Slashdot Mirror


Defunct Spy Satellite Falling From Orbit

dnormant, among other readers, sent us word that a US spy satellite has lost power and propulsion and could hit the Earth in late February or March. Government officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the information is classified as secret. None of the coverage speculates on how big the satellite is, but Wikipedia claims that US spy satellites in the KH-11 class, launched up to the mid-90s, are about the size of the Hubble — which is 13 meters long and weighs over 11,000 kg. "The satellite, which no longer can be controlled, could contain hazardous materials, and it is unknown where on the planet it might come down... A senior government official said that lawmakers and other nations are being kept apprised of the situation."

312 comments

  1. The size of the Hubble? by oakbox · · Score: 4, Funny

    Those stories about telling what brand of cigarettes a person was smoking from space seem a lot more plausible.

    --
    Not just answers, the correct questions.
    1. Re:The size of the Hubble? by BWJones · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Physics essentially defines how big an object is that can be resolved from space which is (until recently) about 10cm optimal given the best altitude, angle of the sun and angle of captured image with perfect atmospheric conditions. Currently most satellite in orbit are using standard optics. However, using a newer technology called adaptive optics, images can be obtained that allow for much higher resolution. Some examples of ground based adaptive optics imaging of satellites can be seen here , but space based adaptive optics work is an area of very active interest in a variety of fields from science to intelligence.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    2. Re:The size of the Hubble? by Linuxmonger · · Score: 1

      Silly, you can't smoke cigarettes in space! There isn't enough oxygen.

    3. Re:The size of the Hubble? by jpellino · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall the Hubble could resolve something the size of a dime at 300 miles - sound right?

      --
      "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    4. Re:The size of the Hubble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Possibly mythical story about spys and Hubble...

      Towards the end-of-the-cold-war period, they loosened up some of the classification around recon sats. Comes out that by the time Hubble was launched, the NSA guys had already put up half a dozen Hubble-class instruments, and gone through a lot of the same problems NASA did. Then, they had to sit on their hands and watch Hubble go through the same things. Breaks your heart...

    5. Re:The size of the Hubble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you think Lockheed knew how to build Hubble? ;-)

    6. Re:The size of the Hubble? by mrbcs · · Score: 1

      If they could do that then take a pic of the damn space junk on the moon to end the tinfoil hat theories!

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    7. Re:The size of the Hubble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It cant focus on an object that close.

    8. Re:The size of the Hubble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      erm... composite images makes it actually more useable and/or higher resolution functionally

    9. Re:The size of the Hubble? by shaiay · · Score: 1

      If I understand the GP, the problem is with atmospheric disturbances, turbulence and such, and they are the limiting factor in the resolution -- when looking from the earth to the sky they manifest as the flickering of stars/planets. Adaptive optics correct these disturbances in real time by subtle changes to the lens/mirror http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_optics.
      The hubble doesn't have adaptive optics, so it's resolution is limited for looking at the earth. There is no problem looking at space though because you are above the atmosphere.

    10. Re:The size of the Hubble? by jd_esguerra · · Score: 2, Informative

      Adaptive optics are not that new. (BTW, they are also used in LASIK, I think.)

      The objective is to estimate wavefront distortion along the viewing path caused by "atmosphere." These distortions are compensated for by a deformable mirror (and usually a tip-tilt mirror). But I do not believe that you can do better than what is predicted assuming diffraction limited optics... I will have to pull out my Tyson book to check. (Or rather, someone else can...)

      There are algorithms that use blind deconvolution to "back out" a less blurry image, but (I think) it is a statistical method requiring several frames and an estimation of the point spread function of the system. It does not make the optical system any better by changing its spot size. An adaptive optics system effectively moves the PSF closer to the diffraction limited size, but not smaller.

      Really cool technologies, which I have very limited knowledge of. If AO has strong research support, please let us know. Because I have wanted to work with such systems for a while now...

    11. Re:The size of the Hubble? by Jarik_Tentsu · · Score: 1

      This is where China could lend a hand.

    12. Re:The size of the Hubble? by nsaspook · · Score: 1

      How do you think Lockheed knew how to build Hubble? ;-) Our old pal Perkin-Elmer built the optics. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19910003124_1991003124.pdf
      --
      In GOD we trust, all others we monitor.
    13. Re:The size of the Hubble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was also a recent announcement about using atmospheric disturbances to get a better look at stars. Take a couple dozen pictures and they won't all be the same. A few will actually be quite good just by catching the atmospheric ripples at just the right time. Combined with stereoscopic views, and spy sats may have been doing that for years, even if they didn't realize it.

    14. Re:The size of the Hubble? by tomz16 · · Score: 1

      Adaptive optics are not that new. (BTW, they are also used in LASIK, I think.)

      As far as optics goes, they are relatively brand spankin new (especially the MEMS based solutions). To my knowledge no space-qualified AO systems exist. It's not out of the realm of possibility that the military has developed this tech in the past decade or so, but I really really doubt it. There are several REALLY tough technical problems with integrating these into a space based system... but much more importantly, they offer very little benefit for the effort in space-based surveillance imaging. Aberrations far from the primary really just don't bother image quality that much. Unlike a ground telescope, AO would offer virtually no benefit for a well designed surveillance satellite. The countless billions of dollars in R&D necessary to get a space-based AO system working would be much better spent on things like the mechanical engineering, mirror manufacturing, metrology, etc. etc. You'd get WAY more image quality for the dollar. Anyone advising the military on this topic would have certainly known this.

      On the other hand, I'd be willing to bet a nice chunk of money that military sats have used active optics with deployable primaries (think JWST-like) for many years.

      The two areas where AO has made a HUGE difference is in retinal imaging, and ground-based astronomy. AFAIK, the control used in current LASIK is a simple tip-tilt mirror. I guess one could technically call it AO, but I would probably refer to it as a realtime LOS correction. It's MUCH easier in every aspect than full AO.

      The objective is to estimate wavefront distortion along the viewing path caused by "atmosphere." These distortions are compensated for by a deformable mirror (and usually a tip-tilt mirror).

      Yup, the idea is to measure the wavefront distortion along something close to the viewing path, and then apply that shape to a deformable mirror.

      But I do not believe that you can do better than what is predicted assuming diffraction limited optics... I will have to pull out my Tyson book to check.

      Don't bother, it's not true.. You can't beat the diffraction limit with adaptive optics alone.

      There are algorithms that use blind deconvolution to "back out" a less blurry image, but (I think) it is a statistical method requiring several frames and an estimation of the point spread function of the system.

      Deconvolution is a very tricky problem. Blind deconvolution is even trickier, and works very poorly in my (limited) experience. (btw. you can start most blind deconvolution algorithms with a random array of numbers as an estimate for the PSF, and they'll still get somewhere... this is why it's called blind deconvolution. Ideally, no prior estimate for the PSF or object is required)

      Anyway, an integral part of any current AO system is a wavefront sensor (usually a shack-hartmann or pyramid, primarily depending on the nationality of your chief sponsors). If you know the wavefront, you don't have to estimate the PSF. Besides, if you have an AO system, you definitely want to use the AO to correct the wavefront before taking your image. Even if you knew the PSF perfectly, you would never be able to deconvolve the image after the fact as well as you could correct it with AO. This fundamentally has to do with the information lost by passing the image through a system with a suppressed MTF (especially when you allow for noise).

      An adaptive optics system effectively moves the PSF closer to the diffraction limited size, but not smaller.

      Yup, which is why you can't beat the diffraction limit with AO. If you had a perfect wavefront sensor, wavefront reconstructor, control theory, perfect adaptive mirror with infinite degrees of freedom/bandwidth, etc. etc. you would be able to perfectly correct the system, thereby making it diffraction limited... never any better.

      If AO has strong resea

  2. why do we care by cyphercell · · Score: 1

    is this going to contribute to space junk, hit my house, or just burn up on the way in?

    --
    Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    1. Re:why do we care by knitterb · · Score: 1

      I was going to ask the same question. Why would this not burn up as it hit and passed through the atmosphere just like anything else would. If a rock would burn up on reentry, why not a hunk of metal?

      --
      -bk
    2. Re:why do we care by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      After reading the article, I guess a good chunk of it will pass through, but historically these things tend to land in the ocean. There also might be some toxic materials on there but they can't comment. I think it's more about letting people know before it happens rather than letting people find out they didn't tell anyone.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    3. Re:why do we care by Deadstick · · Score: 5, Informative
      historically these things tend to land in the ocean

      Hardly surprising, since "in the ocean" means 80% of the Earth's surface...

      To put this in perspective, consider that over thirty thousand meteorites have been found on the ground. There's one in Oregon that weighs sixteen tons; the rate of impacts, found and unfound, has been estimated at 500 per day worldwide.

      Know anybody who's been hit?

      Actually, a few people -- a very few -- have. The surface of the Earth is a big place, and not a very big fraction of it is covered by people.

      rj

    4. Re:why do we care by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      that was essentially the source of my flippant attitude without reading the article, though some AC said there was someone hit by Sky-Lab, according to the article that would have been in australia in 1979 http://www.google.com/search?&q=skylab+australia+1979+deaths/, I'm reading right now, but found no short descriptions in the top ten that matched what I was looking for. I do think compensation for this sort of thing is in order.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    5. Re:why do we care by PachmanP · · Score: 2, Informative

      If a rock would burn up on reentry, why not a hunk of metal?
      It's a function of things like the heat of ablation, suface area and mass relationships, and where in the spacecraft the object begins.
      Rocks like to break up into lots of little things with reasonable heating areas and masses; satellites not so much. Ti bolts don't like to go because of low heating area and high ablation temps. Ti Fuel tanks don't because they again don't ablate, have high area to low mass which makes it less likely to go because they come down slower, and the rest of the sat has to go before it starts to heat. The mirrors and lenses are similar.
      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    6. Re:why do we care by mqduck · · Score: 1

      If a rock would burn up on reentry, why not a hunk of metal? What do the effects of our reentering Iraq in 2004 have to do with a satellite falling from orbit?
      --
      Property is theft.
    7. Re:why do we care by VValdo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Know anybody who's been hit?

      Not personally, but the BBC does.

      W

      --
      -------------------
      This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    8. Re:why do we care by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      The first link on my search returned TIME magazine's article from skylab a good read.

      At the Houston center, Skylab's final orbit (No. 34,981) looked ideal to Harlan, since it was over the ocean and sparsely populated areas.

      I suppose this being a spy satellite the "final orbit" is likely to be over populated areas and a maybe a bit less likely to land in the ocean, unless they were primarily spying on boats.

      Anyways, it's a good read and puts aside several of my original optimisms.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    9. Re:why do we care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spy satellites are very commonly in polar orbit so they can cover as much ground as possible, so it'd be pretty random. Doesn't matter much though, if it isn't in geo-stationary orbit (which it isn't if it falls down) then it'd spin the earth pretty often anyways, and since the earth spins it would pretty much end up anywhere

    10. Re:why do we care by piltdownman84 · · Score: 1

      I have no idea about meteorites, but on a somewhat related note a small piece, of that they believed to be, an airplane smashed through my parents sunroom about ten years back. They live about 20 minutes from a pretty major airport, and planes fly over their home all the time. The roof was almost flat and made of pretty strong polycarbonate, so it was unlikely that the small piece of metal would have smashed the panel and the floor tiles without alot of speed, and hence why they believed it came from a plane. I think they kept the piece, so I'll have to have a look next time I'm over, in the off chance it came from some junk satellite.

    11. Re:why do we care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a rock would burn up on reentry
      I suspect most of the rocks flying into the Earth's atmosphere has not been here before.
    12. Re:why do we care by WK2 · · Score: 1

      ... though some AC said there was someone hit by Sky-Lab ... I do think compensation for this sort of thing is in order.

      Compensation? Such as court-ordered re-incarnation?

      --
      Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    13. Re:why do we care by pommiekiwifruit · · Score: 2, Informative

      IIRC the skylab death in australia was from someone who had a heart attack after dreaming they were being hit by it!

    14. Re:why do we care by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      In the 1970s-80s there was a rash of "blue ice bombs". The toilet tank on an airplane has a big hose connector that the lowest-paid guy on the ramp crew uses to empty it; a big valve with a rubber seal closes the connector off when not in use. Trouble is, people drop things in the crapper. Coins, keys, rings, OJ's knife...and some of them damage the seal on the way out. Then the airplane takes off again, and since it's pressurized up to an 8 psi differential, the toilet water -- saturated with methylene blue, an effective disinfectant and also a powerful blue dye -- leaks out. Of course it immediately hits very cold air, and freezes on the spot, making an iceball that can get as big as a basketball.

      Then the airplane lets down into warm air, the ice loosens, and there's a good chance somebody on the final approach path will wind up with a ball of blue frozen shit embedded in their floor.

      The FAA and the airlines worked out some design changes and an inspection routine that cut way down on this stuff, but it can still happen. Here's some advice you can take to the bank, literally: If one hits your property, note the precise time, get a baggie, and get that sucker in a freezer. Then wash up and call the FAA, not the media. There's a tidy settlement check waiting for you, and the less public notice the incident gets, the more you can negotiate.

      rj

  3. physics problem by Heem · · Score: 5, Funny

    OK, someone do the math:

      How thick of a tinfoil hat would I have to put on top of my house to protect it from a 12-ton satellite?

    --
    Don't Tread on Me
    1. Re:physics problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      silly rabbit

      physicists can't do math!

    2. Re:physics problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure they can, as long as they let a broad enough base premise be assumed true for the problems frame of reference!

    3. Re:physics problem by selex · · Score: 1
      My question now is why are we using tinfoil hats? I was unaware of lead foil (until this weeks Mythbusters), granted its poisonous, but a little plastic or paper under that and it should be fine. Lead being very dense would prevent more waves from cooking my brain, or the government finding out the deadly secret to ice cream soup.

