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."

Comments

Jesus...

[SpectreBlofeld]

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...

Re:Jesus...

[funwithBSD]

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

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

Re:Jesus...

[JWSmythe]

    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.

Re:Jesus...

[st1d]

>>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. :)

Re:Jesus...

[dbIII]

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.

Re:Jesus...

[JWSmythe]

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.

Re:Jesus...

[bcmm]

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?

Re:The size of the Hubble?

[BWJones]

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.

Oh please

[ArchieBunker]

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

Don't want to be the conspiracy theorist but...

[TwoHundredOk]

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

U.S. Secrets more important than human lives?

[flajann]

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.

Re:here it is

[theNAM666]

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!

Oh boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Another chance at a free taco! Whoo hoo!

Re:why do we care

[VValdo]

Know anybody who's been hit?

Not personally, but the BBC does.

W

Satellite ID NROL-21, a.k.a. US 193

[EQ]

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.

Re:Satellite ID NROL-21, a.k.a. US 193

[Attaturk]

...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?

Re:These things kill.

[Jesus_666]

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*