As expected, the blogosphere is exploding (haha) with news about the SpySat getting hit by a Navy missile last night.
First, here is video of the satellite getting hit:
So what happened? At 10:26 p.m. Eastern time last night, the USS Lake Erie, an Aegis warship, shot a Standard Missile 3 (SM3) at the satellite, and a direct hit was recorded 247 kilometers (150 miles) above the Pacific ocean. It’s not completely clear at this time that the hydrazine tank was hit or disrupted, but it seems likely since a spectral analysis showed hydrazine int he expanding debris cloud. The bulk of the debris will re-enter Earth’s atmosphere over the next two days, but it will take more than a month for the last of it to fall.
The missile was not equipped with an explosive warhead; just the impact is enough to destroy a satellite. Orbital speeds are very high — the missile impacted the satellite at over 10 kilometers per second (6 miles per second). Impact speeds like that generate enough heat from the kinetic energy of motion to do a huge amount of damage. Just ask the dinosaurs.
The DoD has pictures from the launch, which are amazing. This is one of their launch shots.
I would imagine that we’ll be seeing video of the debris coming down very soon; if you happen to see any, let me know in the comments.
February 21st, 2008 at 9:56 am
First!
Wow!, that impact looked impressive. Where is the expanding ring I always see now in every exploding CGI shot?
Is Russia still saying that it was a test to shoot down their sats?
I am sure the CT’s are all over this…
February 21st, 2008 at 10:04 am
@Matt: The CTist are all over everything.
They took down 3 issues at once: Taking the Spysat, test the missile capabilities of shooting down stuff like satellites, and showing off to the rest of the nations: “Hey guys, look what we can do!”.
Oh, well. The Satellite is dead now, so people shouldn’t overreact to this.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:05 am
Niceeee shot. I like it.
Yea, and china says it’s a hazard. HA! By the way, maybe it was a test to shoot down sats, but the need was (while not urgent and absolutely necessary) there. They had a good excuse. Maybe they had other plans- showing off, testing, not wanting their stuff to end somewhere else – but the official excuse was well… excusable for me!
February 21st, 2008 at 10:12 am
The neat thing about such a kinetic impact is that many of the resultant pieces of debris are decelerated to way below orbital velocity and re-enter atmosphere within hours or minutes. The remaining debris is so pulverized that they have a large surface area to mass and therefore interact with the rarified atmosphere much more and so decelerate quickly. Weapons platforms in orbit are SUCH an easy target, I expect they would never be very practical.
Cool video,,,
Gary 7
February 21st, 2008 at 10:28 am
HOAX! This was filmed in a stage out in Nevada!…
…but for real, cool video! It’s pretty amazing that we can accomplish a feat as great as this. I am sure this exercise will come in handy in the future.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:28 am
What I think is cool is that they didn’t have to build a special missile to do this and that the US already has direct surface-to-orbit missiles.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:30 am
Aha! Got them lying… They did not shoot it down.
You don’t shoot satellites “down” like airplanes…
February 21st, 2008 at 10:44 am
Actually, the amazing thing is not the shootdown of an object in low Earth orbit – after all, the Chinese can do it. Probably Russia also and anybody else that want to spend the R@D money.
But, this was with a U.S. Navy Standard missile (Standard is the name, not the category) that is , well, a “standard” weapon on many ships. Plus, this was apparently not a special planned-for-months secret weapon test. Obviously the software was no-doubt heavily changed to fit the mission, but it still shows that their interception technology is FAR in advance of just a few years ago.
Remember when shooting a primitive target like a Scud by a Patriot missile was a big deal? This is several orders of magnitude above that in difficulty.
Konan
February 21st, 2008 at 10:56 am
Last night while watching the lunar eclipse -at 10:29 I noticed a short lived streak of light south east of the moon. I am in South Carolina-could that have had anything to do with the spy satellite? My first impression was that it was a meteor but it was very short, so my second impression was that it was an iridium flare but it would have been too late in the evening for such a sight. Did anyone else see this?
February 21st, 2008 at 11:10 am
Hi Mary,
I was watching the eclipse at the Furman observatory in Greenville, SC about that time and I didn’t notice it and neither did any of the other dozen or so people there.
Maybe you just happened to be looking at the right spot at the right time.
February 21st, 2008 at 11:13 am
Mary -
I’m a good 8 hours north of the area but I also saw a few streaks about, oh, 10 minutes after that. I initially thought of the satellite but, aren’t we on the wrong side of the globe for that?
