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 choose to employ against the satellite threat." It also has a picture of cruise missiles.

First of all, the picture shows cruise missiles that are from other countries, so the US can't be using them.

Secondly, and most importantly, you don't use cruise missiles to shoot down satellites! That's not what cruise missiles do! Cruise missiles are usually used against the surface, whether it's ships or land.

You use anti aircraft (or missile) missiles to shoot down aircraft or missiles.




RE: Why does the caption show cruise missiles?
By LTG on 2/14/2008 1:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah that was pretty bad - wrong picture, wrong missles, etc.

Even though they won't really be using cruise missles there will be a Navy "cruiser" involved. Do they get any points for that?

This is not CNN :).


RE: Why does the caption show cruise missiles?
By Fnoob on 2/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Why does the caption show cruise missiles?
By pauluskc on 2/14/2008 4:06:17 PM , Rating: 3
especially the firefox chick, that is the epitome of mood, baby!


By helios220 on 2/14/2008 4:19:00 PM , Rating: 5
Not to criticize DT, but Engadget sure knew how to keep it classy with their caption pic.

http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/med...


RE: Why does the caption show cruise missiles?
By PandaBear on 2/14/2008 4:50:52 PM , Rating: 2
That makes it a torpedo.


By rcc on 2/15/2008 12:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
er, no.


RE: Why does the caption show cruise missiles?
By johnsonx on 2/14/2008 3:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
not only that, but cruise missile breathe air of which there is rather a lack of up in satellite territory.


By johnsonx on 2/16/2008 5:17:52 AM , Rating: 2
I'm modded down? why, did I say something untrue?


By AegisGuy on 2/15/2008 1:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you think it is a cruise missile, did the picture change?
The image I see shows an Aegis Cruiser with the MK 41 Mod 0 VLS shooting a missile that is too far away to be sure what it is. VLS can shoot Cruise missiles, SM-2s, SM-3s, and the VLA. I appears however, I could be mistaken, that this missile has fins on it, and it does not appear to be pitching over. This would indicate either a SM-2 or SM-3 not a Cruise Missile. Cruise Missiles lack fins and use vectored thrust to pitch over until the wings and air scoop deploy and it begins motor powered flight, this happens at a relatively low altitude.
Having quite a lot of personal experience with this system and it capabilities, I would be inclined to say this is definitely and SM-2 or SM-3 (because of the distance it is difficult to say for sure, but an SM-3 would be longer due to the booster).


Hypocrite?
By puffpio on 2/14/2008 2:01:47 PM , Rating: 2
I was listening to the radio about this, and I guess a couple of years ago the Chinese wanted to shoot one of their own satellites out of the sky too, but the US got all hissy over it...and now we are gonna do a similar thing...




RE: Hypocrite?
By Dianoda on 2/14/2008 2:42:47 PM , Rating: 5
Here's a summary of the Chinese test on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-sat...

The reason why that test was met with such criticism is that it created a large amount of unnecessary space debris, potentially endangering other satellites in orbit. The debris created by that test will remain in orbit, traveling at high speeds, for an unknown amount of time. This is hardly desirable.

The US case is different, because the destruction of the satellite shouldn't* create any new space debris if destroyed at or below the target altitude. From what I understand, China had no reason to destroy its satellite at the altitude that it did other than as a test. The US is not doing this as a designed test of an anti-satellite weapon. It has a non-responsive rock floating in space, and its gonna come down, and and government secrets need to be protected, people could also get hurt if it isn't destroyed. These events are very different both in purpose and spirit.


RE: Hypocrite?
By BlackBanna on 2/14/2008 4:38:50 PM , Rating: 2
I just want to add two points to dianoda post above.

1. Risk of satellite crashing into someone or their property > than the cost of shooting down the sat as it re-enters. With out any guidance there really is no idea where it will come down.

