Update (Feb 20): The Navy has apparently successfully hit the satellite with a missile.
I have been hearing lots of rumors and getting asked a lot by friends about the spy satellite USA 193 that the United States intends to blow up, so I created this 9-minute video (also embedded below). I talk about what’s going to happen, what we know, what we’re guessing, why the satellite is falling back to Earth, why they might blow it up during the eclipse tonight, and why this is different than what the Chinese did in 2007.
A lot of this is my opinion, like maybe that the real reason they’re blowing it up is to keep any secret tech out of enemies’ hands. But I am trying to base what I’m saying here on what is actually known. No (goofy) conspiracies needed.
You can get more info on the USA 193 Wikipedia page, and another great place to learn about what’s going on over your head is Jonathan’s Space Report.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
According to http://www.heavens-above.com USA 193 will be doing several flyovers of my hometown in the few days.
I’ll try to keep an eye out for falling toilet seats!
February 19th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Good stuff/job, Phil.
(In my utopia, politicians take on the roll of clear educator like this once in a while so that people actually understand what’s going on instead of the heart-voting and knee-jerking currently on-going in our opaque representative relationship.)
February 19th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
That was good. Thanks. (I’m going to have to build some cool looking satellite models for you to use for future videos.)
Also, if in future you need to illustrate an asteroid (missing us I hope) you’ll find some really convincing miniature asteroid models with little craters and all, by visiting volcanic fields in Colorado. Check with the folks in the mineral wing of the Denver science museum.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
It’s so weird to hear you actually supporting a conspiracy theory.
Now, the real proof that it’s a conspiracy is that they need a missile, when Hollywood has clearly stated that every Top Sekrut Government Device has a lovely Big Red Button that, when pressed, causes said Device to instantly explode in a huge fireball, leaving no debris behind.
February 19th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
The US government blowing up a spy satellite to provent others in getting its secrets is actually smart, plus also the are testing the technology of shooting something down that is coming in from space with the AEGIS system.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:02 am
I hardly think the fact that the US government doesn’t want one of its classified spy sats to get captured by “enemy” forces (in other words, anyone who might use it against them in one way or another) is a conspiracy. It is just a government, for once, showing some common sense. Once you’ve spent that much money developing something you don’t want to just hand it to someone else.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:02 am
I’d like to pick one nit about China’s anti-satellite weapon test. You said that the weapon/satellite/missile/whatever they used damaged the target satellite by blowing up. According to the Wikipedia page on the test, it used a kinetic warhead (which doesn’t explode, it just rams into the target at a huge velocity). This is the same technique that the Navy’s missile uses.
February 20th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Always like the video posts…
February 20th, 2008 at 12:18 am
So the US government is going to shoot it down to stop it burning up. Gotta love the English language.
I am kind of interested with what was said about a ‘low-orbit arms race’. With all the plans for lunar bases, manned missions and satellite killers, by everyone from China to India to the US, is it just me, or are the next few decades starting to like Cold War II?
February 20th, 2008 at 12:47 am
“There are people who don’t like the U.S. Government”
and some of them don’t even live here
J/P=?
Patrick Satellite?
February 20th, 2008 at 1:21 am
This solution makes everyone happy, civilians hydrazine does not get to surface, navy gets to test weapons system, nsa covers up secret tech.
February 20th, 2008 at 1:24 am
February 20th, 2008 at 2:06 am
As someone who works in the satellite industry, I have to say nothing classified would survive reentry. Nothing deep and mysterious there.
There is no spooky conspiracy here. The hydrazine really is a major factor because the satellite is NEW and was never controlled, so its tanks are FULL.
You answered your own conspiracy theory. Many classified satellites fall every year without being shot down. Difference? Empty or near empty tanks.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:23 am
Actually this isn’t the first time the US has shot down one of it’s own satellites. On Sept. 13, 1985, a satelite was shot down from an orbit of 340 miles overhead from an F-15 with a direct hit.
Check it out.