      Selex

    4. Re:physics problem by st1d · · Score: 2, Funny

      We could have the best of both worlds, and buy a ton of "generic brand" tinfoil at the store. Made in China, it likely contains enough lead in a single sheet to protect you from any radiological nasties that satellite might spew. :)

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    5. Re:physics problem by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      12 tons
          17,000 mph

          [breaking out the "really big" calculator]

          Ummm.

          REALLY thick.

          I suggest at least a mile, and don't be under it when it hits. :)

          Do you have a good supplier for tin foil?

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    6. Re:physics problem by piltdownman84 · · Score: 1

      Forget tinfoil to save your house, what you need is insurance. If its too expensive just call ladbrokes or any other betting house and see what odds they will give you for your house getting hit.

    7. Re:physics problem by Heem · · Score: 1

      i bet somewhere in my insurance policy, destruction by falling satellite is excluded.

      --
      Don't Tread on Me
    8. Re:physics problem by Eudial · · Score: 1

      How thick of a tinfoil hat would I have to put on top of my house to protect it from a 12-ton satellite?


      Is that an African or European 12 ton satellite?
      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    9. Re:physics problem by Albert+Sandberg · · Score: 1

      boom

    10. Re:physics problem by MadCatMk2 · · Score: 1

      Do you think that mathematicians can?

  4. Jesus... by SpectreBlofeld · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No joke. I had no idea they were that massive.

    Do they use solar panels for power? Seems to me that they'd want to keep as low a profile as possible, which would eliminate the large profile created by solar panels.

    Which leaves radioisotope thermoelectric generation as the power source - which would mean there's plutonium (or another highly radioactive material) in these things.

    Yikes...

    1. Re:Jesus... by funwithBSD · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You don't need anything that exotic, the thruster fuel, hydrazine, is dangerous enough:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    2. Re:Jesus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why keep a so-called "low profile"? What does that even mean for an object in a mathematically defined movement, made of metal, against the (essentially) empty radar background of space?

      It's not as if it's hard for the Russians/Chinese/etc to figure out where our satellites are. That's why the SR-71 was considered so valuable for so long - you didn't know days in advance when one was going to show up.

    3. Re:Jesus... by Deadstick · · Score: 1, Redundant
      Seems to me that they'd want to keep as low a profile as possible, which would eliminate the large profile

      Ummm, why? Are you under the impression an artificial satellite can hide from radars and telescopes?

      rj

    4. Re:Jesus... by Tailsfan · · Score: 1

      MAybe that is the "hazardous material"

    5. Re:Jesus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Posting as AC for NDA reasons.

      It's common knowledge in NASA that lots of US satellites are nuclear powered. It's actually not that dangerous, if it blows in re-entry it will go over a big enough area to just fade into the background radiation, and if it comes down in one piece they can go gather it up. However, people are so worried about such things they would never admit it. This "may contain dangerous materials" is the closest you'll ever get to an admission.

    6. Re:Jesus... by no-body · · Score: 1

      Oh, don't worry - there is only some beryllium which evaporates and it's much lighter than the "Columbia space shuttle crash in 2003" - 10 times less trash.
      Nevertheless, apparently, those were hydrazine propellant driven satellites.
      Interesting site:
      http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/kh-11.htm

    7. Re:Jesus... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I think what he is saying is that they cannot hide. Or hide forever. The enemy could plot courses and trajectories and hide anything really sensative when the satellite passed over. The SR71 on the other hand, it just showed up with little notice.

    8. Re:Jesus... by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Which is presumably what this thing has run out of...

    9. Re:Jesus... by delvsional · · Score: 1

      What? You never watched GI Jane? I believe they were going in after 12 lbs of weapons grade naquadah uh, I mean uranium.

      --
      Oh Crap, I'm an optimist.....
    10. Re:Jesus... by GumphMaster · · Score: 1

      It's actually not that dangerous, if it blows in re-entry it will go over a big enough area to just fade into the background radiation, and if it comes down in one piece they can go gather it up.

      Like they gathered up the radioisotope thermal generator from Apollo 13's Aquarius lunar lander (currently in the Tonga Trench)? Or perhaps like the Russion Mars 96 probes RTGs that are somewhere in Chile.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    11. Re:Jesus... by SueAnnSueAnn · · Score: 0

      Yah big puppy...
      I am going to grab it and snatch the camera and transponder and communications equipment when it lands.

      Some of a friend's handywork in that.

    12. Re:Jesus... by kcbanner · · Score: 3, Funny

      Naw, its flux capacitor probably just ran dry. Couldn't sustain 88mph any longer :/

      --
      Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
    13. Re:Jesus... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that they'd want to keep as low a profile as possible, which would eliminate the large profile created by solar panels.
      Both "them" and "us" know how many and where in the sky these things are. They are hard to hide. Now, details of exactly what quality of intel they provide, that would be the Double Super Secret Top Secret on both sides.
      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    14. Re:Jesus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Soviet Union's Cosmos 954 dropped a large amount of radioactive junk onto northern Canada back in 1978. This was an actual reactor, not just an RTG.

    15. Re:Jesus... by RaySnake · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your post contains the sort of interesting truths and half-truths from which conspiracy theories grow. I'll try to add to the true parts while keeping things interesting. The US does currently have several nuclear powered space vehicles, all of them deep space missions and all of the powered by RTGs. (Voyager I/II, Poineer I/II, Cassini, New Horizon, etc) RTGs are different from reactors in that they are passive devices relying on spontaneous isotopic decay and therefore have a fairly constant (but decreasing) power output. Reactors meanwhile have a feedback loop controlling the energy and number of neutrons available to initiate fission and so have variable power output. The reasons RTGs are used for deep space vehicles are that they're economical and simple. Because of the pesky inverse square law for illumination intensity solar panels start becoming more expensive than RTGs somewhere around the asteroid belt. Relative to fast reactors like SNAP-10 and the Russian TOPAZ RTGs are child's play and dead safe. RTGs are also much less harmful in the case of a launch accident since the plutonium oxide fuel is an alpha emitter and is encased in metal anyway. The US has only launched one satellites a nuclear reactor, SNAP-10A which was expensive and only lasted 43 days. Since it was unreliable in addition to being horrendously expensive the US stopped pursuing reactors in space since since other technologies were better fits. Fortunately for us the Russians probably thought we turned it into a black program and started furiously testing nuclear reactors on satellites. Consequently the Russians have the most experience with reactors in space since they have launched over 30. If we ever need a space craft with over 100KW of power where reactors become cost effective I'm sure we'll be looking at their designs.

    16. Re:Jesus... by Doppler00 · · Score: 0

      The hazardousness of beryllium is usually way over stated. Only about 10% of the population even has a reaction to it and only if it's in a dust form above a certain concentration. If it's a spy satellite, I would be more worried if they were using a nuclear source to power the thing since the material could be dense enough to possibly return in one piece.

    17. Re:Jesus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Your post contains the sort of interesting truths and half-truths from which conspiracy theories grow. I'll try to add to the true parts while keeping things interesting. The US does currently have several nuclear powered space vehicles, all of them deep space missions and all of the powered by RTGs. (Voyager I/II, Poineer I/II, Cassini, New Horizon, etc)

      RTGs are different from reactors in that they are passive devices relying on spontaneous isotopic decay and therefore have a fairly constant (but decreasing) power output. Reactors meanwhile have a feedback loop controlling the energy and number of neutrons available to initiate fission and so have variable power output.

      The reasons RTGs are used for deep space vehicles are that they're economical and simple. Because of the pesky inverse square law for illumination intensity solar panels start becoming more expensive than RTGs somewhere around the asteroid belt. Relative to fast reactors like SNAP-10 and the Russian TOPAZ RTGs are child's play and dead safe. RTGs are also much less harmful in the case of a launch accident since the plutonium oxide fuel is an alpha emitter and is encased in metal anyway.

      The US has only launched one satellites a nuclear reactor, SNAP-10A which was expensive and only lasted 43 days. Since it was unreliable in addition to being horrendously expensive the US stopped pursuing reactors in space since since other technologies were better fits. Fortunately for us the Russians probably thought we turned it into a black program and started furiously testing nuclear reactors on satellites. Consequently the Russians have the most experience with reactors in space since they have launched over 30. If we ever need a space craft with over 100KW of power where reactors become cost effective I'm sure we'll be looking at their designs.

      (Now using the preview button)

    18. Re:Jesus... by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      Like they gathered up the radioisotope thermal generator from Apollo 13's Aquarius lunar lander (currently in the Tonga Trench)?

      Yeah, I hear leaving it at 35,700 feet below the sea really drove down the property values there ;)

      Not that I'm completely dismissive of your point... but seeing as how it hasn't released any of it's 3.9kg of plutonium and it's 35,700 feet below the surface, I don't think it's a great threat.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    19. Re:Jesus... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Somebody will call me an idiot for considering the laws of optics instead of pure scifi as on other threads - but due to having a highly elliptical orbit the things spend some time grazing the atmosphere so air resistance is actually a factor. Big solar panels would slow it down and it would deorbit more quickly and require more fuel to stay up there. As a result they have a nuclear power source, most likely similar to that on the soviet Kosmos series that performed the same role.

      The highly ellipical orbit is so that they can get close to take high resolution images. The theoretical resolving power of a perfect lens at a given wavelength is determined by distance - so it does not matter how good the optics are the closer you get the better the image you can get.

    20. Re:Jesus... by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Interesting


          I'll pass this on from a trustworthy source.

          They do that. :)

          Some facilities shut down entirely, just to not be spotted by the satellite on it's regular orbits.

          That's also why you'll never see any of the cool gear on the satellite photos over Area 51. They stick it away somewhere safe when they know an observation satellite is coming.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    21. Re:Jesus... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...hydrazine, is dangerous enough

      That reminds me of Lance missile crew training. Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine was the fuel and inhibited red fuming nitric acid was the oxidizer.

      Both are hazardous and there was a leak indicator on the missile containter. IIRC half turned one color for UDMH and the other half turned another color for IRFNA. This usually prompted a question from trainees about what would happen if both were leaking :-D

    22. Re:Jesus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right about the last bit; however, satellites (Even spy satellites with various optical sensors) are typically placed in orbits where atmospheric drag isn't an issue for the sole purpose of staying in orbit and giving the government a fairly significant ROI. In fact, if you wanted to, you could place a satellite with the same lens configuration as the Hubble in the geosynchronous belt (about 22,000 miles out) to keep it stationary over a single spot the entire time and get pretty decent resolution. Also, spy satellites don't need to be restricted to collecting optical imagery in order to spy.

    23. Re:Jesus... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      You have a point, but as long as you've got fuel on board (and the fact that this thing doesn't anymore is notable) you can at least move its orbit around so you're not in the exact same space they'd be looking for you next time. Then, you might just be able to hide a little better for a while if you don't have as big a profile.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    24. Re:Jesus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't realize that was something they try to keep quiet. Internally, they talk about them like they'd talk about a car battery. Are you saying there's a concerted effort not to mention that, for example, the New Horizon mission is powered by a radioisotope generator?

      Better tell Space Daily to hush up!

      http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/LockMart_Thermoelectric_Generator_Powers_NASA_Pluto_New_Horizons_Probe.html

    25. Re:Jesus... by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Well, with that reasoning there must not be any radioactivity either, seeing how it ran out of power. Problem solved!

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    26. Re:Jesus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds a lot like "you may need to reboot" when applying a Microsoft patch. In other words, the smart money is on plenty of very dangerous materials.

    27. Re:Jesus... by st1d · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >>Somebody will call me an idiot for considering the laws of optics instead of pure scifi as on other threads - but due to having a highly elliptical orbit the things spend some time grazing the atmosphere so air resistance is actually a factor. Big solar panels would slow it down and it would deorbit more quickly and require more fuel to stay up there.

      Idiot. :) True though.

      >>As a result they have a nuclear power source, most likely similar to that on the soviet Kosmos series that performed the same role.

      Not really. The solar panels would be blocked by the earth a significant amount of time each orbit, which would require more batteries charging faster to keep the whole mess from slowly bleeding power. That means the solar panes would have to be significantly larger the closer you orbited. Design and weight issues probably make nuclear a better option. Also, last thing you want is to lose your eyes in the sky during an engagement because some piece of space junk just tore a hole through your panels. Nuclear systems can be protected better, which is also far more important the closer you are to the planet, as years of space exploration debris make orbiting objects virtual pincushions.

      >>The highly ellipical orbit is so that they can get close to take high resolution images.

      It's to save fuel. You can get/stay close, but you're going to be burning through fuel at an enormous rate. On the other hand, an elliptical orbit allows you to move the focal point of your trajectory outside where most people would assume it was. This allows you to follow/lag the planet as it orbits the sun, using earth's gravity well to propel your spacecraft. Basically, you keep aiming for where the planet will be, using the earth's mass to slingshot you around each time as both objects arrive and "pass" each other.

      >>The theoretical resolving power of a perfect lens at a given wavelength is determined by distance - so it does not matter how good the optics are the closer you get the better the image you can get.

      You've obviously never used a pair of high power binoculars inside. You're right about the lens, but most of these "lenses" aren't wavelength specific, if any are. They're far more likely to cover a fairly large range of wavelengths, even if they're marketed as just infrared, ultraviolet, etc. In those cases, the theoretical perfects are meaningless. Most of these aren't single lens systems anyway, even the older ones used multiple and movable lensing systems, as flexibility is often the real design goal, far above perfection. You could design a lens that can count the hairs on your head, but if it only has the ability to view that resolution, you're pretty much hosed for 99% of your missions. Same for single use systems, such as optical or wavelength-specific viewers.

