Slashdot Mirror
Speculation On the Doomed Satellite
scim writes "Intelligent speculation has led one knowledgeable observer to believe the satellite recently announced to have failed is a radar satellite named USA 193. According to an earlier story on the satellite: 'The experimental L-21 classified satellite, built for the National Reconnaissance Office at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, was launched successfully on Dec. 14 [2006] but has been out of touch since reaching its low-earth orbit.'" The ArmsControlWonk story leads off with what purports to be a photo from the ground of USA 193.
So did it run out of fuel or is it dead?
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
If it lands in my backyard, I get to keep it. Just like the neighbor kid's frisbees and baseballs! That's only fair, right?
from ID4 - the invasion begins in a few hours.
The RADAR has been jammed! Only on man would dare use the strawberry...
Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
Can't the Chinese just shoot it down for us? http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/18/china.missile/index.html
The law is not an ass. No really.
I would hope that it does not contain an RTG or other nuclear components... but RTG's are said to be able to survive reentry... ,Ahem! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator
Recall that some of our older satellites had Polonium 210 coatings applied to some surfaces which could not be allowed to become frozen (batteries, etc.) in the deep cold of space (including parts of our Apollo Lunar Rover if my memory serves). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium
Wait a minute!!!, Wasn't this the secondary plot to G.I. Jane?
It is "Only one man would dare give me the Raspberry", not "Only on man would dare use the strawberry..."
I've always thought that things coming down from space have a tendency to burn up in the atmosphere, but on the other hand chunks of that space shuttle landed all over the place. Can someone who knows what they're talking about enlighten me as to how much of this satellite is likely to survive?
Which brings me to something else: do these satellites have some sort of self destruct mechanism? What was to stop, say, the Soviets or Chinese from going up and physically stealing a very expensive satellite that presumably contains technology/information we don't want them getting their hands on?
lol, i always knew my trusty tinfoil hat will come in handy someday
A communications disruption could mean only one thing: invasion
Which brings me to something else: do these satellites have some sort of self destruct mechanism?
I believe it's 1A 2B 3C.
You win again, Gravity!
Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
Don't find it odd!
America isn't a legitimate state... exit polling suggests the last two elections were rigged. They have no right to exist, own property, have a military, etc. Because they are a bigoted evil colonial power.
America has repeatedly said it will take no options off the table. If you visit America, you will hear people on the radio talk about turning the middle east into a piece of glass, etc. And it's not actually to protect themselves against terrorism (though it wouldn't be okay if it were), they are continuing a hundred year old policy of establishing a military presence around oil resources. This places them in the same category as Rome or the British Empire.
Also, you're wrong about the civilian deaths. America has killed more foreign civilians than any other outside country in history, perhaps with the exception of Nazi Germany. They claim the numbers in Iraq are low this time, but statistics out of America are always lies. Even if they say what the Americans want them to, they will still lie about it. Notice how they don't officially "keep track" of civilian deaths. Hell if anyone knows the real figures.
If your state is not a legitimate member of the international community, it has no right to exist. We can't destroy every such nation for obvious reasons, but we can fuck with them however we feel we need to. Why? Why not?
Sincerely,
Wen Jiabao
Premier of the People's Republic of China
RTGs? That's puny!
Russian radar satellites had the whole _nuclear_ _reactors_ (one of them crashed somewhere in Canada)!
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RORSAT
A quick blast with the anti-satellite weapon from China and we'd all be saved! :)
--
Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.
Well : :) There can be 4 of those :)
1) Well, it most likely doesnt have any RTGs, because they are expensive and not very powerfull when compared to solar arrays in earth orbit.
2) Possible hazards - hydrazine propelant. But the tanks will most probably burst during reentry, fracturing the sat so it will burn up even more evenly.
Momentum wheels - well, just a solid metal wheel falling at 200 km/h
3) The sat has been dead from launch in 2006, and because it is in LEO, it just must come down soon or later, no surprise here.
4) Its 4-5 tons max, you dont put much more on the Delta II on which it was launched.
