Pentagon to Have Dead Satellite Shot Down

[Mee_n_Mac]

<font color="yellow">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.</font><br /><br />Actually a dozen successful intercepts by my count. At first blush knocking down something as large as this spysat (compared to a TBM) should be a piece of cake but I don't know the intercept geometry involved for this shot and the intercept velocities may be higher than usual. Should make for an interesting test, which is one (not the) reason it's being done. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[spacy600]

"Then nothing ever again can safely leave the atmosphere. "<br /><br />Opportunity knocks!<br /><br />business plan 1:<br />I have this big butterfly net made of Aerogel...<br /><br />business plan 2:<br />I have this really high flying plane, with a light weight carbon arm, and some radar data location info...<br /><br />I agree it is a very bad situation, but<br />humans are a creative bunch. It will take time and money,<br />but we can clean it up.

 

[jimglenn]

I think you do software, I do mostly hardware, industrial/medical, but I have had 3 jobs working on military/space stuff, some of my boards were supposed to go to the ISS, but shuttle problems delayed it. Space hardware is not like Chevy or Sony products, they shake it on vibration tables, put in a vacuum, zap with sparks, hit with hammers, bend and stretch, etc. How do you think the Saturn V always got to the moon? <br /><br />The spysat was build by Lockheed Martin, which explains it. I've been watching and reading about space systems since the Mercury launches. Take my word for it, Martin Marrieta produced a lot of junk. That one billion dollar mars probe (the last of the put all your eggs in one basket sats), simply blew up in mars orbit. <br /><br />Hughes Missiles bid on the project, but they thought their price was too high. It was not, their stuff works!<br /><br />There have been dozens of other failures. Lockheed was a good company, Martin Marietta diluted them in the merger.<br /><br />Again, these birds have many backups and self repairing computers. The military is much better than nasa at making stuff that is reliable. Something stinks here. We know the enemy has lasers and energy weapons, our sats have been illuminated before. I'd say the chinese are more probable than the russians, who only spend 1/20 of our mil budget, and have been getting cocky lately.<br /><br />Ryan: The Sprint was one kick ass missile, I saw a launch video, at liftoff all you see is a smoke trail after a BANG! That sucka moves out.<br /><br />The Standard missile normally has a warhead, I don't know why they are not using it, perhaps they need the room for more guidance eqpt. It is easy to tell this will be a fiasco. Even if it hits, the heavy metal parts that would not burn up are not going to be destroyed, just separated in a cloud of surplus parts still hurtling towards earth. They need to vaporize the whole bird.<br /><br />A 1KT nuke is in order. Let's violate the test treaty! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<font color="yellow">The Standard missile normally has a warhead, I don't know why they are not using it, perhaps they need the room for more guidance eqpt. It is easy to tell this will be a fiasco. Even if it hits, the heavy metal parts that would not burn up are not going to be destroyed, just separated in a cloud of surplus parts still hurtling towards earth. They need to vaporize the whole bird. </font><br /><br />SM-3 is a lot different from SM-2. It's a 3 stage* vs 2 stage (for the ER) and forgoes the RF seeker, fuze and warhead to boost the KKV into space. Since it's hit-to-kill, a warhead isn't needed. Usually even a glancing hit is enough to kill the target as it'll tumble and then hit the atmosphere, which finishes the job.<br /><br /><br />The wiki is inaccurate here, the SDACS is really part of the KKV. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[pmn1]

Talking of the Sprint missile<br /><br />http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=76422&highlight=Sprint <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimglenn]

Excellent, going to check that out next.<br /><br />Dreamer: In the 1960's a Polaris was fired with a pretty big nuke, I'd guess 100KT. They did not know about EMP then, the shot was off Hawaii, but the pulse was induced into power wires and blew the heck out of everything connected.<br /><br />I heard you could take a coat hanger wire, bend into a circle, with a 1" gap. If you hold the right way, miles from ground zero it will draw an arc. Free energy!<br /><br />A tiny nuke will have very little EMP, at 100 miles up it will dissipate mostly before hitting the ground. Maybe.<br /><br />And I am serious. In the good old days we could set them off, now we know more about the fallout dispersion, computer predictions. If they show it is reasonable safe, then go for it.<br /><br />mee: that's what I don't get. This sat will already be tumbling as it reenters, it was not designed like a capsule.<br />A hit to kill mass may break it up, but the stuff is still going to travel more or less in the same direction, the heavy chunks will make it through. How will their action help?<br />Make it land sooner? Where they can clean it up?<br /><br /><br /> SAT HITS CITY:<br /><br />http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d33_1180331628 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[yevaud]

"By the rocket's red glare,<br />We knew our depot ain't there."<br /><br />[wow] <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>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<font color="yellow"> This sat will already be tumbling as it reenters, it was not designed like a capsule. <br />A hit to kill mass may break it up, but the stuff is still going to travel more or less in the same direction, the heavy chunks will make it through. How will their action help? <br />Make it land sooner? Where they can clean it up? </font><br /><br />Well "they say" they'll be aiming for the hydrazine storage tanks. Perhaps they will and will hit it. I suspect that any hit will be scored a success and whatever happens may help bust it up a bit more that otherwise would occur. At worse it should do no harm and result in a slightly sooner reentry (for most pieces). I wonder if the video (or at least a frame grab) will be made public ? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

Thanks for the link News, that answered my questions I was going to raise. <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>

 

[summoner]

Even though this is a very high and fast target, I'd guess it's be fairly easy for them to hit. They will have had weeks computing trajectories and these birds are meant to pick up a target, lock on and fire within seconds. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> <br /><table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:271px;background-color:#FFF;border:1pxsolid#999"><tr><td colspan="2"><div style="height:35px"><img src="http://banners.wunderground.com/weathersticker/htmlSticker1/language/www/US/MT/Three_Forks.gif" alt="" height="35" width="271" style="border:0px" /></div>

 

[comga]

"Look at the math. To descend, you have to increase your velocity and match Earth's rotational velocity. Bless me if that's not so. When the Shuttle does a "De-orbit burn," they are increasing their velocity, not lowering it (sorry, that's what I thought you'd meant by "counter-intuitive"). At any rate, the point being is that the comment about a 15-16 hour orbit is approximately correct. "<br /><br />Nonsense. Please do the math again. One burns retrograde to reenter. <br /><br />Considering the simple case of a circular orbit, the retrograde burn takes kinetic energy out of the system and decreases the velocity. The orbit becomes elliptical, with a perigee on the opposite side of the Earth lower than the initial orbit. The velocity at perigee is increased, and the orbital period is decreased, assuming the satellite stays sufficiently high to avoid burning up. <br /><br />In the case of continuous drag on a satellite from the tenuous upper atmosphere, the velocity slowly increases while the altitude angular momentum, and orbital period slowly decrease.<br /><br />Check out the Heavens Above graph of the height of the ISS. Air drag continually drags it down, but it certainly does not "push" the ISS to go faster. <br /><br />Reentry has nothing to do with achieving an orbit that matches the paltry rotation speed of the Earth. Once the air slows a satellite to zero relative horizontal velocity, whatever is not burnt drops like a rock. Like a meteoroid, actually.<br /><br />The 15 hour value is obviously an error. <br /><br />You apparently are blessed. ;-)

 

[yevaud]

You're probably correct. That sort of thing is not my strong suit.<br /><br />However, check the match on the equation I provided, and you'll see I <i>am</i> in the ballpark on the orbit time for a satellite at that altitude. <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]

So there have been several about 1.5KT, we have the experience. Any stray radiation belts created will be tiny. I like this part:<br /><br />For explosions above most of the atmosphere, ranges of prompt radiation effects are greater than for atmospheric bursts.<br /><br />It means little nukes would make great anti-sat weapons. Look out China! We're coming for your birds. <br /><br />mee: It is very hard to believe they can target one spot on the probably spinning satellite. Unless they hit it way above the atmosphere. But that will increase the chances of a disaster if something goes wrong, the hulk will still be in orbit and could land anywhere. What if it hits a mosque? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

The nuke is a moot point; this is strictly a kinetic intercept. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[billslugg]

<font color="yellow">What if it hits a mosque?</font>hen we would be declared infidels who must be destroyed and all out war against the US would be declared. Oh - wait - they already did that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

I wonder what the odds are on this actually working. I've seen a few posters suggesting we should strike up the band and celebrate this impending demonstration of American military might and technological prowess. I think I'll reserve judgement until we actually see this demonstrated accurately and safely.<br /><br />I'm also interested to know how we can gauge the success of this mission. Presumably they are picking their shot so that the end result is any remaining debris falls harmlessly into the ocean? If they miss, do larger chunks of satellite also fall harmlessly into the ocean anyway? Pentagon announces they got their target when they really didn't?<br /><br />And, geez, I sometimes think you wouldn't want to be a surface-swimming fish in the Southern Pacific at times. They must be forever wondering what this metal crap is raining down on them on a regular basis (allowing that the long-term memory of a fish is measured in seconds).<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[billslugg]

Yeah, the southern Pacific and southern Indian ocean fishes get the short end here. <br />Given that we can eyeball the satellite, it will be pretty obvious to the world if they do not hit it.<br />Given that it is so close to reentry, any change to its orbit from a hit from below, can only hasten its demise. Any single input of energy will raise part of the orbit but lower another. <br />If they miss it completely, then we are all in the same boat with the fishes. For hydrazine I suggest an aluminum foil suit with a Saran wrap covering. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

"What if it hits a mosque?Then we would be declared infidels who must be destroyed and all out war against the US would be declared. Oh - wait - they already did that."<br /><br />Good one Bill <img src="/images/icons/smile.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>

 

[billslugg]

Thank you. I continue to be amazed at the low level of outrage at the Radicals in Islam compared to the high level of outrage at the guy fighting them - GW. I am only talking about radicals now. 90% of Muslims are good folk who get along just fine with the rest of us. There is a small portion who take the Quran literally. Just as there are a few Christians who take the Old Testament literally. The radicals in Islam even feel they can dictate the behavior of Christians. Muslims were told by Mohammad not to make likenesses of him or humans or animals, lest they begin to worship images. Why should that prevent a Christian from making an image of Muhammad? It should not. But they have attempted to co-opt western newspapers who publish cartoons. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Guys, let's bear in mind where we are and keep this on topic please.<br /><br />Cheers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[paul_klinkman]

We propose gathering oxygen and other gases in orbit, with an electrodynamic tether to restore our spacecraft's momentum, and then pumping liquid oxygen into space ferries. Gathering and manufacturing nitrogen tetroxide is possible. Gathering hydrogen is also possible.<br /><br />With a space ferry already on duty, the dead satellite could be fetched even from a retrograde orbit, brought to a safe place and either repaired or used as ballast.

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<font color="yellow">I'm also interested to know how we can gauge the success of this mission. Presumably they are picking their shot so that the end result is any remaining debris falls harmlessly into the ocean? If they miss, do larger chunks of satellite also fall harmlessly into the ocean anyway? Pentagon announces they got their target when they really didn't?</font><br /><br />That's (gauging success) a good question. I'll opine that if any hit is made it'll be scored a "success". The real question is whether any difference is made in the size and location of the debris that makes it to ground. It it all falls into an ocean in some place deep enough, then it'll really have been a success. <br /><br />Going back to jg's question ... does anyone know how stable the sat is presently ? Is is tumbling or ??? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

From what they said, it is dead as a doornail so has no attitude control at all, and there's no communication.<br /><br />It is possible optical observations could determine that I guess if there's enough of a difference as it tumbles. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[aphh]

* Man, I have a native Russian guy sitting near me at work... <br />* From the way he talks, one would think it was *his*<br />* country that is a superpower!<br /><br />That's nothing. I'm Finnish, and I tend to think WE are a superpower!<br /><br />I have data also to back that up, if anybody is interested.

 

[pmn1]

From today’s telegraph<br /><br />American plans to shoot down an old spy satellite have prompted Beijing and Moscow to voice fears of military action in space. They claim the operation could be used as a cover to test a new anti-satellite weapon.<br /><br />China threatened yesterday to take ‘preventative measures’. The US claims the satellite must be destroyed before it crashed to earth<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>