      And getting close isn't always a good idea. The recent Chinese gaming is a good example. If close was a panacea, they'd be designing these things to rip through the atmosphere at incredible speeds, essentially doing a kind of reentry every so often. If their orbits were designed correctly they wouldn't necessarily even burn that much fuel, they'd just take forever to complete each orbit as they restored momentum. Would be a little unnerving to see fireballs tear through the sky every couple minutes, but like everything else, I suppose we'd even adapt to the sonic booms.

      Nope, the whole idea of spy satellites is stealth. Everyone knows they're up there, but they're used with the idea that you'll either forget about them, assume they're pointed elsewhere, or screw up somehow. Having them flash through the sky on a regular basis would only enhance the measures you'd take to cover your tracks, and no resolution can correct for that.

      Oh, and most of them are more geared towards communications intercepts anyway, picking up handhelds and other local command communication devices. Photos are good, but knowing what your enemy is going to do next is much more fun. :)

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    28. Re:Jesus... by SpleenVenter · · Score: 1

      ...but as long as you've got fuel on board (and the fact that this thing doesn't anymore is notable) you can at least move its orbit around so you're not in the exact same space they'd be looking for you next time

      The amount of fuel carried aboard a satellite in low-Earth orbit allows for maintenance of orbit altitude and little else. The delta-V (and therefore the amount of fuel) required to change orbital inclination is significant. The notion that ground operators "move a satellite around it its orbit" just doesn't work.

    29. Re:Jesus... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      It's actually not that dangerous, if it blows in re-entry it will go over a big enough area to just fade into the background radiation, and if it comes down in one piece they can go gather it up.
      What if it comes down like Columbia, with various components falling in people's back gardens?
    30. Re:Jesus... by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

      That is why we have multiple satellites on the same path. The coverage blackout of an area is short enough to not make it impossible to avoid detection on large projects and operations.

    31. Re:Jesus... by dbIII · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The theoretical resolving power of a perfect lens at a given wavelength is determined by distance

      ...

      You've obviously never used a pair of high power binoculars inside

      Looks like I aimed too high :(

      but most of these "lenses" aren't wavelength specific

      I'm not sure where that came from - it looks like there is no common ground here at all :(

      My point, which was horribly missed, is that the best possible optics produce better results when you get closer. For this reason the satellites come down low. They cannot survive for long periods in a low circular orbit (drag) but they can survive for many years if the spend most of the time at higher altitudes - hence the highly elliptical orbit and the limited time they experience drag. They cannot use large solar panels due to the extra drag even the very low air density at the low point of the orbit (similar to but not as extreme as the "essentially doing a kind of reentry every so often" since they have the speed but are not going through anything of high desisty - density drops off dramatcily with altitude so you can get a lot lower than LEO without burning up).

      I am of course not talking about satellite that does everything but instead to optical observation satellites (telescopes as big as they can be) which as a type have been around for decades and for which there is a reasonable amount of public information due to all the press the Kosmos series received in the west.

    32. Re:Jesus... by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Wait? So all the black helicopters are planted?

      I feel robbed. :(

    33. Re:Jesus... by SpleenVenter · · Score: 1

      Besides, Chthulu was quite pleased with the extra spicy snack.

    34. Re:Jesus... by JWSmythe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Those are the little things they don't care if people see. :)

          Consider the "Blackstar" project, which may or may not be disinformation. They had to build what was seen somewhere, and they needed a big runway to take off from. It never shows up.

          I'm sure they hide plenty of projects out there, again, they just leave normal stuff out for folks to see. That's good security. Most people will be satisfied that they've seen "it all", so fewer questions will be drawn.

          It's not just all black helicopters and various metal buildings...

      http://maps.google.com/maps?q=37.628036,+-116.848060&t=k&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=37.095961,-116.093146&spn=0.002614,0.004511&z=18&iwloc=addr&om=0

          Sometimes you just have to go "hmmmm" Was this a decoy, or is it really something.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    35. Re:Jesus... by SpleenVenter · · Score: 1

      "Atmospheric drag" is in fact an issue for *all* LEO satellites -- and every optical earth-imaging satellite spends some or all of its orbit "in the soup".

      In fact, if you wanted to, you could place a satellite with the same lens configuration as the Hubble in the geosynchronous belt (about 22,000 miles out) to keep it stationary over a single spot the entire time and get pretty decent resolution.

      Seems to me that the linear resolution from roughly 35,000 km with Hubble's 2.4m mirror is going to be about 25 feet -- that is, a single pixel will have a resolution (at nadir, if that means anything from geosynch) of only about 25 feet. Is that in the range you condsider "decent"?

      The choice of orbital inclination and altitudes has much more to do with the desired resolution for a particular sensor, the revisit characteristics you want, and the shadows you want the sun angle to generate.

    36. Re:Jesus... by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      Wow, you have that kind of security clearance and don't know how to post as anonymous coward?

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    37. Re:Jesus... by turgid · · Score: 1

      Crikey, a pyramid (albeit a triangular one). That settles it, then. It must be a runway for flying saucers from Vega :-)

    38. Re:Jesus... by seyyah · · Score: 1

      It's common knowledge in NASA that lots of US satellites are nuclear powered. It's actually not that dangerous, if it blows in re-entry it will go over a big enough area to just fade into the background radiation, and if it comes down in one piece they can go gather it up. However, people are so worried about such things they would never admit it. This "may contain dangerous materials" is the closest you'll ever get to an admission.
      What if they blow up close to the earth's surface? Could that be dangerous? (Serious question)
    39. Re:Jesus... by Skrynkelberg · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because nuclear waste products have never been harmful...

    40. Re:Jesus... by bcmm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The maps link you posted is about 20 miles away from Area 51.

      Still interesting though. It's not far from some pretty bloody big craters (look east). Maybe it was built before the stuff around it, as some kind of strange nuclear-blast proof thing to watch the tests from?

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    41. Re:Jesus... by somersault · · Score: 1

      That was, in fact, his point. He's pointing out that there will be traces of hydrazine aboard too

      --
      which is totally what she said
    42. Re:Jesus... by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking that if it can blow up high enough to be harmless, and hit the ground in one piece ... there's room for a middle road. Blow up in not-so-high altitude, or be weak enough to be in one piece only until it hits the ground. Sounds possible? Would you say, even risky?

    43. Re:Jesus... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      It's common knowledge in NASA that lots of US satellites are nuclear powered.

      Well, no. The US actively avoids nuclear power unless absolutely because the great expense involved. We currently have great difficulty manufacturing them, which impacted the recent New Horizons probe.
       
       

      It's actually not that dangerous, if it blows in re-entry it will go over a big enough area to just fade into the background radiation, and if it comes down in one piece they can go gather it up.

      Well, no. US spaceborne nuclear power sources are expressley designed to re-enter intact, even in the worst possible case.
       
       

      However, people are so worried about such things they would never admit it. This "may contain dangerous materials" is the closest you'll ever get to an admission.

      Well, no. The fuels used in the manuevering systems are very nasty, and I bet the electrolytes in the batteries are too. I bet a goodly portion of the structure is beryllium - the vapors of which are toxic and the handling of which can be dangerous as well.
    44. Re:Jesus... by Sandb · · Score: 1

      RTG (Radioisotope thermoelectric generator)'s provide electricity, not thrust.

      And a RTG delivers power by harnessing the heat generated by the decay of the plutonium. Typically such an RTG is able to produce usable amounts of energy for around 100 years, but the plutonium of the RTG, if released, say on impact or burning up in the stratosphere, would remain harmfull for around 300 years.

      So even if "all used up" the plutonium is still present in the satellite and presents a serious environmental risk.

    45. Re:Jesus... by icsx · · Score: 1

      I'll pass this on from a trustworthy source.

      FOX news?

    46. Re:Jesus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turn in your nerd card. The DeLorean has ALWAYS run on gasoline, the rest only powered the time travel equipment.

    47. Re:Jesus... by briancnorton · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, The US hasn't launched an RTG generator powered spacecraft since the 70's. Even it that's what it had, an RTG can certainly survive reentry, and would probably remain totally intact after impact. (it'd be a big solid ball of plutonium and lead) I'm not sure what you mean by "low profile" but space is pretty gigantic, and they could put out awfully big solar panels and never be seen by anybody.

      --

      People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.

    48. Re:Jesus... by funwithBSD · · Score: 2, Informative

      Exactly. Or more importantly, don't make assumptions. The article did not say it ran out of fuel, it said it lost power and thrust.

        It may have lost power and thrust from hardware/software failure, not because it ran out of something. Not that spooks are the brightest people, but I would think if they were down to the last bit of fuel they would use it to de-orbit intentionally.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    49. Re:Jesus... by CyberSnyder · · Score: 1

      Lance missiles?? I went through Pershing training. We used to make fun of Lance missiles and their "half erection". Heh.

    50. Re:Jesus... by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      That does seem to be the logical reason for the SR-71's retirement. To build a plane that flies higher, faster, etc. basically puts the spy vehicle close to being in orbit as well. It's then more likely that "the powers that be" would just build more spy satellites to blanket an area instead of building some exotic plane to do the job. I think that would make the most political (no one to get captured) and monetary sense (I bet exotic spy planes cost more than satellites.). There might be a possible exception to this in the form of a ROV (no pilot to be used for propoganda purposes).

    51. Re:Jesus... by qvatch · · Score: 0

      Satelites have several thrusters, some may run out of fuel earlier than others, and while it is possible to run without one or two, it does eventually become a problem.

    52. Re:Jesus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTGs are also much less harmful in the case of a launch accident since the plutonium oxide fuel is an alpha emitter and is encased in metal anyway. Ah, um, the point is that AFTER said "launch accident", or any other anomaly which results in ground impact, the plutonium oxide could quite possibly become located OUTSIDE of its metal case. K?
    53. Re:Jesus... by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      My father used to tell me stories related to him by my grandfather about some of the disinformation operations performed in WWII. He mentioned that at one point the Allies had gotten a small group of jeeps to drive up and down the same road all day to make it look to the Germans as if a huge number of troops were massing in a single area. But the point is that we've been creating red herrings for a very long time. It's effective at distracting people from what's really going on. After all, if you've just seen a brilliant red herring in a glass-bottomed boat, you're not going to notice when 1000 other more exotic fish flit by underneath it.

      --
      SRSLY.
    54. Re:Jesus... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Souveniers?

    55. Re:Jesus... by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      In a real pinch it's technically possible - the question is, is viewing a target worth shortening the life of the bird by however much? Maybe for a rogue nuke scenario, like in some sort of Tom Clancy novel, there are guys at Langley that can authorize it.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    56. Re:Jesus... by CorSci81 · · Score: 1

      Uh, you can't hide anything in low-earth orbit. Space may be gigantic, but LEO is getting rather cluttered. NASA has been tracking space debris to a size smaller than the typical satellite for a while now. There's really no such thing as a "low-profile" satellite unless it used lasers to communicate to its ground station and had the radar profile of a stealth plane. Even then I doubt you could hide it for long for the simple fact it's hard to hide launching a rocket into space.

    57. Re:Jesus... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      My understanding of an RTG is that so little of radioactive material is used that even if a satellite which uses one was to de-orbit, it would barely increase the level of radiation in the atmosphere past the background level.

    58. Re:Jesus... by ShadowMarth · · Score: 1

      Who knows, maybe they have self-destruct mechanisms for ready-made space denial if it became necessary. Perhaps it will mysteriously break up into minor pieces right before it begins entering the atmosphere.

    59. Re:Jesus... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1


          haha.

          Nah, if it was Fox, I would have quoted about it, and we would have both laughed. :)

          It's the better side, and I still can't say who.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    60. Re:Jesus... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1


          Disinformation is a wonderful thing.

          Honestly, I wonder how much work they really do at Area 51.

          More than likely they do even more interesting work elsewhere, but since they keep doing weird stuff at Area 51, people will keep looking there.

          Then again, they're paying a lot of people to do BS work, if there's nothing going on there.

          Maybe they just run the IRS call center out of there. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    61. Re:Jesus... by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      I am going to grab it and snatch the camera

      Yeah, exactly what I was thinking. The optics in that thing must be amazing.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    62. Re:Jesus... by NewsWatcher · · Score: 1

      Interesting to say that lots of US satellites are nuclear powered. According to this article Defense has given up wanting to use them, and the previous rule was that you needed the permission of the president.

      --
      If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?
    63. Re:Jesus... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, yes and no. There are some that are powered by thermionic emission (ala the SNAP generators of old), but I believe we've only orbited one or two that actually had a fission reactor on board. The Russians also launched some that were powered that way as well (one had a serious malfunction, as I remember.)

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    64. Re:Jesus... by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      However, people are so worried about such things they would never admit it.

      It's really a shame in so called modern day enlightened educated society that people are conditioned to be as afraid of anything nuclear as medieval people were of ghosts and demons - the same people who put down anything having to do with religion as mere myth, stories and superstitions. About the only thing people know about nuclear energy they learned from 'The Simpsons'.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    65. Re:Jesus... by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Satelites have several thrusters, some may run out of fuel earlier than others, and while it is possible to run without one or two, it does eventually become a problem.

      You have no idea how a spacraft works do you? Each thruster typically does not have its own independant fuel supply - they are all ganged together off of common but sometimes redundant tanks.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    66. Re:Jesus... by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      In a real pinch it's technically possible - the question is, is viewing a target worth shortening the life of the bird by however much? Maybe for a rogue nuke scenario, like in some sort of Tom Clancy novel, there are guys at Langley that can authorize it.

      Sure it's *technically* possible, given you sent a satellite up there with that purpose in mind, but not practically possible. Satellites usually just have orientation thrusters, not something strong enough to change orbit. Some satellites have a reentry thruster with just enough fuel to kick it out of orbit but thats it. To carry enough fuel to change orbits is just not realistic.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    67. Re:Jesus... by SueAnnSueAnn · · Score: 0

      There is also some sweet RF hardware in one of those things also.....

