the Shuttle's TPS did survive for a time, whereas this satellite is berefit of any TPS at all. The satellite will face the full brunt of atmospheric reentry, which I think negates somewhat the using of Challenger as model of component reentry survival. <br /><br />Frankly, I am of the mind that this is an antagonistic response by the Bush administration to the recent space weapon treaty proposal by the Russians and the Chinese, as well as to the previous Chinese test, with the added benefit of a peaceful, practical, and useful demonstration of the expensive and provocative missile defense system thrown in. Many positives to the operation from the point of view of the type of blokes currently in government, with almost no drawback, save the loss of face if it doesn't work.<br /><br />However, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt of their doing it for the safety benefits, given that they already may have the capability to help the situation, not that I think it's a grave danger in any case. <br /><br />edit: oops, I mean the Columbia references

 

[ryancrierie]

<b> The vehicle is NOT designed to get satellites, they have to change the software so that it detects a satellite and not a missile.</b><br /><br />Not really. All they need to do is change the software some to take into account the fact that the satellite is flying a different ballistic path than a re-entry vehicle.<br /><br /><b>However, the noted many times that the technology for intercepting a missile is mature. OH REALLY.</b><br /><br />It is. For the last 40 years. Do I have to point out the first intercept of a ballistic missile occured in June 1960, when a Nike Hercules shot down a Corporal?<br /><br />Out of 64 Nike-Zeus test launches against fast, high speed ballistic targets in the 1960s, 57 resulted in direct hits(!) which is impressive when you consider the fact that Nike Zeus wasn't designed for skin to skin kills.<br /><br />On 28 August 1970, the first operational test of the Spartan intercepted a Minuteman RV at 100 mile range.<br /><br />On 11 January 1971, the first dual launch of the Spartan occured. Both were successful, with one intercepting an RV while the other intercepted a fixed point in space.<br /><br />23 December 1970 - Interception of ICBM nose cone by SPRINT.<br /><br />17 March 1971 - First salvo launch of SPRINT. Two Sprints launched less than 1 second apart intercepted a Minuteman I RV launched from Vandenberg. <br /><br />7 May 1971 - First intercept of a SLBM by Sprint on a Polaris launched from USS Observation Island.<br /><br />10 June 1984 - The fourth and final test of HOE on was successful, intercepting the Minuteman RV with a closing speed of about 6.1 km/s (20000 fps) at an altitude of more than 160 km (100 miles).<br /><br />Etc Etc etc; the litany of successful tests goes on, with the latest one I know of being the first SM-3 launch from a Japanese Navy vessel, JSDF KONGO tracking an inbound and launching a SM-3 to successfully destroy the target at 100 miles on 18 December 2007.<br /><br /><b> Bottom line, the missile tests that involve a kn</b>

 

[richalex]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>He and I are Nationalists, wrt our respective nations.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Man, I have a native Russian guy sitting near me at work... From the way he talks, one would think it was *his* country that is a superpower!

 

[richalex]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Have they failed before? I'd say a russian or chinese laser punched holes in the control system. The Pentagon doesn't want to talk about it.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Wow, I wish that meme would die. <br /><br />How much can go wrong with a satellite being inserted into orbit? Space debris could hit it, or micro-meteoroids, or maybe just a really unlucky shot of cosmic radiation. Maybe it was just that one bad fuse that every shipment has? So much that could go wrong, but someone is obsessed with claiming that the Russians or Chinese even have the capability of making a laser that could burn a hole through a satellite, and so that becomes the leading theory.

 

[123glory]

It really depresses me to see us fighting and discriminating against each other. This is the reason why until today we still cannot find a positive solution to blow up asteroids. Considering the many asteroids threats we are facing as a whole, I wish we can stop fighting for power and instead all of us work together to find the solution to problem that all of us are facing. <br /><br />I don't doubt the US intention this time. I'd like to see them try to blow up the satellite to see how well this endeavor goes and so we learn a little more to help us finding the right tool/method to deal with future asteroid impacts.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>This could be a political event, not a technical one, of interest, will get to that. I've read this whole thread and no one has pointed out that these giant spysats are the very best we can build, probably Hughes. Worlds best parts and design, backups galore, self repairing computers. What happened?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It broke. What makes you think we can build satellites that are 100% invulnerable to defects or latent failures?<br /><br />I'm positive that it is not the first failed spy satellite. Most just don't fail at such a critical moment and thus fail to insert themselves into the proper orbit. We won't hear about the ones that fail, of course. They're classified; the government only acknowledged the failure at all because it's transparently obvious to ground observers. So rest assure, they do fail other times. We just don't hear about it when they do.<br /><br />One clue could be the scathing report issued by the GAO not too long about DoD space contracting which resulted in a temporary moratorium on new satellite contracts, and the cancellation of a number of ones in progress. It's hard to draw a lot of conclusions from that, except that costs were obviously wildly out of control, but if costs are so severely out of control, it's usually either because changes are out of control or because somebody forgot to bid testing expenses. Either way, a bad sign as far as quality goes. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[yevaud]

<i>Most just don't fail at such a critical moment and thus fail to insert themselves into the proper orbit.</i><br /><br />Not that it was a spy sat (rather, it was a scientific sat), but that's exactly what happened to the satellite I worked on. [bummer] <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>