backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 52 comment(s) - last by Captain Orgazm.. on Feb 21 at 6:55 PM


A picture of the US 193 being launched in December 2006 aboard a Delta II rocket. Minutes after launch the satellite failed.  (Source: U.S. Air Force)

The U.S.S. Lake Erie, shown here taking place in a missile test, is a powerful cruiser, featuring advanced Aegis guidance technology. It has an arsenal of 3 SM-3 missiles for its mission.  (Source: U.S. Navy)

The U.S.S. Lake Erie has previously fired SM-3 missiles, including the one seen here, though primarily at "warm" targets.  (Source: U.S. Navy)
The U.S. Navy's gutsy $40-60M USD mission to shoot down a falling satellite will take place tonight

DailyTech has provided extensive coverage of the developing story concerning the dead satellite US 193.  This spy satellite, loaded with toxic fuel and top U.S. surveillance technology threatens both as a safety concern and as a security concern, lest its fuel be released over a populated area, or its remains fall into the hands of China or other non-ally nations.  The U.S. Navy took the double threat from the satellite very seriously and plans to launch a missile strike to try to blow it out of orbit.

The tale of US 193, built by Lockheed Martin, began in December 2006, when it was launched and experienced power failure upon entering orbit.  With the power out, communication with the satellite failed and its orbit began to decay.  The satellite, estimated to be between 2,500 and 20,000 lbs by various sources will finally impact with the earth in a matter of weeks if its course is not altered.  It is currently unknown whether the satellite's trajectory takes it into a land or a sea impact, but this should be made clear in a matter of days.

The satellite carries a cargo of as much as 1,000 lbs of Hydrazine fuel.  Hydrazine is a highly toxic chemical which is frozen for use as rocket propellant. 
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that Hydrazine exposure in the short term produces coughing irritated throat and lungs, convulsions, tremors or seizures.  In the long term it can cause liver, kidney and reproductive organ damage.  Its effects are similar to severe ammonia or chlorine exposure. 

Authorities currently believe that most of the full tank of Hydrazine would survive the atmospheric descent.  If it hits land, the impact would scatter the fuel in high concentrations over an area approximately the size of two football fields, by most estimates.  Wind and other factors could cause exposure on a smaller scale in surrounding areas.

The satellite also carries a state of the art imaging sensor and sophisticated computer systems which the U.S. Armed Forces fear would be dangerous if they fall into enemy hands.

The U.S. Navy’s window of opportunity to shoot down the satellite beings at 10:30 p.m. ET Wednesday
, however, weather issues could delay the launch until Thursday.  The missile used will be fired from the USS Lake Erie, slightly East of Hawaii.  The Shuttle Atlantis safely landed today, so there is no danger on that front.

The Lake Erie is an Aegis-equipped cruiser.  Aegis is an advanced target tracking system used by the U.S. Armed Forces.  The USS Decatur and the USS Russell destroyers will help the Lake Erie in its mission as well.  The Decatur will pump the trajectory to the Lake Erie's systems, while the Russell will take backup trajectory measurements should the Decatur's systems fail.

The shootdown will be very costly.  The slightly modified SM-3 missile used will carry a price tag of around $10 million USD.  Experts heavily modified the Lake Erie's Aegis systems at a frantic pace.  Among the modifications made include improvements to the tracking system.  Aegis typically strikes "warm" targets, so its sensors/algorithms were modified in order to target the cool satellite.  The total shootdown will cost between $40 million and $60 million USD according to U.S. officials.

The satellite missile pair will have a combined velocity of 22,000 mph.  The satellite, about the size of the fuel bus, has a 3-4 foot fuel tank, which will be the missile's target.  The missile will be guided by "kinetic kill vehicle" deployed during launch, which will be the eyes of the missile as it tracks its target.  Aegis will adjust the missile's course as necessary.

There have been other successful shootdown attempts in the past.  The Chinese executed a sloppy missile destruction of a satellite, scattering debris heavily in orbit.  Some say the U.S.'s shootdown attempt is merely a chance for the Military to flex its muscle and one-up China.  However, the Military revealed it already has shot down a satellite successfully.  In 1989 a U.S. fighter jet travelling at an altitude of 80,000 feet launched a heavily modified surface-to-air missile, which successfully destroyed a U.S. satellite.  Gen. James Cartwright, vice-chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff says the Military is purely acting to avoid potential disaster.