      Sue

    68. Re:Jesus... by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      I can imagine. But it would be hard to use without bringing down, uh, Imperial interference, if you know what I mean.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
  5. These things kill. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    When Skylab hit the cow, the American government refused to compensate.

    1. Re:These things kill. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Mainly because the farmer couldn't prove that it was the hazardous chemicals from the wreckage that killed the cow. After Skylab impacted right on top of it at 9.8 meters per second.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    2. Re:These things kill. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      After Skylab impacted right on top of it at 9.8 meters per second.

      I think Skylab was a bit higher than 1 second above the Earth's surface. I'm pretty sure it was falling faster than that. (Hint: You mean meters per seconds squared.)

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    3. Re:These things kill. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think Skylab was a bit higher than 1 second above the Earth's surface.
      It should have been, but NASA got the angle wrong and Skylab was released 9.8 meters above ground. It only stayed up for six years because of its, er, very high velocity that put it into an ultra-eccentrical orbit. Yes. My story is absolutely scientifically sound and it only doesn't appear in any publication because of the vast conspiracy to hide it. Everything I say is entirely trustworthy.

      LOOK, BEHIND YOU! *runs away*
      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    4. Re:These things kill. by ggvaidya · · Score: 1

      Good save! I wish I had mod points ...

  6. Peru? by genican1 · · Score: 1

    Wasn't there some speculation that a recent cause of a strange sickness breaking out in (I think it was Peru) due to this sort of thing? "hazardous matereials"

    1. Re:Peru? by volsung · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, those hazardous materials were all natural and already in the ground: Meteor Crash in Peru Caused Mysterious Illness. Noxious fumes created by hot meteor smashing into arsenic-tainted water.

    2. Re:Peru? by TheSpoom · · Score: 3, Funny

      Also, that flash of light you saw in the sky was not a U.F.O. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and refracted the light from Venus.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    3. Re:Peru? by JWSmythe · · Score: 5, Funny

      Please refer to the following chart, to avoid misidentification of "unidentified" flying objects.

      https://freeinternetpress.com/mirrors/usaf/airforce-id-chart.jpg

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    4. Re:Peru? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do aliens get to have all the fun? Can't the UFOs be secret test aircraft piloted by the Illuminati paramilitary, or reflections off the souls of people astral projecting? As long as crazy shit is fair game, we might as well be thorough about enumerating all the options.

  7. Look out Osama! by Cordath · · Score: 4, Funny

    The probability of this satellite landing on Osama bin Laden is probably higher than the probability of him being caught within the next couple of months. It's good to see the U.S. finally cracking down on that slimeball!

    1. Re:Look out Osama! by JWSmythe · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Why would the US Gov't WANT to catch him?

          It's a well known fact, without an enemy, you can't have a war.

          If bin Laden was taken out of the picture, the enemy is now just small groups of nutjobs around the world, with no "leadership".

          It's advantageous for the US to ensure that he DOESN'T get captured.

          Then again, with the recent speed boat "attack" by Iran, maybe they'll have a new enemy, at least for a short while.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:Look out Osama! by st1d · · Score: 1

      Two words for ya: Jimmy Hoffa

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    3. Re:Look out Osama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean 'crashing down'? :D

  8. EMP or BSOD? by russlar · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm guessing these things don't just shut down on their own. So, readers of /., which is more likely the cause?

    1. Focused EMP from the surface?

    or

    2. It was running Windows.

    --
    Anybody want my mod points?
    1. Re:EMP or BSOD? by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter, they're going to claim it was pummeled by China's space junk.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    2. Re:EMP or BSOD? by Comatose51 · · Score: 3, Funny

      3. It "upgraded" to Vista.

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    3. Re:EMP or BSOD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Choice 2., except that it's a Windows-like thing written by civil servent programmers, runing on hardware with the brains of a 2008 tooth filling, and the only way to talk to it is some MILSPEC bit stream encrypted in ways that would drive Cithuhlu mad.

    4. Re:EMP or BSOD? by CptMidnight · · Score: 1

      More likely to be a directed EMP or something similar from China.

      U.S. Defense Report: China Working on Anti-Satellite Systems
      http://www.space.com/news/050727_china_military.html

    5. Re:EMP or BSOD? by Nimey · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ob:
          It was hit by a chair.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    6. Re:EMP or BSOD? by Madsy · · Score: 1

      Windows 95, no doubt.

    7. Re:EMP or BSOD? by Virgil+Tibbs · · Score: 1

      3. Turns out the licence key was pirated.

      --
      www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
  9. Decleraton of war by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    So are we gonna take bets on if this will auto magically land on Iran. Also if it does fall on another country does this constitute a first strike since its military equipment.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Decleraton of war by Cosmic+AC · · Score: 1
      I'm guessing you didn't read the article:

      Such an uncontrolled re-entry could risk exposure of U.S. secrets, said John Pike, a defense and intelligence expert. Spy satellites typically are disposed of through a controlled re-entry into the ocean so that no one else can access the spacecraft, he said.
    2. Re:Decleraton of war by Cosmic+AC · · Score: 1

      Or just what did you mean by your post anyway?

    3. Re:Decleraton of war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are we gonna take bets on if this will auto magically land on Iran. No, and that's the most ridiculous question I've heard today.

      Also if it does fall on another country does this constitute a first strike since its military equipment. No, and I take back what I said above.
    4. Re:Decleraton of war by Kawahee · · Score: 1

      So are we gonna take bets on if this will auto magically land on Iran. Also if it does fall on another country does this constitute a first strike since its military equipment.
      Gee, I'd love to answer any questions you have but I don't see any question marks. Anywhere.

      Decleraton of war
      IT'S A TARP!
      --
      I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
    5. Re:Decleraton of war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "since its military equipment"

      Here, have an apostrophe. '

    6. Re:Decleraton of war by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      "auto magically" was funny, too. Note to OP: It's "automatically"

  10. Damn it by Alexx+K · · Score: 1

    And here I was hoping it was a Vulcan ship!

    --
    Don't mind the extra X. Alex
  11. China by cybrchld · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's a coincidence but didn't china not to long ago demonstrate they could shoot don satellites...

    1. Re:China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah ... but then there's that whole "Act of War" scenario you get into when you shoot down enemy satellites. Not that they wouldn't if they could get away with it, but I'd bet that China's biding its time until they're ready to make something out of that military they're building at U.S. expense. Then I suspect that any satellite that they know belongs to us will get shot down.

    2. Re:China by Stanislav_J · · Score: 0, Troll

      Maybe it's a coincidence but didn't china not to long ago demonstrate they could shoot don satellites...

      No, no.....they demonstrated that they could shoot Don Francisco.

      Alas, I can't think of anything catty to say about "not to long ago." (But at least he used "it's" properly.) The missing capital in "China" also makes it look like dinner plates are shooting at satellites.

      And his user name is "cybrchld" ("cyber child"), so maybe I should cut some slack here.

      (Sorry, it's been a long day, and my tolerance for second-grade level grammar and spelling on Internet forums is rapidly eroding. Then again, even in 2nd grade I could spell "down" and knew enough to capitalize "China...")

      --
      "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
  12. Oh please by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You think nobody thought of this scenario before shooting a billion dollar satellite into space? Look what happened a number of years ago in Florida when a rocket carrying a communications satellite exploded before it left the atmosphere. http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9808/27/rocket.blast2/index.html

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Oh please by a_nonamiss · · Score: 1

      That CNN link probably wasn't a communications satellite. It was probably a "communications" satellite. So the end result could be similar to what we saw in your photos, except we have no idea where it's going to land.

      --
      -Arthur
      Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
    2. Re:Oh please by CG_Man · · Score: 1

      I was stationed in Port Canaveral for a few years. We watched NASA's rocket launches from the deck of our ship during the day and from a friend's balcony when they did it at night.

      There's nothing like drinking rum and cokes at a rocket party and watching a couple hundred million in your tax dollars explode (being 3 sheets to the wind does soften the impact a bit).

      I think the most expensive fireworks I observed was the Titan IV / Mercury SIGINT loss in 1998 -- that cost us around $1 to 1.1 Billion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_(satellite). The quarterdeck watch made our standard pipe, "Rocket launch in 5 minutes." I went up on deck, watched the launch followed by a spectacular explosion less than a minute later.

  13. here it is by lecithin · · Score: 5, Informative

    That will be USA 193 (06-057A, #29651). This is it's current orbit:

    USA 193
    1 29651U 06057A 08022.26925691 0.00105000 00000-0 21306-3 0 07
    2 29651 58.5247 160.3977 0003288 53.6760 306.3240 15.98950761 06

    Lowest point is about 275 km above earth surface currently.

    This under the right conditions is an easy to see object: it can reach magnitude
    +1 and because of its low orbit is very fast, spectacular to see.

    source: Marco Langbroek

    picture in orbit:

    http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/satcom_transits/USA193Sepbw1.jpg

    http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/satcom_transits/193bw.jpg

    Note, no solar panels.

    --
    It could be worse, it could be Monday.
    1. Re:here it is by Scutter · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Note, no solar panels.

      The flat, rectangular bits on the top and bottom in that first link sure look like solar panels to me.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:here it is by theNAM666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If USA-193, via Milcom, it's only been up since DEC-06 and may be something other than the ordinary monitoring platform:

      USA-193/NROL-21 Launch specifics:
      Launch date/time: December 13, 2006 2100 UTC 16:00 EST
      Launcher: Delta 2/7920-10
      Launch location: Western Test Range, Vandenberg AFB, California
      Launch complex/pad: SLC2W
      International Designator: 2006-057A
      SSC #: 29651
      Latest orbital parameters: 376 by 354 km orbit (91.83 minute period), inclined 58.5 degress.

      Ted Molczan posted the preliminary orbital elset below on SEESAT-L:

      USA 193 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 v
      1 29651U 06057A 06350.25405986 .00011325 00000-0 10000-3 0 03
      2 29651 58.4865 114.2852 0013244 81.7541 278.5044 15.68046894 05
      WRMS error = 0.026 deg

      Ted noted the following observations in his post:

      "The ground track nearly repeats every 2 days (30.92 revs), enabling frequent revisit of observational targets of interest. The first four Lacrosses behaved similarly (28.9 revs in 2 days). Lacrosse 5 makes 43.05 revs in 3 days. Keyholes nearly repeat every 4 days; NOSS every 4 days."

      Looking at the early Lacrosse satellite missions, Ted is correct, but, of course, the Lacrosse radar imaging missions are launched into much higher altitude orbits (nearly double the height of NROL-21).

      Intl Desig SSC # USA Number Period Inc Apogee Perigee
      *1988-106B 19671 USA 034 97.91 56.98 660 657
      1991-017A 21147 USA 069 98.00 68.00 667 660
      *1997-064A 25017 USA 133 98.22 57.35 674 673 [Replaced Lacrosse 1]
      2000-047A 26473 USA 152 98.47 67.99 690 681 [Replaced Lacrosse 2]
      *2005-016A 28646 USA 182 99.08 57.01 718 712 [Replaced Lacrosse 3]
      * Indicates a 57 degree inclination orbit, just 1.5 degree off the Lacrosse 57 deg inc plane.

      As Jonathan McDowell points out in his Jonthan's Space Report Next Issue Draft:
      "In contrast to most secret launches, analysts appear to have little clue as to what this payload may be."

      My best guess, at this early stage, is that this is probably some sort of mission sensor platform other than a visual photo recon imaging mission. It also could be a new sensor development mission. But that is "only" a best guess!

    3. Re:here it is by Annorax · · Score: 1

      STS Orbit Plus didn't like your two-line elements. What do I need to do in order to make your two-line elements work with STSPLUS.EXE?

      Annorax

    4. Re:here it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go here http://heavens-above.com/satinfo.asp?lat=0&lng=0&alt=0&loc=Unspecified&TZ=CET&SatID=29651

      you can get the updated elements if you click 'orbit'.

    5. Re:here it is by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 1
      This is it's current orbit

      An excellent post, thank you for it. But don't blow it with the bad grammar. See my sig.

    6. Re:here it is by Johnny64 · · Score: 1

      According to this orbital data, the orbital inclination is a tad over 58 degrees which means that anyone anyone north of 58 deg N or south of 58 deg S is safe from re-entering parts. I'm near to 51 deg N :-(

      Another comment mentioned spy satellites being polar orbiters, that is an ideal orbit for spying as it sees the whole world, but this isn't one of them.

    7. Re:here it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any chance of getting permission to use these remarkable photographs as a Desktop Wallpaper?
      So detailed, so interesting and informative.

      Really, these look like someone puffed on a cigarette and blew some smoke in the air, took a photograph of that.

    8. Re:here it is by Annorax · · Score: 1

      w00t!

      Thanks for the link. The orbital elements there worked fine with STSPLUS!

    9. Re:here it is by littlebitsofpaper · · Score: 1

      Yeah I've been trying to find out what this thing is and with a launch date of 12/06 it is not a KH-11. The NRO will do everything in their powers to catch this thing in a net, ensuring that nobody else does.

  14. give credit where credit is due by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Since the submitter is quoting the AP story verbatim, shouldn't he at least give some indication of where he lifted the text from?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  15. score by jovius · · Score: 1

    earth 5425 - satellites 0

  16. Don't want to be the conspiracy theorist but... by TwoHundredOk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How much is the warning of it having dangerous materials aboard meant to protect us and how much is it meant to keep people from being too inquisitive about the top secret spy satellite?

    Furthermore, what sort of liability applies for a rogue space satellite if it crashes into your house? I'm sure the government will pay for it just to keep the media at bay, but still, an interesting tort question. I'd assume the government would be strictly liable. -TwoHundredOK

    1. Re:Don't want to be the conspiracy theorist but... by flajann · · Score: 1
      Crash into your house? What if it crashes into YOU?

      You don't have to be a "conspiracy theorist" to point out the obvious!

