The "Crippled Spy Satellite" Saga - Film at 11

[Tony G]

We should tell the Americans that it is a 'FRIENDLY' satellite.
They would hit it first time.

Tony G

[Rick]

We should tell the Americans that it is a 'FRIENDLY' satellite.
They would hit it first time.

Read any of Gordie Dixon's "Dorsai" books?

Sky News has been showing a report of some Pentagon bod bouncing up and down showing off film of the intercept. They say there's nothing left "bigger than a football", and that all the bits will have come down within a month. The film shows stuff flying off in all directions...

From El Reg: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/21/spy_sat_shoot_hit_secrets_safe/

Pentagon officials say that a malfunctioning US spy satellite targeted for destruction has been hit by a missile-defence interceptor. The dead spacecraft smashed into a kinetic kill vehicle, lobbed into the satellite's path 250km above the Pacific by a Standard missile from US cruiser Lake Erie.

According to a Pentagon release, the Lake Erie fired its specially-modified Standard SM-3 interceptor at 0326 this morning UK time. The kinetic warhead was much less massive than the spacecraft which hit it, so the resulting cloud of wreckage will have carried on along the satellite's previous orbital track.

US authorities have previously estimated that the bulk of the debris would re-enter and burn up within "two orbits" after a hit. The satellite was previously circling the Earth every 90 minutes, so this period has already passed. Owing to the timing of the Pacific shot, the wreckage cloud will have been mostly above oceans while this was occurring. However it will also have passed over sparsely-inhabited Canada (once), and twice over Australia.

[Rick]

The anti-satellite operation carried out by the US Navy is seen by experts as a useful test of the anti-ballistic missile system being developed by the Bush administration.

A spy satellite, which has not functioned since being launched, was hit in low orbit by a missile fired from a ship in the Pacific.

The Pentagon said the satellite had to be brought down because the toxic fuel it was carrying had frozen and so could not be used to guide the satellite into the earth's atmosphere to burn up.

More: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7256531.stm

[Mike]

Have you seen the video? Pretty interesting.

[Rick]

Yeah. Bits going in all directions... I bet some of them are up there for years. Hope they don't hit anything that matters...

[Tony G]

Yeah. Bits going in all directions... I bet some of them are up there for years. Hope they don't hit anything that matters...

Maybe that is what they are hoping for, that other satellites are damaged, giving the US a reason to test more missiles under the cloak of 'We are saving the enviroment and mankind from dangerous fuel loads and radio-active bits and pieces that we cannot name as these are top secret, before they fall to earth and damage some rare clump of sea-weed, only found 350 miles east of Hawaii, in an area the size of a family car.' 

Do I sound cynical.

Tony G

S.O.S.     
Save Our Sea-weed.

[Rick]

I'd have been impressed if they'd sent up something to catch it and then drop it into the atmosphere (and then the ocean) in a controlled fashion. With all the junk that's up there, being able to clean up the neighbourhood would be useful.

[mickw]

They can cart something that size up into orbit on the shuttle, why not bring it back in the shuttle.
Or would that be too heavy for the glider ?

[Ian]

all depends on the orbit I suppose, and it wouldn't be without risk to the astronauts either.

I suppose it'll take something valuable to get pinged by debris before they'll seriously look at clearing up. I would prefer it if they now developed a device that could be sent to dock or at least hold onto an errant satellite and bring it down in a controlled manner in one piece. I still don't buy the story that the hydrazine would survive re-entry. It boils at 114degC...

[Rick]

You're not the only one. An article on the Institute of Physics website quotes:

"I don't think the public safety argument holds up. The US produces 16 million kilograms of hydrazine per year, which we ship around in trucks,"

It also wasn't a particularly good test of ABM capability:

"The satellite is a substantially larger target — probably between the size of a minivan and a small school bus. It's also on a very predictable trajectory. And it's high enough to predict with high accuracy where it will be."

More: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/33003

[Rick]

why not bring it back in the shuttle.

I'd guess it was in a nearly polar orbit (good for covering anywhere on the globe), and the Shuttle can't get to those safely. It was also, by this stage, rather too low for the Shuttle to work on it safely.