The Navy hopes to hit the satellite hard, with no explosive charge, fracturing it as it enters low orbit.  By hitting it at a lower altitude, they hope the debris including the Hydrazine, will burn up harmlessly.  This way they can avoid populating the Earth's orbit with more space junk, a threat to both space shuttles and other satellites.

If the first missile misses, the ship has two more onboard.  The Navy may take a second shot if the first launch fails, and if they feel there is still time to make another attempt.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Another ex
By masher2 (blog) on 2/20/2008 12:03:54 PM , Rating: 2
As others around the world have pointed out, an unstated goal of this exercise is to validate missile defense technologies. An NEO satellite moves at approximately the same speed ranges and altitudes as an ICBM, making this an excellent opportunity for a live test.

While I wouldn't call the hydrazine fears a "cover story", it certainly isn't the only factor in the US's decision to shoot down the satellite. Hydrazine is about as dangerous as a similar-sized tank of chlorine; it's not exactly plutonium or botulinum toxin.




RE: Another ex
By kattanna on 2/20/2008 12:14:27 PM , Rating: 5
and hopefully they hit it.

after a few more tests, i'd really like to see an unstaged test. one where they fire the test missle unknowingly to test proper responses, times, and procedures.

unless people actually expect the enemy to give us weeks of notice that they plan on firing missles at us.


RE: Another ex
By HaZaRd2K6 on 2/20/2008 12:17:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Hydrazine is about as dangerous as a similar-sized tank of chlorine; it's not exactly plutonium or botulinum toxin.


Perhaps not, but imagine a 2,500-20,000lb satellite with somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,000lbs of rocket fuel landing in your backyard at supersonic speed. Then it's a whole lot more dangerous than plutonium or botulinus toxin.


RE: Another ex
By masher2 (blog) on 2/20/2008 12:31:06 PM , Rating: 4
Do you have any idea how much heat is generated by a satellite reentry? Or how much of the world is open space, even in a heavily developed nation like the US?

The changes of someone being hurt by this hydrazine are about equal to their being struck by lightning...twice in the same day.


RE: Another ex
By Goty on 2/20/2008 12:44:39 PM , Rating: 3
You can't discount the fact, however, that without intervention, there is a chance of someone being harmed by, if not the hydrazine (though the tanks would most certainly survive reentry) then other falling debris.

I can guarantee you, with the way our legal system is today, it's certainly much cheaper to shoot this thing out of orbit than to pay some lawsuit to some idiot whose house gets hit by a piece of the satellite.


RE: Another ex
By masher2 (blog) on 2/20/2008 1:27:00 PM , Rating: 5
That's rather like saying that, if we don't roof over your backyard, you can't discount the fact that someone might get struck by lightning there.

Remember that it has a very high chance of burning up in atmosphere entirely. Even if it survives, a 75% chance of striking open water. And if it strikes land, a 98% chance of hitting undeveloped wilderness.

Futhermore, even if it hits developed land, the odds of actually harming a person are minimal...and it almost certainly won't strike the US in any case. Finally, suing the federal government is not a trivial task, even for events which occur inside US borders.

No, by any rational analysis, the expected loss from simply allowing the satellite to reenter normally is a few pennies at most. The notion that this is being done to save money just doesn't hold up to strong light.


RE: Another ex
By callmeroy on 2/20/2008 4:34:15 PM , Rating: 3
they are blowing this thing apart to test the missile system and destroy the crap out of any data it might contain - the third and last reason about saving money or safety is just what you tell reporters and average joe citizen.


RE: Another ex
By Goty on 2/20/2008 7:12:24 PM , Rating: 2
You've got a point, but it's much easier to sue the government than it is to sue the government =)

I know and fully agree that this is just a show being put on for less friendly acquaintances, I'm just making light of the subject.

On the topic that the satellite would probably burn up entirely upon reentry, the fuel tanks from the Columbia breakup (supposedly similar to those used on this satellite, though obviously more numerous and/or larger) survived reentry and impacted, so there is a possibility that some fuel would also survive.


RE: Another ex
By Goty on 2/20/2008 7:14:16 PM , Rating: 2
Meant to say it's much easier to sue the government than it is to sue nature.