      Besides, the only problem with "conspiracy theorists" is that they spend way too much time and effort on the wrong conspiracies!!!! The real conspiracists love it because the nut cases make them practically "invisible". It's the boy who cried wolf syndrome...

    2. Re:Don't want to be the conspiracy theorist but... by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Stop it. You're playing into their hands. You keep coming up with the wrong conspiracies about conspiracies, the whole time letting the real conspirators on conspiracy conspire just as invisibly as you say the fake real conspirators do.

    3. Re:Don't want to be the conspiracy theorist but... by Matrix14 · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but my renter's insurance specifically covers spacecraft impact.

      No, I don't know why.

  17. Anyone call Bruce Willis? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Far too early to call Chuck Norris at this point.

  18. Comparative Characteristics of Imagery Satellites by djupedal · · Score: 2, Informative

    Comparative Characteristics of Imagery Satellites

    Example: The Lacrosse satellite (KH-12 is the other designation) weighs 14-16 tons.

    "Lacrosse and Onyx are the code names for the United States' National Reconnaissance Office terrestrial radar imaging reconnaissance satellite. While not officially confirmed by the NRO or anybody in the U.S. government, there is widespread evidence to confirm its existence."

    "Due to overruns, the cost of the Lacrosse-1 radar reconnaissance satellite launched in 1988 from the Space Shuttle exceeded $1 billion. In the opinion of experts, it was designed, above all, to search for mobile launchers for Soviet ICBM's and track strategic weapon systems beyond staging bases. The radar images were transmitted to the processing center via TDRS repeaters located under the management of NASA and deployed in a geostationary orbit. The Lacrosse-2 was launched in 1991 using a Titan-4 booster rocket from the Western Missile Test Range, which made it possible to increase the orbit inclination and, consequently, the zone of coverage from 57 to 68 degrees."

  19. Size: more like a 10ton 'Small Bus' by theNAM666 · · Score: 4, Funny

    From Yahoo!

    Pike, director of the defense research group GlobalSecurity.org, estimated that the spacecraft weighs about 20,000 pounds and is the size of a small bus. He said the satellite would create 10 times less debris than the Columbia space shuttle crash in 2003.

    Now, um, how did the darn thing "loose power?..." Bet that's a secret...

    In 2002, officials believe debris from a 7,000-pound science satellite smacked into the Earth's atmosphere and rained down over the Persian Gulf, a few thousand miles from where they first predicted it would plummet.

    Anyone wanna take bets on this one hitting Iran?

  20. Solution by coopaq · · Score: 1

    Can we get Bruce Wallas and Ben Aflac to drill a hole in it and blow it up?

    1. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Ben Aflac

      The duck? Actually, Gilbert Gottfried in that movie might have made it better. Dunno about "Bruce Wallas".

    2. Re:Solution by DJNephilim · · Score: 1

      Maybe he meant Bruce Wallace?

      I'm not sure what a jazz composer would be doing in space, unless it was Hearts of Space.


      ...yeah yeah, I know...*rimshot*

      --
      Enemy of the Sun
  21. Re:Size: more like a 10ton 'Small Bus' by nacturation · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now, um, how did the darn thing "loose power?..." Bet that's a secret... No kidding. You'd think with the government always trying to tighten power that you'd never see them do the opposite and loosen up power.
    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  22. High speed re-entry could be a test... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...of the telescope's "zoom" factor.

  23. U.S. Secrets more important than human lives? by flajann · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Having read the article, it would seem that the government is far more concerned about "loosing state secrets" than loosing lives due to the uncontrolled fall of this 12-tonne satellite. If it falls into a heavily populated area like, say, New York or London, those killed by it could care less about some silly and inane "secrets" that are over 10 years out of date, anyway.

    1. Re:U.S. Secrets more important than human lives? by frakir · · Score: 1

      15-tonne object is like 2.5m radius meteor. It'll never reach the surface in one piece, breaking up about 80-100km above earth. A few rather small chunks may possibly hit the ground, though. I say nothing to get paranoid about.

    2. Re:U.S. Secrets more important than human lives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      If it lands in the US, we hail the brave heros who broke the fall of this glorious state machinery.

      If it lands anywhere else, then it's tough luck for the sub-human foreigners who should all be rounded up and shot anyway.

      Has anyone else noted how similar we now sound to the Russians at the height of the Cold War?

    3. Re:U.S. Secrets more important than human lives? by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      That's because the odds of it killing somebody are almost astronomically lower than the odds of it landing in the middle of nowhere, but reachable by somebody who we'd rather didn't find it.

      Chances are it's going to land in the ocean. Chances are that if it doesn't land in the ocean it's going to hit unoccupied land.

      Causing an international incident really is the biggest worry here. Worrying about somebody getting killed by this thing is equivalent to worrying that somebody who lives on a back-road in the sticks is going to have an 18-wheeler drive off the road and hit their living room... Except that the truck accident scenario is actually more likely.

    4. Re:U.S. Secrets more important than human lives? by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Who said the deorbit will be uncontrolled?

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    5. Re:U.S. Secrets more important than human lives? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Who said the deorbit will be uncontrolled?
      So not only did you not RTFA, but you didn't even RTFS?

      The thing ran out of fuel. It's rather difficult to control the de-orbiting of a satellite which has no fuel.

      With that said, though, before servicing satellites in orbit became common-place (mostly thanks to the CANADARM), the US military used to catch de-orbiting satellites using transport aircraft. Sounds weird, I know, but it's true. What's the chances that this satellite might have been outfitted to be caught?
    6. Re:U.S. Secrets more important than human lives? by Matt_R · · Score: 1

      the US military used to catch de-orbiting satellites using transport aircraft. Uhh not quite. They used to catch buckets of film sent back down from orbiting recon sats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona_(satellite) That went away when they developed digital cameras.
    7. Re:U.S. Secrets more important than human lives? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Gotcha. The guys I know who worked on those ops all referred to the film canisters as "satellites". Checking online now, I see most articles refer to them the same way. Weird. I guess, technically speaking, even a film canister dropped from orbit is a satellite, but I certainly had a much different mental-picture when I first heard the stories. Thanks for the correction.

    8. Re:U.S. Secrets more important than human lives? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      No, it's far more likely that they looked at a map an realized just how few and small those heavily populated areas are compared to the total surface of the earth - rather than indulging in a tinfoil hat reaction.

  24. Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    John added the solar panels in the first image.

    see the following note from him:

    http://www.satobs.org/seesat/Jan-2008/0204.html

    1. Re:Note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It had solar arrays that failed to deploy fully after it was launched in 2006.

    2. Re:Note by link5280 · · Score: 1

      Multi-billion dollar space junk then, wonder if the government gets a refund?

  25. On condition of anonymity... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1
    First, let me say I *don't* like this new Web 2.0 crap with the Forum...

    Government officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the information is classified as secret.
    Which to "Government Officials" mean "not really Secret at all..."? Where I work, when Secrets are blabbed about, there is an unpleasant investigation, and the offending party's clearance is yanked. These days, getting even a Secret clearance can take a few years...
    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:On condition of anonymity... by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      First, let me say I *don't* like this new Web 2.0 crap with the Forum... You can disable it using the prefs (or whatever it's called) link in the floating options box on the left. I'd give more details but I disabled mien already and have no desire to re-enable it.
  26. Yes, the size of the Hubble by IvyKing · · Score: 1

    I've heard from a couple of different sources that the Hubble is pretty much a modified KH-11. While the resolution is pretty good, they can tell the difference between say a 90 inch diameter missile and 100 inch diameter missile, I doubt that they can tell the brand of cigarette.

    1. Re:Yes, the size of the Hubble by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The packs are or used to be marked pretty distincly with different colors and all. just seeing the packs would probably be enouhg to know the brands even if they couldn't read the words.

      Back in the 90's the MS terraserve project was putting full resolution images online. Well, a school that was built on old Airforce property that was given to the city under the condition that it would only be a park had some chemicals leaking into the basement. Of course it was a hasmat situation and all and I was using the teraserve or whatever it is called to see the structures outlines for possible building locations and stuff. Of course the images where too new to have any airforce stuff on it but I could see a trucking yard of to the side. I zoomed in and was able to read then name and DOT numbers on the side of the trucks.

      About a year after that, I heard some news about the government being concerned over sat images being posted on the internet and how the detail was giving secretes back. I rechecked the MS images I saw earlier and they wouldn't zoom in near as mcuh as they did. The truck and trailers I was looking at numbers on wouldn't soom in small enough to fill mor ethen half the screen.

      I wouldn't surprise me if they couldn't read the headlines of newspapers.

    2. Re:Yes, the size of the Hubble by tgd · · Score: 1

      Yup, thats pretty widely claimed in print, and I've seen it published with sources that struck me as pretty reliable.

    3. Re:Yes, the size of the Hubble by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Those were pictures taken from an airplane.

    4. Re:Yes, the size of the Hubble by st1d · · Score: 1

      >>Sig: Most Vista haters on this site have a lot in common with Young Earth Creationists.

      They believe in something greater than the almighty dollar? :)

      --
      Microsoft has just released their much anticipated hands-free cordless mouse. Warning, it may hurt a little at first.
    5. Re:Yes, the size of the Hubble by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Could have been but then it was labeled incorrectly on the terraserve site. They had a separate pain for viewing pictures taken from a plane. These were labeled as satellite pictures.

  27. KH-11 details by Cliff+Stoll · · Score: 5, Informative

    KH-11 series spacecraft were called the Key Hole satellites - they were the first large reconnaissance spacecraft to send images directly to earth; previous spy satellites used film return (clumsy, slow, and unreliable). KH-11's used CCDs - quite advanced for a system developed in the late 1970's.

    The seven KH-11 spacecraft had primary mirrors of 2.3 to 2.4 meters. The system provided an ultimate ground resolution between 15 to 50 cm at closest approach (perigee); actual resolution was quite a bit worse.

    There's no nuclear battery on board -- power came from 11 unfolded solar panels (which, on the first Key Hole satellites didn't provide quite enough power during downlinks!). I assume the main danger to earthlings is due to the reentry of the main mirror. Since the KH-11s are in polar orbits, the debris could come down anywhere on earth, with a one-in-four chance of hitting land.

    The KH-11 spy satellites were developed in parallel with the Hubble Space Telescope, and the same contractors worked on both. In fact, the KH-11 uses much the same hardware (carbon-graphite support system, front door hatch system, data-relay dish through communications satellites). Because of the secrecy surrounding the KH-11 development, the Space Telescope project often saw similar secrecy. Indeed, astronomers were discouraged (or barred) from much of the engineering of the Hubble Space Telescope.

    1. Re:KH-11 details by CG_Man · · Score: 1

      I sure am glad we didn't have ASTRONOMERS working on that ASTRONOMY satellite . . . it might have been able to see straight without that exciting gazillion dollar visit from the space shuttle.

    2. Re:KH-11 details by tomz16 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, in my experience, astronomers know next to nothing about optics, optical engineering, and lens design... It would be the equivalent of consulting a chiropractor about how to fix your house's plumbing problems...

  28. Cosmos 954 cleanup with computer technology view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Very interesting first-hand account of the radiological cleanup of the crash of a Soviet spy satellite in Canada: http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/gamma/ml_e.php

    The Canadians had a Nova minicomputer which was subjected to conditions that it was never designed for. They programmed it by editing memory locations by hand... Not with the front-panel switches, even though Nova had those.

  29. Space Cowboys by psychicsword · · Score: 2, Funny

    If the satellite was Russian and had nukes then we would have a Space Cowboy Situation

    1. Re:Space Cowboys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick, get Clint Eastwood and a rocket, ASAP!

    2. Re:Space Cowboys by glimmy · · Score: 1

      If the satellite was Russian and had nukes then we would have a Space Cowboy
      Situation


      A bad movie?
  30. Hazardous Material by camperdave · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's the contents of the onboard hard drive that are the hazardous materials. If certain folks find you in possession of that data, well, lets say Gitmo would be a holiday.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Hazardous Material by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't put hard drives into space, generally speaking. Flash RAM, maybe, but they don't exactly retrieve the pictures this thing takes off of the photo album on its onboard web server. I think they're talking about secrets of their construction, but this isn't exactly the latest-gen satellite, and through espionage or independent research, the secrets from it are probably already known to anyone with the technology to launch one. Did I mention that they're heavy -- there's not many countries with the tech to launch something that big.

      There's maybe some interesting signal intelligence stuff on it, but I can't imagine any software surviving.

    2. Re:Hazardous Material by DingerX · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe this harddrive just fell behind the satellite's photocopier. You never know.

    3. Re:Hazardous Material by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      If they found me in posession of the data, this means I somehow had a way of finding it. At that point I'd declare my job interview over and ask them when I start.

      --
      SRSLY.
    4. Re:Hazardous Material by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      there's not many countries with the tech to launch something that big.

      True, and shortly the United States won't be one of them, when the last Shuttle is decommissioned. I dunno though ... can any of our current launch vehicles handle something like this satellite? I presume the Russians could still handle it (I'm too lazy to Google right now.)

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  31. Someone should do the math... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 0

    I wonder what the odds are that it will actually hit a person on the ground? Obviously, the math gets more complicated as you figure in the path of the satellite. I'm guessing it would be a polar orbit, then? This means that the odds are proportionally higher that it will fall on a particular spot the farther north or south you go. And, how big large an area would we consider a kill-zone for a satellite of this size?

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  32. Finally a use for our anti-missile defense system! by BadEvilYoda · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Since, generally speaking, spy satellites are considered the most closely guarded secrets of both the US and any other nation producing them, rest assured that this will never be allowed to hit the ground before being blown into a million pieces. If an ocean-ditch isn't in the cards, since it appears they've lost all control of the satellite and are at the mercy of probability during the deorbit, the US will not let it re-enter and land somewhere (even in pieces) where another country could examine the wreckage. (and yes, I'm including allied countries.) Our "anti-ballistic missile defense system" may get its first real-world test! Alternatively, if it does land, a B-2 will certainly turn the landing zone into a smoking many-thousand degree crater seconds or minutes later. It doesn't matter if it's ten year old tech - no one else is going to be getting their hands on it if the US has anything to say about it. (and yes, I'm including if it lands in a populated area.) If it can't be recovered covertly, it will be destroyed overtly.

  33. Oh boy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Another chance at a free taco! Whoo hoo!

  34. Use the B-L-I-N-K-I-N-G red light! by o0OSABO0o · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that in just about every SciFi space movie I have every seen you just have to turn on the blinking red self-destruct light and it will blow itself up -- with a very nice "Have A Nice Day" announcement just before the BIG Ka-Boom! Oh, and cut the yellow wire if you need to stop it after the fail-safe point has past.

    --
    The Spice Must Flow!
    1. Re:Use the B-L-I-N-K-I-N-G red light! by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      But, what if the yellow wire was broken my a micrometeorite sometime since it's launch? Then the self-destruct has already been aborted before it started..

          Oh no! The humanity! :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  35. Called a troll when I raised doubts by bogaboga · · Score: 1
    I was called a troll when I raised doubts about USA's record on "old" satellites. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=416142&cid=22015824

    I'd be more than happy to see those that labeled me say something meaningful about this. Worse still, we might have to deal with toxic substances.

    1. Re:Called a troll when I raised doubts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A large percentage of satellites launched into low earth orbit or LEO will at one point or another reenter the atmosphere whether after a couple months or thousands of years. Many satellites have done so already without causing significant damage to property or life. As to the "toxic substances" issue, everything from your TV to your car containing toxic substances, it should be of no surprise that satellites based on 1980s technology would as well. There is a limited risk as materials burning up in the atmosphere will not be noticeable against the background concentrations and any localized contamination can be quickly cleaned up. To compare it to something familiar, the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated partway into its reentry directly over the United States; despite being much larger, intentionally designed not to burn up on reentry, and carrying similar toxic substances did not cause any major issues on the ground.

      As to your previous comment, the United States and the Soviet Union learned many lessons in the early years of spaceflight on the danger of space debris and how to mitigate their creation which have been shared with the rest of the world. The issue is that the Chinese did not create a couple thousand pieces of space junk through an accident, or even negligence, but rather deliberately created millions of pieces of shrapnel that put at risk thousands of satellites and pose a threat even to manned missions in orbit such as the ISS. To put this into context, you are asking "since home owners have been causing fires for years through cooking mishaps and the like, why is it an issue if an arsonist starts a massive forest fire?"

  36. Re:Finally a use for our anti-missile defense syst by tftp · · Score: 1
    Alternatively, if it does land, a B-2 will certainly turn the landing zone into a smoking many-thousand degree crater seconds or minutes later.

    I'm not sure how this B-2 scenario is going to work if the satellite falls deep within the territory of China or Russia. Gary Powers does not work for the US Government any more.

  37. Bricked? by amirulbahr · · Score: 0, Troll

    No need to worry. Bricks burn up pretty quickly when they drop out of orbit.

  38. Lame article by earlymon · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but it just is. One example is the no-comment for security reasons on whether or not we might "shoot it down." Uhhhhhh..... maybe it would be a security issue to create a bigger debris field to deal with where such platforms are flying, and that's satellite-speak for "What a dumb question?"

    Or, how the leap was made from spy satellite to keyholes are falling......

    Or, the spokesman had to speak from anonymity due to security?

    The posts here are about a bazillion times more insightful and informative than the articles. Read /. and avoid the article - nothing to see there...

    --
    Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
    1. Re:Lame article by dour+power · · Score: 1

      Or, how the leap was made from spy satellite to keyholes are falling......

      Or, the spokesman had to speak from anonymity due to security?

      Or how the writer segued from discussing spy satellites to NASA missions without drawing any distinctions between them?

      FTFA:

      Jeffrey Richelson, a senior fellow with the National Security Archive, said the spacecraft likely is a photo reconnaissance satellite. Such eyes in the sky are used to gather visual information from space about adversarial governments and terror groups, including construction at suspected nuclear sites or militant training camps. The satellites also can be used to survey damage from hurricanes, fires and other natural disasters.

      The largest uncontrolled re-entry by a NASA spacecraft was Skylab, the 78-ton abandoned space station that fell from orbit in 1979. Its debris dropped harmlessly into the Indian Ocean and across a remote section of western Australia.
      The connotation is that NASA is involved with this spy satellite, which is simply false.
  39. Oh, horsecrap! by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

    How is it's classification level related to the chance of hitting someone? Oh, that's right - there's no relationship. And if it's really just dead (like both prime and redundant of some critical system both failed) they could publish the entire stack of schematics on the front page of the NYT and it wouldn't change a damn thing. Other than pointlessly revealing important secure information.

              And, from having been involved in a satellite launch that failed and had the potential from burning in, everybody involved takes it very seriously indeed. In our case, our spacecraft was stuck in a low orbit that passed over 70% of the worlds population. The primary concern of all involved, including the government customer, was eliminating the possibility of coming down uncontrolled in a populated area. Even though the chances of parts of significant size and weight making it all the way to the ground were not very high at all, any hope of salvaging it for test purposes, etc, was not on the table as it raised the chances that it would come down uncontrolled in a few hundred years.

            Regardless of the bizarre paranoia over 'The Government', everyone who works there is a person with just as much sense and concern for others as anyone else. If you would be concerned, so would they. Keeping secrets would not outweigh any significant risk to someone on the ground - it's that in this case you knowing more about it almost certainly wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. Whether you want to believe it or not, there are very legitimate reasons for most security decisions.

                  Brett

    1. Re:Oh, horsecrap! by Zorton · · Score: 1

      I'm going to have to agree with Brett. It does suck that our government has taken such a turn towards security away from individual privacy as of late. The stereotypical image of the evil g-man shrugging his unconcerned shoulders over a bird coming down on city full of people is silly. There are plenty of people who work for the federal government who care quite a bit about all those "taxpayers" keeping them in the job.

      On a related note take a look at the role of the "range safety officer" during satellite launches. Then think about the range safety officer with his hand over the "destroy" button during shuttle launches.

    2. Re:Oh, horsecrap! by ecavalli · · Score: 1

      Since you seem to have some prior experience here, let me ask you this:

      Assuming the gov't techs realize the satellite is going to come down in an area where it's likely to cause loss of life -- they would be able to extrapolate some kind of early warning based on the thing's position and velocity, right? -- how hard would it be for them to blow it out of the sky via missile or one of those fancy laser-based defense systems they've been pumping money into for the last quarter-century?

    3. Re:Oh, horsecrap! by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2, Informative

      They don't need to blow it of the sky - it's already coming down somewhere. The only potential advantage to shooting it down would be to scatter the parts and maybe make more of them burn up on re-entry. Even then, the heavy metal parts (control moment gyros and deeply imbedded boxes) are still probably going to make it. It might be hypothetically possible but exceptionally difficult considering there probably won't be an good way of knowing where it will be to any degree of accuracy. The only reason you know where the shuttle is coming down is because you did a maneuver to make it come down. If you shot it down in orbit you create a debris field with even less chance of knowing when and where.

            Realistically, there's exceedingly little danger to anyone on the ground. MOST spacecraft launched into low orbits, upper stages, etc, have burned in uncontrolled over the years, with negligible effect, even Skylab which was far larger.

            BTW the likely "hazardous" materials are no different from the shuttle - hydrazine, nitrogen tetroxide and maybe a high-pressure gas bottle or two. If it has an RTG, the only danger is that its going to make it do the ground intact and become another heavy projectile. Typically they are designed to do exactly that, just so they have no chance of releasing radioactive materials. The chances are nearly *zero* that the containment will fail. It's more likely that a guy will get hit by a meteorite on the way to pick up his lotto winnings. The shuttle came down over the south-central US with no injuries on the ground, and it has 5x the parts.

                    Brett

  40. SOME beryllium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just how big a Beryllium Sphere does this object have anyways?

    1. Re:SOME beryllium? by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      According to the historical records, they come in all shapes and sizes. But trying to get one is a real bitch.

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  41. I feel MUCH better! by __aalmrb3802 · · Score: 1

    Now that I know the lawmakers are going to be briefed...

  42. The bright side by Butisol · · Score: 1

    Just another infinitesimally small chance that my worthless life will be ended swiftly, painlessly, and unexpectedly. w00t.

    1. Re:The bright side by stormguard2099 · · Score: 1

      The bright side for me is maybe this will land on some emo kid

      --
      http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
  43. I believe russia has fixed this with empty missile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I believe russia has bounced satellites back into proper orbit with empty missiles. If there's nuclear power in that satellite it may be the only thing that saves us.

  44. Reboot problems ? by glooku · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "U.S. NRO spy satellite may be total loss
    Wed Mar 7, 2007 10:17 AM IST
    By Andrea Shalal-Esa

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. officials are likely to declare a Lockheed
    Martin Corp. spy satellite a total loss after efforts to restore its
    ability to communicate failed repeatedly over the past three months,
    two defense officials told Reuters on Tuesday.

    The experimental L-21 classified satellite, built for the National
    Reconnaissance Office (NRO) at a cost of hundreds of millions of
    dollars, was launched successfully on Dec. 14 but has been out of
    touch since reaching its low-earth orbit.

    Limited data received from the satellite indicated that its on-board
    computer tried rebooting several times, but those efforts failed, said
    one official, who is knowledgeable about the program and spoke on
    condition of anonymity.

    The satellite carried sophisticated cameras to take high-resolution
    pictures and test equipment intended for use on the broader Future
    Imagery Architecture (FIA) program, in which both Boeing Co. and
    Lockheed are involved.

    Its failure raises questions about the schedule for the already-much-
    delayed FIA program, which was due to launch a first satellite in two
    to three years, analysts said.

    One of the defense officials acknowledged the satellite's failure was
    "not helpful."

    "It's part of an overarching architecture. When you're trying to move
    forward on several dimensions, it can't help accomplish those goals,"
    the official said.

    The other official said he expected schedule adjustments, but no major
    delays, as a result of the NRO satellite failure.

    "It might impact the schedule for introduction of new technologies,"
    he added.

    Another government official said he was unaware of any changes to the
    FIA program as a result of the satellite issue.

    Lockheed, prime contractor for the experimental NRO satellite,
    declined to comment. The NRO, which designs, builds and operates
    reconnaissance satellites for the U.S. military and intelligence
    communities, also had no comment.

    One of the defense officials said the issue with the satellite
    involved the computer that runs it, not the new sensors that it was
    meant to test.

    "The failure has nothing to do with anything new. It happened with a
    set of components ... that historically is known to be good," said the
    official.

    Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer with the Harvard- Smithsonian Center
    For Astrophysics, said the satellite's software problems raised
    questions about the adequacy of testing and oversight by the
    contractors and the Air Force.

    "The question is why was this software failure not caught in ground
    test before launch," McDowell said, noting that oversight was
    particularly challenging in classified programs.

    He said the satellite's software woes were reminiscent of those
    experienced by the Mars rover named Spirit, which was out of
    communication for more than two weeks after it landed on Mars in
    January 2004 because its flash disk kept filling up, prompting the
    computer system to crash repeatedly.

    Engineers finally solved the problem by sending a command to the
    computer to clear the disk, enabling a successful rebooting of the
    system, he said."

    http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.space.policy/2007-03/msg00261.html

  45. ATTN: Mike Williams aka "Anonymous Coward" by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 4, Funny

    We know who you are. Do not attempt to leave your house, turn off your computer, or unplug your microwave. We will be there shortly to bring you into custody.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    1. Re:ATTN: Mike Williams aka "Anonymous Coward" by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 4, Funny

      Also Note, We have hacked into Bill's brain to access his login credentials.

      .... and disabled his ability to either check the "Post Anonymously" Check box, or hit the "Preview" Button.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    2. Re:ATTN: Mike Williams aka "Anonymous Coward" by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      You devious bastards! You've disabled his ability to make snarky comments without taking a huge karma hit when people misunderstand them as trolls!

      --
      SRSLY.
  46. Re:OMG is it powered by tritium - dont go outside! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, I didn't know how many things you could get wrong in two sentences..

    If the satellite is powered by radioactive isotopes, it is almost certainly a radiothermal battery. Tritium has a half-life of 12 years, which means you would see the power yield drop too quickly for a satellite to be useful. This thing probably contains plutonium, which has a long enough half-life to be a relatively stable power source, but short enough that you don't need so much of it get a decent amount of heat. (You may now proceed to wig out about a few kg of plutonium dispersed in the atmosphere if the canister fails...)

    Even if there were tritium on the satellite, it would "burn up" in the atmosphere since tritium IS hydrogen. The heat of reentry would probably cause the tritium to bond with oxygen forming water vapor in the upper atmosphere. This would be well away from people, not to mention the radioactivity would be dispersed over such a wide area, it would be hard for it to kill anyone.

    And finally, tritium is "water-soluable" only because it you usually find it replacing one of the hydrogens in the water molecule if it is hanging around on the ground (otherwise it's dispersed into the atmosphere). That is to say, tritium if you find it in the soil IS water (radioactive, of course), essentially. Comparing it to DDT is silly. The tritium will go disperse through dilution with untainted water, as well as simultaneously decay away due to the 12 year half-life. So no matter what happens, you get an extra factor of two drop in intensity every decade. (If we could only be so lucky with the nasty stuff in spent uranium fuel rods. Some of those isotopes take centuries or millennia to decay in half.)