2. Hydrazine, is extreamly toxic. I can't imagine that it wouldn't burn up on re-entry/crash; but if that stuff were to spreed in the atmosphere it would make a lot of people sick and probably kill a few.


RE: Hypocrite?
By Hydrofirex on 2/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hypocrite?
By Clauzii on 2/14/2008 2:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
The Chinese DID shoot down a weather satellite with a missile one year ago:

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/18/china...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6289519.st...


RE: Hypocrite?
By MrTeal on 2/14/2008 2:46:17 PM , Rating: 2
If I recall correctly, the Chinese blew up a satellite that was still in orbit. That creates a lot of debris in space. That isn't the case here, the US plans to blow it up once it starts reentry. All the mess should fall back to earth.


RE: Hypocrite?
By Clauzii on 2/14/2008 4:09:45 PM , Rating: 2
Not that THAT would be better, but it's probably easier to collect the sensitive stuff down here :)


RE: Hypocrite?
By Chernobyl68 on 2/15/2008 1:00:44 PM , Rating: 2
Time to put these back into production

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon


RE: Hypocrite?
By MrBungle on 2/14/2008 4:46:40 PM , Rating: 2
Great! Hydrazine for everybody!


RE: Hypocrite?
By lompocus on 2/16/2008 12:10:01 AM , Rating: 2
China is the new kid on the block and, ever since they got the same abilities today that we have had for years and years, have been threatening eveyrone left and right that they'll blow everything up if they got candy. If they had nuclear technology before the US, they'd just blow everything up, to put it in perspective.

The US, on the other hand, is not planning to blow you up and knows that detonating a large object the way the chinese do is not a good thing to the other large objects up there.

Besides, who would you prefer blowing up your apocalypse-initiating flying sattelites of death: US or china?


Now, What They Should Really Do...
By Shawn5961 on 2/14/2008 1:36:49 PM , Rating: 5
Is get together a group of aged, veteran astronauts, who are way past their prime. Match them up with a group of hotshot new astronauts, and some random other crew (Construction, oil drilling, mining, pirate, etc.), and send said group off to destroy the satellite (using as many explosives as they can in the process).

Now that's what I call a hit movie.




RE: Now, What They Should Really Do...
By Fnoob on 2/14/2008 2:25:37 PM , Rating: 3
As long as they bring a gattling gun.

Personally, I am shocked! that the shuttle doesn't already have one. You know, just in case.


By Clauzii on 2/14/2008 2:30:03 PM , Rating: 2
Or the "Spaceballs" beamer :)


RE: Now, What They Should Really Do...
By shaw on 2/14/2008 3:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
Ya know when you run into Xenomorphs or Predators out there, best to bring a gatling gun and be prepared.


RE: Now, What They Should Really Do...
By SkeeterLDR2004 on 2/14/2008 6:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
Or just send Clint Eastwood, Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland, and James Garner in a new space shuttle never previously known to exist before called Daedalus. Then they can maneuver the satellite towards the moon using Hollywood physics.

...On second thought, the government likes big, fancy explosions. Your idea is better.


RE: Now, What They Should Really Do...
By Shawn5961 on 2/15/2008 1:49:03 AM , Rating: 2
I'm glad one person got the movie I was referencing when I said an aged group of veteran astronauts.


By Fnoob on 2/15/2008 9:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
I caught the reference, but dare not speak it's name. That movie was pure crap for many, many reasons.... the most blatant among them being the lack of a gattling gun. The 'ride the nuclear weapon off into the sunset' thing has already been done (see caption).


There go the tides!
By Xodus Maximus on 2/14/2008 1:31:24 PM , Rating: 4
Well if their "Star Wars" missile defense tests are indication, a good chunk of the moon is about to be destroyed. :-p




RE: There go the tides!
By Clauzii on 2/14/2008 2:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
So maybe the science will, finally, get the answer to a very old problem:

"Is the Moon REALLY made of green cheese?"