RE: Another ex
By masher2 (blog) on 2/20/2008 9:01:30 PM , Rating: 1
> "the fuel tanks from the Columbia breakup (supposedly similar to those used on this satellite, though obviously more numerous and/or larger) survived reentry "

The Columbia orbiter is nothing like a commercial satellite. The tanks are inside a strong structure that weighs several hundred tons, and is designed to withstand the heat and stresses of reentry. Commercial satellites, on the other hand, are a hundred times smaller, and generally protected only by a thin layer of metal foil.

Furthermore, Columbia itself broke up only after it was well into into its descent path, and had already shed about 1/3 of its orbital velocity.

But you're absolutely right that the satellite's tank *might* survive. It's just very unlikely...and, even if it does, far more unlikely to actually harm someone. Remember that Columbia rained some 100,000 pieces of debris down over the US itself, and injured absolutely no one in the process.


RE: Another ex
By Goty on 2/20/2008 11:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're taking my comments entirely too seriously =P


RE: Another ex
By FITCamaro on 2/20/2008 12:33:59 PM , Rating: 2
It's more dangerous than a nuclear bomb? It's not like plutonium just lands in your backyard.

I think this mission is exactly what they state it is. An attempt to stop any possible harm to civilians and to stop US technology from falling into enemy hands (that happens enough without this kind of thing). The fact that they get to test their capability of shooting down an extremely quick and ballistic target is just a bonus.


RE: Another ex
By GreenEnvt on 2/20/2008 12:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say it's more dangerous then a nuclear powered satellite. The material in a nuc-sat is not anywhere enough to create a chain reaction, it will be basically a chunk of metal landing in your back yard. Of course at high heat and speed, with resultant fireball, but that applies to any satellite crashing down.


RE: Another ex
By masher2 (blog) on 2/20/2008 12:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
Err, not at all. Radioactive material is not only dangerous in far smaller quantities (for Pu, about 100,000X more so), but radioactive materials don't breakdown like chemical compounds. Hydrazine will decompose under heat(or even spontaneously, if given enough time) into nitrogen and water, but radioactive materials stay dangerous until a few half-lives have passed.


RE: Another ex
By mmatis on 2/20/2008 7:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
Check page 67:

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-061207...

Source here:

http://www.afspc.af.mil/library/launchsafety/index...

The US Govt is responsible for risk to general public (not just US, but anywhere) and restricts launches to fall below the listed risk level. Re-entry of DOD vehicles should be expected to be held to the same criteria if at all possible due to the general P&M attitude of the Media, San Francisco, New York, DC, Peking, Moscow, Havana, Tehran, Caracas, and other related entities.


RE: Another ex
By maven81 on 2/20/2008 12:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, this is not the first satellite to go through an uncontrollable re-entry, or even the first spy satellite to do that. In fact I'm betting they probably wouldn't have even announced anything about it had this happened 20-30 years back. But as there's an avid satellite tracking community connected online these days, someone would have shouted "conspiracy".


Yeah, well...
By i3arracuda on 2/20/2008 11:26:48 AM , Rating: 2
...it doesn't count unless they can take the satellite out with a Wii Remote.

Pew pew!




RE: Yeah, well...
By DEVGRU on 2/20/2008 11:42:43 AM , Rating: 2
Naw, everyone knows all you need is a good ol' trackball. :)


RE: Yeah, well...
By eye smite on 2/20/2008 11:58:28 AM , Rating: 4
Why not go nastalgic and use an atari 2600 joystick. lol


RE: Yeah, well...
By habibo on 2/20/2008 3:34:47 PM , Rating: 2
I rock at Space Invaders. They should totally pick me for this mission...


RE: Yeah, well...
By Zensen on 2/21/2008 1:14:53 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah! I'm all for that! they can launch you into it :)


accuracy...
By jadeskye on 2/20/2008 11:27:52 AM , Rating: 5
They better not miss or the 'america can't shoot' jokes will fly in from all corners of the net XD




RE: accuracy...
By GhandiInstinct on 2/20/2008 12:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
You made a funny.


RE: accuracy...
By pnyffeler on 2/20/2008 12:39:51 PM , Rating: 2
Airball!
Airball!