    To be fair, the short half-life of tritium means that it doesn't take very much of it in one place to exceed suggested health limits. So the best thing for an unlikely falling canister of tritium would be to either stay totally contained all the way down, or to fragment early on, where it can disperse into the atmosphere, which can easily absorb a man-made amount of tritium (hard to make very much) into its vast amount of water vapor.

    You should be more concerned about the satellite hitting you in the head.

  47. fuel sensors? by cynvision · · Score: 1

    Hah! Were they using the same fuel sensors as the Shuttle? FAIL!

    --
    "I got it all together but I forgot where I put it."
  48. The reactor components by grolaw · · Score: 1

    Are likely to survive reentry. Skylab had a film safe that survived, too.... but this kind of device is (obviously) unmanned, has no "film safe" and has depleted its energy supply (thermal based upon radio-nucleotide decay) - so, one mass might actually reach the planet's surface.

  49. They really should have plans for this... by Nemilar · · Score: 1

    I realize it would increase cost (a whole lot), but since it's inevitable that these situations will occur, shouldn't we start putting emergency rockets in satellites that are too large to burn up in orbit? Something that will shoot them out into space, if something like this happens?

    It's just a matter of time before one of these things come crashing down into a populated area.

    --
    Nemilar http://www.techthrob.com - Visit Me!
    1. Re:They really should have plans for this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that most sats do boost themselves to parking orbits at the end of their useful life. The story here is that control systems failed. Honestly, if they've got three months, I'd put money that they somehow regain control and are able to boost the thing.

    2. Re:They really should have plans for this... by SpleenVenter · · Score: 1

      Even ignoring the incredibly tight mass budgets just about every satellite program struggles with and the huge amount of delta-V that would be required to boost a multi-ton satellite from LEO to an orbit that would (for all practical purposes) leave near-Earth space -- how would you propose to control these "emergency rockets" if the satellite in question has lost power? Before you suggest a completely separate power system and receiver, let's figure out how we're going to orient the satellite so that the "emergency rockets" are actually pointed in the right direction. Are we adding separate reaction wheels or control-moment gyros as well?

    3. Re:They really should have plans for this... by SpleenVenter · · Score: 1
      What exactly do you believe a "parking orbit" is?

      Large-ish LEO and MEO birds are sometimes deliberately DE-orbited at their end of life, allowing a predictable reentry/splashdown in an ocean, but most simply are allowed to run out of fuel during normal orbit maintenance burns and eventually re-enter and burn up in the atmosphere.

      Satellites out in the extremely valuable real estate that makes up the geosynch ring are *supposed* to reserve enough fuel to re-orbit themselves at end of life, moving outwards from the 35,786 km geostationary orbit by an additional 300 km or so. (I suppose it would be fair to call this a "parking orbit" -- but it's really more of a "junkyard orbit".) From what I've read, though, only about a third of the geosynch operators actually do this, and as I recall there are more than 1,000 objects in the geostationary ring of which only about 350 are actually operational.

      If the particular bird in question really is USA 193, the operators have had more than a year to try to recover the satellite; three more months is not likely to make any difference.

  50. When it hits by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Who do you call? its not like it will officially exist, so i guess you are just out of luck getting your car/house/foot replaced.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:When it hits by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      That was a joke, right? It's so hard to tell sometimes....

    2. Re:When it hits by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was a joke. At least i hope it was.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  51. Explain Cosmos 954 then ? by slincolne · · Score: 1
    Can you explain the contamination caused by the re-entry of Cosmos 954 then ?


    I see someone has already posted the TLE's for this, so at least there is a chance that we can track it.


    Does anyone know if Gpredict can calculate impact points ?

  52. Don't worry, it was last hovering over... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry, it's obvious that the satellite will fall where it was last pointed, onto the head of Obama... of is it Osama? O*ama.

  53. What is the cause of death? by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

    I hope it isn't China's anti-satellite defense system, because that would just result in bad, bad things. Especially since Bush & Cheney have so "little" time left and his legacy stands no chance of being favourable.

  54. Re:OMG is it powered by tritium - dont go outside! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss dumping a bunch of Tritium in the stratosphere. It'll probably turn into HTO pretty quick, and I don't think you can be sure it'll get well mixed before precipitating. There are lots of ways that it might end up concentrated enough to give some unlucky people a dangerous dose. Might even end up killing more people than the 0.0000001 that falling metal will get.

    So, I'd be more concerned about a big tank of tritium re-entering than I would be of a big chunck of metal, but not by all that much.

  55. Insurance by Whiteox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Most insurance cover specifically includes statements that any space debris (including falling satellites) will not be covered.
    So it's every geek for themselves!
    I believe the clause was written in years ago when Sputnik fell to Earth. That goes for meteors, blue ice, rocket stages and acts of God (whatever that means).

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    1. Re:Insurance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most insurance cover specifically includes statements that any space debris (including falling satellites) will not be covered.

      In this case, I'm not worried. The odds of getting hit are insanely small and the US government is responsible and I have little doubt they'll pay for any damage they cause as well as seizing any parts.

    2. Re:Insurance by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      So, if this thing lands in my back yard, can I at least sell it to China for a million bucks?

  56. And we're keeping lawmakers informed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...so that they can send it a cease-and-desist letter?

  57. Satellite ID NROL-21, a.k.a. US 193 by EQ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Launched Dec 26 2006, had orbital control problems or else was launched into a very unusual orbit for an intelligence platform. (Open info in the internet).

    Given that its NRO and that size, I'd guess its a multi-sensor platfrom.

    Pretty sad - those things run about $2 Billion. And you can bet that its absence will leave holes in intelligence coverage and really contrain intelligence gathering due to restriction of resources.

    Give that plutonium power sources are pretty robust - few moving parts, but low earth orbit stuff doesnt need that - solar and batteries are usually sufficient. So its likely solar powered.

    Seems the NRO has not learned to diversify, still putting its eggs in one big basket. That and that the Aerospace companies that sell them to the Govt only know how to make One Big Rocket instead of managing constellations of more numerous but smaller and chaeper satellites. (Pet Peeve of mine).

    I bet they had solar arrays, but from amateur images there werent any deployed at any time. That would be the reason why the satellite died - something broke in the solar arrays or deployment process. Since its that new of a satellite (2006), I bet they had equipment failures from the start if its power that is the issue.

    Tinfoil hat time: Take all of my above speculation (I used to work in Aerospace and the military) with a grain of salt - they could be using "power" as a cover some classified event that trashed the satellite, like a collision with junk from the Chinese anti-missle mess. That would be very politically inconvenient for the Bush administration right now, and this would be a nice excuse to make that problem go away.

    Whatever the case is, the US intelligence community is out 2 billion, and a lot of capacity that was supposed to come online is not there. Could make for problems.

    --
    Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
    1. Re:Satellite ID NROL-21, a.k.a. US 193 by Attaturk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...they could be using "power" as a cover some classified event that trashed the satellite, like a collision with junk from the Chinese anti-missle mess. That would be very politically inconvenient for the Bush administration right now, and this would be a nice excuse to make that problem go away.
      That debris field was the first thing that crossed my mind when I saw the headline too. I have no idea how frequently new, big satellites decide to plummet but it strikes this layman as a pretty big coincidence that this comes so soon after the debris fields got a huge boost.

      When I first saw the debris field illustrated so plainly for Sir Patrick Moore (Watch the Dec 2007 "Sputnik's children" episode and skip to 26 minutes in for the best visuals), I was more than a little worried by the idea of a nation state intentionally accelerating towards Kessler syndrome.

      Out of morbid curiosity I wonder if you, or anyone else sufficiently knowledgeable, could shine any light on whether this particular satellite could theoretically have come into contact with debris from that test?
    2. Re:Satellite ID NROL-21, a.k.a. US 193 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      study the orbits of the former Chinese weather sat (and remember its now a cloud so is expanding its footprint), and US193 which has been a bit erratic, and you'll get the answer you seek. There are amateur places that track those orbits, but I cannot really comment on the accuracy. But I do agree that it is unusual for a new multi billion dollar satellite to fail completely. A damaged solar array shorting out could do in the computers aboard and deprive the satellite of power once it is shorted out and the batteries are drained.

    3. Re:Satellite ID NROL-21, a.k.a. US 193 by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      That debris field was the first thing that crossed my mind when I saw the headline too. I have no idea how frequently new, big satellites decide to plummet but it strikes this layman as a pretty big coincidence that this comes so soon after the debris fields got a huge boost.

      It didn't 'decide' to plummet - this bird is in a fairly low orbit and destined to plummet. Usually they are reboosted, but since this bird has 'died', it cannot be reboosted.
       
       

      When I first saw the debris field illustrated so plainly for Sir Patrick Moore (Watch the Dec 2007 "Sputnik's children" episode and skip to 26 minutes in for the best visuals), I was more than a little worried by the idea of a nation state intentionally accelerating towards Kessler syndrome.

      There is no nation state capable of inducing such an acceleration that would not lose as much, if not more, than it would gain by doing so.
    4. Re:Satellite ID NROL-21, a.k.a. US 193 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so is it possible to hit an airplane or populate areas? it is quite massive

    5. Re:Satellite ID NROL-21, a.k.a. US 193 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever the case is, the US intelligence community is out 2 billion,

      so we have to call a time out in the middle east for what, 15-20 minutes then?

      "ATTENTION! ATTENTION! WE are calling a smoke break in this conflict! SMOKE EM if you got EM! That is all!"

    6. Re:Satellite ID NROL-21, a.k.a. US 193 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually these kinds of satellites are meant to spy on traditional military stuff - like North Korea, Iran, China, Russia. etc.

    7. Re:Satellite ID NROL-21, a.k.a. US 193 by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      When I first saw the debris field illustrated so plainly for Sir Patrick Moore (Watch the Dec 2007 "Sputnik's children" episode and skip to 26 minutes in for the best visuals), I was more than a little worried by the idea of a nation state intentionally accelerating towards Kessler syndrome.

      Off-topic, but that Sir Thomas Moore is hilarious. He's like a surly, drunken upper-class Churchill.

      More so, that is.

  58. Re:Size: more like a 10ton 'Small Bus' by antek9 · · Score: 1

    I was thinking, what if it incidentally hit Mecca? On the other hand, do we know what's inside the Kaaba? Maybe some prehistoric 'satellite' hit ground zero there, inspired a cult, and now history finishes some circle, and this thing goes down in the same spot.

    Whatever, bad timing, the Hadj is already over, the circus left town, so to speak.

    --
    A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
    Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
  59. USA 193? by MutantEnemy · · Score: 1

    I see a couple of comments above naming the satellite as "USA 193" - is there some good source confirming this? I need a reliable source if I'm to write the Wikipedia article, damnit! Posts on Slashdot apparently aren't acceptable any more... and I don't want a whole bunch of {{dubious}} {{disputed}} {{citation needed}} tags appearing...

    --
    Grr! Arg!
  60. 10 times less by icebike · · Score: 0, Troll

    From TFA:

    "He said the satellite would create 10 times less debris than the Columbia space shuttle crash in 2003."

    So, so if the Shuttle created say 5 (arbitrary sized) units of debris this satellite would create a 50 units, and 5 minus 50 = negative 45 units of debris that must somehow spring from earth and re-assemble?

    Where do journalists learn to speak English these days?

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:10 times less by JoeInnes · · Score: 1

      Possibly same place as you. "So, so"? "a 50 units"? Planks and eyes come to mind

      Not trying to put you down, just saying, if you're going to be a grammar nazi - at least get your own grammar right.

  61. Re:Size: more like a 10ton 'Small Bus' by theNAM666 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Now, um, how did the darn thing "loose power?..." Bet that's a secret... No kidding. You'd think with the government always trying to tighten power that you'd never see them do the opposite and loosen up power.
    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    Do you prefer tahini or lemon juice in your humous posts? Cumin and coriander?
  62. anonymity is a copout by glitch23 · · Score: 0

    The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the information is classified as secret.

    I'm not sure who to blame more when I see things like this, the journalist or the squealer. I think both should be fired for improperly releasing information. Improperly in this case just means they were not responsible for talking to the press but they did so anyway against organizational rules. Luckily in this case it probably isn't a matter of national security since the information is only secret instead of classified.

    --
    this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
  63. Re:KH-11 details - same as hubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are,, KH-11 and hubble are the same frame with different optics.... different power but ... LOL we know how the optics parts went ......idiots . with the frame (platform) and screwy download protocols design added to the good the team Ive worked with its a wonder it works at all Good ideas ... hidden under a cloud of shit.... thank god i'm retired

  64. Whoops, sorry! by Shag · · Score: 1

    Maybe we forgot to shutter the laser again...

    --
    Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  65. Taco Bell by kevorkian · · Score: 1

    I wonder if taco bell will set up another target

    http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=4152

  66. zombie movies. by Allison+Geode · · Score: 1

    don't a bunch of zombie movies start this way? is it wrong that I eagerly anticipate the impending zombie holocaust?

    1. Re:zombie movies. by stormguard2099 · · Score: 1

      is it wrong that I eagerly anticipate the impending zombie holocaust? So which do you sell, shotguns, chainsaws or cans of whoopass?
      --
      http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
  67. that is big by iteyoidar · · Score: 1
    This hubble picture gives a pretty good idea of how ginormous the spy telescope supposedly is

    http://www.nasm.si.edu/exhibitions/gal114/SpaceRace/sec500img/561l6p6.jpg

  68. Didn't I see this in a movie once? by Robotech_Master · · Score: 1

    Well, actually I haven't seen the movie itself yet, but I read the first part of the synopsis.

    --
    Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
  69. ufo by Sanat · · Score: 1
    --
    And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
  70. "There's a fire, sir." by silencer51 · · Score: 1

    Was anyone else reminded of 'The Andromeda Strain' by Michael Crichton when reading TFA?