RE: There go the tides!
By oTAL (blog) on 2/15/2008 8:50:51 AM , Rating: 2
That's just stupid! It's obviously not green! Are you color blind or what?


RE: There go the tides!
By Clauzii on 2/15/2008 3:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
INSIDE the moon ;) (It was a joke..)


RE: There go the tides!
By BBeltrami on 2/17/2008 8:34:16 AM , Rating: 2
OH! It's like Brie! Yum.


RE: There go the tides!
By Clauzii on 2/20/2008 3:36:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yep! Or Gorgonzola - Brilliant for Pizza :))


Hydrazine my a$$
By pnyffeler on 2/14/2008 1:40:17 PM , Rating: 2
There is no way that there is enough hydrazine in the thrusters to cause problems. Even still, it will either be dispersed over a large area or concentrated at the site of impact.

Anybody at the site of impact will have more to worry about that hydrazine irritation, such as several thousand pounds of burning metal slamming into the ground at a thousand miles an hour?

They're blowing it up because they don't want anybody to study the wreckage. If you really don't believe me, do the math.

Why would they use a cruise missile or other type device, each costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, when the worst thing that could happen would be a bunch of people with watery eyes.




RE: Hydrazine my a$$
By 91TTZ on 2/14/2008 1:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why would they use a cruise missile or other type device, each costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, when the worst thing that could happen would be a bunch of people with watery eyes.


They wouldn't use a cruise missile. That's just a glaring flaw in the article and is absolutely ridiculous.


RE: Hydrazine my a$$
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/14/2008 1:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
The original article stated the military was going to blow it up on or near the ground. We found some more sources with different quotes, and the article has been corrected.


RE: Hydrazine my a$$
By Clauzii on 2/14/2008 2:27:46 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds reasonable, since thay have tracking equipment, so they'd get a ~99% "Hit!" probability. And they can do away with a smaller explosive load since some of the satellite might burn up in advantage.


RE: Hydrazine my a$$
By SandmanWN on 2/15/2008 11:39:46 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately the quote in the article comes from NBC who's "military experts" have been anything but experts these past years. They have experts there with absolutely ZERO military background and others have never been anything but analysts. Unfortunately most of these so called experts seem more like politicians as of late for obvious reasons of course.

The military revealed its plans today that it will use 3 SM-3's on 3 different Aegis class destroyers. The action will take place nowhere near the ground but rather the lower atmosphere. The first shot will take place some 2 days before the satellite will be expected to make its splashdown. A new missile will be fired by a different Aegis destroyer the next day if the first does not succeed and a third Aegis destroyer will fire the last day of re-entry.


RE: Hydrazine my a$$
By pauluskc on 2/14/2008 4:12:52 PM , Rating: 2
And after they cry, if a larger dose - say a dousing from a couple hundred gallons - that can cause tumors and etc. over the long term. The satellite wasn't making a roll around the block, it was going to be doing some spying for a while - 5-10 years probably.

Plus, Since it's uncontrolled return to earth, I sure don't want that landing on my house. Asbestos is enough fun, thanks.

Canadian research:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:_Hb6OXFv_zkJ:...


RE: Hydrazine my a$$
By duthoy on 2/15/2008 9:28:27 AM , Rating: 2
that has got to be soo a great, "sir, please launch that missile"


Fuel
By bldckstark on 2/14/2008 1:47:25 PM , Rating: 2
Hydrazine? Why aren't they using bio-diesel, or ethanol? For that matter why aren't they Nuke-U-Lar?




RE: Fuel
By twajetmech on 2/14/2008 1:54:52 PM , Rating: 3
The U.S. has already demonstrated the ability to shoot down satilites with missiles, there is nothing new going on here.


RE: Fuel
By Clauzii on 2/14/2008 2:51:06 PM , Rating: 2
Why rate him down?

"No current international treaties or agreements prohibit military strikes against satellites, and China is now the third country after the US and the former Soviet Union to shoot down something in space."