5) For accurate info: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=11627&start=1
In Russian book
by P. Makovetski this problem has been throughly discussed:
http://n-t.ru/ri/mk/sk030.htm
(Automatic Google English translationhttp://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fn-t.ru%2Fri%2Fmk%2Fsk030.htm&langpair=ru%7Cen&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8)
The short result is that this satellite has a 5 times more likely to land in Antarctica than in Africa.
> I would hope that it does not contain an RTG or other nuclear components.
This was the first thing I thought of when I read the same story at BBC News. But that article says the fuel is hydrazine.
(But as the source was anonymous, and the satellite is US Military, that leak could just be a PR move !!)
"Maybe it will 'accidentally' land on Iran's nuke facility! I wish our peeps were that smart."
... your CIA themselves said they stopped developing it in 2003.
I sure don't hope so, because they don't have any
But we can't let facts stand in the way of a good war, can we?
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
I really doubt you'll see any RTGs on an earth-orbit satellite. It's a lot cheaper and easier just to use solar panels; RTGs are reserved for deep space missions or other things where solar panels lose effectiveness due to distance (Jupiter/Saturn adn beyond), dust (MSL rover), or extended shadow (moon surface experiments).
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Maybe if the US had a reliable space vehicle they could go out and save it fast. Thats what you get for developing a spacecraft based on looks and coolness factor instead of using reliable stuff like Saturn V or other rocket types.
HTTP/1.1 400
That's the stupidest combination I've ever heard in my life! The kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage!
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth
Don't worry, mate. No one was ever killed with Polonium.
What, no "+1 Ironic"?
.there is enough of everything for everyone.
Intelligent speculation has led one knowledgeable observer....
But I thought that god did not play dice...
No, it is not going to land on anyones yard. In fact, it has not failed at all.
It is not a bug, it's a feature!
The disappearance of this classified satellite is planned second stage classification, that's all.
Move on, nothing to see here.
Launched "successfully" only 12 months ago and now its going to crash in a burning mess.
The folks over there in "intelligence" sure have a low threshold for what success means. This must be from the same school of accuracy that brought us "Saddam has WMDs".
Worst scenario here is it hitting Iran... like anyone will believe its an accident.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Probably not an RTG, but you may well see a real nuclear reactor on earth-orbit satellites. IIRC the Soviet Union had some satellites that were powered this way, and I'd be surprised if the US didn't.
This 'joke' is so tired. Show me ONE EXAMPLE of someone held in Gitmo who WAS NOT an ununiformed combatant fighting our troops or implementing terror attacks.
There is plenty to bash the US for. Let's try to stick to facts instead of cheap mod point whoring with stupid jokes that have no basis in reality.
Thanks. Have a nice day.
Seriously, who makes a damn sat with no backup or backdoor telemetry. Even something at 50bits/second on UHF, anything to send debugs/logs anything, a simpler smaller
computer not using the main powergrid, but something small maybe even normal batteries, but kicks in for 10mins/day every 2 days or something.
Too much object orientation with dependancies is a killer. More independant systems, even some using analogue instead of digital may sound old school, but often
has a better success rate.
Or maybe they launched a dual combo one, and this is a decoy part that detached, while the real sat part is doing its secret stuff in a hidden orbit all painted black.
Im sure they can fake its orbit/failure to look like its 12tonnes even though it could be a 1tonne shell with 50lb thrusters.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
The launch went over well. Deployment didn't. This scenario should be familiar to anyone using Microsoft Windows. (SCNR)
But hey, the rocket didn't explode or something. Certainly a successful launch.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
There was the editor of a parody magazine (The Pakistani version of The Onion) who was locked up at GitMo as a "terrorist" (His jokes weren't even very good). Check out the Habeus Schmabeus program from This American Life for more interesting examples.
Well, it used to be in their archives. Does anyone have a copy? Just a sec I have to answer the door, someone's pounding on it with the but of an AR-15.