February 21st, 2008 at 11:17 am
I was curious about the angle of impact… Head on? Side on? From the rear? — not possible.
I found an estimate here…
http://www.agi.com/corporate/mediaCenter/news/spySatellite.cfm
It shows… satellite velocity = 7.8 km/s, SM-3 velocity = 3.0 km/s, and closing velocity = 9.8 km/s.
If a head on shot gives you a closing velocity of 10.8 km/s (7.8+3.0), then this seems pretty close to head on!
February 21st, 2008 at 11:23 am
[...] SpySat stuff By The Bad Astronomer The DoD has pictures from the launch, which are amazing. This is one of their launch shots. I would imagine that we’ll be seeing video of the debris coming down very soon; if you happen to see any, let me know in the comments. Bad Astronomy Blog – http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog [...]
February 21st, 2008 at 11:57 am
There are some sketchy reports of debris sightings in the sky – while someone else still saw one big thing in the satellite’s orbital location after the engagement. We haven’t heard the last about this explosive story …
February 21st, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I believe the SM-3 is specifically designed to be an ABM missile, so isn’t all that, um, standard.
You know what else this means – missile defense, babyyyy!
February 21st, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Konan Says
“Remember when shooting a primitive target like a Scud by a Patriot missile was a big deal? This is several orders of magnitude above that in difficulty.”
I would say it’s the other way round. This was a target on a known and tracked trajectory. there’s very little time to react to an incoming Scud.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:11 pm
You can’t compare this to a Scud. Nobody announces when they fire a Scud, to destroy one you depend on a warning system to detect the missile. Once detected you only have a narrow time frame to put your pants on aim and fire.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I don’t think this is nearly as difficult as shooting a scud out of the sky with a patriot. The satellite is much larger, and the relative velocities are lower (I think).
February 21st, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I realize that USA 193 was shot over the Pacific Ocean-but looking at the orbit the debris I guess could be seen where we are….not sure. See heaven’s above link
http://www.heavens-above.com
February 21st, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Konan pointed out:
Both the Soviet Union and the USA tested ASAT more than 20 years ago. The USA once, in 1985; the Soviets before that (the USA program, apparently cancelled a few years later, was a panic-ish response to the Soviet test(s?)).
The bigger of the two Chinas is simply the third and latest country to have tested an ASAT.
As others have pointed out, it’s not difficult to destroy a satellite. You know, with the help of Newton, exactly where the fecking thing is going to be at any given time. “All” you have to do is put something else in the same place at the same time.
Destroying an incoming missile/warhead (ABM) is very different. You haven’t got much warning, the “best” are built to maneuver (albeit limited), they deploy decoys and other countermeasures, and for the most part you only get one chance.
February 21st, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Coverage of debris sighting at MSNBC:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/21/688746.aspx
February 21st, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Whoa. I was not talking about intercepting high tech ABMs protected by decoys and such. Just the warmed over V2 type junk that Saddam was shooting. Had the software been ready for the missile at the time of the war, the results would have been far better. And, despite other’s comments, the time frame for reacting (for a Scud type) is practically forever. To the system in control, 99% of the time from detection is just waiting for the launch window. The computer probably surfs the ‘Net just to be doing something. Remember, both the JSTARS and the EWACs saw them lift off. The launch control person, just has to remember to flip the ON switch. (Ok, there is a lot more for them to do than that, but the computer(s) do the job, not somebody at a joystick.)
The satellite interception problem is tough in a different way. The target course and schedule is fully known, but the energy requirements are far higher and the calculation times are much shorter in the terminal mode.
There is a good write up on the problem at http://www.egwald.com/optimalcontrol/missileintercept.php
(If you like math).
Konan
February 21st, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Dang… cookies required to view the video. I guess I have to wait until it pops up somewhere cookie free.
February 21st, 2008 at 2:05 pm
[...] Sam Bad Astronomy Blog » SpySat stuff [...]
February 21st, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I’m in Atlanta, GA and was out taking photos of the eclipse and out of the corner of my eye saw something streaking from North to South. Not sure what time it was exactly, but it was 10:30-45-ish. Probably nothing USA 193 related, but it would be neat if it was.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Can someone explain me how did they filmed the missile ascent?
It looks like they fired another missile to go parallel to the one targeting the satellite but with a camera, because it’s ascending too.