RE: accuracy...
By djkrypplephite on 2/20/2008 1:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
We could still destroy the rest of the world though. I think the only way to be absolutely sure we've destroyed it is to nuke it.


If the sattelite is going to touch down in weeks...
By daftrok on 2/20/2008 12:17:13 PM , Rating: 2
And we'll know if it will land in sea or land in days...I mean it could land in the middle of the Atlantic so we don't have to shoot it. I realize that 40 million dollars is chump change to the US but still I think this is more of an expensive experiment rather than something they HAVE to do.




By HaZaRd2K6 on 2/20/2008 12:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
The main reason they're shooting it down is not actually to prevent civilian casualties. It's to prevent a "non-ally" nation (i.e. China) from getting to it first and reverse-engineering it.

It's a lot harder to reverse-engineer charred and destroyed remains than it is just damaged remains.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/20/2008 12:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
I think its more likely they're doing it just to show everyone they *can* do it.


By PAPutzback on 2/20/2008 1:20:26 PM , Rating: 4
It's cheaper than a laptop lawsuit against Best Buy.


It is now becoming quite obvious what this is...
By Amiga500 on 2/20/08, Rating: 0
By masher2 (blog) on 2/20/2008 1:32:38 PM , Rating: 2
Hypocrisy isn't the word you're looking for..."mendacity" suits your context better.

But I don't think you're correct in any case. Certainly I think a desire to test SDI components enters into the picture. But certainly that's not the only facet here, otherwise the US would simply run up a satellite and shoot it down. We've already publically disavowed any treaties preventing us from doing so, so there's no legal nor political reason to prevent us from such a test.

No, I think the administration is being truthful when they say they want to protect the public. They're just not telling us the *whole* truth...nor do they have a requirement to do so.


By maven81 on 2/20/2008 2:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But certainly that's not the only facet here, otherwise the US would simply run up a satellite and shoot it down.


Except if it was a purposely made target many people would (rightfully) say that the test was rigged. Potential enemies would question the ability of the system under "real" conditions, and there would be little to no positive news coverage around the world. This way at least they have a (mildly) plausible excuse... it's all for the good of the people and all that.


By 91TTZ on 2/21/2008 9:26:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, I think the administration is being truthful when they say they want to protect the public. They're just not telling us the *whole* truth...nor do they have a requirement to do so.


You're gullible if you believe that. Much larger satellites have re-entered Earth's atmosphere and for the most part they burned up. Hell, the Space Shuttle, even with its thermal tiles designed to protect it from re-entry, still burned up when the leading edge of its wing was compromised, causing it to tumble out of control. This satellite wouldn't be any different. There is no way that a tank full of fuel on a satellite with no thermal protection would escape being burned up, since it's fuel and fuel doesn't exactly resist getting burned.

What this intercept will do, on the other hand, is ensure that the pieces re-entering the atmosphere will be very small and more likely to completely disintegrate. Circuit boards, chips, imaging sensors, lenses, etc won't be as likely to survive re-entry.


Do it during the ecllipse...
By Comdrpopnfresh on 2/20/2008 11:24:22 AM , Rating: 2
How dramatic




By 3kliksphilip on 2/20/2008 11:55:06 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah... how can it fail with something called "kinetic kill vehicle" on board?

Perhaps they should read their tea leaves as well, just in case.


Um
By kenji4life on 2/20/2008 3:59:08 PM , Rating: 2
Great news, but more recent news has said it was delayed due to a weather system.




RE: Um
By kenji4life on 2/21/2008 12:10:41 PM , Rating: 2
Guess this just proves the long held belief that the weatherman is always wrong.


Missile successful, now STFU dailytech
By lompocus on 2/21/2008 1:47:55 AM , Rating: 1
The missile already hit. It was on space.com, google news, verizon news, and a bajillion other sites. It had 1000 pounds of hydrazine. I'm quite sure that is a lot for any type of dangerous chemical no matter if it ranks at the lowly "will boil your skin alive" rank on the deadliness ladder or if it ranks at the almighty "will eat out your brain, will shoot your mother, and will give you cancer" #1 rank.