February 20th, 2008 at 3:27 am
http://www.af.mil/photos/index.asp?galleryID=2&page=6
February 20th, 2008 at 4:14 am
As someone who worked in the satellite industry, I have to say that I could glean a lot of classified information from the reentry fragments of USA 193.
Optical systems -
Knowledge of aperture size derived from partial fragments-> GSD resolution
Mirror material fragments (beryllium, glass, SiC) and mirror fabrication technology
Use of adaptive optics
Possible focal plane configuration
Radar systems -
Antenna size -> resolution
Spacecraft bus-
Existence of gyroscopes vs reaction wheels vs torque rods vs thrusters to determine platform stability, jitter, slew speed
Thruster size, propulsion deck configuration -> manueverability
Solar panel size -> power requirements
Size of computer, SSR -> data handling capability
To say that no classified information would survive, or that protecting the classified aspect of the project is unimportant is incorrect. Just as one would not allow a casual photo or two of the satellite to be leaked, one would not want detailed examination of reentry fragments. How much importance was given to each factor (safety, classified material protection, capability demonstration) can always be blithely argued about, since the answer will not be known outside the need-to-know circle.
Regardless, protecting classified material is not “spooky conspiracy.” It’s prudence.
“Many classified satellites fall every year without being shot down.” I’d be interested to see a reference cited for that, as well as how many were controlled reentries versus uncontrolled.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:15 am
Why are we shooting at it with a missile?
Shouldn’t we be using a hittile? j/k
February 20th, 2008 at 4:23 am
There is no spooky conspiracy here.
Since when does the idea that the US security services might be concerned about even the slightest possibility of classified tech falling into enemy hands count as a “spooky conspiracy theory”?
Sure, the chances of anything significant surviving re-entry are probably right up there with the chances of anything coming from Mars - but you don’t run a global intelligence operation by taking unnecessary chances.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:45 am
Notable ex-NASA contractor pre-eptively denies alien presence on board USA-193!eleventy-three!!
February 20th, 2008 at 4:51 am
Wow, very well spoken and complete summary of the situation. Thanks for putting this together Phil! Next time somebody speculates about USA 193 stuff, I’m going to point to this video.
Yes, the Chinese ASAT was most likely kinetic kill, but the other comparisons between the Chinese test and USA 193 appear valid. Another difference not mentioned is that the US Navy’s SM-3 will be operating at the edge of its envelope in this mission. The majority of satellites in higher orbits can’t be targeted in such a way.
February 20th, 2008 at 5:26 am
When you commented about good intelligence preventing wars, you forgot to have text appear on screen stating that bad and downright fabricated intelligence can cause war. It is a good thing the United States of America has never gone to war over fabricated intelligence — ¡oh wait a second!
February 20th, 2008 at 5:36 am
http://www.illuminati-news.com/occult-roswell.htm
Educate yourself!
This is not all.
Learn who where the founders and heroes of NASA.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:21 am
Well done, Phil. You did an excellent job at explaining the facts, giving your opinion, and clearly identifying which was which.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:36 am
Quiet Desperation’s “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar” captures some of the spirit (perhaps the government is acting in a responsible manner — a first?). Perhaps someone in government said: “Hey, does any of this crap we’ve spent multi-billions on really work?”. We should collectively cross our fingers and hope for success.
February 20th, 2008 at 6:42 am
I think you are being a little unfair on the chinese here. They have, with others, been trying to get a ban on anti-satellite weaponry for quite a while now. ‘Scaring’ the united states into negotiating a ban on anti-satellite weaponry and thus helping to prevent space into being militarized isn’t necessarily an evil thing to do, in my opinion. Jeopardizing other nations satellites is maybe a little harsh, but they are atleast talking a langugage your current administration talks..
February 20th, 2008 at 7:17 am
why so you always refer to the other countries, who doesnt possess space technology as advanced as the Us-and who might be interested in getting some, as the BAD guys. Anyone else whould have called them “other coutries” or something like that.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Felix: How about “potential future adversaries?”