  71. Wait for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait for the first time a huge satellite (military or not) hit a major city anywhere in the world in a roughly intact size. Then it won't matter anymore whether the probability of it happening again will be low, you will have to face scares roughly as bad as the "terror" scare when it started, every time one will come down (and they do)

  72. Wikipedia is not a primary source! by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1
    FTAS:

    but Wikipedia claims that US spy satellites in the KH-11 class, launched up to the mid-90s, are about the size of the Hubble The part of the wikipedia article on KH-11 (unlinked in TFAS) that claims a resemblance to the HST is uncited; however, the article itself (as of Jan 2, 2008 to now) lists three references.

    - One is a book, which I unfortunately don't have a handy copy of;
    - a second looks like a military conspiracy fansite (though perhaps because it's from 2000) and only mentions "Hubble" once in a nonsubstantive manner; and
    - the third is from GlobalSecurity.org, and seems to at least be humble about its accuracy with a nice, up-front disclaimer.

    Would it have been so hard to simply link to this third site instead of claiming Wikipedia as an authority? That aside, I'm quite confident that Wikipedia, as an organization (WikiMedia notwithstanding), doesn't "claim" anything about the KH-11. At least say, "the Wikipedia article on KH-11 says that..."

    Methinks someone's highschool English teacher was a bit too lenient.

    (I know, I must be new here...)

    - RG>
    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    1. Re:Wikipedia is not a primary source! by AVIDJockey · · Score: 1

      Your points are well taken, but I certainly wouldn't characterize fas.org (the official site of the Federation of American Scientists") as a "military conspiracy fansite" though I do admit that I've thought for years that chunks of the site have had a bit of a dated/amateruish look to them (to say the least).

    2. Re:Wikipedia is not a primary source! by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      D'oh! Quite true; however, even though the FAS site itself might be considered credible, none of the text on that page on the site discusses the KH-11's appearance, size, etc., so it would still not be considered a reference for that particular part of the Wikipedia article.

      There is an image of the satellite, but the only text referencing it talks about how the image was create, and not why they believe the KH-11 looks similar to the Hubble.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  73. I will have to.... by modmans2ndcoming · · Score: 1

    I will have to keep an eye out for it. I don't want it fal[no carrier]

  74. I think it took them a few days to announce this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I occasionally work (through a temp agency) somewhere (non-classified) that, due to the nature of the work involved (things that might annoy keyholes), gets to play "red light, green light" with USAF Space Command in Colorado.

    I worked Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday this week, and I don't recall exactly which of those days it was, but on one of them, pretty early in the evening if I recall, the phone rang and the guy in charge who answered it (I've emailed him to ask if he remembers which day) said that we had to stop doing what we do for a while because Space Command had "lost track of" a satellite.

    I'm guessing that would be this one, and that it took a few days for them to decide that it was well and truly lost, and for the news to filter out to the public.

  75. Nuclear Powered = Plutonium by mveloso · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just as an FYI, "nuclear powered" tends to mean "Plutonium." That was true for Soviet satellites. There wasn't much info floating around for the keyhole class satellites (which this one presumably is, since it's prefixed 'KH'). But it's a good bet that it had one.

    I'd like to think that the designers, when they designed the satellite, realized that re-entering a chunk of Plutonium was a bad idea and designed a mechanism to eject it in an escape orbit. Hopefully it's now-uncontrolled orbit is due to the ejection of said nuclear material.

    BTW, I like the way the article mentioned "beryllium" as the hazardous material. Beryllium and copper used to be used to make golf clubs, and you can still find BeCu clubs on eBay today. I highly doubt that anyone would issue a press release warning about 10 tons of old Ping BeCu clubheads hurtling towards us from space. But it's fun to read nonetheless.

    1. Re:Nuclear Powered = Plutonium by Artifakt · · Score: 3, Informative

      Beryllium is slightly hazardous. As a dust, it causes an allergic reaction in about 10-15% of people exposed, which can lead to some pretty severe long term health consequences for people with that dust in their lungs. This particular Beryllium is more likely to come down as significantly sized bits of metal than as a dust, so effects are most likely to be totally non-existent, unless a piece actually lands on somebody.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  76. Better link by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:Better link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You both are linking to separate rocket accidents,

      "Unmanned rocket explodes after liftoff" January 17, 1997
      http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9701/17/rocket.explosion/index.html
        This was a "Delta II rocket carrying a $40 million U.S. Air Force navigational satellite."

      "Boeing rocket explodes in Florida launch" August 27, 1998
      http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9808/27/rocket.blast2/index.html
        This was a "Delta 3 rocket carrying a U.S. communications satellite."

  77. Re:I think it took them a few days to announce thi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the phone rang and the guy in charge who answered it (I've emailed him to ask if he remembers which day) said that we had to stop doing what we do for a while because Space Command had "lost track of" a satellite. Got my answer - Wednesday was the night AFSC told us they had lost track of a satellite. And the leak was Saturday... so figure 2.5-3 days before it got out to anybody except a bunch of academics and temps. :)
  78. if only you could mod tagging... by mrv20 · · Score: 1

    Which dribbling retard tagged this with 'whatcouldpossiblygowrong'? Even the summary makes it perfectly bloody obvious what could go wrong.

    --
    "Algebraical symbols are used when you don't know what you are talking about" - BCS
  79. Devo said it best.... by letchhausen · · Score: 0, Troll

    she was walking all alone down the street in the alley her name was sally she never saw it when she was hit by space junk in new york miami beach heavy metal fell in cuba angola saudi arabia on xmas eve said norad a soviet sputnik hit africa india venezuela (in texas kansas) it's falling fast peru too it keeps coming and now i'm mad about space junk i'm all burned out about space junk oooh walk & talk about space junk it smashed my baby's head and now my sally's dead

    --
    Hey, you think your house is cool?
  80. Acts of god by phorm · · Score: 1

    Usually an "act of god" is a natural, non-man influenced disasters. So your house might not be covered against a forest fire, but that depends on whether it was created by lightning strike (act of god) or a poorly extinguished campfire/cigarette or broken glass in the sun (act of man).

    It also gets kinda dicey when it comes to things that were caused by a "natural disaster" but exabberated by human factors. For example, I wonder what the situation would be considered in a case like New Orleans, where flooding is natural, but poor dike maintenance might be a human-influenced factor.

  81. Lawmakers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    A senior government official said that lawmakers and other nations are being kept apprised of the situation

    Of all the people they have to inform, the one group they specially point out is 'lawmakers'. How are those supposed to help with it? Quickly pass a law that it is illegal to stand under a falling satellite, so they can sue any victims, and avoid paying any compensation?

  82. I call by mrsuge · · Score: 1

    Dibbs!

  83. Yes, they're beeeeeg! by ErkDemon · · Score: 1
    For reference, look at the size of the shuttle payload bay -- that's supposed to be the size of the KH-11.

    In fact, the conspiracy theory about the whole shuttle project was that it was designed all along to launch, service and retrieve KH11s. Hence the shuttle's expensive wings, landing gear, etc. You don't need all that hardware to launch stuff, and you only need a little reentry pod to bring people back. We could have put a simple disposable aluminium tube onto the Shuttle's tank and boosters, along with an engine pod and a personnel pod, and it'd have done pretty much the same job (designs exist). The only way that the shuttle's design makes sense is if it's designed to bring large objects safely back to Earth, and the only things that we can think of that the shuttle can reach that are expensive enough to be worth bringing back are KH11s. Hence the large bay doors, and hence the retrieval arm

    Why would you want to retrieve a KH11?
    Well, they are damned expensive (estimates vary between 600m and a billion dollars each, depending on inflation), and KH11s have a different mission profile to most satellites, in that they're expected to be able to get real close to specific locations at specific times, so they can't just sit passively in a general-purpose orbit. If you get a tip-off about something funny happening in some Russian shipyard right now, and you want hi-res satellite pics before "whatever it is" moves on, then you need a satellite to be able to manoeuvre into position to be able to sweep down and take those pics, at that location, ASAP. So the last third of a KH11 is supposed to be a hydrazine-based propulsion system.

    Snag is, when that propulsion system runs out of gas your KH11 loses its reason for living, so we wanted some way of refuelling or servicing the things in orbit, or perhaps even bringing them back for servicing and relaunch (hell-llo Mr Space Shuttle).

    As for any superficial external similarities between Hubble and a KH11, well, the common factor is going to be the dimensions of the Shuttle cargo bay, so yes, it'd be surprising if they didn't have the same basic body dimensions. You want to make best use of the space available.

  84. Sick of this crap by ptisouthwest · · Score: 1

    Flaming great. Like I don't have enough problems to worry about now I have to think about a potential satellite dropping on my head. I promise the US government , if this flaming satellite lands on me Im going to sue you to the tune of billions. Why put something up there if you can't control it. I used to expect stuff like this from the Russians with their outdated , low funded 90's forces but now the US is doing it. Imagine what happens when the chinese, indians , get in on the space launching idea. then I have twice as much chance of dying as before from a satellite squashing me. Doubt id even get a paying since we in the UK have a bloody puppet government of the US anyway. The us says jump and the british government says how high. in events like this i should live in china or iran atleast they stand up tot he US government. ------------- www.xenbet.com

    1. Re:Sick of this crap by RecordHigh · · Score: 1

      I promise the US government , if this flaming satellite lands on me Im going to sue you to the tune of billions.

      I don't think your threat is going to result in a change in the trajectory of the satellite; according to the article, the US Government does not currently have control over the satellite. In any case, I seriously doubt you will be hit by the flaming remnants of the satellite, but if you are, you will need some extremely good luck to get your lawsuit off the ground. First, you have to survive the impact of the flamming satellite as it lands on you. And then, suing the US Government is very difficult, and it may, in fact, be impossible.

      Why put something up there if you can't control it.

      I'm sure their intention was not to put the satellite up there uncontrolled; however, things don't always go the way you expect them to.

  85. Blatant cover-up by game+kid · · Score: 1

    We all know it's a giant "star" filled with alien monsters, to which a hot transforming android chick in a bikini will fly to destroy it and save our collective ass.

    They don't need to use the silly "spy satellite" defense.

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  86. Re:Cosmos 954 cleanup with computer technology vie by Sanat · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the URL

    This story is very interesting from the perspective of a scientist who was there and contributed directly to the find.

    --
    And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
  87. Hubble is a modified KH-11 of sorts by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Actually, you aren't too far off the mark. Hubble is actually based a lot on the KH-11 package. The basic idea is, as you said, if we can read x,y,z on earth from space, we ought to be able to use a similar thing to see a,b,c in the galaxy. It's sort of a sinister spy sat for the technical good.

    --
    This is my sig.
  88. Truck accident by conureman · · Score: 1

    Exactly why I have landscaped the outer perimeter of my yard with giant piles of rock.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  89. Actuaries by conureman · · Score: 1

    Cheap bet.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  90. Lost power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps lost power means hit by space junk? Maybe the third one was not able to dodge the bullets.... http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=1&mode=thread&commentsort=0&sid=431502&op=Reply

  91. Satellites: 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forgot about the moon, which has been winning for billions of years.

    1. Re:Satellites: 1 by jovius · · Score: 1

      The Moon hasn't yet destroyed the Earth.

  92. I'll be wearing a hard hat until this blows over by afabbro · · Score: 2, Funny
    If it really can come down "anywhere," and if the Earth has 196,940,400 square miles, and there are 27,878,400 feet per square mile, and I take up about 1.5 square feet of space at any given time, then there is apparently a 1 in 3,660,255,498,240,000 (1 in 3.7 quintillion) chance that this will land on my head.

    Wait. Check that. If I'm asleep and horizontal, I probably take up more like 12 square feet. That increases the chance of having 20,000 tons of heavy metal land on me to 1 in 457,531,937,280,000. In other words, if you lie down, you are increasing the chances of being hit by a giant spy satellite by an order of magnitude. I don't know about you guys, but I'll be sleeping standing up from now on.

    Small consolation, I suppose, if it lands 10 feet West of you and the shock wave turns you into a fine mist.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
  93. I sold it on E-bay....... by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    of course if anything bigger than confetti makes it to ground im sure that a lot of "bidding" will be from NSASA####### and they won't be using Paypal to fund the purchase (don't bother shipping it we will pick Y^hit up in person)

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  94. Oblig. Zapp Brannigan by mstahl · · Score: 1

    You win again, gravity!

  95. Possible landing area could be in Quasi, Australia by Bushido+Hacks · · Score: 1

    The say the don't know where the satilite will land or if the trajectory will make it burn up in the atmosphere.

    One possiblity, which I hope is not going to happen is that some Republican will aim it to flatten some successful Democrat so that some other Republican posing as a Democrat so that the New world order prevails and blame it on "having no control" over where it lands. (It's a SPY satellite. Of course they WON'T tell the truth. It's classified.) "Oops? Now what a tragic event. We didn't know about it." (Not on my watch, suckers!)

    Another possiblility, it lands out in the Sea, and everyone get free tacos! (Yay! Tacos!)

    The third possiblility is that the satellite crashes into Quasi, Austraila.

    --
    The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
  96. Satellite Crash Easter Eggs by stoofa · · Score: 1

    This story prompted my brother to start off a bizarre game among friends. He emailed out saying that everyone should pick a spot on Google Earth where they think it will crash and whoever is closest will get an Easter egg off all the others. Trouble is he didn't think it though carefully enough and have a central impartial person to collect the predictions. Now, as he has gone first, everyone else is just placing their predictions in a neat little half mile radius around his. If by a million-to-1 shot he actually wins, he'll have to share his Easter eggs with the others in orange boiler suits around him.

  97. Time to bring in MacGyver by Veretax · · Score: 0

    If ever there was a time for MacGyver this is it. Surely the genius of MacGyver can find a way to repair or diver this satellite, all he needs is what a few components out of every /. user's pocket.

  98. Ha ha ha! by Invidia · · Score: 1

    This awesome! I hope it hits North Philly.Specifically, my business partner's house.