backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 94 comment(s) - last by Clauzii.. on Feb 20 at 3:36 PM


SM-3 launch from the USS Lake Erie cruiser
In a gutsy effort straight out of the movies, the U.S. military will attempt to shoot down a massive falling satellite loaded with toxic fuel

Late last month DailyTech reported that a massive U.S. spy satellite had fallen unresponsive and was slowly falling out of orbit towards Earth.  The uncontrolled crash would be the second largest in history at around 5-20 tons, second only to the harmless crash of the 78-ton Skylab into the Indian Ocean in 1979. 

Experts warned that if the spy satellite crashed on or exploded above land it could cause serious damage, partially due to its toxic load of Hydrazine fuel.  Also, security analysts warned that government secrets aboard the spy satellite could be damaging if they fell into the wrong hands.

The U.S. military made a worried announcement informing the public of the satellite's descent last month.  Now they have decided on a course of action, which reads like a movie script -- they will shoot the damaged satellite out of the sky with a missile.  The military under orders from the U.S. executive branch plans to fire two or three SM-3 missiles at the satellite from a U.S. Navy cruiser.  The officials involved spoke on a condition of anonymity, but official word will be released later today.

Government estimates place the satellite at a more conservative 5 tons, contradictory to previous reports, which pegged it to weigh around 20 tons.  Half of the satellite is expected to survive the crash landing, though it is not known where it will strike.  It is expected to scatter debris over several hundred miles.  Thrusters, which helped the satellite maneuver, were fueled by tanks of Hydrazine.  Hydrazine is highly toxic if it comes in contact with the skin or respiratory system. 

The satellite, known in army circles by the designation US 193, was launched by Lockheed Martin in December 2006, and was dead upon entering orbit due to a power loss. Its central computer systems and imaging sensor payload are highly sophisticated and top secret. 

John Pike, a defense and intelligence expert says that the threat of such systems falling into Chinese or other foreign nations hands is a big motivator for action.  Pike says, "

The Chinese and the Russians spend an enormous amount of time trying to steal American technology.  To have our most sophisticated radar intelligence satellite — have big pieces of it fall into their hands — would not be our preferred outcome."

Once the satellite reaches about 59 miles above the Earth's atmosphere it will begin reentry, producing a visible flare.  At about this range, the landing trajectory should begin to be predictable.  The satellite entry would take about 30 minutes afterwards to fall, before it reached impact.

In the past 50 years
17,000 man-made objects have re-entered the atmosphere, many burning up upon reentry.  Most of these objects were controlled descents, with one notable exception being Skylab.  The last big descent was the controlled crash into the Pacific Ocean of NASA's 17-ton Compton Gamma Ray Observatory.  Another major recent crash was a 2002 crash of a 7,000-pound science satellite into the atmosphere, raining debris down on the Persian Gulf.

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.  However, if the U.S. Military's gutsy gambit pays off, they may be able to take out the satellite before it can do any harm. 


Comments     Threshold


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

More importantly
By UppityMatt on 2/14/2008 1:39:01 PM , Rating: 2
Is Lockheed Martin going to have to refund or replace this Satellite? Seems to me that there should be some sort of warranty on a Multi Million if not Billion Taxpayer project. I for one would like to see some compensation in the form of the next Satellite being free???




RE: More importantly
By Shawn5961 on 2/14/2008 1:40:42 PM , Rating: 4
Knowing the U.S. government, we more than likely didn't look into the 10 year, 10 billion mile warranty.


RE: More importantly
By rcc on 2/14/2008 2:02:13 PM , Rating: 4
Actually the launch of most of these satellites is insured.


RE: More importantly
By marco916 on 2/15/2008 5:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they got the Best Buy warranty for another $300, just bring it back, no questions asked.


RE: More importantly
By twajetmech on 2/14/2008 1:58:47 PM , Rating: 5
All satilite launches include an insurance policy, and in some cases there is already a backup satilite built, that will launch in the event that the first attempt fails, standard practice in the sat. launch business.


RE: More importantly
By System48 on 2/14/2008 3:20:04 PM , Rating: 5
Why build one when you could have two.


RE: More importantly
By johnsonx on 2/14/2008 3:26:46 PM , Rating: 5
....at twice the price.


RE: More importantly
By abhaxus on 2/14/2008 4:09:34 PM , Rating: 5
I wish I could rate you up and comment on the amazingness of your reference at the same time.


RE: More importantly
By FITCamaro on 2/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: More importantly
By johnsonx on 2/14/2008 10:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
My understanding is that once you comment on an article any ratings you've done vanish. Perhaps that isn't true, but that's what I understood.

As to the movie, well to each his own I guess. I thought it was pretty good, though there certainly were parts I found silly.


RE: More importantly
By Jedi2155 on 2/15/2008 3:55:52 AM , Rating: 2
Thats how it works in all the situations I've come across.

I liked the movie....and was actually thinking of the quote in class earlier today...


RE: More importantly
By abhaxus on 2/16/2008 2:57:33 AM , Rating: 2
I agree on the movie btw... the book was much better, but I enjoyed it. The book made it much harder to believe that everyone on the team was lying, vs the word of one woman. still a great moviefilm for theaters.


RE: More importantly
By EODetroit on 2/15/2008 9:49:56 AM , Rating: 3
Contact is one of my favorite movies of all time. The funny thing is that you proved that you're probably not intelligent enough to "get" Contact by what you said second.


RE: More importantly
By johnsonx on 2/16/2008 5:14:48 AM , Rating: 2
funny thing is YOU just proved you're not intelligent enough to see where the movie went wrong by what you just said sacond.


RE: More importantly
By PandaBear on 2/14/2008 4:47:31 PM , Rating: 2
No, most of these cost are in testing and R&D, so the question should be, why buy 2 when you can buy 20 for 1.5 the price?


RE: More importantly
By P4blo on 2/15/2008 5:05:52 AM , Rating: 3
Contact... what a great movie.


RE: More importantly
By NEOCortex on 2/15/2008 4:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent quote from an excellent movie


RE: More importantly
By FITCamaro on 2/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: More importantly
By nayy on 2/14/2008 4:57:38 PM , Rating: 5
Somewhere there is a Government Official thinking: S**t, where did I left the receipt?


Why does the caption show cruise missiles?
By 91TTZ on 2/14/2008 1:35:41 PM , Rating: 4
Who proofreads this stuff?

The caption reads, "The U.S. has a number of cruise missiles in its arsenal that it can ch