February 20th, 2008 at 7:45 am
@El Vividor De La Vida: WTFiddle? Are you being sarcastic or serious here?
February 20th, 2008 at 8:07 am
@Michelle: Disregard whatever he says; there’s no need even to know if he’s being serious or not. His name can be translated to “Who lives the life”.
So, USA 193 will be shot down today, at night as much. Sit tight and see what happens, people.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:12 am
@Yoshi: Oh well <_<
On foxnews (I know I know) they say that bad weather might delay the shootin’ until tomorrow…
February 20th, 2008 at 8:28 am
I’d like to show this video to my sixth grade class, who are very interested in this topic. Like many school districts, mine blocks YouTube. Dr. Plait, have you ever considered using TeacherTube for videos such as this?
February 20th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Hi Phil, where’s your skeptical approach when it comes to dealing with the intentions of the Chinese - or rather of those particular Chinese that launched the ASAT test last year? AFAIK the information back then, the test had not necessarily been authorized fully by the central government and may well have been part of an internal power struggle (with bad consequences for the rest of us).
Also, the mass of USA 193 was clearly given as “5000 pounds”, not “4 tons”, at the DoD briefing.
And finally, a great deal of effort has been put into modelling what’s actually going to happen tonight by independent analysts in industry and amateur astronomy: I have linked to a few particularly detailled ones.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:35 am
But Kepler/Newton tells us that if the velocity get slower the orbital radius gets bigger, not smaller. Why isn’t that true in this case?
February 20th, 2008 at 8:44 am
I’m disappointed to see Phil using the term “blow up” along with all of the other news media. This seems to me to imply use of explosives, which is not what is happening. “Break up” would be more accurate.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:47 am
BA: The news keeps saying things like “now that the shuttle has landed, the navy is clear to launch a missile…”
Why does the shuttle being down matter. Earth orbit is huge.
T
February 20th, 2008 at 8:52 am
On a related note, NASA has decided to bring Atlantis down a bit early, so as not to be in orbit when the ’shootin’ starts.
I just watched the video of the landing, beautiful, and smooth - almost looks like they know what they are doing…
Welcome home Atlantis.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Oh, and to El Vividor:
Thanks for the best chuckle I’ve had in days. I hope you were being facetious with that link, but you never know.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:54 am
@Tankko: Yea, I guess they just thought “better safe than sorry” because they did bring the shuttle down early for it.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:01 am
One nit: you say fuel tanks are big and light, so they tend to survive reentry. But this one has “a ton” of hydrazine in it, so although it may be big, it’s not light, i.e. it has a relatively high mass-to-surface-area ratio. Also, IINM, it’s round, so it has better aerodynamics than, say, a solar array. Thus I would expect it to maintain a fairly high velocity, and acquire some new orifices (at least) on reentry, which should result in the fuel dissipating if not burning up before the tank hits the ground.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Tankko, a hit to the satellite will create debris. That debris will orbit Earth until it slows enough from drag to reenter the atmosphere and burn up. The problem with orbits is that unless they are coplanar with the equator, they have a nasty tendency to cross paths. Path-crossing leads to high velocity impacts, which creates holes in things like Shuttle tiles and Shuttle windows. Ergo, land the Shuttle before filling low orbit with a cloud of debris.
lolife, in a pure orbital motion condition (assume elliptical), the orbiting object has a certain amount of energy that is oscillating between kinetic and potential energy. When the object gets further from the focus, the potential energy increases so the kinetic energy decreases. As the object approaches the focus, the potential energy is traded to kinetic energy, so the velocity increases.
In this situation, there is atmospheric drag. Yes, the atmosphere is very thin by breathing standards, but it is thick enough to cause friction. Friction removes kinetic energy from the orbiting body so when it moves away from the focus, it cannot convert that KE into potential energy, so it cannot go as far out. If the orbit is fairly circular, the high and low points of each orbit aren’t much different from each other, but the effect of drag is the same. Drag reduces the orbital energy, ergo the object falls.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:29 am
lolife –
“But Kepler/Newton tells us that if the velocity get slower the orbital radius gets bigger, not smaller. Why isn’t that true in this case?’