Thanks
February 21st, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Ricardo, looks like is was filmed using an IR pod mounted on an observation aircraft. If the aircraft is sufficiently far away with a good zoom, than it can pan up with the rocket with a relatively small arc length. (Thus is looks like it is rising quickly, but instead is just 35,000ft up 15-20miles away)
February 21st, 2008 at 5:15 pm
It didn’t take long for some “bad astronomy” to make it’s rounds, Phil.
Hosts on a hip-hop radio station discussed this event.
They questioned the cost of the task, amongst other things.
But one thing that stood out was a question that I can only hope was made in jest.
They wondered why the Atlantis could’ve have swept by the sattelite and pick it up on the way home.
I can imagine the less informed listeners might take this seriously.
Think you can make a blog entry covering this and other issues in the aftermath of this event?
Oh yes, the vido doesn’t play for me. It turns into one of those “This page cannot be displayed”.
Was the video taken down, or is my computer being stubborn?
February 21st, 2008 at 6:51 pm
I saw what was probably a piece entering last night. Just caught a glimpse.
February 21st, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Did anyone else hear Richard Hoagland on C2C last night. He had he knew for sure this was just to send a message to China and Russia that if they tried to bring back alien artifacts from the moon we would blow them out of the sky. This guy has fallen even deeper off the deep end. lol George Noory really should distance himself from this guy before it’s too late.
February 21st, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Uh, Phil shouldn’t it be _*Ex*_ Spy Sat stuff now?
I’ve got mixed feelings about this & don’t really know whether to congratulate the folks involved for achieving an impressive technological feat with such good execution and accuracy or condemn them for the further militarisation of space and the negative implications this has – diplomatically and for space usage & exploration generally. :-~
I am glad of one thing though – at least unlike in ‘Futurama’ they didn’t miss the real target and blow up Hubble by mistake!
February 21st, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Aren’t there some serious issues here with the international (UN?) law on space – in terms of not militarizing space or using it for aggressive military purposes?
Wasn’t there a space law / treaty that banned this kind of thing?
Ok, they’ve used the excuse of the hydrazine but c’mon who believes that was the _real_ or main reason for this? Not me – & more importantly I don’t think China or Russia either…
I don’t like where this may be leading us all.
February 21st, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Well, all the political issues aside: That explosion looked pretty damn cool. Is there any other footage of explosions in outer space/LEO? I know of the “Starfish Prime” tests from ’63, but it seems that there are hardly any decent photos of it out there.
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 am
[...] SpySat stuff So what happened? At 10:26 pm Eastern time last night, the USS Lake Erie, an Aegis warship, shot a Standard Missile 3 (SM3) at the satellite, and a direct hit was recorded 247 kilometers (150 miles) above the Pacific ocean. … [...]
February 22nd, 2008 at 1:34 am
Thanks JB
February 22nd, 2008 at 10:44 am
Has anyone stepped through the intercept movie and described what’s happening? Or are there frames missing from the online video? I see dots, I see something appearing to split up and a blip go backward around intercept time — but it’s jumpy. I read this is a 3-stage missile, saw one staging I think in the launch video, but what’s puzzling is the sequence just before and at the intercept.
February 22nd, 2008 at 12:15 pm
In Denmark we have a secret weapon against spy satellites: http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-10536941.html
February 22nd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
StevoR,
There are treaties banning the deployment of nuclear weapons in space (or “weapons of mass destruction”, but the only sorts of those that make any sense in space are nuclear) but very little about conventional weapons.
Technically, conventional weapons have been sent into space ever since astronauts starting bringing survival kits with them (most contained a pistol). The Russians experimented with cannons on some of their early stations (the experiments were, for the most part, unsuccessful).
February 24th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
The problem with hitting a Scud, as compared with the satellite, is that the Scud is powered so that the trajectory is unknown and even more significant is that a kinetic impact at low altitude is not at a velocity sufficient to destroy it. Since the Scud guidance is so bad anyway, hitting it simply breaks it up and scatters debris over a wider area and can cause as much damage as if it were not hit.
February 25th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
[...] SpySat stuff – Is it bad that I ignored all news about the US government shooting a missile at the spy satellite until Phil posted about it (as I knew he would)? Sorry, I just don’t trust the information given back on this sort of thing until I see it on the Bad Astronomy blog, and I have even less use for most of the unnecessary drama that surrounded this particular event. Why must the media blow stuff like this out of proportion? I appreciate Phil’s level-headed presentation of the facts. [...]
February 25th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
hitting a scud and a sat are definately different problems. If you can put a sat up, you should be able to hit it.
By the same token, an incoming ballistic missile is yet another problem, but it’s good that the US Navy has demonstrated the ability to hit a satellite.