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.

Comments

My Backyard

[acidradio]

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?

Re:My Backyard

[Brian Gordon]

If it lands in your back yard, you get to spend 10 or 15 years in guantanamo bay to make sure you don't talk.

Re:My Backyard

[evanbd]

Yeah, have fun with the hydrazine.

Personally, I wouldn't want to keep anything that's flammable, explosive, toxic, corrosive, carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic. At least it's not radioactive...

Re:My Backyard

[Moonpie Madness]

If this thing lands in unfriendly lands, whatever's left will fetch a lot of money... or be subject to US airstrike.

Maybe it will 'accidentally' land on Iran's nuke facility! I wish our peeps were that smart.

Re:My Backyard

[acidradio]

On a day like today, all of those things sound kinda fun!

Re:My Backyard

[rucs_hack]

If it lands in your back yard, you get to spend 10 or 15 years in guantanamo bay to make sure you don't talk.

Nah, not unless they have a cell that's one milimeter high and fifty meters in radius, otherwise he wouldn't fit.

Re:My Backyard

[calculadoru]

If your state is not a legitimate democracy, it has no right to exist

Odd reasoning there. I can think of quite a few countries that are most definitely not legitimate democracies - China (who basically bankrolls the US thus ensuring it is free to oppress its population), North Korea (who pokes its nose at the US every other week, to no reaction whatsoever, while murdering its own citizens), Burma (saw all those dead monks? did the US government do anything about it?), Russia (and each day under Putin makes it worse, but the US president has 'seen into his soul', so that makes it alright), most of the former USSR republics in Central Asia, along with pretty much most of Africa, plus whatever I forget now (it's snowing and I'm having a warm cup of sake). Yes, Iran is a theocracy, and an evil one too - your point is? How do you decide who to fuck with, and in what order?
Please don't say oil.

Re:My Backyard

[steelfood]

I think GP's point, and the answer to his rhetorical question is, maybe we shouldn't fuck with anyone at all. I don't see anything that's worth the blood of thousands of civilians and tens of thousands of soldiers, beacuse 9/11 is what happens when you fuck with other cultures, the current Iranian regime is what happens when you fuck with other democratic governments, Iraq is what happens when you fuck with other soverign countries.

The US is in a location not easily attacked by anyone else. Our nearest neighbors are Canada and Mexico, and Siberian Russia. No sane government would dare attack us on our soil, and no insane government would have the means to do so. And quite frankly, if we weren't poking our noses around the world trying to enforce our rebranded form of colonialism, nobody would have attacked us at all.

Yes, certain things may require our assistance. I know I'm invoking Godwin, but the rise to power of the Nazis was one of them. But our assistance was requested. We were actively engaged in the war through the shipping of war supplies even before Pearl Harbor, and the Europeans practically begged for us to send troops over by the time the US began its counteroffensive.

But such are very special cases where by gaining control of the Atlantic ocean, US security would be threatened by Nazi Germany, and of the Pacific ocean, US security would be threatened by Imperial Japan (albeit not terribly much without ICBM's). Other than that, there has been no instance since where the US's security was threatened, only US "interests," which is a better word for "people who have lots of money and give lots of it to our corrupt politicians."

The answer you gave is why the rest of the world won't shed a single tear if another 9/11 happened. Because they've already seen through the moral, humanitarian, security facade, and they know us for the greedy, self-serving bastards that we actually are--which isn't the problem in and of itself if we only didn't pretend to be the righteous saviors of the rest of the world and try to stick our "morality" into everyone else's asses whenever we do intervene. If everyone here thought the same as you, I wouldn't be surprised if the US implodes upon itself trying to stop the mass wave of terrorists at our front door. In fact, that might already be happening.

Re:My Backyard

[evanbd]

I suppose I wasn't clear on the details.

Hydrazine is more flammable than gasoline, by a wide margin. Flammability limits in air are approximately 2% to 100% -- It's a monopropellant, so it doesn't actually need oxygen to burn (it's a fuel, though, so it will burn faster and hotter with oxygen). That makes it more flammable than even hydrogen. Fortunately it has a lower vapor pressure, so the flash point is somewhat elevated. As a fire hazard, I'd call gasoline worse, but hydrazine is plenty bad enough.

Hydrazine is explosive by itself, without any additions of components. However, it's relatively insensitive, so this is really only a concern to industrial handlers, not to someone who finds a satellite crashed in their yard.