I’m not a physicist, so please forgive me if my explanation is not complete… but from what I understand, Kepler’s laws are exact only for unperturbed orbits, not when the forces are more complex than those between two spherical bodies. Atmospheric drag, in this case, perturbs the orbit of the satellite, slowing it below what it needs to continue its travel perpendicular to the force of gravity, allowing gravity to drag the orbit in closer to the earth… unless thrust is added to the satellite to overcome the drag.
February 20th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Is a missile the best technology we have to throw at this satellite, or are we just trying to use them up since we have some extras? Is this as far as our technology has advance since we landed on the moon?
February 20th, 2008 at 9:39 am
The “Chip” above is not this “Chip”. In fairness to both Chips, why doesn’t the registration software alert us that someone already has the same nom de plume?
February 20th, 2008 at 9:42 am
Good work on this video BA, you never know, keep throwing education out there and some of it might stick.
I think you were a little harsh on the Chinese though; your video is about the US 193 situation yet the Chinese came out of it like evil bad-guys.
Their own satellite destruction exercise seems to have been recklessly irresponsible, but let’s not start a war over it.
Martijn
February 20th, 2008 at 9:45 am
Supposedly the shootdown will take place tonight. Is it a coincidence that it will take place during a lunar eclipse, or is it to take advantage of the darkness so the missile can sneak up on the satellite?
February 20th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Felix, I wasn’t referring to all countries as bad guys. There are, however, enemies of the US or other countries who are not friendly who I am quite sure would love to get their hands on USA 193. If it fell in England or Canada it wouldn’t be a big deal, but if it fell in North Korea or China it would be bad.
Nails67, I had never heard of TeacherTube! I signed up for an account, and uploaded the video. It took a half hour, and then it simply wasn’t there. I tried twice again to upload it, but it keeps sending me back to the sign in page. TeacherTube sounds like a great idea, but I have limited patience for Moebius software!
I may try again later.
In the meantime, I uploaded it to Google Video. Does your school let that past the firewall?
February 20th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Sorry, Timothy, but every insider source I have, including folks who actually worked on USA 193, says it’s the full hydrazine tank. Some of them even feel the “shoot down” isn’t necessary at all. Remember, it was the Bush Administration that gave the go ahead for this, and there’s internal disagreement even there. We’ll just have to disagree, I guess.
And by “conspiracy” I meant the “government is lying to us!” contingent, not what the military is actually are doing. I didn’t think I needed to clarify that around these parts.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:20 am
@Lugosi
Those satellites can be pretty sneaky, themselves. Don’t want the little bugger jumping out of the way.
Perhaps we should use some Illudium PU 36 Explosive Space Modulator to take it out? I for one would love to hear what an Earth-shattering kaboom really sounds like.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Overstroming makes a good point about the differences between our actions and those of the Chinese last year not worth starting a war over…. Especially since they would probably blow up all our satellites in the first five minutes.
Anyway, good video. Took the liberty of posting it (shameless plug alert) on my site.
February 20th, 2008 at 10:35 am
olife said:
“But Kepler/Newton tells us that if the velocity get slower the orbital radius gets bigger, not smaller. Why isn’t that true in this case?”
That’s not quite how it works. It’s not that slowing a satellite makes it orbit at a higher altitude. Rather, it’s that increasing the orbital energy raises the altitude of its apogee, and at that higher altitude it has a slower orbital speed. Adding energy at apogee then raises the perigee. Conversely, losing energy at apogee will drop the perigee. Losing energy perigee will drop the apogee.
So what’s happening here is that the satellite is losing energy due to drag with the upper atmosphere. Losing energy drops the altitude of its perigee ever deeper into the atmosphere. When it gets deep enough it starts to lose energy continuously, progressively dropping both apogee and perigee, altering its orbit to a path which intersects Earth’s surface.
