0
lawrocket

US Navy to shoot down a dead satellite

Recommended Posts

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080214/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/dead_satellite

The POTUS has authorized the navy to shoot down a broken military spy satellite. Interestingly, China did this about a year ago with a "weather satellite."

The stated reason is that the satellite's jets use hydrazine - which, like cyanide, may be harmful if contacted by humans. On the other hand, after months of downplaying the risk, one may assume that we do not want to have this satellite land in unfriendly hands.

We may also wish to demonstrate our capaibility of shooting down surveillance satellites.

Interesting...


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080214/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/dead_satellite

The POTUS has authorized the navy to shoot down a broken military spy satellite. Interestingly, China did this about a year ago with a "weather satellite."

The stated reason is that the satellite's jets use hydrazine - which, like cyanide, may be harmful if contacted by humans. On the other hand, after months of downplaying the risk, one may assume that we do not want to have this satellite land in unfriendly hands.

We may also wish to demonstrate our capaibility of shooting down surveillance satellites.

Interesting...



We've had ASAT capabilities for decades: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT

But, yes, probably a bit of prick-waving for the PRC...
Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We may also wish to demonstrate our capaibility of shooting down surveillance satellites.



Highly doubtful that's either a message we need to or want to send. What that would do would be to say, essentially, that it's an "ok" thing to do. It's not and it's not for a LOT of reasons but probably most importantly is that at actual "normal" surveillance satellite altitudes it would create a cloud of debris that would have the potential of knocking out our own satellites.

My "guess" is that they'll wait until just before this thing decides to de-orbit itself and only when they know for certain it won't pollute orbit, will THEN shoot it down.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Would they have to maintain keplarian elements on each fragment?



That's why they'd want to do it as LOW as possible, so that small amounts of atmospheric drag slows them down and they all re-enter.

Do it up in the "normal" 150-600ish mile range and it's a pretty bad issue. Do it just an orbit or two before it would naturally re-enter and you save yourself a HUGE hassle.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Would they have to maintain keplarian elements on each fragment?



That's why they'd want to do it as LOW as possible, so that small amounts of atmospheric drag slows them down and they all re-enter.

Do it up in the "normal" 150-600ish mile range and it's a pretty bad issue. Do it just an orbit or two before it would naturally re-enter and you save yourself a HUGE hassle.


Also, we probably just gave away a big secret as far as the capabilities of the Navy SM-3. [:/]

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Also, we probably just gave away a big secret as far as the capabilities of the Navy SM-3. [:/]



Oh, make no mistake, if push came to shove and the US wanted to take down a satellite anywhere in low Earth orbit they could easily do it. There are "brute force" methods that don't require much finesse. The issue is it has to be weighed against the consequences of doing so and its future affect on our own capabilities. The last thing we ourselves would want is to create a debris ring around the planet.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Would they have to maintain keplarian elements on each fragment?



That's why they'd want to do it as LOW as possible, so that small amounts of atmospheric drag slows them down and they all re-enter.

Do it up in the "normal" 150-600ish mile range and it's a pretty bad issue. Do it just an orbit or two before it would naturally re-enter and you save yourself a HUGE hassle.



That seems to be the issue. In reading, they want to hit it right before it starts hitting the upper atmosphere. They believe that once it hits to atmosphere, there are too many variables that can make a strike impossible.

It's the reason why they mentioned the "window" to be able to do it. Too soon and there will be a bunch of orbiting bits. Too late and they'll have lost their chance.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

we probably just gave away a big secret as far as the capabilities of the Navy SM-3



Sometimes, politically, it is preferable to show your hand.

It's like the stealth bomber - we wheeled that sucker out with fanfare. "Hey, world. See what we've got? You'll only see it on here, because you won't see it on radar."


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>"Hey, world. See what we've got? You'll only see it on here, because you
> won't see it on radar."

Then there's the super stealth B3 bomber. You've never seen one - and never will. It's so secret, not even the pilots know about it.



You mean the Sub-Supersonic Invisible and Noiseless Defensive Second-Strike Offensive Attack Bomber?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

we probably just gave away a big secret as far as the capabilities of the Navy SM-3



Sometimes, politically, it is preferable to show your hand.

It's like the stealth bomber - we wheeled that sucker out with fanfare. "Hey, world. See what we've got? You'll only see it on here, because you won't see it on radar."



"Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy, the fear to attack!"
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

we probably just gave away a big secret as far as the capabilities of the Navy SM-3



Sometimes, politically, it is preferable to show your hand.

It's like the stealth bomber - we wheeled that sucker out with fanfare. "Hey, world. See what we've got? You'll only see it on here, because you won't see it on radar."


I wouldn't be able to resist the op to f**k with 'em. I'd leak out a "secret" video....showing this huuuuuuge catcher's mitt, being wheeled out of a hangar. :D
"T'was ever thus."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

we probably just gave away a big secret as far as the capabilities of the Navy SM-3



Sometimes, politically, it is preferable to show your hand.

It's like the stealth bomber - we wheeled that sucker out with fanfare. "Hey, world. See what we've got? You'll only see it on here, because you won't see it on radar."


I wouldn't be able to resist the op to f**k with 'em. I'd leak out a "secret" video....showing this huuuuuuge catcher's mitt, being wheeled out of a hangar. :D


We have one. It's called Kwajalein Atoll.
Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



I wouldn't be able to resist the op to f**k with 'em. I'd leak out a "secret" video....showing this huuuuuuge catcher's mitt, being wheeled out of a hangar. :D



We have one. It's called Kwajalein Atoll.


Okay, dude. That was funny!:D


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We've had ASAT capabilities for decades: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT



Quote

In 1988, the Reagan Administration canceled the ASM-135 program because of technical problems, testing delays, and significant cost growth



From the article, it looks like the Navy will launch a missile from a Cruiser...I don't imagine it's a dedicate ASAT platform.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Max is the fuel on the satellite UDMH?

Just wondering.



The fuel is hydrazine. Nasty stuff as I understand it. NASA analysis suggests that the tank would survive the re-entry, and they don't want the health risk, and I imagine they don't want any usable pieces falling where they can retrieved by foreign governments.
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It's like the stealth bomber - we wheeled that sucker out with fanfare. "Hey, world. See what we've got? You'll only see it on here, because you won't see it on radar."



I saw the Stealth first on a Mattel box at K-Mart!



Hard to beat that!

(I saw them on the production line in Palmdale, 2 years before any entered service with the air force).
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0