Hydrazine is toxic well beyond the level of bleach. LD50 for skin contact is somewhere around a teaspoon -- a fairly minor spill. At levels well below that, it will cause *permanent* damage to your liver, kidneys, and probably others. There's nothing in your house where a small splash on your skin warrants a trip to the ER (and if there is, you must have some neat hobbies!).

Hydrazine isn't as caustic as some household cleaners; this is mostly relevant when engineering with it, not for hazards of encountering it. It does mean it will eat away many sorts of gloves you might wear -- which makes the previous point and the next three relevant.

It's not just that hydrazine is carcinogenic. Lots of things are carcinogenic in large quantities; a few are in any quantity. Hydrazine is one of the latter (obviously risk level depends on exposure). Some chemicals your body can safely metabolize small amounts of without any increased risk; hydrazine is not one of these. What makes hydrazine so nasty is that, combined with the degree of potency. Monomethyl hydrazine (I don't have data handy for straight hydrazine, which is less nasty; the satellite could well be using straight hydrazine as a monopropellant or MMH or UDMH as a fuel in a bipropellant; all three are commonly used) is one of the most potent carcinogens known. One study showed that a carefully sized single drop of MMH on the skin of lab rats caused cancer in 90%. They had to be careful to keep the drop size down so that it didn't kill the rats by being toxic, though.

Mutagenic and teratogenic are nasty at similar levels; the effects are just slightly different than being carcinogenic. Planning on having kids you want to be healthy? Don't handle hydrazine derivatives.

Now, all that said, with sufficient budget and in the right setting it can be handled mostly safely. "Some thing landed in my backyard; I think I'll get a souvenir" is not that setting. And, depending on the design of the satellite, it's entirely possible a mostly undamaged propellant tank could survive reentry -- similar components have done so previously on other satellite reentries, and on Columbia.

You're surrounded by low level background risks, and things that you shouldn't drink. Hydrazine goes well beyond that -- you'd do better to think of it as a chemical weapon that happens to be to slow to be useful as such. It's only mildly less potent than some of them.

Re:My Backyard

[The One and Only]

Israel is committing genocide

Genocide requires intent. If Israel intended to commit genocide, there would be no Palestinians left. Maybe a few token Palestinians living on reservations.

and has violated more UN resolutions than any other nation, since the establishment of the General Assembly

Irrelevant. The UN is illegitimate since at least a majority of member nations are illegitimate governments.

It also denies full citizenship rights to some, based on ethnicity - despite being indigenous to the region.

Many Arabs are full-fledged Israeli citizens, who even hold the right to vote. The only difference in citizenship rights is that Israeli Arabs are not compelled to serve in the military.

It was created through acts of terror against the UK.

So was Ireland. So was the United States, by that standard. The King David Hotel bombing was against a legitimate target (the hotel was the headquarters of the British colonial authority) and multiple warnings were issued before the bombing. The Jewish population of Israel never attacked buses, pizzerias, or other civilian targets. They never even attacked the UK itself. Furthermore, the creation of Israel was a result of the Balfour Declaration, made by the UK in 1917, decades before the King David Hotel bombing, and secured in a war of independence, not against Britain but against nearly every Arab country that existed.

You also should understand that the UK was perhaps the greatest imperial power the world has ever known, and managed to piss off about half the world in the process. Iraq? The UK invented Iraq by conquering most of the Middle East and dividing it into different British colonies. Same with Jordan. Anyway, eventually it became more expensive than it was worth and the British gave up. The point is, it's just plain wrong for you to cast the British as the good guys here, as they were one of the most genocidal imperial powers in world history. Not that I want to bomb London, but on the other hand I have minimal sympathy for mid-20th-century British bureaucrats overseeing an imperial possession and consider such persons very legitimate targets.

Re:My Backyard

[ksheff]

no, oil is better for us if we drill it and use it to make useful things like plastics. IIRC, the last Shah of Iran thought that burning oil for fuel was one of the dumbest things to do with it.

Re:Only one man would use the strawberry...

[Anonymous Coward]

Strawberry? STRAWBERRY?

It's raspberry for ***** sake!

The Chinese Can Handle It

[frankenheinz]

Can't the Chinese just shoot it down for us? http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/01/18/china.missile/index.html

Re: (Not in) My Backyard

[Zymergy]

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?

Your Nerd License is hereby revoked

[Anonymous Coward]

It is "Only one man would dare give me the Raspberry", not "Only on man would dare use the strawberry..."

Will it burn up?

[hax0r_this]

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?

Re:Will it burn up?

[clarkkent09]

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?

Most of it will burn up on reentry. Depending on how large it is and the materials used, there will probably be many small pieces of debris reaching the ground across hundreds of miles.

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?

The same thing that stops them from say seizing a US ship somewhere on the ocean and ripping out its radar and other technology. Its piracy and it would invite if not all out war then at least some sort of major retaliation by the US.

Re:Will it burn up?

[nacturation]

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. The atmosphere isn't a lightsaber that will completely destroy everything that touches it. For a fast-moving object, it's more like a welding torch that tries to burn away as much as it can. If the object is large enough, not all of it will burn up before the object is slowed to the point where it no longer generates enough friction to burn.

Re:Will it burn up?

[jaminJay]

More importantly, will it blend?

Re:Which is it?

[Sub Zero 992]

Well, your options are not mutually exclusive.

Most likely:

a) its solar wings failed to deploy
b) it is therefore in deep sleep
c) what goes up (and remains within the Hill Sphere) must come down

ymmv

oh no!!

[Runagate Rampant]

A communications disruption could mean only one thing: invasion

Re:Which is it?

[ThirdPrize]

Blue Screen of Death actually. Just needs someone to go up and reboot it.

Re:Only one man would use the strawberry...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surrounded by assholes.

Re: (Not in) My Backyard

[Zoxed]

> 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 !!)

Re: (Not in) My Backyard

[icebrain]

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).

Intelligent Speculation?

[ideonode]

Intelligent speculation has led one knowledgeable observer....

But I thought that god did not play dice...

Enough already

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Enough already

[Ihlosi]

Show me ONE EXAMPLE of someone held in Gitmo who WAS NOT an ununiformed combatant fighting our troops or implementing terror attacks.

If he did, he'd probably get stuck into Gitmo for violating national security.

Re:Enough already

[d3ac0n]

Or where certain peoples didn't teach their kids that murder and death are good things to aspire to:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/palestinian-kids-mama-killed-five-jews-shes-in-paradise

The fact is, small children are REGULARLY used by AQ, Taliban, Hamas and Hezbollah to carry out terror attacks. Why? Because people don't naturally connect children with danger. Thus, the scumbags in terrorist organizations brainwash kids into doing their dirty work.

Wanna see a suicide bomber in-training? Here: http://knighthospitilar.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/suicide_bomber_1_.jpg

Those bombs are obviously fake, but who's to say that this kid won't be strapping on REAL ones next?

This is the culture of the terrorists. Death, Destruction, and Murder. And it has been like this for WAY longer than the US has been involved in the middle east, so please, no intellectually dishonest attempts to blame this on the US or the west. These people have done this to themselves.

Don't believe me? Then watch the videos for yourself: http://www.pmw.org.il/tv%20part1.html

It's a sad, sick world when a child grows up with a hateful dream of blowing themselves to bits while murdering innocents. These people need to answer for what they are doing to their children, and their so-called religious and political leaders need to pay the deadly price for bringing such evil into the world.

All you Liberals out there need to stop excusing their evil and open your eyes.

Re:Enough already

[R2.0]

"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."

Give it up dude - that "troll" moderation tells you everything you need to know about the political environment here. I tried the exact same argument a while back, and all I got was a sputtering "Padilla!...Republicans!...Fascists!..."

Of course, it will all be better when the Democrats take charge, right? Right?

Re:Enough already

[Mr2cents]

I have to ask, if they refuse to participate in the process that could win their freedom and prove they shouldn't be held, then why should I care if they are being held? I mean it doesn't make them look less guilty by refusing to participate in the one thing that could secure their release. Who says they refuse to participate? Their lawyer? The judge? Or could it by any chance be the military who's holding them in the first place?

And I have to ask, how exactly are you supposed to defend yourself if you're not charged with anything?

PS: <sarcasm>They do have a lawyer, don't they?</sarcasm>

Re:Bad design... was it made in china? haha

[got2liv4him]

they did... and it failed. they have been able to communicate with the satelite, which keeps reporting that it tries to reboot and fails each time

Re:Enough already (Beware Al Queda Humorists)

[An dochasac]

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."

bzzt

[darkwhite]

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.

Re:Tracking the orbit

[Lincolnshire Poacher]

> Where can I track the orbit of this satellite?

http://www.heavens-above.com/orbitdisplay.asp?satid=29651&lat=48.59562&lng=2.92156&loc=Somewhere&alt=10&tz=GMT

Change lat / long as appropriate.