February 20th, 2008 at 11:03 am
@lolife:
You are correct and Mark Martin makes a good point. I thought I’d maybe clarify it a bit. It’s very counterintuitive, but the air drag that is currently “slowing down” USA-193 is, in fact, *speeding it up* slightly! The satellite is in pretty much a circular orbit and the drag is still very, very gentle to the effect it merely lowers the orbital radius. It’s incorrect to say the drag *slows* the spacecraft down, rather it robs it of angular momentum. The kinetic energy increases slowly, but the potential energy drops off more rapidly so overall, the spacecraft is losing altitude and energy, but *not* speed.
This condition will be valid until the satellite drops into more denser fringes of the atmosphere and starts considerably lowering the orbital height on the timescale of one orbit (so the orbit will not be approximated by a circle). It will then reenter within hours anyway and the atmosphere will indeed be *slowing* it down, A LOT.
Food for thought, eh?
February 20th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Unfortunately, the district blocks Google Video as well. It’s too bad about your TeacherTube experience, I’ve wanted to share some of your other stuff with my classes as well, particularly since you became a fellow Coloradoan. I’ve uploaded a number of things to TeacherTube without problems, including my class from last year’s take on Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot (inspired by your Blog post):
http://www.teachertube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=4a66236542d1166b0178
February 20th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
[…] about the US shooting down a spy satellite today. Phil Plait over at Bad Astronomy.com has a great little video about why we are shooting down the […]
February 20th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
BA: “If it fell in … Canada it wouldn’t be a big deal…”
Oh, I don’t know about that. I might want to drag some bits home to my workshop and have a closer look.
February 20th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
very interesting…actually cool,
I have a song for you based on this
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GZJm5f_HLWc
February 20th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
This morning, I heard NPR report that the US was going to destroy a spy satellite that was “hurtling toward Earth…”. I rarely shout at my radio, but this time I just HAD to say “Of COURSE it is! It is just that it is going to stop MISSING soon!
Shades of Douglas Adams.
JC
February 20th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Saw astronaut David Wolf yesterday at a meeting. Someone asked about the shoot-down and he expected it to be no big deal, in contrast with the Chinese shoot-down, which he said was too high and produced lots of debris that will have to travel through most of the working orbits over the next little while.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
JackC, “it is just that it is going to stop missing soon” pure gold, nice one
Unfortunately, most reporters probably wouldn’t have a clue what you are talking about.
February 20th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
You saw David Wolf yesterday? What a coincidence; I saw the David Wolf *bridge* just yesterday. It’s right here in Indianapolis.
February 20th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Real answer, the Navy has been bugging the government to let them test their SM3 anti-missile missile in a real-world application. The canned tests they have been doing up to this point from the U.S.S. Lake Erie and from land bases have been successful, but do not and can not include all the uncontrolled variables present in an actual launch.
This is the perfect opportunity to test this multi-billion dollar anti-missile system to see if it’s going to actually work as advertised when the Navy isn’t holding all the cards. It even has a little bit of plausible deniability to the public with the “safety” issues involved in the hydrazine tanks.
This isn’t so much a statement about our ability to destroy satellites, we have been doing that for almost twenty years, ever since we waxed one back in 89 with a missile launched from a F-15. What it’s about is to show the world that our ability to knock ANYTHING out of space, ie ICBM’s, has matured drastically.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Why do you even bring up the lunar eclipse bit? This can only be coincidental. The Moon will not rise until well after 6pm local time, after the attempt window (~17:30HST) by almost an hour. The Sun will still be well up as local sunset is ~18:30 here on the Big Island, even later further west in the firing zone declared by the FAA NOTAM. When it does rise it will be in the last stages of partial eclipse, hardly dark enough to make a difference.
Otherwise I would try to watch the missile go up. Our lanai looks right out in the direction of that stretch of ocean. Just like watching Vandenburg or White Sands launches from my old home in Tucson. Sit back with some iced tea and a pair of binoculars to watch the show. I may look and see if the missile exhaust plume appears in the sunset, those can hang around a while in the upper atmosphere.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Good point, “not this Chip”.