From here:

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11009


RE: Fuel
By pauluskc on 2/14/2008 4:20:47 PM , Rating: 3
they just got 100baseTx, give 'em a break - they've got another 10 years to catch up in the space industry, ya know.


I got one word for you all...
By techfuzz on 2/14/2008 3:37:49 PM , Rating: 2
"laser"




RE: I got one word for you all...
By BruceLeet on 2/14/2008 3:57:47 PM , Rating: 2
SHARKS with freakin "laser" beams attached to their heads?


RE: I got one word for you all...
By Clauzii on 2/14/2008 4:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
Would give them a chance to test this one, if they've done it quicker than 6-7 months:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6380789....

The problem is, that it might not have firepower enough. This is where the (also stated in the article) 1 MegaWatt chemical 747-carried LASER might come in, depending on project stage.

Also this is interesting LASER stuff:

https://www.llnl.gov/str/October04/Rotter.html



RE: I got one word for you all...
By shreddR on 2/15/2008 10:43:55 PM , Rating: 2
They'll need at least 1.21 Jigawatts of freekin laser power to take it down :D


RE: I got one word for you all...
By shreddR on 2/15/2008 10:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
Austin Powers goes 'Back to the Future' ahahahaha


begin conspiracy threorists
By Screwballl on 2/14/2008 1:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
ok have at it you wonderful "moon landing deniers" and "Mars alien believers" that love to post those incomprehensible posts on youtube /end sarcasm/




RE: begin conspiracy threorists
By eyebeeemmpawn on 2/14/2008 3:19:56 PM , Rating: 5
Dude, its not a satellite, it's Xenu returning to Earth to assist Tom Cruise with crushing the Anonymous rebellion, and collect all that spiritual healing money. Unfortunately for Xenu and his DC-8, W loves Jeebus and reptilian shape-shifters don't get along very well with Xenu's kind. Also, if the perpetual-motion drive on Xenu's DC-8 falls into the wrong hands, we wouldn't need oil any more.

;)


By SavagePotato on 2/14/2008 4:57:11 PM , Rating: 1
Thats stupid.

Tom Cruise is Xenu.


Priceless
By djc208 on 2/15/2008 7:19:12 AM , Rating: 3
- Designing and building a new top-secret high technology spy satalite: $1B.
- Launching satalite into orbit: $150M.
- Missing circuit breaker: $150.
- Launching missles to destroy above satalite: $10M.

- Getting to turn all that taxpayer money into the biggest firecracker ever seen: priceless.

With taxpayer money on the line who needs Mastercard?




RE: Priceless
By shreddR on 2/15/2008 11:19:14 AM , Rating: 2
Sifn't have a built in self destruct switch installed, activated by remote control "click click" from the pentagon or wherever.
You know what I mean, insert a key into the console, twist to unlock clear perspex cover, lift perspex cover, and press red button. :D
Just wait for low orbit, and hasta la vista satellite.


RE: Priceless
By rcc on 2/15/2008 12:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
They cited a power failure. No data in or out means no destruct signal.


Won't it be destroyed, anyways...
By kmmatney on 2/14/2008 3:38:21 PM , Rating: 2
Between re-entry and hitting the ground, I woudl think that everything would be destroyed beyond recognition, with peices scattered over a few hundred miles. Is their really any security threat here? I can see the problem if it lands in a populated area, though.




RE: Won't it be destroyed, anyways...
By pauluskc on 2/14/2008 4:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes, the only thing recovered from an airplane splattering across the landscape is the black box.

I imagine the black box on a spy satellite is a little more interesting, though, eh? Plus, space may require a little more shielding as it stands just to be there than some measly airplane in the atmosphere.