Well, a quick google search shows that the US launched one reactor-powered satellite in 1965; the reactor failed relatively quickly and the satellite was boosted into a higher "disposal" orbit. There were apparently plans to launch an experiemental reactor in the shuttle's payload bay, in support of the SDI program; this was scrapped after Challenger.
The Soviet Union launched several reactor-powered satellites; it seems that most (if not all) of them were RORSATs (Radar Ocean Reconnaissance SATellites). I believe their primary function was finding US carrier battlegroups and supply convoys, with the intent of directing attack submarines and long-range bombers. I'd imagine they used reactors because they could supply more power. I also seem to remember reading that solar panels are pretty vulnerable to EMP effects in orbit; maybe a reactor is less so?
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
No-one else thinking this could be something to do with the electrical interference caused by tu24 in the earth's magnetosphere this week? :>
Here is a link to the "Habeus Schmaebeus" podcast: http://podcast.thisamericanlife.org/special/310_bonus.mp3 Listen to this and tell me you still believe all of the gitmo detainees are a threat to our country.
From the 517 pentagon case files, only 5% were picked up on the by American troops on battlefield. Only 8% are classified by Pentagon as Al Queda fighters. Out of nearly 600 men at Gitmo, only about 1-2 dozen men could provide useful information. The vast majority of the detainees were handed over by Pakistan and a significant number were detained as part of a bounty program. Al Queda bounties were higher than Taliban, so suddenly turning in your neighbor became much more profitable if you told the U.S. he is "Al Queda."
Do quick google searches also turn up data on all the classified sats up there ? The reason why the Soviet nuclear-powered sats are common knowledge is because one of them ended coming down in the wrong place
Hydrazine powers rocket engines/orbital thrusters. RTGs power spacecraft electrical systems. Use of hydrazine in fuel cells is very rare. Nothing prevents a spacecraft from having both on board.
It's not clear, however, why a satellite in a highly elliptical orbit would use RTGs instead of solar panels. It's not like it gets a lot of stealth that way, since apparently it's still very visible by radar and even telescope.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
No, it's tidal. The moon is receding by a few centimeters every year. Of course, the energy is coming from the earth's rotation, which is slowing down by a corresponding amount.
I'm not sure that the moon will ever de-orbit the earth, though. Without doing the calculations, wouldn't the moon stop receding once Earth's rotation matches the moon's orbit, or once the oceans evaporate?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Just ask China to blow it up for us.
Quote: "Item 2 is where oil becomes relevant. Oil sitting in the ground belongs to nobody, because it isn't even remotely usable until it has been discovered and recovered. (No, you don't own it just because you were born nearby!) In the ground it's a wasted resource, wasted life, a missed opportunity. If a country is sitting atop an oil deposit, we can develop it, which profits everyone -- most importantly us."
Correct me if I am wrong, but usually resource in the ground are considered belonging to the country above the ground and if tehy choose to be poor but preserve environment, well that is THEIR choice and it is THEIR country after all. What instead you are telling is that if nobody exploit it it is UP FOR THE GRAB. Even AGAINST the will of the locals. And if I read it correctly between the line, if needed we can bomb them out and then grab their resource to exploit them.
I wonder what you would say if suddenly the world decided that a resource not exploited currently be the US (let us say, something nasty like arsenic or whatnot) need to be exploited against the will of the locals.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Those Cloverfield guys have gone too far with their viral marketing this time!
Where can I track the orbit of this satellite? http://science.nasa.gov/Realtime/jtrack/3d/JTrack3D.html don't list it. http://www.n2yo.com/ lists it, but can't track it.
Let me guess: they forgot to disable the keyboard check within the BIOS on the satellite.
KEYBOARD ERROR OR KEYBOARD NOT FOUND - PRESS [F1] TO CONTINUE [F2] FOR SETUP
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
The RTG references for this are, I think, mostly traceable back to
http://www.space.com/news/nasa_plutonium_020724.html
which indicates that 'for reasons of national security' one RTG-worth of plutonium-238 had been reclaimed from NASA about five years ago.
There are various national-security applications for plutonium-238 - it's perfect stuff for powering, for example, bits of equipment to sit in a cave in Afghanistan or next to an undersea cable off Taiwan quietly recording all that passes to be collected later; it lets you build satellites without shiny solar panels. Lincoln Experimental Satellites 8 and 9 used RTGs; http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5562667 is an abstract claiming there are ten American satellites in Earth orbit with RTGs on board, though I rather doubt it will list names and purposes.
That would be just north of Jesusland.
-On the internet, no one cares if you're a dog.-
eBay it!
Frank says we have 28 days, 6 hours, 42 minutes, and 12 seconds left...
A landowner gets to keep a meteorite that falls on his property under the doctrine of first possession, but a satellite would be different. Finder's doctrine would apply. Basically, if no one came to claim the satellite, the landowner would own it so far as everyone else's rights are concerned, but a finder's right of ownership is not good against the original owner who has every legal right to come and claim it. You can bet that the US government is pretty likely to come looking for it. (This analysis ignores whether or not there are laws preventing civilians from claiming military hardware in the first place.)
Note that you also don't actually have a legal right to claim ownership of frisbees and baseballs that fall onto your property. You would lose if someone sued you for conversion of chattels. However, people just generally aren't litigious enough to waste the money on an attorney to replace a $5 kids toy and are generally happy for an object lesson to their kids in being careful with your stuff.
But if your neighbor's stupid kids broke out their dad's prized baseball signed by Babe Ruth and managed to knock into your yard, you can be damned sure that you aren't going to be able to keep it.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Hmm...given the current thinking of our 'administration' what are the chances that this bird actually has some sort of weaponry on-board? Space nukes, perhaps?
1) Once your "stuff" leaves Earth, can you still claim ownership?
2) Is there any technology out there to try to "catch" the satellite and "soft-land" it, without burning it up? (If it's a recent American spy satellite, it could be a valuable asset to discover for other intel services.)
3) Is it possible to simply destroy it, before it gets dangerous?
4) Can anyone - who has the technology - catch or destroy a loose satellite?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/948907.html
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Without doing the calculations, wouldn't the moon stop receding once Earth's rotation matches the moon's orbit, or once the oceans evaporate?
I believe you are right that once it's tide locked it's orbit will be stable, but there's still tides even without oceans. Solid Earth tides (rock moving up and down) are bigger than most people realize.
And anyway an RTG only produces about 300W of electricity.
A radar imaging satellite would need kilowatts.
Hey.. uhh.. Maybe the Chinese shot it down.
I'm just speculating, but it sounds like this is one of those Synthentic Apeture Radar/ Lacrosse systems.... lower resolution, but it works in all weather/light conditions.... any thoughts?
Maybe we can get China to help us blow it up with their laser.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/18/0235229
I also seem to remember reading that solar panels are pretty vulnerable to EMP effects in orbit; maybe a reactor is less so?
It would make sense. Your solar panels would look like big wire loops to an EMP blast. On the other hand, you could put your reactor into a metal sheilded container so that the EMP would have a minimal effect on it.
I'm telling you, when this think hits, it will land in Quasi!
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
The "USA 193" or the experimental L-21 classified satellite is being downed by electromagnetic flux. The Government officials are just pawns, of course, but the people in charge of "informing the public" through these officials are lying about the reason for the electronics failing. These satellites, at many millions of dollars, are made to last; it's ridicules to say that it just failed in this way. The pulsing EMF is being caused by a rogue planet, a magnetic giant, that entered the solar system in about 2003. This very large planet is simply on it's way past the sun on it's 3,657 year sling orbit. NASA has known about this planet since 1983, only reported it once in the Washington post and since has tied off the story in fear of public reaction. Crow.
By-the-by, does anyone still lock their luggage? It seems rather pointless these days when the locks have to have an easily-picked TSA bypass which hundreds of people have the keys for anyway.
"Algebraical symbols are used when you don't know what you are talking about" - BCS