February 20th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Sky and Telescope says:
“Apparently, DoD computer models have shown that, if left alone, more than half of USA 193’s roughly 5,000-pound mass would survive the atmospheric plunge and reach the ground. In particular, there’s a 20-inch diameter tank containing about a half ton of the highly toxic propellant hydrazine. So the decision was made to break up the satellite if possible.”
OK, let’s do the math.
A 20″ diameter tank can hold about 4189 cubic inches of fluid, assuming 20″ is the inside diameter. That amounts to about 68,642 cubic centimeters. The density of hydrazine is approx. that of water, i.e. 1 gram/cubic centimeter. Thus the tank can hold about 68.642 kg of hydrazine. 68.642 kg = about 151 pounds.
Now if the inside radius (not the inside diameter) of the tank were 20″, the tank could hold about 1208 pounds of water (or hydrazine).
Did I do this correctly?
February 20th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
“Perhaps we should use some Illudium PU 36 Explosive Space Modulator to take it out? I for one would love to hear what an Earth-shattering kaboom really sounds like.”
Todd — yes, wouldn’t it be lovely!
February 20th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
[…] [From Bad Astronomy Blog » Blowing up a spy satellite] […]
February 20th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
CNN’s front page says on their breaking news that the satellite has been shot down successfully!
February 20th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
[…] there’s the U.S. planning to shoot down a defunct satellite (oops–it seems that they’ve done it tonight). I’m not quite sure why our […]
February 20th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
CNN reports success.
February 21st, 2008 at 4:15 am
[…] Word on the street is that USA 193 wasn’t your ordinary Hubble Space Telescope pointed down (indeed, most spy satellites are quite similar to HST in construction, just far more advanced and much more expensive), instead a testbed for new technologies. It’d be quite embarrassing for the US were such a satellite to re-enter over China or Russia, allowing them to access its programming (was it really going to peek on Russian military secrets?) and technology. The risk to public health was acceptable, this thing has happened before, but the risk in giving away spy technology secrets to rival nations was not acceptable. […]
February 21st, 2008 at 10:05 am
Jesse Davis: I don’t think we have a bunch of SM-3 missiles lying around needing something to do. As to why we don’t use more advanced technology to do something like this - why? If we could have broken the thing up with a slingshot, that would have been ok, too.
Besides, the guidance technology necessary to hit a satellite with a missile is not trivial.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:28 pm
News reports say they blew it up to burn up dangerous fuel. The last time I checked it out, oxygen is required for combustion. It seems that now the dangerous fuel and more space debris are the result.
Happy landings!!
February 21st, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Chip too, where’s your math? Can’t verify how you did it without seeing it.
Also, did you assume a spherical tank? Do we know that the tank is spherical, or could it be cylindrical and very long?
Vic Warsaw, “hydrazine” is a generic name for a number of chemical formula. The type used in satellite propulsion systems is often either monomethyl hydrazine or unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine. Either of these fuels is used with an oxizing agent (typically nitrogen tetroxide) that is supplied as part of the fuel system. These reactions are hypergolic, which means they do not require an external ignition source. Mix the chemicals and the reactions ignite automatically. Ergo, a kinetic strike to the satellite rupturing fuel tanks would cause chemical intermixing, and thus an automatic reaction.
Of course, that assumes the fuel is one of these versions. Another version of rocket fuel is hydrazine used as a monopropellant. The typical use is run the fuel over a catalyst bed, which causes it to react into gases that expand quickly. A kinetic strike of that type of system wouldn’t necessarily ignite the hydrazine. However, you are assuming that the hydrazine spread in this manner would reenter the atmosphere and be concentrated enough upon reaching the ground to cause hazards. Rather, the hydrazine would be dispersed to the point of negligibility if it managed to reenter, and it is fairly reactive stuff (thus why it is hazardous), so would react with molecules in the atmosphere and become inert. Thus, the hazard is eliminated.
Yes, there is the creation of debris from the strike. The debris is in low orbit, most will reenter in a couple days, and the remaining bits will be below the operating altitude of any satellites or space stations. That will also fall within a couple months, clearing the path for future launches. So for a few months there will be a slightly higher risk to launching vehicles. Much smaller danger than a full hydrazine tank surviving reentry and crashing to the ground.
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:55 pm
I’m not a big conspiracy theorist, but…
1) Since when is the Bush admin. concerned about the environmental impact of anything?
2) How does highly flammable rocket fuel NOT ignite upon re-entry?
3) Most likely their true motivation is: a) to protect the secrecy of onboard technology, & b) to “flex muscle” Hollywood style.
February 22nd, 2008 at 11:04 pm
TRIVIA: The Satellite, shaped like Patrick Star, is actually manufactured by the same company that made Dr. Evil’s “Big Boy” escape capsule!
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:18 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4W0t_fWJoE&feature=related
spekin of evil
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:21 am
dr.evil=bad astronomer
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:34 am
or more like minime whahahahahha
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Good guys? Bad Guys? Please stop using those sorts of terms as it undermines your credibility.
Besides that, a very informative post.
February 25th, 2008 at 8:28 am
I am speaking with authority…..The Missile Defense Agency (MDA), which developed the SM3, although the US Navy is the shooter, wanted to use this “falling satellite” as a “target of opportunity” for future modifications of the SM3. (As the SM3 is constantly developed, it will allow it to shoot farther into space and be able to be a much better Missile Defense weapon able to shoot at more points in an inbound ICBMs flight) MDA is also constantly fighting with the US Congress over its budget, which has been cut in recent years. The more successful tests, shoot downs, the more money it receives.
February 29th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Hydrazine in the satellite. Prompted a “Wiki-romp”
Hydrazine is toxic and carcinogenic
Simple small molecule, N2H4, hopefully it will rapidly diffuse @ 100 mi. up.
Made from hypochlorite (bleach) and ammonia, - the mixing of which which we all, except for few, know is a big No-No. Those few,less than brilliant, compulsive cleaners usually end up in ER’s throughout the country coughing, short of breath, with watery eyes with rashes and very uncomfortable and possible very ill.
Hydrazine itself as well as methylated hydrazine (unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine, monomethyl hydrazine) is/has been used externsively as liquid propellant (”biopropellant) on Apollo moon lander, orbital maneuvering systems on the the Voyagers as well as the Space Shuttle. Packs quite a wallop, I guess, when mixed with an oxidizer.
It was even used on the Messerschmitts in the 1940’s where the hydrazine was mixed with methanol as one ingredient called, “C-Stoff”. This was added to the “high test peroxide” called, believe it or not “T-Stoff”, with “Z-Stoff” as a catalyst to generate the propulsion. Acording to Wikipedia, the Germans had to ”
“create a complex testing system … to make sure that each fuel was put into the correct tanks of the Messerschmitt Me 163, as an improper loading would cause the aircraft to explode.”
The oxidized hyrdrazine is used as a “blowing agent” in many processes, including automobile airbags.
Hydrazine derivitives have been used as medicines to control blood pressure (hydralazine) or to treat TB (iproniazid). When treating TB with that last agent it was noted that the patients became “inappropriately happy” ?= , and it was marketed briefly for depression in 1958.
A derivitive is produced naturally by the mushroom “Gyromitra esculenta” which has - to me - the very unconfortable common name of the False Morel. I never eat mushrooms because of the rare but potential risk of poisoning. Previous to my “Wiki-romp”, I had thought that morels were distinctive enough in appearance to make an exception, but “False Morels”, !?!, no more.
As far as hydrazine’s uses in space - which sound quite widespread” there may be good news, as the ESA is working on a “greener” propellant. Until then, we face the prospect of additional hydrazine satellites falling to earth with toxic carcinogenic results, although perhaps a little bit cleaner, and the survivors possibly “inappropriately happy”.
farstarz