I swear I'm tired of you hyprocrites who swarm over every article about the US or alluding to the US in any way, shape, or form. If there's an article with 1 number in its IP adress that's the same number as one digit in a US company's IP, it's bound to have conspiracy theorists, hyprocrites, and all the forms of the hopelessly retarded swarming over it. "China can do it but the US can't. Russia can do it but the US shouldn't. It's fine for everyone do to it but we don't like it when the US does it better."

W/E. I love every other DT article, though! :)

As far as the other reasons for the missile test, I'm sure the primary reason was to blow up the satellite. This also ensure secret information won't be easily accessible to our enemies or even allies. It is a practical application of our missile defense program, as well, beyond the endless tests already done (I'm glad it also took only 1 missile to knock it out). It's also what a lot of people don't like: A muscle-flexer. In a way its no different than the technology being developed to ward off asteroids: Attatch a rocket armed to the teeth with nukes to the asteroid and detonate it at the precise moment to move the asteroid. I'll let you figure it out for yourself: What good is it to be the sole nation with the capability to move an asteroid? Hint: What's in the asteroid?

So, people, don't go apeshit because there are many other benefits, besides the fact that we are blowing up a toxic and very deadly satellite. It's like a proof-of-concept in a practical environment (that no one else has done before).




RE: Missile successful, now STFU dailytech
By maven81 on 2/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: Missile successful, now STFU dailytech
By masher2 (blog) on 2/21/2008 10:46:10 AM , Rating: 2
The government never said they were trying to specifically target the fuel tank. What they actually were trying to do is strike the satellite in a way such that the tank would almost certainly be breached, and thus the hydrazine vented.

It looks like that they managed to do. Live footage of the actual impact:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=71c_1203596547&p=1


By maven81 on 2/21/2008 10:54:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The imagery that we have... The high... high definition imagery that we have, indicates that we hit the spacecraft right in the area of the tank.


Gen. James Cartwright


Hmmm...
By Raidin on 2/20/2008 1:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
I certainly hope no one aboard the Lake Erie has the bright idea of being funny by showing an image of the game Missile Defense right before the launch and yelling "Target locked, ready to fire! Sir!"




By dflynchimp on 2/20/2008 11:00:44 PM , Rating: 2
...was an F-15C Eagle, if I remember correctly. The only jet fighter capable of doing so because of its greater than 1 thrust/weight ratio, allowing vertical acceleration. One of my favorite fighters (only beaten out by the F-14, which the Top Gun fanboy within me will never let go of)




So know they made a shot..
By Clauzii on 2/21/2008 1:20:27 AM , Rating: 2
.. They are certain that they hit it. So know we wait a day to see if it got the fuel too.




nice try
By random git on 2/21/2008 7:37:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The missile will be guided by "kinetic kill vehicle" deployed during launch, which will be the eyes of the missile as it tracks its target. Aegis will adjust the missile's course as necessary

nope, the kinetic kill vehicle is the "warhead" of the missile, which homes in on the target and impacts it. It separates completely from the rest of the rocket after the boosters run out. Aegis will not make terminal phase course corrections. Come on, relying on data from a warship hundreds of miles away when hitting something moving at several miles per second is way too slow.




Correction
By Captain Orgazmo on 2/21/2008 6:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure where you got your "facts", but this is incorrect:

"In 1989 a U.S. fighter jet travelling at an altitude of 80,000 feet launched a heavily modified surface-to-air missile, which successfully destroyed a U.S. satellite."

In 1985, an F-15 launched an ASM-135 (which used part of an air-to-surface missile for a couple stages, but was otherwise completely designed for F-15 launched satellite killing) from approx 40,000 ft and destroyed an old US research satellite as a test of the system. The ASM-135 program was scrapped in 1989.




Dudes, dudes, dudes...
By dashrendar on 2/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Dudes, dudes, dudes...
By FITCamaro on 2/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: Dudes, dudes, dudes...
By oab on 2/20/2008 12:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
Can you hack that alien ship with a mac?


RE: Dudes, dudes, dudes...
By 91TTZ on 2/20/2008 2:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is obviously a defense system missile test. To take it a step further, the satellite already has explosives on it, so that if we miss (and we will), it will explode making it seem like we hit it and then the whole world will cower in fear


The satellite doesn't have explosives in it. It has fuel in it. Your car has fuel in it, but you can't make that explode on command, can you?


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




16 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki