Spy satellite to make uncontrolled re-entry.

[bobblebob]

"(At least it's not as bad as when they attribute something from a completely different *country* to NASA, like when "Transformers" talked about the loss of NASA's Beagle 2.) "<br /><br />I noticed that, and was abit annoyed with it. They have gone to the trouble to find out about Beagle 2 going to Mars, at least get the right agency<br /><br />I know its only a small issue but us geeks notice these things <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[bobblebob]

At least on here you get some sort of balanced argument.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Common sense and science is the goal of the majority here <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <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>

 

[pmn1]

I left the foil hat wearing site as quickly as I blundered into it........ <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[comga]

"Renuart added that, "As it looks like it might re-enter into the North American area" <br /><br />Shuttle_guy "It is way too early to make that prediction." <br /><br />He said "might", as in "could", not "probably will". <br /><br />

 

[comga]

silyene: ""It is extremely unlikely any hypergolic fuels would survive to the surface"<br /><br />As posted elswhere, Columbia showed that lightly loaded tanks can survive reentry, and impact, relatively intact. PRSA tanks were recognizable in the Texas dirt.<br />

 

[MeteorWayne]

Really, that's kind of a "duh" statement though. The odds are far higher it will land in China, than North America, since it has more surface area beneath the orbit.<br />It might land in Australia, New Zealand, or Hawaii.<br />It might land on Easter Island, so what?<br />There's a lot of mights; I think the suggestion of the statement was that NA was more likely, which is not true. <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>

 

[halman]

JO5H,<br /><br />I believe that this spy sat was one of the first of the new 'synthetic aperture' radar imaging systems, which is very hush-hush. Even small pieces of the bird could be very informative. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[webtaz99]

This mishap could be used as an opportunity to test anti-satellite or anti-ICBM technologies. If so, we won't hear about it for a while. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> I believe that this spy sat was one of the first of the new 'synthetic aperture' radar imaging systems, which is very hush-hush. Even small pieces of the bird could be very informative.</i><br /><br />Judging by the reported size and sensitivity of the satellite, a SAR system was my guess, thanks for confirming it. Imaging sats are generally smaller. Hush-hush is even a moderate claim- things like these are "purple omega" classified. I doubt the USAF is concerned with it hurting someone (which is unlikely), it really is the possibility of the tech getting into someone else's hands. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> I my opinion the spacecraft is designed to break up and burn up the sensitive stuff on re-entry. The designers were well aware of the potential for entry over a land mass.</i><br /><br />I sure hope so. The only SAR design I've seen (besides the excellent SRTM boom) are a large satellite bus connected to a fold-out antennae. One issue might be that this is a completely dead sat instead of one they can partially control for reentry. Not sure, but if it was my sat, it'd have the equivalent of range-safety charges onboard for this type of situation - the sensitive parts would automatically explode on reentry. Even the twisted wreckage of one of these spy-sats would be of immense value. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Yes; the sort of device which is euphemistically known as a "declass" device. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <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>

 

[halman]

JO5H,<br /><br />Unfortunately for the NSA and the Imaging office, the breakdown in communications with this satellite are typical of a complete receiver failure, which would make initiating self-destruct very difficult. It also precludes re-orienting the bird to a specific re-entry attitude. (I wonder if it fell victim to tin 'whiskers'?)<br /><br />In regards to attempting to shoot it down after it has entered atmosphere, this would be extremely difficult without either a world-wide network of alert aircraft, or a missile in orbit. I think that this is one of those incidents that the government has been trying to pretend don't exist, in the hopes that it would just quietly disappear. I think that there might be a good chance that, in the right conditions, observers on the ground would have the impression that they were under some kind of attack, as very bright objects seem to fall out of the sky right toward them.<br /><br />Irregardless of that, suppressing the knowledge that an advanced intelligence asset was going to deorbit uncontrollably seems to aimed at preventing the salvage of any advanced technology. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

I have to correct myself.<br /><br />Apparently, the Navy is sending a convoy of three ships to hold station under the orbital track, and will use a missile to break up the satellite at the edge of the atmosphere. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[spaceinvador_old]

Anyone know if we here in the Pacific Northwest have a chance of possibly seeing the explosion or missile trail?... Also, does anybody know when or what time this particular satellite passes over the Pacific Northwest? It would be great to see something happen.

 

[halman]

SPACEINVADOR,<br /><br />This site has a lot of data on satellite passes:<br /><br />http://www.heavens-above.com/<br /><br />But I don't think that we will be able to see the intercept here the Pacific Northwest. It does pass over us several times in the near future. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[holmec]

This is so funny!<br /><br />my previous question:<br />"What are the chances of the USAF breaking up a sattelite that goes haywire like this. Could they break it apart so it does not hit the ground on reentry?"<br /><br />The answer....none, the Navy will do it!!!!! DOH! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[halman]

holmec,<br /><br />Shouldn't it be the Coast Guard? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>(I wonder if it fell victim to tin 'whiskers'?) <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Could be. One of the big problems with tin whiskers is that they can grow in a device which has already cleared all of its acceptance testing with no problems, and which is now buried deep within a larger system and difficult to visually inspect. Another big problem is that you can have whiskers for a long time before they cause a failure. In other words, they're a source of <i>latent</i> failures.<br /><br />There are ways to impede formation of whiskers, but they are costly. So they are generally only used if it is believed that the device in question is susceptible. And since the phenomenon is not well understood, engineers can be wrong about which devices need treatment. <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>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Shouldn't it be the Coast Guard? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Perhaps in philosophy, but in practice the Coast Guard doesn't generally get cool toys like Aegis cruisers. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> So the USN will do it, for the simple reason that they've got the tools for the job. <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>

 

[grdja]

Slighly related. Somewhere I found links to a couple of sites having amateur astronomer ground based pictures of ISS, Shuttle and satellites in orbit. Lost the link and google isnt giving me anything...

 

[3488]

I do not think this is too far off topic, so long as we do not lose sight of USA 193, the <br />topic of this thread.<br /><br />Here's another brilliant one here shuttle_guy. <br /><br />I like the ones you found very much. Brilliant. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />The people who take these images are real pro's. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><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>

 

[anoolios]

Does anyone know, assuming the destruction by missile is a success, if there is any possibility the debris will pose a "space junk" hazard like the Chinese satellite that was intentionally destroyed? Thanks.<br /><br />I have a factually unfounded yet uncomfortable feeling that there may be some political motivation(s) behind this effort that has not been communicated in an honest and upfront manner (I watched the briefing where Michael Griffin was present last night on the Pentagon Channel).

 

[MeteorWayne]

Is there a possibility of a hazard? <br />Yes but very small, if it takes place at a low enough altitude as they indicated. <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>

 

[vulture2]

In an interview published today DOD officials flatly denied that the satellite was being destroyed to prevent classified parts falling into other hands, and said it was solely to prevent people from being exposed to the toxic hydrazine. <br /><br />Of course hundreds of rocket stages and other space junk containing hydrazine tanks have crashed without such a fuss, Also, the satelite is apparently fueled with monopropellant anhydrous hydrzine, N2H4, which usually ignites when a tank ruptures and is not an environmental pollutant since it decomposes rapidly after release. (In contrast, UDMH [unsymetrical dimethylhydrazine] in many of the Russian rocket stages that routinely hit Kazakstan, and, yes, in the upper states of some US rockets, can cause long-term pollution.) <br /><br />Now I am not suggesting anyone should seek out hydrazine and inhale it. It is toxic, but no more so than many of the industrial chemicals riding through your town tonight on trucks and trains. The idea that we are going to shoot down a satellite just because we are worried about releasing a small amount of it is just funny.<br /><br />Say, maybe this is a political message, a reply to the Chinese interception. "You think you're tough? So are we."<br />