Although, the lower temps would be beneficial for superconductor-spy-computers. Maybe there are some vents in there. /ha


By AegisGuy on 2/15/2008 1:42:57 PM , Rating: 2
That is a good point, I'm not a physicist, but I would think re-entry would destroy it quite nicely.
Now add the knowledge that the SM-3 doesn’t contain an explosive warhead, but instead is designed to use kinetic energy to disable ballistic missiles and let them fall back down the country that launched them. Therefore I don't think that an SM-3 will "blow up" the satellite. Perhaps, they are just trying to knock it out of orbit over a safe location rather than letting it fall where it may.


Reentry Point
By Computermonger on 2/15/2008 1:43:31 AM , Rating: 2
What if the satellite reentered above China or Russia? How will they shoot a missile at it then? How is a countries airspace defined? What altitude?




RE: Reentry Point
By Iketh on 2/15/2008 2:47:07 AM , Rating: 2
im sure the satellite will make several orbits at 61-60 miles above earth...


RE: Reentry Point
By lompocus on 2/16/2008 12:15:43 AM , Rating: 2
We're the US. We do what we want where we want!

Besides, I'm sure China/Russia would prefer we shoot the killer-satellite and not kill everyone rather than them shooting 100000 missiles at the satellite, having half of those hit their own countries, and finally kill the satellite only to have the debris wipe out a village or two. XD

And if they get mad, we'll just let the next killer object from space smush their nations instead of shooting it down for them


How about....
By makots on 2/14/2008 3:57:31 PM , Rating: 4
And to think they can take out a satellite from a Navy cruiser but they still cannot design or engineer a bloody video card that can run Crysis at better than 50FPS. Lordy.....




RE: How about....
By Clauzii on 2/15/2008 3:20:59 PM , Rating: 1
Bring on the $99,995,- GPUs - NOW! :)


MIR and Skylab
By cocoviper on 2/15/2008 12:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure MIR with it's acompanying crash in 2001 was bigger than Skylab and thus also bigger than this satelite...




RE: MIR and Skylab
By SandmanWN on 2/15/2008 1:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
well, sort of...

MIR (135 tons) was comprised of several smaller compartments at about ~19 tons each. Each compartment contained pressurized oxygen which acted like an explosive device upon re-entry which helped disperse the space station into smaller pieces. Skylab was ~100 tons and made to be one massive section which made things more interesting.

The biggest fear for the spy satellite is that all the fuel has frozen into one giant 25 ton object that will counteract the high temperatures of the atmosphere. Still, the spy satellite is unlikely to make it through as many asteroids and other objects pass through the atmosphere each year. For comparison in Jan 2000 a 200 ton meteor disintegrated over Canada and this satellite is merely 1/10th the size.


Great Idea
By adiposity on 2/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Great Idea
By rcc on 2/14/2008 1:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
If the Hydrazine is released in orbit, or the upper atmosphere, it's not going to hit the ground as anything recognizable or hazardous. If it had been protected by the fuel tanks and body of the satellite so it was released on impact, that would have been a problem.


Shoot a nuke at it
By xxsk8er101xx on 2/14/2008 1:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
Why stop at a missile or two? I say launch a nuke at it! /joke




Is Atlantis already back?
By Fnoob on 2/14/2008 2:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't they have swung by on the way home and picked up some milk, err... broken $40B satellite?




oh noes
By tastyratz on 2/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: oh noes
By Newspapercrane on 2/15/2008 7:28:54 AM , Rating: 2
You fraged my frigate!


Uhhhh
By mikeyD95125 on 2/14/2008 7:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
F*** YEAH!!




What if....
By Noya on 2/14/2008 9:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
...we miss ROTFL!




MIR?
By petesonic on 2/14/2008 11:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
Just out of curiosity, what is the biggest controlled crash? The biggest I can think of is MIR at 137 tons.




reapairs?
By HighWing on 2/15/2008 12:48:11 PM , Rating: 2
Ok so maybe I missed something somewhere, but why was/is it not possible to send a team into space to repair the satellite? It's not like that hasn't been done before, and that does seem like an option I would want to pursue to the end before I would consider destroying it.




"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki