Slashdot Mirror


USA 193 Shootdown Set For Feb 21, 03:30 UTC

An anonymous reader writes "Amateur satellite watcher Ted Molczan notes that a "Notice to Airmen" (NOTAM) has been issued announcing restricted airspace for February 21, between 02:30 and 05:00 UTC, in a region near Hawaii. Stricken satellite USA 193, which the US has announced plans to shoot down, will pass over this area at about 03:30. Interestingly, this is during the totality of Wednesday's lunar eclipse, which may or may not make debris easier to observe."

358 comments

  1. I wonder by cslax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    if they chose the eclipse date on purpose. We'll wait and see what they say AFTER it all happens.

    1. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      We have all retired to ASR.

    2. Re:I wonder by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 1

      ...if they chose the eclipse date at all. Isn't Wednesday the 20th, not the 21st?

    3. Re:I wonder by MutantEnemy · · Score: 1

      It's the night of Wednesday 20 or the morning of Thursday 21, depending on where you are in the world.

      --
      Grr! Arg!
    4. Re:I wonder by thrillseeker · · Score: 0

      if they chose the eclipse date on purpose. We'll wait and see what they say AFTER it all happens.

      It was the earliest Karl Rove could arrange it.

    5. Re:I wonder by FesterDaFelcher · · Score: 1

      And we'll all be sure to get off your lawn while we're at it.

      --
      My user number is prime. Is yours?
    6. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's safe to say that no one will miss you.

    7. Re:I wonder by dwater · · Score: 4, Funny

      wow, the USA is powerful after all - they can arrange for the ecplise to happen on a day of their choosing. amazing.

      --
      Max.
    8. Re:I wonder by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe it's the senility, but I can't recall a time when the average Slashdotter was an expert in the mechanics involved in shooting down a wayward satellite.

    9. Re:I wonder by STrinity · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hydrazine+lunar eclipse=zombies!

      --
      Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
    10. Re:I wonder by zenkonami · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, this is during the totality of Wednesday's lunar eclipse, which may or may not make debris easier to observe." Well, Wednesday may or may not be the 20th or the 21st. The satellite debris may or may not land in the ocean. We may or may not call this journalism.

      No. Seriously. This is slashdot. No journalism here.
      --

      Do You Experiment?
    11. Re:I wonder by mph · · Score: 1

      The date in the headline is early Thursday morning (03:30) UTC. That's Wednesday evening in the United States.

    12. Re:I wonder by Beefaroni · · Score: 0

      eclipse? must be a card played by the Illuminati =p

    13. Re:I wonder by nizo · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the phrase, "I'm not really a rocket scientist, but I play one on Slashdot" applies here.

    14. Re:I wonder by TooLazyToLogon · · Score: 1

      Why didn't the space shuttle take care of this on the way back down?

    15. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This may give new meaning to the phrase "Shoot the moon!"

    16. Re:I wonder by Torontoman · · Score: 1

      "if they chose the eclipse date on purpose. We'll wait and see what they say AFTER it all happens".

      I agree - I think they should totally pick another date for the eclipse.

  2. Oddly enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... they're going to use a pop bottle to do the deed.

  3. Good coverage by BWJones · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bruce is a fellow satellite spotter also with some degree of background and in the subject matter and has good coverage here.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Good coverage by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is also some interesting analysis done by the Federation of American Scientists that suggests this is just an excuse to test out some anti-satellite missiles. An interesting read.

      http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/02/us_plans_test_of_anti-satellit.php

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    2. Re:Good coverage by T-Bone-T · · Score: 4, Informative

      Interestingly, none of my AFROTC teachers would let us use FAS as a source in any of our briefings or papers because they only know just enough of what they shouldn't know to be dangerous.

    3. Re:Good coverage by twiddlingbits · · Score: 5, Insightful


      FAS always raises hell over weapons tests of any kind. What else is new.

      The SM-2 to be used is actually being MODIFIED with new software to try to do the intercept. It's not certain it'll work. So I guess that makes it a test.

      The eclipse likely makes it easier to spot the "target".

      But at least we aren't leaving a shitload of crap to fuck up usuable orbit space like the ChiComms did in their ASAT test. This bird is coming down NOW so why not test on it. It's cheap, if it works maybe we have a new use for an existing system w/o spending millions, we clean up our own mess by shooting it down, the debris will come down (with some risk as it's smaller pieces) and not clutter the crap out of orbital space, and we trash anything secret the enemy might try to capture (assuming it survived re-entry..but why risk it?). Sounds like a bargin "test" to me.

    4. Re:Good coverage by v1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder what they mean by "shoot down"? It's not like an airplane, that if damaged, can't stay flying and falls to earth. If you blow up a big satellite, you end up with a bunch of little satellites, and that doesn't make them de-orbit much faster does it? I was under the understanding that blowing up stuff in space is BAD and creates a major headache more of space debris. I suppose if you really wanted to de-orbit a dead satellite you'd want to shoot a missile at it that would attach, and fire retro rockets to slow it down so it would degrade its orbit enough to hit atmosphere were it would be pulled down on its own from there.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    5. Re:Good coverage by RedWizzard · · Score: 3, Informative

      They're not shooting at it to make it de-orbit, it's already de-orbiting. They are shooting at it to make sure that the hydrazine fuel tank doesn't make it down to Earth intact (or worse, almost intact).

    6. Re:Good coverage by SoapBox17 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is also very important to note that the missile they are shooting it with does not have a warhead. They are basically just hitting it really hard, hoping to break it into pieces.

    7. Re:Good coverage by drerwk · · Score: 1

      More bits an pieces == more surface area. I don't know that it will de-orbit these pieces before they get to the west coast of the Americas. But it might make it more likely that no large piece will make it to a place that it can not be recovered by the US. Also, putting a hole in the gas tank will be good for keeping the fuel from coming down intact.

    8. Re:Good coverage by icebrain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd expect that shooting a satellite whose orbit is already decaying might hasten the process by a couple days (smaller pieces would generally have a lower ballistic coefficient and therefore decay faster), but not by a significant amount.

      The real benefit (to the US) is that turning a big, expensive satellite with lots of classified equipment on board into a bunch of little satellites means that the expensive bits are rendered unusable and far less likely to get to the ground intact, where they can be analyzed. It also provides a good opportunity to test a new missile system, and shows the Chinese that the US can play at their game, too.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    9. Re:Good coverage by XorNand · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah right... The fact that it's a two-year old, highly-classified spy satellite has nothing to do with it. The *real* reason that they're spending $60M is to make sure that some fuel doesn't contaminate an acre or so of land.

      --
      Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
    10. Re:Good coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe that's just the "official" explanation. It IS a spy satellite after all.

    11. Re:Good coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you blow up a big satellite, you end up with a bunch of little satellites, and that doesn't make them de-orbit much faster does it?
      Square-cube law. Aerodynamic drag is proportional to the area, which in turn is proportional to the square of the object diameter. Inertia is proportional to the mass, which is proportional to the volume, which in turn is proportional to the cube of the object diameter. Put it all together, and an object that's half the size will be decelerated by atmospheric drag twice as much. Blasting a big satellite into lots of tiny pieces will make the tiny pieces come down much faster than the satellite would have.
    12. Re:Good coverage by hax0r_this · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, there may be some truth to it. But like most decisions, there are a lot of things at work here:

      1. Having a giant hydrazine tank land on someone's house would be a PR nightmare.

      2. Having a spy satellite presumably filled with highly-classified stuff fall into the wrong hands is something They(tm) try to avoid.

      3. Demonstrating to the rest of the world that we can blow their satellites into much less useful pieces is somewhat in line with the agenda of the Bush administration.

      4. It can also be pointed to as a success of the missile defense program.

      So I wouldn't write off the whole hydrazine tank issue entirely, but I doubt its the primary motivator.

    13. Re:Good coverage by RedWizzard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah right... The fact that it's a two-year old, highly-classified spy satellite has nothing to do with it. The *real* reason that they're spending $60M is to make sure that some fuel doesn't contaminate an acre or so of land. Nothing useful in terms of spy gear is going to make it through re-entry. What might make it through re-entry is a large, resilient fuel tank containing high-toxic, probably carcinogenic, fuel. Logic dictates that if there was really something classified on the satellite that they didn't want to survive re-entry they simply would have designed it to not survive re-entry or they would have installed a self-destruct. Shooting it down at this point for the reason you're implying doesn't make sense.

      Besides, if it's the gear (rather than the fuel) that concerns them then why haven't they bothered shooting down other de-orbiting sats in the past?

    14. Re:Good coverage by twiddlingbits · · Score: 4, Informative

      Go look up Hydrazine (mono-methyl or di-methyl) and it's dangers. Tell ya what..heres the link to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomethylhydrazine and OSHA http://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_255500.html Think about how dangerous it is and how much of it is onboard (50kg or so). Then think about how much a good ambulance chaser aka "personal injury" lawyer could make off said dangers by suing Boeing, the Government and who knows else if someone's land was "contaminated" and there was an "injury". Then get back to me about if $60M is expensive.

    15. Re:Good coverage by Wayne247 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sorry but this is a bit ridiculous.

      First, them saying that they're "modifying" current hardware and software to be able to shoot down a satellite is like saying the US army isn't quite capable of shooting down a satellite. Of course they can, and they've been capable for years. This is only proving their homeworks is actually a viable solution, while keeping the public's eye away from military demonstrations. "Yeah we're cleaning up our space, that's right."

      Second, it serves no useful purpose to the orbital space whatsoever. The satellite is coming down, as a whole, right now. If no actions are done (saving 60$M in the process), the block of metals and circuits will just crash down somewhere vaguely predictable. Now, instead of one big vaguely predictable chunk of technology falling down, we're going to have hundreds if not thousands of smaller chunks that are going to be absolutely impossible to predict their trajectory. Mir was sent purposely into the ocean (missing the fun target), but it was still targeted there. Now this satellite is going to go wherever it pleases, regardless of our actions.

      The only reason this is being done is because they want to protect their satellite from enemy's eyes, and test a defense system in the process. Nothing more. Like I said, the satellite is going down, they,re not "cleaning" anything by destroying it.

      As others have pointed out in previous slashdot commentaries, there's even the risk that the explosion might send pieces of debris upwards in the atmosphere, and it may even reach an altitude that will not allow it to fall back down for a very long time. This would have the added bonus of actually putting NEW junk to clog up the orbital space that was previously doing without those new parts.

    16. Re:Good coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Demonstrating to the rest of the world that we can blow their satellites into much less useful pieces is somewhat in line with the agenda of the Bush administration. Quite frankly, what's the point of that? I assume that anyone who can put a satellite into a stable orbit can also kill a foreign satellite. That may or may not be naive, but it doesn't matter: Shooting at a foreign satellite is an act of war. When you do that and thereby start a war, the time of spy satellites is over anyway. The only options are not to shoot, for which you don't need the capability, or to shoot, and then the spy satellite is the least of your worries.
    17. Re:Good coverage by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      It IS a spy satellite after all.

          Was. Either way.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    18. Re:Good coverage by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      The *real* reason that they're spending $60M is to make sure that some fuel doesn't contaminate an acre or so of land.

            Hey, each shot is only 60% of the National Science Foundation's annual budget. Why not?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    19. Re:Good coverage by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 2, Informative

      As others have pointed out in previous slashdot commentaries, there's even the risk that the explosion might send pieces of debris upwards in the atmosphere, and it may even reach an altitude that will not allow it to fall back down for a very long time

      Do some basic research and don't believe everything you read on Slashdot. The missile they are firing (an SM-3) does not have an explosive warhead at all.
      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    20. Re:Good coverage by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      The eclipse likely makes it easier to spot the "target".

            Why? How does the moon affect radar? I'm sure they're not tracking the thing visually.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    21. Re:Good coverage by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Even if it is to keep it out of enemies hands, its still a good opportunity to blow shit up. :)
      I'm sure no one complained about it. ;)

    22. Re:Good coverage by dwater · · Score: 1

      Does that mean the impact won't cause an explosion? After all, IINM, a pin can cause a balloon to explode and it doesn't have any kind of warhead at all (though it's a bit sharp, I guess). ...serious question...

      --
      Max.
    23. Re:Good coverage by geekboy642 · · Score: 1

      It also provides a good opportunity to test a new missile system, and shows the Chinese that the US can play at their game, too.

      If it was for that purpose, I'd want to see this kept much quieter. The PRC test occurred at an altitude of roughly 500km, whereas USA-193 is reportedly a mere 250 km above the ground. If the USA is trying to prove they're not behind the PRC in space warfare, they would definitely need to one-up, not come in a distant second. ...not that I know anything about this, I'm only an armchair general.

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    24. Re:Good coverage by KarMann · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the final target tracking is most likely done either optically or by infrared. But, as I mentioned below, the area is in broad daylight at that time, and the Moon is below the horizon, so you're still quite correct to doubt that the Moon would interfere in any way.

      --
      ProofReading Markup Language - and yes, I find typos.
    25. Re:Good coverage by coolmoose25 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think this hydrazine thing is a red-herring. Think about it for a minute. So they say it's frozen, and in a really strong tank. But once that tank starts re-entering, the valves and hoses to it will be torn free. The heat of re-entry is going to unfreeze at least part of it. Now you've got venting ROCKET FUEL in the heat of a re-entry. I say at that point, the tank goes BOOM and there is nothing left... I think the real reason we are shooting this bird down is that it was launched in 2006 and has all our latest cool spy gadgets on it. We don't want them in an enemy's hands. So they cooked up this whole "hydrazine" problem to make it look like they are doing the world a favor. And they probably are. But I don't think its the hydrazine that is the problem here...

      --
      Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
    26. Re:Good coverage by dwater · · Score: 1

      > heres the link to Wikipedia

      To quote the interesting part[1]...

      "Monomethylhydrazine (MMH)...is also found...in...the common mushroom in grocery stores."

      Mushroom cloud anyone?

      [1] and leave out the relevant part

      --
      Max.
    27. Re:Good coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Submitted by "BWJones"
      Bruce is a fellow satellite spotter also with some degree of background

      Are you referring to yourself in third person?
    28. Re:Good coverage by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Informative

      The *real* reason that they're spending $60M is to make sure that some fuel doesn't contaminate an acre or so of land.

            Hey, each shot is only 60% of the National Science Foundation's annual budget. Why not? The NSF's 2008 budget request is for 6.43 billion dollars. But hey, what's a few orders of magnitude between friends?
      --
      #DeleteChrome
    29. Re:Good coverage by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Further, as the Federation of American Scientist article (linked above) points out, the US transports hundreds of thousands of gallons of Hydrazine in rail cars all the time. It's not all that dangerous and anyway, it's all going to be floating in the upper atmosphere as you described.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    30. Re:Good coverage by everphilski · · Score: 5, Informative

      Now, instead of one big vaguely predictable chunk of technology falling down, we're going to have hundreds if not thousands of smaller chunks that are going to be absolutely impossible to predict their trajectory.

      As someone whose day job is re-entry of large objects from near-orbital velocities I feel pretty qualified to respond to this. "vaguely predictable" is pretty generous. For the upper stage of a launch vehicle re-entering under an hour after launch (read: we know precisely where it is coming from, have the trajectory modeled, etc), there are thousands of miles in the "footprint" of the debris. And while most of it will come down in one or several big chunks, there will be a lot of scatter debris over that footprint. Now, think of something that's been in orbit for a number of years. Sure, we can observe it for a few months and try and nail the orbital parameters, but any way you slice it, it's an uncontrolled re-entry. We don't know with high precision the injection orientation, velocity, orientation, etc. That baby could have an uncertainty of 10,000 miles or more on it's footprint.

      Also another note: big, dense, heavy things tend to break up very little on re-entry. They soak a lot of heat and come down hard and heavy. Big, light things like expended stages tear apart into little pieces and essentially dissipate in the atmosphere, leaving very little debris. And what debris remains, slows down very quickly, reducing scatter versus heavy pieces that just keep on flying. So there is a distinct advantage to breaking this thing into pieces. It will tear itself to shreds, versus coming down like a rock.

      there's even the risk that the explosion might send pieces of debris upwards in the atmosphere, and it may even reach an altitude that will not allow it to fall back down for a very long time.

      Don't believe everything you read on slashdot. What goes up must come down. The only way it will stay in orbit is if you give it the appropriate energy tangential to the surface of the earth to sustain an orbit, or more. That's it. I could shoot a bullet up into the sky right now at M=10,000, and it's either escaping the gravitational grasp of the earth or coming back to hit it. The chances of random pieces entering a stable orbit for the long term is slim. The chance of a few random pieces extending their stay? Granted, maybe for a few months to a year.

    31. Re:Good coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason this is being done is because they want to protect their satellite from enemy's eyes, and test a defense system in the process. Sounds like two really good reasons to me.

      As others have pointed out in previous slashdot commentaries, there's even the risk that the explosion might send pieces of debris upwards in the atmosphere, and it may even reach an altitude that will not allow it to fall back down for a very long time. Again, I'd rather dodge a few small pieces stuck in orbit, than a few large Chinese usa193 clones if large pieces landed in China.
    32. Re:Good coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can create almost any sentence by cutting out words. Leaving out "trace amounts" was just low.

    33. Re:Good coverage by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's pretty much a fair summary. When it comes to hard numbers and real facts (I.E. the stuff I know from my USN experience or from research matches their data closely), they are kinda trustworthy - but when it comes to analysis they are out to lunch. Way, way out to lunch.

    34. Re:Good coverage by Planesdragon · · Score: 4, Informative
      AHHHHHHH!!!

      I assume that anyone who can put a satellite into a stable orbit can also kill a foreign satellite. That may or may not be naive, It is. Anyone who can fire a bullet cannot necessarily hit someone else's bullet out of the sky. (And there's no such thing as a "stable" orbit for most satellites, but that's neither here nor there.)

      but it doesn't matter: Shooting at a foreign satellite is an act of war. When you do that and thereby start a war, the time of spy satellites is over anyway. The only options are not to shoot, for which you don't need the capability, or to shoot, and then the spy satellite is the least of your worries. Spy satellites are at their most useful in a time of war. As are GPS satellites, which are used in a modern weapon system called a "JDAM", which is largely responsible for the high-precision warfare the US enjoys now.

      In the event of a US-China War, expect China to shoot down GPS satellites before they even worry about air supremacy. And expect the US to launch them at a record pace.
    35. Re:Good coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds more like there's something secret on board that the gummit doesn't want to be found (like pieces of the crashed space shuttle were). The story about the hydrazine sounds suspect; for that to be a hazard on the ground a tank of this highly volatile substance would have to survive the fiery plunge without a breach.

    36. Re:Good coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      snap!

    37. Re:Good coverage by deroby · · Score: 1

      While on that train of thoughts : if the rocket would hit the satellite on the bottom of the hydrazine tank and 'puncture' it, wouldn't that make the satellite shoot upwards like .. err .. a balloon on the loose ??

      (99% kidding, but still, what if ? ... )

      As a side note : I find it amusing how everyone is saying the military is lying and how they just want to show off / test their anti-satellite capabilities. Come on guys, what's new ? Since when did anyone consider those organizations as fully open, honest, transparent entities ???

      --
      If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
    38. Re:Good coverage by RKBA · · Score: 1

      "What goes up must come down."
      You mean like Voyager I and II?
    39. Re:Good coverage by deroby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The REAL fun begins when the headlines on the day after read : "Shoot down of satellite failed."

      (unlikely, but not impossible...)

      --
      If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
    40. Re:Good coverage by Ours · · Score: 1
      --
      "You superiour intellect is no match for our puny weapons" - The Simpsons
    41. Re:Good coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that the air force in particular has the capacity to deploy a gps-comparable
      backup system in the course of a few hours on the backs of ballistic missiles.

      If you haven't yet read wing attack plan R, I highly recommend it.

      In the event of a full-scale or even a limited space-war with a comparable adversary, (china, russia)
      the current gps system we civilians plot our grocery store routes with would be disabled. Basic opsec.
      It's much more difficult to attack and destroy satellites that aren't broadcasting their coordinates.

      A radio silence challenge-response version of gps would be implemented to guide tactical weapons.
      Whether the adversaries would be able to defeat software countermeasures quickly should determine the outcome.
      Whichever side loses the critical percentage of satellites its modernized weapons requires ultimately loses.

      Who honestly thinks that the billions we spent on space assets would NOT be protected, instantly and comprehensively?
      Whether it works or not remains to be seen - but I'd be amazed and shocked if they didn't have 50 contingency plans.

    42. Re:Good coverage by BillyBlaze · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, I heard a pretty argument that no debris produced by this could stay up for more than a few orbits. Basically, no matter what impulse you give to something at a certain point in its orbit, the new orbit and the old orbit will have that point in common. And that point is low enough in the atmosphere that any orbit crossing it will decay quickly.

      In other words, the best you would get is a highly elliptical orbit that still crosses through the point of the explosion, but it will be circularized by the atmosphere. If a piece of debris is shot "upwards", than it will actually be in an orbit that includes an even lower point. That is, if it's moving upwards from the point, then during its next orbit, it will necessarily be below the point.

    43. Re:Good coverage by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1

      It's conceivable they would turn off GPS, but it's not like that would make the GPS constellation harder to kill. It's necessarily no secret where they are. Also, it would take something much bigger than a GPS receiver to have bi-directional communications with the satellite.

    44. Re:Good coverage by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1

      I doubt the distance is much of a factor in difficulty. It may even be harder to shoot down such a low satellite - you have to do more of your course correction while still in the relatively unpredictable atmosphere. Plus, this attempt won't litter orbit with debris as the Chinese one did.

    45. Re:Good coverage by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      If you blow up a big satellite, you end up with a bunch of little satellites, and that doesn't make them de-orbit much faster does it?



      Yes, it does, at least if this takes place at the edge of the atmosphere. Atmospheric drag is what makes that thing come down, and drag is directly related to the cross-section of the object. And a bunch of small pieces will present a much larger cross-section than a relatively compact chunk of metal.

    46. Re:Good coverage by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      I suspect that the air force in particular has the capacity to deploy a gps-comparablebackup system in the course of a few hours on the backs of ballistic missiles.

      Ballistic missile to geosynchronous orbit ? I don't think so.

    47. Re:Good coverage by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      That's it - I'm going out with my shotgun to blow those evil Hydrazine toting mushroom bastids to pieces!

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    48. Re:Good coverage by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      No - the REAL fun begins when the headlines read: "Chinese shoot Bush's fox - satellite destroyed before US get a shot".

      (likely, and possible)

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    49. Re:Good coverage by ErkDemon · · Score: 1

      Oooo! Clever!

    50. Re:Good coverage by zenkonami · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Wait...I'm looking for the sarcasm mod...no, I guess you were serious.

      Nothing useful in terms of spy gear is going to make it through re-entry. What might make it through re-entry is a large, resilient fuel tank containing high-toxic, probably carcinogenic, fuel. You seriously think a government as naive as that of the United States - one that's spent a fortune on a war based on its own lies, that is uninterested in the health care of it's general population except as a brief distraction a couple summers ago (notice how they stopped talking about it), that refused to acknowledge any human contribution to global warming, that supports the storage of nuclear waste in it's own backyard - an administration that has spent the past six years using any opportunity for military posturing, unilateralism (unless multilateral means, "y'all do it our way") and the protection of "state secrets" by way of executive privilege - that has no fear of reprisal over the abuse of human rights or dignity, and has offered little excuse for the death of thousands both military and civilian - you actually think that government is afraid of a little hydrazine giving a few dozen people cancer?

      Logic dictates that if there was really something classified on the satellite that they didn't want to survive re-entry they simply would have designed it to not survive re-entry or they would have installed a self-destruct. Shooting it down at this point for the reason you're implying doesn't make sense.
      Besides, if it's the gear (rather than the fuel) that concerns them then why haven't they bothered shooting down other de-orbiting sats in the past? From the BBC:

      An out-of-control [emphasis mine] US spy satellite - possibly the size of small bus - is believed to be plummeting out of its orbit and is expected to crash somewhere on the planet within weeks. ...

      Normally, when US spy satellites reach the end of their lives, they are disposed of through a controlled re-entry and dumped in the Pacific Ocean, so that no-one can learn their secrets. And finally, a few notes about hydrazine.

      Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Gen. James Cartwright cast the threat from the satellite in much less dire terms. Even if the hydrazine were released, he noted, the effects would likely be mild -- akin to chlorine gas poisoning, which can cause burning in the lungs, and elsewhere. The area affected would be "roughly the size of two football fields [where you might] incur something that would make you go to the doctor." ...

      Especially when you consider that several other hydrazine-filled object have come crashing down to Earth. Not only did the space shuttle Columbia have a similar tank, which survived re-entry, with no toxic gas cloud. Several other hydrazine-laced objects have also crashed into the atmosphere, with no ill effects. Space researcher Ed Kyle notes that there were 42 major reentry objects for 2007, including 9 satellites -- at least one of which contained a form of hydrazine, UMDH (unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine). Look, I don't put it beyond the American government (and especially this American government) to spend "$60 million...to make sure that some fuel doesn't contaminate an acre or so of land" as the previous poster stated, but the notion that this is about contamination or saving lives (I'm trying to remember the last person known to die from falling spacing debris) is just bull.
      --

      Do You Experiment?
    51. Re:Good coverage by zenkonami · · Score: 1

      Absurd. Look, Hydrazine is not good for us, absolutely true. But you think there is a lawyer out there who is going to get past the firewall of obfuscation that is the U.S. Attorney General in this administration? Such a person is more likely to "disappear."

      Besides which, the actual threat posed by this hydrazine is minimal compared to the "benefit" of shooting down one of our own spy satellites in front of China and Russia. Which reason fits the behavioral pattern of the Bush administration better? Protecting the common person from what is ostensibly an industrial accident? Or projection of force in order to make us "safer." For some people, these wouldn't be mutually exclusive, but for this administration, I'll pick Occam's Razor every time.

      --

      Do You Experiment?
    52. Re:Good coverage by barbara_oreily · · Score: 1

      The surely it's a Hitile rather than a Missile.

      --
      "Freedom of speech won't feed my children" - Manic Street Preachers
    53. Re:Good coverage by icebrain · · Score: 4, Interesting

      But the US missile can launch from essentially any one of several Aegis-equipped cruisers, rather than needing a relatively fixed ballistic missile (like the Chinese system). The US missile is a descendant of the SM-1 Standard SAM developed to protect ships against aircraft and cruise missiles. The SM-3 version (to be used in the test) was developed specifically to intercept ballistic missiles--the only modification for this test is a software upgrade. I think it's already in regular service.

      --
      The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
    54. Re:Good coverage by mother_reincarnated · · Score: 1
      Who said anything about geosynchronous orbit? You just need to see 3 satellites and know if you're in outer space or not... They can tell you where they are.

      The part I find questionable is the "challenge response" part...

    55. Re:Good coverage by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Who said anything about geosynchronous orbit?



      Doing something GPS-like with LEO sats is certainly possible, but both mathematically, technically and logistically more complex by orders of magnitude.



      You just need to see 3 satellites and know if you're in outer space or not...



      Actually, you need to see 4 satellites, since GPS sees time as a fourth coordinate.


      And with non-geostationary satellites, you'd face a number of issues. You'd need a lot more of the satellites (to ensure that you can see four of them, at any time and place), you'd have to precisely know their orbits, deal with crap like doppler shift (since those sats will be moving quite fast in relation to you), and whatnot.

    56. Re:Good coverage by mother_reincarnated · · Score: 1

      Actually, you need to see 4 satellites, since GPS sees time as a fourth coordinate.


      And with non-geostationary satellites, you'd face a number of issues. You'd need a lot more of the satellites (to ensure that you can see four of them, at any time and place), you'd have to precisely know their orbits, deal with crap like doppler shift (since those sats will be moving quite fast in relation to you), and whatnot.

      Ok Ok you got me on the 4vs3 thing, let me finish my coffee, but don't tell the current GPS system that you need geostationary orbits... And yes you need dozens of satellites. Which is easier lobbing a few dozen GPS satellites into lower orbit with reprogrammed ICBMs or getting a dozen or so into geostationary orbit on expensive, not floating around the ocean by the hundreds, long lead time launch vehicles?
    57. Re:Good coverage by Domint · · Score: 1

      The satellite is coming down, as a whole, right now. If no actions are done (saving 60$M in the process), the block of metals and circuits will just crash down somewhere vaguely predictable.

      What if that 'vaguely predictable' crash site is somewhere over the eastern seaboard of the US? It's a pretty densely populated area and could cause fairly significant damage on impact, possibly resulting in loss of life.

      Mir was sent purposely into the ocean (missing the fun target), but it was still targeted there. Now this satellite is going to go wherever it pleases, regardless of our actions.

      That's kind of why we've decided to shoot it down - because we can't control it at all at this point, making a controlled re-entry to a safe crash zone impossible.

    58. Re:Good coverage by ruggerboy · · Score: 1

      Anyway to confirm that they didn't just send up a target to being with? As in, this "spy satellite" filled with high tech gizmos is really just a waste bin filled with scrap metal and was intended to be a chance to show US missle capability all along?

    59. Re:Good coverage by sherpajohn · · Score: 1

      I for one, welcome our new Monomethylhydrazine toting mushroom overlords.

      All hail the mighty fungus among us!

      Man I am gonna make some mighty duxelles with them ;)

      --

      Going on means going far
      Going far means returning
    60. Re:Good coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No - the REAL fun begins when the headlines read: "Chinese shoot Bush's fox - satellite destroyed before US get a shot".

      (likely, and possible)


      They haven't got the balls. It is still U.S. property, and if they do it we may just hit one of their current birds as payback.

      Some of you anti-US types crack me up.
    61. Re:Good coverage by v1 · · Score: 1

      along those lines, I know very little about astrophysics but I'm always reading about satellites that come down. Think skylab. Surely that was not in the atmosphere, so why did its orbit decay? Is it just that there is atmosphere, but it's very very thin, getting thinner and thinner as you get farther from earth?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    62. Re:Good coverage by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Although I generally agree that the hydrazine alone is not the motivation, thermo doesn't work the way you think it does. Heat transfer takes time to occur and chemicals do not burn unless there is a mixture of fuel and an oxidizer. A large block of frozen hydrazine will not go "BOOM" because it can't mix with oxygen when it's frozen. Also, a large block of ice takes longer to melt in July(northern hemisphere) than many small ones.

      More likely, the large block of hydrazine will start to melt from the heat of reentry and the vaporous hydrazine will leak out of the holes in the fuel tank and burn as it mixes with the atmosphere. The large cold mass of the hydrazine will keep the tank relatively in tact since all of the hydrazine will have to be completely melted before it will burn (try to light a water bottle on fire with water in it and again with no water in it). Since reentry is relatively short, not all of the hydrazine will melt, and you have a tank of hydrazine on the ground someplace.

      If you break up the block of hydrazine into little pieces, they are more likely to melt completely during reentry and burn off before reaching the earth's surface.

      In conclusion, yes, it does make sense to break up the satellite before it reenters the earth's atmosphere, but I don't think that is the only motivation.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    63. Re:Good coverage by FrankSchwab · · Score: 1
      Sorry, but none of the GPS satellites are in geostationary orbit, or even close to it.

      They're about 20,000 km up, and orbit about twice per day, according to http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/snap/gps/gps_survey/chap2/222sats.htm

      /frank

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    64. Re:Good coverage by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Of course they can, and they've been capable for years. The existing anti-satellite tech is shooting a warhead into space and exploding it in front of the satellite - like an anti-aircraft weapon.

      This missile hits the satellite directly with no warhead at all.

      There is a BIG difference. This will not send debris into any usable orbit, as the satellite is not in a usable orbit. If there are any debris, it will fall shortly.
      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    65. Re:Good coverage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why can't they just dump or burn off the hydrazine in space so that it burns up/spreads out, etc?

    66. Re:Good coverage by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Is it just that there is atmosphere, but it's very very thin, getting thinner and thinner as you get farther from earth?

      Precisely. The atmosphere doesn't have a hard stop. It just gets thinner and thinner as you move away from the planets surface. Basically anything in low earth orbit is still subject to significant orbital decay due to atmospheric drag.

    67. Re:Good coverage by everphilski · · Score: 1

      Right, the only way to make things worse is to increase the tangential velocity (to the surface of the earth). This would increase the orbital velocity and raise the orbital height on the other side of the earth, potentially extending it's stay. But again, you're not going to get it to circularize ...

    68. Re:Good coverage by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      Oh, if there's a hit there will be an energetic collision for sure. Here's the thing though: conservation of momentum. An impact like that can't increase the orbit of any object in the collision.
      The satellite is already moving along at a pretty good clip (faster than the kill vehicle from the SM-3). When they impact, it's really the KV being in the way of the satellite, not the SM-3 screaming up at a gazillion miles an hour. Orbital mechanics don't work they way a layman would assume. You can't just push something "up" to increase it's orbit. Doesn't work that way. You have to increase orbital velocity, not the altitude. Since the collision can only reduce orbital velocity, both the apoapsis and periapsis will be reduced.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    69. Re:Good coverage by CompMD · · Score: 1

      Putin, when the satellite fell?

      Or maybe

      Bush, with his arms open?

    70. Re:Good coverage by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I think this hydrazine thing is a red-herring. Think about it for a minute. So they say it's frozen, and in a really strong tank. But once that tank starts re-entering, the valves and hoses to it will be torn free. The heat of re-entry is going to unfreeze at least part of it. Now you've got venting ROCKET FUEL in the heat of a re-entry. I say at that point, the tank goes BOOM and there is nothing left...

      You can think that - but the facts are not on your side. These kinds of tanks routinely survive re-entry. The fact that the hydrazine is frozen only increases the chances - because as the outer layers boil off they will carry heat away from the remaining fuel mass.
    71. Re:Good coverage by deanlandolt · · Score: 1

      The chances of random pieces entering a stable orbit for the long term is slim.

      What about this big rock we're on? And all them others balls of rock and gas? Now I'm as atheist as they come, but you just made one damn good scientific argument for intelligent design.

      Seriously, I've always wondered how debris circling the Sun came to coalesce into planets, all without getting slowly slurped into the Sun?

    72. Re:Good coverage by mmontour · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but none of the GPS satellites are in geostationary orbit, or even close to it. The WAAS ones are.
    73. Re:Good coverage by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      I work around hydrazine every day; it's the fuel for the emergency power unit on the F-16. It's located just aft of the cockpit on the right side of the aircraft, just forward of the hydraulic reservoir and ammo drum.

      We have hydrazine response teams on base, and it's true that they train like it's life or death (In the big blue suits); however, it's not something that I would freak out about. I do periodic inspections of the tank and associated valves, and I never think of it as risky. It gives off a VERY pungent ammoniacal odor and steams on contact with water (including atmospheric moisture). There are several detection systems to ensure that no one is exposed in case of a leak. In the case of the F-16, a hydrazine leak would be very obvious and the area would be evacuated. Unless you got the stuff on your skin or inhaled strong fumes, I wouldn't be too upset.

      Oh, the point I was getting at originally- when F-16s crash, the hydrazine tank remains intact. It was designed that way. If it ruptured, the recovery process would be a nightmare. The tank can withstand great extremes in temperature; it cannot just vent over-pressure like other pressure tanks can.

      The tanks will either land intact and inert, or will be empty by the time they hit the ground. I wouldn't worry about it. Think about all the more hazardous stuff that we come into contact with all the time- hydrogen peroxide, MEK, cyanoacrylate, cigarettes, mercury, radon, etc. etc.... You can read MSDS's from OSHA all day until you believe that toothpaste will kill you and that you need a CO2 extinguisher to put out toothpaste fires. Sometimes you get your hands dirty, and yet the world keeps turning and you don't die.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    74. Re:Good coverage by rahvin112 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nothing useful in terms of spy gear is going to make it through re-entry. What might make it through re-entry is a large, resilient fuel tank containing high-toxic, probably carcinogenic, fuel. Logic dictates that if there was really something classified on the satellite that they didn't want to survive re-entry they simply would have designed it to not survive re-entry or they would have installed a self-destruct. Shooting it down at this point for the reason you're implying doesn't make sense.

      Besides, if it's the gear (rather than the fuel) that concerns them then why haven't they bothered shooting down other de-orbiting sats in the past?

      Your logic is faulty. In a controlled reentry they would have positioned the satellite to land in the deepest water in the pacific they could reasonably hit thereby eliminating any sensitive information or equipment, not only that but decommissioning the bird would have been well after it's reasonable lifetime and the on board equipment would no longer be as unique. In addition the solar panels never deployed and are still wrapped around the bird. They would likely shield the bird for a portion of the reentry thereby greatly increasing the odds that more than the hydrazine tank will survive reentry, whereas in a controlled reentry the panels would be deployed and would break off and reenter separately.

      Shooting this thing down 7 days before it reenters is for one purpose only. There is something on the satellite they don't want landing. You could argue the Hydrazine is the problem, my personal belief is they have calculated the reentry point and believe it's going to land in a nation that isn't an ally. This satellite also contains certain sensors or equipment that will at least partially survive reentry and that even if only a small piece of such equipment survives the very presence of it on the satellite will alert other nations about what technology is being used. I also believe this technology is either highly unique or it's application is something no one would think of until seen in operation. Given that the age of this spy satellite is only 2 years old it's almost certain that the nations most high tech spy gear is on board. There is also the secondary possibility that it contains weapons that would implicate the US in violation of the international militarization of space treaty.

      IMO the hydrazine is just a cover for the real problem, there is something else on that bird (that they aren't talking about) such that knowledge of it's existence is perceived by the administration as a serious threat to the US.
    75. Re:Good coverage by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      The fact that it's a two-year old, highly-classified spy satellite

      In fact, it's so highly classified that nobody on slashdot knows about it. Good think nobody in the media is reporting on it. Really, what good are highly classified satellites that everyone knows about?

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    76. Re:Good coverage by Kumba · · Score: 1
      Hydrazine is some pretty nasty stuff actually, which makes their primary claim carry some legitimacy.

      Here's what Wikipedia says:

      Hydrazine is highly toxic and dangerously unstable, especially in the anhydrous form. Symptoms of acute exposure to high levels of hydrazine in humans may include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, dizziness, headache, nausea, pulmonary edema, seizures, coma, and it can also damage the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system. The liquid is corrosive and may produce dermatitis from skin contact in humans and animals. Effects to the lungs, liver, spleen, and thyroid have been reported in animals chronically exposed to hydrazine via inhalation. Increased incidences of lung, nasal cavity, and liver tumors have been observed in rodents exposed to hydrazine. And if you watch the landings of the Space Shuttle, NASA moves quickly to safe those things so they can shutdown the APUs and remove the remaining hydrazine stored onboard before letting workers near the thing. That's probably one of the biggest mistakes ever made that I've seen NASA publicly acknowledge -- using a highly toxic rocket fuel as a fuel source for the APUs, which control the elevons and other flight control surfaces used heavily in landing that bird.
    77. Re:Good coverage by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      Haha - posted AC, I see ;-)

      Some of you ACs crack me up - I'm not anti-US, just anti-Bush and neocon Likudnik types.

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    78. Re:Good coverage by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Shooting this thing down 7 days before it reenters is for one purpose only. There is something on the satellite they don't want landing.



      My bet would be: Target practice. Pure and simple.


      They have a target that is otherwise worthless, it's in a place where it won't leave a long-term debris cloud (hello China!) in orbit, and they can conveniently claim that they're trying to keep the public safe while actually conducting an anti-satellite weapons test.

    79. Re:Good coverage by v1 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the lighter gasses be found out in whatever you call that, the thinning layer around the outer atmosphere? A good place to find things like helium? Think of all those balloons that popped :)

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    80. Re:Good coverage by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      The SM-3 (I said SM-2 earlier and I was wrong, same missile just newer generation) is owned and operated by the US NAVY. Unless they are lauching the intercept from the Pacific Test Range/Kwajelin Atoll or Scofield Barracks, Hawaii there isn't an Army presence nearby. As others have said this bird is coming down very, very soon either in a big chunk or lots of pieces. "blasting" stuff into a higher orbit that takes longer to decay technically could happen but the extra time to decay and re-enter would be on the order of a few minutes not days.

    81. Re:Good coverage by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Wouldn't the lighter gasses be found out in whatever you call that, the thinning layer around the outer atmosphere? A good place to find things like helium? Think of all those balloons that popped :)

      Helium (and Hydrogen) are actually light enough to escape Earths gravity on their own. Which is why we don't have significant amounts of them in the atmosphere.

    82. Re:Good coverage by v1 · · Score: 1

      Why is that? If all mass is attracted by gravity, it doesn't matter what's lighter and what's heavier, they're all attracted to some degree. Unless something is pushing them away from earth? Does helium reach 'escape velocity"? or is it just a matter of it being the lightest thing on the pile (of atmosphere) which makes it wind up on the outer envelope where there is only microgravity, and be more affected by other forces (like lunar gravity or solar wind) stripping it away?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    83. Re:Good coverage by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      Why is that? If all mass is attracted by gravity, it doesn't matter what's lighter and what's heavier, they're all attracted to some degree. Unless something is pushing them away from earth? Does helium reach 'escape velocity"? It's very simple: Temperature. Temperature relates directly to the average kinetic energy of the particles in a gas/fluid. Smaller particles (such as helium and hydrogen) have higher velocities than heavier particles (other gases) at the same kinetic energy. This velocity is indeed above the escape velocity, so over a long enough time span, helium and hydrogen in the atmosphere will just drift off into space, while heavier molecules will be retained by gravity.

  4. Conspriacy goldmine by bluelip · · Score: 5, Funny

    A super secret sat is not responding for unknown reasons. This requires a shootdown which just happens to occur during a lunar eclipse.

    Wow, who gets the movie rights for this one?

    --

    Yep, I never spell check.
    More incorrect spellings can be found he
    1. Re:Conspriacy goldmine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somewhere, Oliver Stone's head is exploding.... and not because of a well-hidden sniper's bullet!

    2. Re:Conspriacy goldmine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      David R. Ellis gets the rights. Snakes on a Plane 2: Snakes on a Satellite.

    3. Re:Conspriacy goldmine by NickCatal · · Score: 4, Funny

      There is only a movie if the missile moves it back and to the left

      --
      -nick
    4. Re:Conspriacy goldmine by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

      It sounds like a plot line from the show UFO

      Except with fewer mini-skirts and shorter sideburns.

    5. Re:Conspriacy goldmine by Target+Drone · · Score: 1

      A super secret sat is not responding for unknown reasons. This requires a shootdown which just happens to occur during a lunar eclipse.

      How about this

      <tinfoil-hat>

      The satellite is actually working just fine. It was put up a decade ago as a test target for an anti-satellite system under development and scheduled to be completed around now. The satellite is actually loaded with explosives that can be detonated remotely. This gives them the option of either:

      1. Should the anti-satellite system not be completed and there is a need to prove to the world the US has one. i.e. China has one and the US doesn't. They can just fire a missile into the sky and then hit the self destruct button on the satellite.
      2. Should the anti-satellite system be completed they can fire at the target. If it misses then just hit the self destruct button on the satellite and tell the everyone the test went perfectly.

      The lunar eclipse has nothing to do with this. Only a real nutter would believe it does.

      </tinfoil-hat>

    6. Re:Conspriacy goldmine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      A super secret sat is not responding for unknown reasons. This requires a shootdown which just happens to occur during a lunar eclipse


      And that just happens to be off the East shores of Oahu where Lost is made AND right after when scriptwriters have ended their strike. Does anybody still believe this is a coincidence?
    7. Re:Conspriacy goldmine by Silver+Gryphon · · Score: 1

      I can see the last few minutes of the movie now: Bruce Willis rides the missile rodeo-style, trademark scream and all. On the ground, Chuck Norris will be waiting to roundhouse kick the satellite just in case the Bruceissle misses.

    8. Re:Conspriacy goldmine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back...and to the left.

    9. Re:Conspriacy goldmine by zenkonami · · Score: 1

      A super secret sat is not responding for unknown reasons. This requires a shootdown which just happens to occur during a lunar eclipse. Wow, who gets the movie rights for this one? Why, Slashdot, of course.
      --

      Do You Experiment?
    10. Re:Conspriacy goldmine by mwilliamson · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of one of the greatest comedies of the 80's, Spies like Us.

    11. Re:Conspriacy goldmine by SonnyJimATC · · Score: 1

      Back and to the left

  5. Destroy classified items by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They're shooting it down not because it might hit and blow up, but because it might hit and not blow up, and yield a lot of classified hardware/software for some enterprising person(s) to pick up.

    1. Re:Destroy classified items by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, the classified hardware/software will burn up on reentry. Their more concerned about the full tank of hydrazine that would survive a normal reentry and create a hazardous materials nightmare near a populated area. Since they suspect it is going to come down near Hawaii, I'd love to see some sort of Taco Bell stunt where TB gives away free tacos if the satellite lands in a volcano during the eclipse.

    2. Re:Destroy classified items by djupedal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not...

      This is simply an excuse to play tit-for-tat w/the Chinese over their all ready having demonstrated alacrity at blowing sats out of the ionosphere.

  6. Moon hiding behind megameters of solid rock by isomeme · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since that time interval occurs during daylight hours near Hawaii, with the eclipsed moon (necessarily) below the horizon, I doubt the eclipse will have much effect on visibility. :)

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    1. Re:Moon hiding behind megameters of solid rock by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      Yep - Hawaii - UTC - 10, so 03:30 UTC is definitely during the afternoon.

    2. Re:Moon hiding behind megameters of solid rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be confused by the expression "shoot down". The satellite is still very high above the Earth. The cloud of debris will continue for many orbits and alternate between daylight and nighttime every 45 minutes, like every other low-orbit satellite.

    3. Re:Moon hiding behind megameters of solid rock by tommy_teardrop · · Score: 1

      While 03:30UT is definitely in daylight, 05:00 is 7pm - after sunset, though the sky won't be fully dark at that point. We're observing out here at the moment, so we're very aware of the sky conditions.

      As an aside, can you guess who has a flight out of Hawaii at 6:45pm on the 20th? Joy!

      --
      -- IANAL, BIPOOTV
    4. Re:Moon hiding behind megameters of solid rock by isomeme · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Don't be confused by the expression "shoot down". The satellite is still very high above the Earth. The cloud of debris will continue for many orbits and alternate between daylight and nighttime every 45 minutes, like every other low-orbit satellite.

      Yep, but by the time the debris orbits into the Earth's shadow, about 15 minutes after the impact if my guesstimate is right, it will be entirely dark in visible wavelengths, shining only by reflected light. At that point, the lunar eclipse hinders rather than helps things, by removing a light source. And the eclipse moves out of totality within another 15 minutes after that.

      Short version: The timing relative to the lunar eclipse is pure coincidence.

      Unless it's a critical part of the top secret plan to propitiate Nyarlathotep and force Great Cthulhu back into an uneasy aeons-long slumber among the cyclopean ruins of R'lyeh, the fabled city of the Old Ones, looming over the black abyssal plain that lies miles below the sparkling sunlit waters of the Pacific.

      In which case, I don't want to know what's in the payload of that missile.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    5. Re:Moon hiding behind megameters of solid rock by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      You're assuming the missile is taking the short way around to the satellite ;-)

    6. Re:Moon hiding behind megameters of solid rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      At that point, the lunar eclipse hinders rather than helps things, by removing a light source.
      Nope. Here's how it works:

      1) a light source above the observer's horizon hinders visibility (can you see satellites when the Sun is up?)
      2) a light source below the observer's horizon but above the satellite's horizon helps visibility.
      3) a light source below both horizons doesn't do anything.

      The eclipse reduces (1) compared to the full moon that would sit there otherwise, so it helps visibility by reducing a light source.

      Gotta love the scores in this thread. The Dumbing Of America!
    7. Re:Moon hiding behind megameters of solid rock by rhizome · · Score: 1

      Since that time interval occurs during daylight hours near Hawaii, with the eclipsed moon (necessarily) below the horizon, I doubt the eclipse will have much effect on visibility. :)

      So it must be a total coincidence that this is also during the prime time and news hours of the mainland Continental U.S..

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    8. Re:Moon hiding behind megameters of solid rock by xx_chris · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. Good analysis.

    9. Re:Moon hiding behind megameters of solid rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely mod parent up. I don't know what kind of idiots mod these things insightful when they're wrong. You can forgive the original poster for not getting it quite right, but I thought the point of the "wisdom of the commons" was to not to perpetuate the error. Well, I suppose if the moderation fixes itself it'll work... eventually.

      To all that, I would add that the debris may still be radiating visibly 15 minutes later. Radiative heat transfer is a pretty inefficient process compared to the other two types (convective and conductive); in the vacuum of space, it's likely that the debris will retain most of the energy imparted by the destruction of the satellite. Might even make for a pretty light show. Of course, the satellite will probably be quite dispersed by then, reducing the flux, so who knows?

    10. Re:Moon hiding behind megameters of solid rock by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      As an aside, can you guess who has a flight out of Hawaii at 6:45pm on the 20th? Joy! *kksshhh* Ladies and gentleman, this is your captain speaking. Those of you seated on the left side of the aircraft can see the US military wagging its dick at China and Russia. Those of you on the right, look at the pretty water. *Kksshhh*
  7. Disappointing. We need to LASER it. by zymano · · Score: 3, Funny

    50's called. They want their missiles back.

  8. Re:Disappointing. We need to LASER it. by garcia · · Score: 4, Funny

    Disappointing. We need to LASER it.

    The ill-tempered sea bass have a limited range, sorry.

  9. ...which may or may not by Daimanta · · Score: 5, Funny

    This post may or may not be a way to tell you that may or may not is a totally ambigious statement. Some people may or may not notice this. I may or may not be modded Offtopic but I can also be modded +1 Funny or +1 Insightfull. However, this may or may not be the case.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    1. Re:...which may or may not by mfnickster · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Interestingly, this is during the totality of Wednesday's lunar eclipse, which may or may not make debris easier to observe." ...unless it doesn't. In which case, yes, the answer is 'no.'

      I'm Leonard Nimoy.

      --
      "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
  10. Woo! by Jethro · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Am I the only one who thinks this is TOTALLY COOL???

    Sure it might be dangerous and stupid, too, but hey.

    --


    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    1. Re:Woo! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Your faith in the current administration disturbs me. You actually expect this to work?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Woo! by Jethro · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought I was pretty clear about that. I'm just saying the idea of shooting a satellite down with a rocket is cool. I'm not saying it'll work or anything.

      --


      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
    3. Re:Woo! by BillyBlaze · · Score: 1

      Aside from funding, which they've done generously - how can you attribute the success or failure of such a mission to the current administration? "Sorry, guys - everything was going fine until T-2.34s to impact, when the president lost interest."

    4. Re:Woo! by zenkonami · · Score: 1

      Your faith in the current administration disturbs me. You actually expect this to work? I expect the press release to tell me it did.
      --

      Do You Experiment?
  11. How Convenient by postbigbang · · Score: 0, Redundant

    First, we must destroy it lest someone else (like the Chinese, because that's where it looks like it's headed if they're launching in Hawaii) get the item, from a US- controlled range. But they'll get it on a pass where the visibility is especially good (think signal to noise ratio on a moon-lit night) and kablooey.

    And for decades, maybe centuries, we'll be picking the shards out of the sky, let they be run into by some of our more expensive remaining (and possibly working stuff). Egads. Another one in the drink. I wonder how many things might have been substituted that really matter.

    Oh, wait.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    1. Re:How Convenient by MutantEnemy · · Score: 4, Informative

      I find your post a little hard to follow, however with regard to space debris, the satellite is sufficiently low that all the debris is expected to deorbit relatively quickly (days or weeks).

      --
      Grr! Arg!
    2. Re:How Convenient by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      IF they get a hit, then the explosion may or may not get blasted into space where it could do damage. Very small particles in space make a very big impact at say, 23,000mph, or faster still. Although we have great resolution on observing space junk in tiny sizes, we're doing the essentially the same thing that the Chinese did when they shot down an orbiter.

      Azimuth, zenith, and charge value will dictate what happens. Might be a clean kill. Might not. I wouldn't take the Army's word for much, however, they're the ones that goosed it in the first place.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    3. Re:How Convenient by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The satellite is being blown up because its about to crash into the planet. Why do you suppose the debris will stay up any longer?

    4. Re:How Convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IF they get a hit, then the explosion may or may not get blasted into space where it could do damage.

      Come back and talk to us when you actually pass Physics 101.

    5. Re:How Convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're an idiot. IF it gets hit, there will be a collision and not an explosion. Also, any debris that is ejected into a higher orbit MUST, because of physics, have assumed a hyperbolic orbit (more hyperbolic for more height) with a perigree at least equal to the current altitude of the satellite. Therefore, your very small space particles are just as likely to burn up quickly as our very big space satellite, if not more so, since undoubtedly there won't be very many (read: astronomicaly few) particles which are precisely ejected into these perfect hyperbolic orbital paths without bleeding energy into other collisions and such.

      The same rules applied to the Chinese ASAT also--except the Chinese satellite was in a stable and high orbit, instead of an unstable and low orbit. Much of the debris from the Chinese test remains in a stable and high orbit, and many of the hyperbolic orbits debris was ejected have insufficiently low perigrees to cause immediate or near-term deorbiting. I'm sure you can see where this is going...

    6. Re:How Convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because people don't understand anything about orbital mechanics, yet still feel qualified to complain about the people who do.

    7. Re:How Convenient by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      This depends on the azimuth and zenith and charge of the missile used to shoot it 'down'. You're basing your information on unreliable sources.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    8. Re:How Convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume that you, of course, in all of your infinite wisdom know exactly what the yield of the missile is, the mass of the satellite, how it will break up, and exactly where the missile will hit the satellite and the strengths of the various materials that will absorb the initial impact/explosion...

      Pompous fool...

    9. Re:How Convenient by drerwk · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, it doesn't. Orbital mechanics guarantee that the debris will pass through the same altitude one orbit later.

    10. Re:How Convenient by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Why do you suppose the debris will stay up any longer?

            SOME of it will. Parts of the missile, as well as some of the debris from the satellite will end up in a higher orbit because of the impact. I don't want to say "explosion" because in space explosions are different - without an atmospheric pressure wave - all you have is the hot, expanding gas from the explosive itself, and the shrapnel.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    11. Re:How Convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The missile has no yield, we do know the mass of the satellite, we're pretty clear on how it'll break up too. Anyway, all of that is pretty unimportant compared to the orbital mechanics involved, which basically is 95% of the important bit here anyway. That's why the other guy was bringing up Physics 101.

      Fucking idiot...

    12. Re:How Convenient by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Think about it. For any instantaneous energy input (a missile explosion is close enough) the new orbit is going to intersect the old one at the point of explosion. So long as the satellite isn't in an extremely elliptical orbit (doubtful, spy satellites are in fairly circular orbits) and they're not dumb enough to blow it up at apogee, all the bits will spend a good part of their time subject to the same drag that's bringing down the satellite. Of course, the bits have a much higher surface to volume ratio, so the drag will have a greater effect on them.

    13. Re:How Convenient by KarMann · · Score: 1

      General agreement, but... what the heck does the Army have to do with this?

      Not a damned thing, that's what.

      --
      ProofReading Markup Language - and yes, I find typos.
    14. Re:How Convenient by dwater · · Score: 1

      is that true?

      is a spiral, where it gets closer and closer, albeit potentially very slowly, not an orbit then?

      If so, I guess nothing can be in a real orbit, since it would be impossible to be exactly right...everything would be going too fast or too slow by some amount or other.

      --
      Max.
    15. Re:How Convenient by KarMann · · Score: 1

      FYI, it seems to be in a very circular orbit (as would be expected from the circularizing effect of the atmospheric drag): the altitude only ranges from 251 to 257 km, and its eccentricity is about 0.00051, if that means anything to you. So no, certainly not extremely elliptical.

      --
      ProofReading Markup Language - and yes, I find typos.
    16. Re:How Convenient by dwater · · Score: 1

      Thinking about it...but not getting very far really :|

      Isn't 'the point of explosion' changing? I mean, this satellite is actually going to hit the Earth at some point, no? I mean, it is getting closer to Earth and so is not in an orbit, right?

      If the missile gave all it's energy to just one small bit of the satellite, then it could escape the gravitational pull althogether, or does that just not happen and the gravitational pull is still there, but very small?

      Does this mean that all the things we send up into space will eventually come back again? This doesn't sound right to me.

      In any case, why can't they use this hydrozine (or whatever) to make it stay up there, or come down faster/etc/etc? Have they lost control? I guess I should read TFA - I hate having to do that :(

      Sorry, I didn't do Physics 101, or whatever that is (sounds like a US thing to me).

      --
      Max.
    17. Re:How Convenient by KarMann · · Score: 1

      A hyperbolic orbit?!? That's sheer hyperbole! You don't get a hyperbolic orbit until you reach escape velocity. And how the heck could a hyperbolic orbit be "more hyperbolic," anyway? It is or it isn't, kinda like "a little bit pregnant." And if a trajectory is hyperbolic (it's not really an "orbit" as such, then), then it only has one perigee, not these "perigees" that you mentioned, and is on a one-way ticket out of the Earth-Moon system (assuming that's what it's hyperbolic relative to), without any further "bleeding" causing "deorbiting".

      In short, "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

      --
      ProofReading Markup Language - and yes, I find typos.
    18. Re:How Convenient by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Spy satellites (or any imaging/mapping sats) are usually in very circular orbits. Otherwise your image resolution gets degraded for most of the orbit (because you're farther away) and you have to constantly keep track to figure out what the actual resolution IS. As you pointed out, atmospheric drag tends to circularize things as well.

    19. Re:How Convenient by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Okay, forget for a minute that the orbit is decaying. Whether or not a decaying orbit is "in orbit" is kind of a philosophical question.

      So imagine the satellite in a stable orbit. Then you blow it up. So some pieces go flying in all directions. If you work out the orbital mechanics, every one of those pieces will be in a different orbit, but all of those orbits will pass through the point of the explosion. Caveats: this isn't true of orbits that intersect the ground first, or bits that, as you noted, get flung out of orbit altogether - that is, they achieve escape velocity. Escape velocity is awfully fast though, so that's probably not an issue here, and if something does hit escape velocity then it's not going to be a problem for us because that chunk of satellite will be GONE.

      That's the reason you can't fire things into orbit with a gun (railgun, whatever), by the way. Any "orbit" you can put it into will have a point intersecting your gun. In order to put something in orbit that way you'd have to fire it out of the gun, then have a rocket on board to fire later and put it into an orbit that doesn't intersect the ground.

      You can't actually escape the gravitation of anything, much less a planet. Technically, Earth, the sun, your toothbrush, will all pull on you (very weakly) no matter how far away you get. What you're thinking of is escape velocity, the speed at which you will never fall back, but continue on (slower and slower) outward forever.

      Things we send into space can go a few different ways. If it's above escape velocity (Voyager, say) then it will never come back. If it's in a nice high orbit, way above the atmosphere (like geosynchronous satellites) then it will stay up for a LONG time. It will probably eventually come down, because there are always a few stray particles and things, but not for a long, long time. Things on a suborbital trajectory will come back down without circling the planet. Like SpaceShip One. Or you can have a low orbit, like spy satellites and the space shuttle. The atmosphere at that altitude is really thin, but not non-existent, so without thrusters to boost the orbit those sats will come back down, often on a fairly short time scale. The space station is fairly high (and massive) but if I recall correctly, it's orbit will decay in something less than a year without periodic boosting.

      The problem with the satellite is that they've lost control. It isn't responding to commands. So it has lots of fuel (hydrazine) but the controllers have no way to fire the thrusters.

      As someone else pointed out, orbital mechanics is kind of a counterintuitive thing. You'd think you could shoot things into orbit with a big enough gun, or that blowing up a satellite could boost some bits of it into stable orbits, but it turns out not to work that way. Something else weird: when you thrust in the same direction as you're traveling you slow down. You gain altitude, but you slow down - the opposite of what we normally expect. These satellite bits are speeding up (and losing altitude) due to atmospheric friction.

    20. Re:How Convenient by BillyBlaze · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well spirals are orbits, but ones which are perturbed by air resistance. If you ignore air resistance (and relativistic effects), then yes, all orbits would be perfect ellipses (or hyperbolas). In this case, the orbits of any debris will pass through the point of the explosion again, discounting air resistance. In reality, they will pass even lower, due to air (and in many cases, ground) resistance. They only way they could attain a stable (that is, higher than significant air resistance) orbit is if half an orbit after the explosion, they get kicked forward again.

    21. Re:How Convenient by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      You're right. I had Dr Stangelove in my brain when I wrote that.....

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    22. Re:How Convenient by drerwk · · Score: 1

      Absolutely correct Billy. But in the context of the GGGP complaining about the explosion causing junk to hang about for centuries I allowed my self the slight inaccuracy. I think I would be completely accurate in saying that due to air resistance, any debris boosted into a more energetic orbit (Total energy = Kinetic + Potential) will pass through the same altitude 1-epsilon orbits latter - even allowing for relativistic corrections.

    23. Re:How Convenient by dayolddaddy · · Score: 1
    24. Re:How Convenient by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      and its eccentricity is about 0.00051, if that means anything to you.

      Yes it does. After all, I have played Orbiter!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  12. good information there! by Bob54321 · · Score: 5, Funny

    which may or may not make debris easier to observe
    Way to limit the two choices down to two choices....
    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re:good information there! by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Amateur! Where is the third hand? What, all your toes are cut off?!

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    2. Re:good information there! by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      This article may or may not have been written by a psychic, depending on if it is true or not. It may or may not cause the end of the world as we know it. Otherwise, it may or may not fall on Elvis, killing him instantly at his job in the Wendy's drive-thru.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  13. Just damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pity they couldn't wait a couple days for my birthday.

  14. Nothing to see here, move along by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While perhaps a bit unconventional, there's a lot to be said for our government's decisive action here that could prevent a small-scale disaster if the satellite were to hit the ground. It seems like the prudent thing to do.

    *cough*THEL*cough*

    1. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I find it quaint, the notion that the real reason they have to shoot the satellite down is because it has a tank of hydrazine onboard. Meanwhile, the Russians have let *freaking nuclear reactors* reenter our atmosphere. It's pretty transparent that they're A) trying to upstage the Chinese, and B) prevent any tech from making it into the hands of hostile parties. Even more transparent than the whole thing with A.Q. Kahn:

      1) Pakistan funds its bloody nuclear program via nuclear equipment sales.
      2) The international community eventually can no longer look the other way.
      3) Khan steps forward. "Whoops, it was me! My bad. Every sale we made to every single country, I arranged, negotiated, and shipped everything, all with government aircraft, all of my own. No Musharraf involvement, nosiree!"
      4) Bush and Musharraf: "Bad Khan! Well, that case is solved."
      5) "House arrest", of the kind that lets you travel across the country. No charges pressed. Everyone wins.

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    2. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I find it quaint, the notion that the real reason they have to shoot the satellite down is because it has a tank of hydrazine onboard. Meanwhile, the Russians have let *freaking nuclear reactors* reenter our atmosphere. No offense, but comparing safety concerns of the US with the Russians is sort of bizarre. They are the country that used to just drop old reactor cores in the oceans after all. I honestly don't think they cared that they tossed radioactive waste across Canada any more than they cared what would happen when they build enormous nuclear reactors without containment domes. And if you think these are minor issues of environment protection then look up their involvement in the Aral Sea disaster. Russia is the antithesis of environmental protection.
    3. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by TapeCutter · · Score: 3, Informative

      The reactors sent into orbit are supposedly built to withstand re-entry and a crash landing. Firing explosives at a reator in LEO and potentially spreading fairy dust everywhere is probably worse than letting it form a crater in the ground where contamination can be contained.

      Regardless of the 'real reason', shooting down the hydrazine is a GoodThing(TM).

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Rei · · Score: 5, Informative

      At least they never dared launch anything as crazy as Starfish Prime.

      We are not the immaculate custodians of space that you seem to be picturing. Why, do you think, did we not shoot down the Delta II second stage that reentered in 1997 with a large amount of residual hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide onboard? We have stages with signficant amounts of toxic residual fuel reenter all the time. Why, in the same year, when we had a Delta II explode *full* on liftoff, did the Air Force tell people in the *immediate area* that the smoke posed no danger? This was a *full launch vehicle*, not just a satellite's orbital maneuvering system. Do you have any idea how much beryllium we've had reenter? We sit by as large amounts of toxic materials enter all the time. As for the hydrazine itself, what do you think happens *on its own* to pressurized tanks of highly flammable fluids on reentry? I can't think of a *single* sizable object that's survived reentry still pressuretight.

      The argument is completely bogus.

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    5. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

      It doesn't work that way. Nothing manmade reenters all in one place and leaves a "crater". Debris generally gets scattered along a trail across a thousand miles or two in chunks.

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    6. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by palegray.net · · Score: 3, Funny

      The Russians didn't drop old reactor cores into the ocean. They merely took a wrong turn on the way to ecologically responsible long-term storage facilities. Darn that Mapquest and its outdated Siberian directions. It was an honest mistake, Comrade.

    7. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by marklark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmmm...

      In 1997, President Clinton wasn't very interested in anti-missile defense, was he?

      In 2008, President Bush has some new things to test. Go to MDA.mil -- your (US) tax $s hard at work.

    8. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by jarda · · Score: 1
      At least they never dared launch anything as crazy as Starfish Prime.

      They did they share of high altitude nuclear tests also. They just did it in middle of USSR and were more secretive about it. But they for example managed to set on fire power plant in Karaganda in one of their tests.

      But yeah, neither Russia, nor US were particularly careful when in comes to safety of space.

      --
      "Two beers or not two beers. That's the question." -- Shakesbeer
    9. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Myuu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uh, what? The A.Q. Khan network existed years before Bush and Musharraf.

      --

      forget it.
    10. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      While perhaps a bit unconventional, there's a lot to be said for our government's decisive action here that could prevent a small-scale disaster if the satellite were to hit the ground. It seems like the prudent thing to do. I am wondering if you are being sarcastic or if you really mean what you say. If you mean it, you must be one of the most gullible persons walking the earth. Of course this has nothing to do with safety concerns. Do you really think they care about the 1 in 1 billion chance of the satellite hitting some unfortunate guy?

      This is just a way of showing that they have the same war capabilities as China, that's all. If you have a government that tells you that Sadam has recently been trying to buy plutonium(or was it uranium?), but "forgets" to tell you that "recently" means "in the eighties", that's a real good hint that your leaders are just lying to you to get what whatever they want.

      If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, then it is most probably a duck. All these "safety reasons" smell alot like lies to me, and that's what they most probably are.

      However, let's just assume you were making a joke, and that I was worried for nothing.
      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    11. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No, instead instead, they launched 50 Mt which rained far more radiactive products around the northern hemisphere. Thank God it scared the russians. They never exploded that one again.

    12. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by deKernel · · Score: 3, Informative

      First off, the US has NEVER claimed to be the "...immaculate custodians of space..." like you claim.
      Second off, regarding the Delta II second stage, it was believed based upon its size, speed, trajectory and form that it would burn up on reentry so the belief was we were OK. We know for sure that the satellite will survive reentry so we are trying to be proactive.

      Do we allow toxic material to reenter, Yes. Do we believe based upon size, speed, trajectory and such that the material will burn up, Yes. Can we send up a missile on everything that is reentering our atmosphere, No. At least we are trying (for whatever reason you want to believe) as compared to other nations so please take off the tin foil hat so your head can get a little air in hopes it allows you to think just that much more clearer.

    13. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by wanderingknight · · Score: 1

      Russia is the antithesis of environmental protection. Because the US is the safeguard of environmental protection, right?
    14. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by oni · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's pretty transparent that they're A) trying to upstage the Chinese, and B) prevent any tech from making it into the hands of hostile parties.

      the only thing that's transparent is your bias. If they didn't try to shoot it down you'd claim it was "transparent" they didn't want to show the Chinese that they're capable of shooting it down, so they put lives at risk instead. In my opinion, you're one of those people who will criticize the US regardless of what it does.

      "A) trying to upstage the Chinese." Here's a test of the system that will be used to shoot it down. As you can see, they've already hit targets in space. So shooting the satellite isn't that much of a stretch. It's hardly fair to characterize it as "upstaging" anyone.

      "B) prevent any tech from making it into the hands of hostile parties" yes, because it's a big secret that spy satellites contain (whispers) cameras. shhh, don't tell anyone. It'd be a disaster if Al Queda found out. They might mount the camera on a donkey and fire it into orbit with a catapult.

      Come on people. Occam's razor. We know that hydrazine is actually deadly. We know that Columbia's hydrazine tanks survived reentry. Colubia's tanks were empty, but this satellite's tanks will be full. The simplest explanation is that attempting to shoot it down doesn't increase the risk, but may substantially reduce the risk to humans. There's no down side. So that's why they're doing it. Take off your tin foil hat.

    15. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by dave1791 · · Score: 1

      Well... StarFish Prime did make for pretty pictures :P

      Seriously, the hydrazine is just diplomatic cover and everyone knows it. What surprises me is the fact that it is even announced beforehand. Tests are test for a reason. They are never guaranteed to succeed and if they fail, it is embarrassing. If it fails, they keep mum. If it succeeds, just issue a press release "we shot it down because of the hydrazine danger".

    16. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by PNutts · · Score: 0

      As for the hydrazine itself, what do you think happens *on its own* to pressurized tanks of highly flammable fluids on reentry? I can't think of a *single* sizable object that's survived reentry still pressuretight. That is the concern. The no longer pressuretight tank is expected to survive so the hydrazine will slowly vent creating a ground hazard.

      Your point on the Delta II rocket was already addressed. Smoke != Hydrazine.

      Also, at least one hydrazine tank did survive the Columbia accident "intact". Google is your friend.
    17. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are the country that used to just drop old reactor cores in the oceans after all.
      Right -- which is a whole lot better.

    18. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Grave · · Score: 2

      Which way does the sat orbit? If it goes East->West, then we are shooting it down during reentry as it would otherwise crash somewhere in China or Russia. We cannot risk either country recovering any of that technology. This is what I understood the reasoning to be all along. The chance to test our missile defense system is interesting and all, but this is so publicized that it can't be the only reason, as a failure would pretty much terminate future funding of the system.

      Either way, I still find it pretty damn amazing that we have the sort of technology to do something like this.

    19. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by radtea · · Score: 1

      Good to see that the loony left hasn't dropped the "Yeah, but look at what the US did over HERE!" as a means of distracting people from the truth about bad behaviour by the Russian Empire.

      Y'know: the Cold War is over. Your side lost. Get over it.

      And grow up and learn how to present an argument rather than engaging in lame rhetorical distraction and misleading claims. What you can or cannot think of is completely irrelevant to what is actually true, which is that most of the shuttle Columbia's 64 tanks reached the ground intact after the spacecraft disintegrated on re-entry.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    20. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a bullshit link. The worst environmentally polluted and damaged place on earth is the Aral Sea. It is worse than that entire list by orders of magnitude.

      Read this report (pt 1, pt 2, pt 3, and pt 4) and marvel at how enormous this destruction is. Nothing the West has ever done will ever compare to this destruction (except global warming).

    21. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least they never dared launch anything as crazy as Starfish Prime. Tsar Bomba is not crazy enough for you!?
    22. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Turken · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Come on people. Occam's razor.

      Occam's Razor, eh? Well, how about we shave even closer...

      Something on that satellite is very important to keep secret (I doubt that it's the cameras themselves) and shooting down the satellite will keep secret whatever is on there.

      There. Even simpler than the three-step hydrazine story. Now, the nature of what exactly needs to be kept secret is wide open for debate. Personally, given the trends in US government behavior the past several years, I wouldn't be surprised if it's some sort of treaty violating and/or constitutional rights abusive technology that would give rise to an enormous amount of domestic and international outrage (and embarrassment for the administration) if it were discovered.
    23. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y'know: the Cold War is over. Your side lost. Get over it.

      Based on the way things are going over here, perhaps they actually won...

    24. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by oni · · Score: 1

      Even simpler than the three-step hydrazine story.

      There was no "three-step hydrazine story." I presented three historical facts to back up my contention that hydrazine was the simplest reason. Let's compare that to what you've presented.

      Personally, given the trends in US government behavior the past several years, I wouldn't be surprised if it's some sort of treaty violating and/or constitutional rights abusive technology

      That's just speculation. It violates the principle of Occam's Razor and makes you look like a crazy tin-foil hatter. If you're going to be crazy, at least be crazy and interesting. Go ahead and claim that the spy satellite is built with the ground-up bones of women and children and powered by recovered alien warp technology. You're just one step removed from that sort of claim anyway.

      As for me, I'll stick with the facts:
      FACT: this satellite (like most of them) has propellant for maneuvering.
      FACT: a previous uncontrolled reentry (the Columbia disaster) proved that propellant tanks can survive.
      FACT: there is no down-side whatsoever to an attempt at shooting it down. If they miss, the projectile they fired at it is suborbital and will fall into the pacific.

      So why *wouldn't* they try to shoot it down?? Has anyone bothered to ask this question? No, of course not. Because your line of reasoning is irrational and fueled by the pathetic, anti-american propaganda that you've been lapping up. You think like this:
      bush is teh terrorast, therefore this satellite is probably used to project Jesus rays into my brain in violation of treety!! that's why the US is shoooting at it! omfg!! I knew it all along!

    25. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Even if the Delta II WAS dangerous, what would they shoot it down with? The anti-missile stuff is pretty recent IIRC.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    26. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by MutantEnemy · · Score: 1

      So why *wouldn't* they try to shoot it down??

      Because it's costing in the region of $40-60 million.

      --
      Grr! Arg!
    27. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Personally, given the trends in US government behavior the past several years, I wouldn't be surprised if it's some sort of treaty violating and/or constitutional rights abusive technology that would give rise to an enormous amount of domestic and international outrage (and embarrassment for the administration) if it were discovered. THAT'S how you use Occam's Razor?

      Couldn't it be all of these things? Hey, shoot down a satellite for safety reasons AND national security reasons AND as a capability test/demonstration? I suspect that is how it was sold... three for the price of one.

      But what does it matter? For little or no risk, they shoot down a potentially dangerous satellite. That's good, whatever the underlying reasons. If they miss, we are no worse off and if they hit it, we're better off. Either way, they'll learn something about their missile defense system - also good for us (Americans).
      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    28. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by monkaru · · Score: 1

      Looks like I'll have plenty to see if the thing breaks up. They're going to try to knock it out 3,000 miles (10 minutes) from my house. You know, there are actual people living downtrack from the intercept. Thanks guys.

    29. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Rei · · Score: 1

      Tsar Bomba was the cleanest-burning nuclear explosion in human history, and it wasn't in the very sensitive upper atmosphere. Starfish Prime had massive effects, creating a brand new radiation belt for Earth that persisted for almost a decade. Its fallout was detected in lichens and fungi thousands of miles away. The russians did some high altitude tests as well but nothing as environmentally destructive as Starfish Prime.

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    30. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh...Just checking here, but Hydrazine has been used as a fungicide and bacterial killer on grape vines for ages...

      How is this suddenly so dangerous?

      Ken

    31. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wow, you're really unimaginative if all you can picture being on a satellite is cameras. Just as one possible example (among many, many possibilities): The US has spent the last decade trying to launch "stealth satellites". It has become the ultimate game for satellite spotters to try and find them. Not only do they regularly adjust their orbits, but they are believed to use articulated mirrors to try and reflect almost all light that hits them away from the Earth or onto remote locations, thus making them nearly black against the sky.

      China's ASAT capability is a really, really big concern to the US military. Over the years, we've let ourselves become more and more dependant on satellite communications to guide our forces and control our weaponry. Yes, we have plenty of other means of communication, but satellite communications take up an increasing share of the traffic, and some systems only communicate through satellite. China being able to knock out our satellites during the opening salvo of any conflict wouldn't pose a fatal situation to our combat capabilities, but it would be a huge blow.

      As an aside, one fun ASAT mechanism that a friend of mine who used to work in military intelligence told me about a while back: sand. You launch a missile full of sand into orbit, then detonate the missile with conventional explosives. You get sand moving at tens of thousands of meters per second crossing all sorts of different orbits, rendering space a no-go zone for decades. Of course, we know something like Starfish Prime would do a pretty good job on its own, as well as playing havoc with the electricity grid below where you detonate it.

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    32. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Sciros · · Score: 1

      Did it (rain far more radioactive products)? The article you link to says it was actually one of the "cleanest" (in terms of fallout) nuclear detonations ever because it was nearly all fusion.

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    33. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Rei · · Score: 1

      You do realize that the US military's budget is ~500 *billion* dollars per year, right?

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    34. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Rei · · Score: 1

      And this contradicts what I wrote how...? Musharraf is the current president of Pakistan, the person who has the potential to be hit most by the scandal at home. Bush is the current president of the US, a nation with the potential to be embarrassed by the fact that its closest ally in south Asia was one of the world's largest nuclear proliferators.

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    35. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by natoochtoniket · · Score: 1

      Something on that satellite is very important to keep secret, and could survive an uncontrolled reentry.

      Shooting down the satellite allows us to keep that thing secret, either by controlling where the secret lands, or by making sure it is destroyed on reentry.

      What could the secret be? The optics or sensors might be better than previously disclosed. There might be a new kind of sensor or antennae. There might be some signal processing equipment, encryption equipment, or maybe a transmitter designed to jam their stuff. But most of that sort of equipment would be designed so that it would certainly be destroyed by reentry, just on the off chance that it might come down in a foreign nation. We routinely don't worry about leftover fuel or oxidizer, or a few tons of metal. So it must be something else. It must be something that is intentionally made to survive reentry. That kind of limits the options. We used to use film canisters to reenter imagery, with secret kinds of film. But digital cameras and the desire for rapid imaging made that obsolete many years ago. What are the other kinds of things that would be on a military satellite, and made to survive reentry? Perhaps warheads?

    36. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that this is a major publicity event right? How many news services are covering this? Do you remember the date the most recent US sat was launched? Of course not, the only reason people are even AWARE of this is because the US is telling EVERYBODY about it.

      Me thinks they doth protest too much.

    37. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's a SW to NE orbit. Tried to catch a pass last night but the moon was too bright. If the shot works, there's a great chance a good portion of the debris will be spread across the Northern US/Canada, staggered according to the cloud altitude decay. Should be a great show for the West Coasters.

    38. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by lgw · · Score: 1

      You know, there are actual people living downtrack from the intercept. Thanks guys. Not for long! This is one of those self-solving problems.
      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    39. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by lgw · · Score: 1

      I don't believe there's anything special on the satellite. It's a stunt to get some positive press for our missile defense system (which *really* needs some good press, as it's been an amazing boondoggle thus far). Why would it need to be anything more than an easy target?

      For that matter, why do you have such a passion about Starfish Prime? Won't somebody think of the fungi!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    40. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by fifedrum · · Score: 1

      I thought warheads too, but now I'm leaning towards software or encryption keys... stored on hardy memory media protected against radiation in an enclosure they didn't buy at CompUSA.

      whatever it is, it's quite a story.

    41. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by fifedrum · · Score: 1

      ohohoho to reply to my own post...

      has anyone mentioned Thor (footfall)? Kinetic energy weapons stashed in the bomb bay of this sat, launched at ground targets destroying burried bunkers at any depth... They would certainly survive reentry.

    42. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Why, in the same year, when we had a Delta II explode *full* on liftoff, did the Air Force tell people in the *immediate area* that the smoke posed no danger? This was a *full launch vehicle*, not just a satellite's orbital maneuvering system.


      Having had the extraordinary opportunity to visit the actual launch sites at cape Canaveral (post 911, including the Apollo launch site) I can tell you affirmatively they didn't warn anyone because there isn't anyone close enough to need warning. The launch platforms that NASA uses are out at the edge of the ocean in the middle of a swamp (gators everywhere) that is at LEAST 5-10 miles from the nearest civilization. The only people impacted by the exploding rocket were the NASA employees who's automobiles were destroyed by the burning fuel which went everywhere. They simply sat in their launch bunker and waited until the HAZMAT and fire suppression teams came and rescued them. As far as the smoke goes, the smoke that traveled was the burning swamp I told you about which took much longer to put out. IIRC Hydrazine isn't toxic once it has burned, it's only the unburned fuel which is dangerous and all the Delta II Fuel burned, along with all the surrounding swamp plants, trees and gators.
    43. Re:Nothing to see here, move along by gjd · · Score: 1

      The satelite cound also carry one or more Radioisotope Heater Units. These are hard to break and could survive the fall. If one should be recognized as valuble and sold to the higest bidder, this would be _bad_. They contain plutonium dioxide. Plutonium dioxide ground into a dust and put into a bomb would create a bad fallout (at least politically). The result could make it hard for US agencies to use these (useful) devices for quite some time, while China continued to use them.

  15. The Sorceror's Apprentice by dpbsmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    An airplane needs an engine to fly, and when that engine is destroyed and crashes somewhere near where you shot it down. A satellite needs no engine to fly, and when you shoot at it, it becomes thousands of little satellites, all of which continue to "fly" at 25,000 miles per hour.

    I hope the people shooting at (not "down") this satellite have seen "Fantasia." In _The Sorceror's Apprentice,_ Mickey Mouse decides that the best way to deal with an out-of-control magic broom is to chop it into thousands of pieces... all of which just keep right on going, making the problem worse instead of better.

    1. Re:The Sorceror's Apprentice by Telepathetic+Man · · Score: 1

      Unlike that example case, the many pieces of the satellite will not grow back into a whole satellite again. Each peice will be less massive and therefor less destructive upon impact with what will likely be the ocean if the attempt is successful.

      --
      Just because you can, does not mean you should.
    2. Re:The Sorceror's Apprentice by bluelip · · Score: 1

      Wow.Took a bit to come up with that analogy??

      Anyhow, since the sat is in a low orbit and has no power, it is being slowed by drag and pulled down by gravity. These million/billion sat bits will have the same fate.

      Mickey's sticks had an unlimited magical power source. (Not unlike your imagination.)

      --

      Yep, I never spell check.
      More incorrect spellings can be found he
    3. Re:The Sorceror's Apprentice by isomeme · · Score: 4, Informative

      The thing's low enough that all of it -- intact or in pieces -- will deorbit soon (days to weeks). And actually, smaller debris deorbits faster; there's more surface area per volume (and hence per mass), so drag from the not-quite-vacuum of the upper atmosphere decelerates small pieces faster.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    4. Re:The Sorceror's Apprentice by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      An airplane needs an engine to fly, and when that engine is destroyed and crashes somewhere near where you shot it down. A satellite needs no engine to fly, and when you shoot at it, it becomes thousands of little satellites, all of which continue to "fly" at 25,000 miles per hour.

      They might be counting on transferring enough momentum to the object for it to deorbit half an orbit later. That would put it over Africa, Asia and (possibly) Europe in longitude. I am not sure about latitude. I know that USA193 has an inclination of 60 degrees but that just ensures that it will be over land when crossing the longitude of Africa.

      .
    5. Re:The Sorceror's Apprentice by T-Bone-T · · Score: 1

      The only problem with your reasoning is you are assuming the pieces will be in a stable orbit. Satellites have motors that they use to maintain orbit. These pieces will be very close to the atmosphere without a motor and will fall out of the sky very quickly.

    6. Re:The Sorceror's Apprentice by jamesh · · Score: 1

      "Fantasia." In _The Sorceror's Apprentice,_ Mickey Mouse decides that the best way to deal with an out-of-control magic broom is to chop it into thousands of pieces... all of which just keep right on going, making the problem worse instead of better.


      I liked the Itchy and Scratchy version better. It makes a better analogy too - when we breathe in the little tiny pieces of satellite, they will dissolve us from the inside out!
    7. Re:The Sorceror's Apprentice by oddaddresstrap · · Score: 1

      "...all of which continue to "fly" at 25,000 miles per hour."

      Whether it is one piece or thousands, the satellite is already at a sub-orbital velocity (ie ,less than about 17,000 mph) and is constantly slowing due to drag. It will be entering the atmosphere within a few days/weeks no matter what. It's sort of a very slow death-spiral.

      BTW, 25,000 mph is the escape velocity for the Earth.

      http://science.howstuffworks.com/satellite3.htm

    8. Re:The Sorceror's Apprentice by dwater · · Score: 0

      Well, *I* thought it was funny ;)

      --
      Max.
    9. Re:The Sorceror's Apprentice by BillyBlaze · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Um, yeah, I'm sure nobody involved in the project has thought of that. They must have thought it would come falling down immediately, much like Buzz Lightyear in Toy Story. Why are you wasting time on Slashdot? You owe it to America to become a presidential adviser immediately, lest we be doomed to repeat the harsh lessons of Disney movies forever.

    10. Re:The Sorceror's Apprentice by drew · · Score: 1

      The difference of course, is that the thousands of little satellites won't magically regrow into independent full size satellites, like Mickey's broom. Rather, they will remain as little tiny satellite pieces, all still more or less following the satellite's current trajectory, i.e. about to deorbit (and significantly slower than 25,000 mph).

      Which is exactly what the people shooting at this satellite want to happen...

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  16. So by CSMatt · · Score: 1

    Who's going to film this and post it?

    1. Re:So by Eevee1 · · Score: 0

      www.youtube.com

      Next question.

  17. Isn't it obvious? by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Funny

    That this is just a response to China's ASAT test of January last year?

    China: you see, we can blow up your satellites!!
    USA: aha! We can blow up your satellites too!!

    General public: Why are they blowing up satellites?

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Isn't it obvious? by jonpublic · · Score: 2, Informative

      obviously its just the government in a pissing contest with china.

      its not like there are pesky differences between the two, like one was in high orbit, one is about to enter the atmosphere with toxic cargo and the potential to kill people if it lands in the wrong area.

    2. Re:Isn't it obvious? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      pah. No-one who knows anything about sats has any serious belief that this re-entry is any more of a danger to the general public than any other re-entry. The claims that sat might contain classified information that the military want to destroy is about as credible - i.e., not.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Isn't it obvious? by genican1 · · Score: 1

      China: you see, we can blow up your satellites!!
      USA: aha! We can blow up OUR satellites too!! there, fixed it for ya
    4. Re:Isn't it obvious? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Oh so close. Try this instead:

      China: you see, we can blow up your satellites!!
      USA: Ahah! We can blow up our satellites too!!

    5. Re:Isn't it obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Maybe. But when the Chinese shot down that sat we only heard about it after the fact amid a lot of golly gosh and whining.

      This has a different PR ring about it, all trumpets and drums before it happens.

      You know what would be really funny, after the puff and bluster, the Americans miss it. (and probably take out a Russian sat by "mistake")

    6. Re:Isn't it obvious? by jonpublic · · Score: 1

      aren't most entries controlled?

    7. Re:Isn't it obvious? by s74ng3r · · Score: 0

      More like: China: My dad can shoot your satellite US: Oh yeah? China: (Chinese dad shoots down satellite. Kaboom!) Take that! US: Geez. My dad can shoot our satellite, from a ship! (US dad fires from a ship, and takes out another satellite) China: That's nothing. My grandpa can shoot a satellite from US: :)

    8. Re:Isn't it obvious? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      all trumpets and drums before it happens.

            Which is why it isn't going to work. At least not the first time :)

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:Isn't it obvious? by WAG24601G · · Score: 1
      China: you see, we can blow up your satellites!!
      USA: aha! We can blow up your satellites too!!

      More like:
      China: you see, we can blow up your satellites!!
      USA: aha! We can blow up our satellites too!!

      --
      Everything is easy when you don't understand the problem.
    10. Re:Isn't it obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China: you see, we can blow up your satellites!!
      USA: aha! We can blow up our satellites too!!




      Fixed that for ya.

    11. Re:Isn't it obvious? by topnob · · Score: 1

      Isn't it funny that the USA was complaining to everyone about the effects of space junk from such a thing, and yet here they are doing it. I does certainly smack of I'm as good as you!

    12. Re:Isn't it obvious? by dwater · · Score: 1

      If there was a joke there, it flew over my head...care to explain? I want it to be funny; really, I do...I love a good chortle.

      --
      Max.
    13. Re:Isn't it obvious? by dwater · · Score: 1

      > one was in high orbit,

      I'm assuming this is the Chinese one.

      Does this explain why no one here is 'up in arms' about it causing lots of space debris, like they were when the Chinese shot down theirs?

      Just curious...

      --
      Max.
    14. Re:Isn't it obvious? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      They're never as good when explained... but try this.

      QuantumG said:

      China: you see, we can blow up your satellites!!
      USA: aha! We can blow up your satellites too!!


      I said:

      China: you see, we can blow up your satellites!!
      USA: aha! We can blow up our satellites too!!

      They're blowing up their own satellite, you see. Actually, China blew up their own satellite too, so the situation is really more like:

      China: you see, we can blow up our satellites!!
      USA: aha! We can blow up our satellites too!!

      Rest of the world: !?

    15. Re:Isn't it obvious? by dwater · · Score: 1

      ah, I see.

      It's like all the other responses here...except you also changed the 'aha!' to 'Ahah!', which I thought was significant in some way and couldn't see past that.

      Sorry about that.

      --
      Max.
    16. Re:Isn't it obvious? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Well, mine WAS first.

      I can't help but capitalize the beginning of a sentence. Call me crazy.

    17. Re:Isn't it obvious? by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 1

      No, no, no...you've got it wrong:

      China: you see, we can blow up your satellites!!
      USA: aha! We can blow up our satellites too!!

      --


      Evil is the money of root.
    18. Re:Isn't it obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wouldn't it be funny if the Chinese beat them too it. Well you were going to shoot it down anyway :)

    19. Re:Isn't it obvious? by longacre · · Score: 1

      If you had bothered to read even the most dumbed-down-USA-Today-version of what's going on, you'd understand the satellite is being hit at a low enough altitude to avoid contaminating the orbits of other satellites.

    20. Re:Isn't it obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no...you've got it wrong:

      China: you see, we can blow up your satellites!!
      USA: aha! We can blow up our satellites too!!
      Actually, all of you jokers are wrong. Both countries did/will blow up their own satellites. (See, blowing up another country's satellites is considered an act of war.) Therefore:

      China: you see, we can blow up our satellites!!
      USA: aha! We can blow up our satellites too!!

      Mainstream media: We repeat the official government explanation without question.
      General public: Those military boys and their toys. Well, time to go buy an HDTV.
      Slashdot crowd: Sweet! I'm gonna make a totally original joke about the Americans blowing up their own satellites!
      I hope this has cleared everything up for everyone.
    21. Re:Isn't it obvious? by l0max · · Score: 1
      China: you see, we can blow up your satellites!!

      USA: look! we can blow up OUR satellites too!!

    22. Re:Isn't it obvious? by PeterBrett · · Score: 1

      Does this explain why no one here is 'up in arms' about it causing lots of space debris, like they were when the Chinese shot down theirs?

      Yes.

    23. Re:Isn't it obvious? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      You notice I didn't reply to any of these idiots? Sometimes it is best to let fools be content in their own ignorance.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    24. Re:Isn't it obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China: you see, we can blow up your satellites!!
      USA: aha! We can blow up our satellites too!! There. Fixed that for you.
    25. Re:Isn't it obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slight revision:

      China: You see, we can blow up your satellites!!
      USA: AHA! We can blow up our satellites too!!

    26. Re:Isn't it obvious? by uglydog · · Score: 1

      More like:

      China: you see, we can blow up our own satellites!!
      USA: aha! We can blow up our own satellites too!!

      General public: Why are they blowing their own satellites?

    27. Re:Isn't it obvious? by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      General public: Why are they blowing their own satellites? Because if they're big enough to have their own satellites, odds are their dating prospects are pretty grim...
    28. Re:Isn't it obvious? by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 1

      Yes! How incredibly ignorant!

      Fu**ing idiots.

      I have to wonder how you respond to anything that's NOT lighthearted banter.

      --


      Evil is the money of root.
  18. Just the facts. by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Informative

    I doubt the lunar eclipse has anything to do with it. The timing is almost certainly based on the need to get the SBX to sea and in position (it's not exactly a speedboat), and the best orbital conditions for the shot. The location was almost certainly based on the SBX being in Hawaii and having nice long empty stretches of ocean downrange for the SM-3 missile. (Both for the booster and for the payload to fall if it misses.)

    1. Re:Just the facts. by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Funny
      Thanks for bringing the SBX to my attention. I was aware we had cool toys, but not THIS cool:

      The radar is described by Lt. Gen Trey Obering (director of MDA) as being able to track an object the size of a baseball over San Francisco in California from the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia, approximately 2900 miles. The radar will guide land-based missiles from Alaska and California, as well as in-theatre assets.

      The platform has many small radomes for various communications tasks and a central, large dome that encloses and protects a phased-array, 1,814 tonnes (4,000,000 pound) X band radar antenna. The radar is described as being 384 square meters, with "well over" 30,000 transmit-receive modules, which are arranged in a widely-spaced configuration. This configuration allows it to support the very-long-range target discrimination and tracking that GMD's midcourse segment requires. The array requires over a megawatt of power.

      If I was a trillionare, I would buy TWO of them.

    2. Re:Just the facts. by PPH · · Score: 1

      The location was almost certainly based on the SBX being in Hawaii... It figures. The DoD said it needed this fancy radar to be based in the Aleutian Islands, near the mid-course point of ballistic missile tracks from North Korea or China. So, what's it doing in Hawaii? Weather too cold in Alaska? Better shore leave in Honolulu?
      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Just the facts. by Entropius · · Score: 1

      And, as an American, I am ashamed and angry that our government is buying massive yet useless phased-array radars with our (my!) tax money rather than doing something useful.

    4. Re:Just the facts. by BenBenBen · · Score: 2, Informative

      The SBX has been in Hawaii being repaired, as it's a huge turd in seagoing terms. Can't cope with 8ft seas, and has no launch capability (as in, if you fall overboard you better start swimming, they ain't gonna pick you up).

      --
      The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
    5. Re:Just the facts. by Lincolnshire+Poacher · · Score: 1

      > I was aware we had cool toys, but not THIS cool:

      Compared to the Safeguard Perimeter Acquisition Radar, that's just a toy.

      The PAR consumed more than 7MW operating and was built from 100,000 tons of
      concrete and nearly 8,000 tons of steel.

      Here's a picture:

      http://srmsc.org/par2000.html

  19. During the eclipse? by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    No doubt goats will be slaughtered, wiccans consulted, and pentagrams drawn all in the hope that our missile intercept technology will actually work in a non-staged event.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:During the eclipse? by edcheevy · · Score: 1

      What makes you think this wasn't staged? :p

    2. Re:During the eclipse? by dwater · · Score: 1

      I was thinking this whole thing has a Bond007-esque flavour to it. What do you think?

      --
      Max.
  20. 10 bucks by triscut · · Score: 1

    via paypal for anyone who can furnish me with the TLE updated at least once a day for this sat. Or better yet post them to a public forum for everyone to enjoy. -CS

    1. Re:10 bucks by plover · · Score: 2, Informative

      Two-Line Elements

      USA 193 5.0 2.5 0.0 4.3 v 20 256 x 250 km
      1 29651U 06057A 08049.90355339 .00233341 23303-4 27965-3 0 90004
      2 29651 58.5130 35.7739 0005018 100.5255 259.5312 16.07731429 145
      You don't have to pay me, of course, especially since slashdot screws up the spacing making them useless for copy/paste. I pulled them from this page by clicking on the little Orbital Elements (TLE) button.
      --
      John
  21. My Tax dollars at work... by NullProg · · Score: 1

    I demand a front row seat. I helped pay for the satellite and the missile to kill it. At least they could offer to sit me on my lawn chair with my cooler full of beer to watch it.

    No?

    OK fine. I would pay extra to put my lawn chair and cooler full of beer on the cruiser. I wanna big screen display hanging off the bridge with a feed from the ISS.

    No! What? Regulations my Ass!

    Fucking US government can't even generate revenue from what should be a spectacular PPV event.

    Enjoy,

    --
    It's just the normal noises in here.
  22. Get a Video! by eternalnyte · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Are there any Slashdotters here in Hawaii?? Surely a missile zooming up to shoot down a satellite would be visible, would it not?

    1. Re:Get a Video! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Only while the engine is running. And I expect the "explosion" to be rather anti-climactic. They usually are, thanks to Hollywood which has led us to believe that everything explodes in a huge fireball.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Get a Video! by concernedadmin · · Score: 1

      Let's apply some logic here. Hawaii is a (sunlight-lover's) paradise. Sunlight causes tans. Slashdotters are, pardon the euphemism, not tan. Ergo, no Slashdotters live in Hawaii.

  23. Date confirmed by daveschroeder · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...and the date has been confirmed

  24. Re:Disappointing. We need to LASER it. by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 2, Funny

    But I've got a giant container of Jiffy-Pop popcorn on that satelite! How am I supposed to pop it now, and embarrass the traiterous professor?

    I'll think of something...

    --
    "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

    - Seneca
  25. Re:Disappointing. We need to LASER it. by himurabattousai · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What if someone mounted a camera on the missile? Would that be less disappointing? (Maybe) Would that make it cooler to watch? (Hell, yeah!)

    --
    "osake no hou ga, biiru yori ii" to omotteiru.
  26. Oops, wrong button (and target) :o by Doug52392 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Surely we will see, due to a "technical mistake", that the missile will just coincidently hit a Chinese, Russian, or Middle Eastern satellite. Or perhaps they will use this to draw everyone to Hawaii and shoot off a 2nd missile at an enemy satellite while everyone is busy.

    What will they blame this on? Since they have already used "a ship dropped it's anchor on the wire" for the Middle East Internet blackout, so here's some good excuses for our classic government:

    • "Our technician split coffee on the launch computer during the 3 second countdown"
    • "All these damn satellites all look the same, we just picked the wrong one"
    • "The launch computer ran Windows"
    • "It's not our fault, China launched that missile!!!!!!!"
    • "A renegade computer hacker changed the missile's target during the last second of the countdown"
    • "We forgot to mention that there were 2 broken satellites. Don't mind the Chinese symbols all over the other one"
    • "The RIAA and MPAA told us the second satellite was owned by The Pirate Bay"

    Or some ways to cover the whole thing up:

    • Keep denying it
    • Give Fox News $1 million to tell America we did take down the broken satellite
    • Arrest anyone who tells people about the conspiracy under the USA PATRIOT Act


    So, is anyone planning on getting this on tape? I'd love a DivX video of the launch :)
    1. Re:Oops, wrong button (and target) :o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a package for you that just arrived from the Internet. Please accept our welcome to the Tin-Foil Hat Club with your free tin-foil hat and membership card. You do not have to accept this package however, because you wouldn't trust it anyway, would you?

    2. Re:Oops, wrong button (and target) :o by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      LOL @ "Middle Eastern satellite"

      ~~~

    3. Re:Oops, wrong button (and target) :o by MutantEnemy · · Score: 1

      Actually, Iran apparently has a (Russian-launched) satellite. But the idea that the shot will hit the wrong target is of course just a joke.

      --
      Grr! Arg!
  27. In Soviet Russia, satellite shoots down you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Fixed

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia, satellite shoots down you by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Well...

      Suitable "Soviet Russian" submarine an hour earlier North East of Hawaii... Hmm... That will be verrrrrrry entertaining. This of course if we discount the fact that the sat passes over the yellow sea and Chinese land facilities a few hours earlier.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    2. Re:In Soviet Russia, satellite shoots down you by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      I'll piss myself laughing if the Chinese 'shoot your fox' before it gets to you - that would be the best single-finger salute ever :P

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
  28. Outsource it by Is0m0rph · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm surprised we didn't outsource this to China.

    1. Re:Outsource it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hilarious! We would definitely save money by outsourcing the shootdown to China.

      So what happens if the US misses with all 3 missiles? Is the satellite then "fair game" for any country the wants to protect itself from hydrazine by taking a shot at it?

  29. My dream... by FoolsGold · · Score: 3, Funny

    I really hope the weapons officer who gets to push the missile-firing button says: "ASSIMILATE THIS!!!"

  30. And if it works? by tjstork · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No doubt goats will be slaughtered, wiccans consulted, and pentagrams drawn all in the hope that our missile intercept technology will actually work in a non-staged event.

    And if it works? What then? How many successful test intercepts do you need before you think that the thing might actually work? Seriously, the only reason some folks are arguing that they don't think missile defense can work is because they do not like the politics of it. Eventually, missile defense can and will work. It's just an engineering problem, after all.

    I for one do not think the USA should be deploying interceptors in Poland to antagonize the Russians, but, I've got no problem with spending a bunch of billions a year to give the USA a unique capability in a world where every country is working to develop ICBMs.

    --
    This is my sig.
  31. Three reasons by jmichaelg · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I think there are three reasons they're spending $60 M to destroy the satellite. They are
    1. They don't want a repeat of Skylab where parts landed in Australia and made us look bad.
    2. If it comes down in Russia (Russia spans 11 time zones so that's not too unlikely) they don't want the Russians to be able to figure out much from the debris.
    3. They want a chance to test their anti-satellite weaponry on a real target that isn't saying "Over here! I'm over here! Here I am! Yoo Hoo!"
    There's actually a 4th reason - blowing stuff up is fun but they would never cop to it.
    1. Re:Three reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      4. Their high-tech sat got 0wn3d by some highly skilled hackers backed by some forigen govt. and they want to do something to control where it hits, instead of where it was intended. /conspiracy nut

    2. Re:Three reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't we (Australia) fine NASA for littering when that happened?

  32. the NOTAM area by ridgecritter · · Score: 1

    is around 900 mi NW of Kauai - has anybody calculated whether the engagement will be visible from Kauai? I'd assume a minimum intercept altitude of 100 miles, probably will be higher, but I don't have the orbital elements handy. Could be some good videos from those with telescopes > 6" mirror diameter.

  33. N2H2: Weapon of Mass Destruction, or delicious? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Informative
    Actually, the classified hardware/software will burn up on reentry. Their more concerned about the full tank of hydrazine that would survive a normal reentry and create a hazardous materials nightmare near a populated area.

    That's certainly believable if you can take Deputy National Security Advisor James Jeffrey at his word:

    Yesterday, Deputy National Security Advisor James Jeffrey said the satellite's tank full of hydrazine rocket propellant was the main reason the military was planning to blast the orbiter. There's a small but real risk that the hydrazine tank could rupture, releasing a "toxic gas" over a "populated area," causing a "risk to human life."
    Apparently man-made objects containing hydrazine propellant frequently rain down from the sky without incident, according to rocket scientists and space security experts who "scoff" at this rationale. And Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Gen. James Cartwright doesn't seem too impressed either. But surely our Deputy National Security Advisor knows something about hydrazine that we don't.

    Now who is this man James Jeffrey, you may ask?

    It took more than two months, but the White House has finally found a new deputy national security adviser. And in the end, the administration didn't have to look very far.
    President Bush will appoint Ambassador James Jeffrey, a high-level State Department official who coordinates its Iran policy, according to people familiar with the matter. Jeffrey's appointment will be made later today, these people said.
    In his new post, Jeffrey will be National Security Adviser Steve Hadley's No. 2 and run most of the day-to-day operations of the National Security Council. The administration's new war czar, Deputy National Security Adviser Army Lt. Gen. Doug Lute, will take part in regular deputy's meetings chaired by Jeffrey.
    Jeffrey, a blunt-spoken and often-profane diplomat, will replace J.D. Crouch, an architect of the administration's controversial Iraq surge who resigned in May. Jeffrey has spent more time in Iraq than any other senior administration official. Prior to assuming his State Department post, he was the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad from June 2004 to March 2005, and as U.S. charge d'affaires to Iraq from March to June 2005.
    A colleague of Jeffrey's said that the White House would likely prove to be a better fit than the State Department had been. The colleague noted that Jeffrey is a staunch neoconservative, which left him often sharply at odds with other high-level State Department officials. Most of the neocons who once populated the administration left their posts in recent years as the Iraq war went off the skids. At the White House, though, Jeffrey will be able to work closely with two of the other surviving neocons: Deputy National Security Adviser Elliot Abrams and David Wurmser, one of Vice President Dick Cheney's top foreign policy staffers.
    Source: Wall Street Journal, July 19, 2007, four months before the information in the Iran NIE would be exposed, having been known to the White House since 2006.

    This guy sounds totally not full of shit at all!
    1. Re:N2H2: Weapon of Mass Destruction, or delicious? by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      That's because it's not hydrazine, it's the stuff that turns you into a zombie!

    2. Re:N2H2: Weapon of Mass Destruction, or delicious? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apparently man-made objects containing hydrazine propellant frequently rain down from the sky without incident, according to rocket scientists and space security experts who "scoff" at this rationale.

      Well... This is one of those cases where there 'scientists' and 'experts' only tell half the truth - the half that supports an anti-Administration agenda. The other half of the truth is... all the cases they cite have roughly zip point nada in common with USA-193. In those cases, the tanks are empty or nearly so. In the case of USA-193, the tank is not only full - but frozen solid. The chances of it surviving re-entry intact or nearly so are much greater than previous incidents.
       
      Insofar as the cost issue goes - it's pretty much a wash. Spend the money on the next test against a drone, or spend it on a test against USA-193.
    3. Re:N2H2: Weapon of Mass Destruction, or delicious? by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      Jeffrey, a blunt-spoken and often-profane diplomat You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
      --

      Enigma

  34. Re:Good coverage, bad coverage by KarMann · · Score: 1

    It's an SM-3, not an SM-2. And it will still be broad daylight in that area around Hawaii, so I don't think the eclipse will be much help.

    --
    ProofReading Markup Language - and yes, I find typos.
  35. Self-destruct - standard feature by freedomlinux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Along the lines of the self-destruct, I agree that a satellite which absolutely could not be allowed to return to Earth intact would be built with the proper destructive methods.

    However, a self-destruct would also be useful in cases just like this, where the danger is not classified information, but hazardous materials. I am assuming that satellites are usually launched with the anticipation of decaying orbits, so why not build satellites with standard self-destruct for cases like this?
    It seems like a relatively common occurrence (Skylab, anyone?) and seems like it would be a lot less expensive and require less logistical planning than having to time a missile interception.

    1. Re:Self-destruct - standard feature by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because it's an accident waiting to happen. These satellites can cost anywhere from a few hundred million to a billion dollars, and to lose it because a software glitch causes the self-destruct system to go off would be bad. In addition, an explosive self-destruct system could litter orbit with debris.

      The best thing to do when a satellite needs to be removed from orbit is to de-orbit it with thrusters. Unfortunately, the computer on this satellite flaked completely soon after launch, and the de-orbit system could not be activated.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    2. Re:Self-destruct - standard feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It undoubtedly was built with destruct mechanisms. Unforunately, the satellite is not responding to orders....

    3. Re:Self-destruct - standard feature by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      The best thing to do when a satellite needs to be removed from orbit is to de-orbit it with thrusters. Unfortunately, the computer on this satellite flaked completely soon after launch, and the de-orbit system could not be activated. Wouldn't it follow then, that even if it HAD an auto-destruct, that could not be activated either?
    4. Re:Self-destruct - standard feature by chihowa · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...why not build satellites with standard self-destruct for cases like this? First, a self destruct mechanism would add mass to the satellite, which takes mass away from other gear you'd like to add.

      Secondly, if your satellite is not functioning, like this one, how would you activate the self-destruct mechanism?*

      A possible third is security. What if "the enemy" were to get a hold of the self-destruct codes for all of our satellites? Shooting down a satellite with a missile is a much more costly and traceable event than sending out a radio signal and quietly killing them as they pass overhead.

      *I can think of ways to do this, with pressure and temperature sensors to detect a decayed orbit or an entirely redundant receiver and power supply, but you're really adding mass here. For the extra mass to launch or the reduced capability of the satellite, it may be cheaper to just shoot down birds that don't work.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    5. Re:Self-destruct - standard feature by mashade · · Score: 1

      Self destruct would probably be triggered by altitude, rather than manually. At least in my imagination, there would be some sort of "dead man's switch".

      --
      Technology tips and tricks.
    6. Re:Self-destruct - standard feature by ELProphet · · Score: 1

      Self destruct mechanisms have weight, which is the biggest cost in space equipment. Since you expect the satellite to complete its mission (IE stay up long enough to use up its fuel supply- once again, weight being the cost you aren't going to put more fuel than you need), there won't be any fuel left when it comes down.

      Rather than spend $120 million up front developing a complex component of an already complex system that may or may not work and may or may not even be necessary, why not spend half that when you do find you need it, and actually get to play with rockets and blow stuff up while you're at it?

  36. Re:Good coverage, bad coverage by KarMann · · Score: 1

    Oh, and to top it off, the Moon won't be above the horizon yet in that area, either.

    --
    ProofReading Markup Language - and yes, I find typos.
  37. Eclipse ? by mbone · · Score: 1

    During the "shoot down" period it will be daytime in Hawaii and the Moon will be below the horizon. I don't think that the eclipse is a factor here.

    I hate the term "shoot down." Everything will still be in orbit, just in smaller pieces.

  38. Modified space vision by michaelmalak · · Score: 1

    I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of sending a spy satellite into orbit and returning it destructively to Earth.

  39. How would the hydrazine even reach the earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't the tank of hydrazine explode as the satellite burns up in the atmosphere? I read somewhere that about half the mass of the satellite would burn up in the atmosphere. It's kind of hard for me to believe that the hydrazine would be intact so as to pose a danger on earth. Does anyone know how this is possible?

  40. Re:Disappointing. We need to LASER it. by KarMann · · Score: 1

    You're in luck! I've seen such movies. They're out there on YouTube for the anti-missile tests that have already taken place. Start searching!

    --
    ProofReading Markup Language - and yes, I find typos.
  41. But in POST-Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...Putin commands the satellite to shoot down you, your family, your close friends, your distant acquaintances, your neighbor's pet rabbit and the kid who called him "stuck-up" in third grade. This is ?

  42. 11 time zones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's ridiculous. That's not even funny.

    1. Re:11 time zones? by Shimmer · · Score: 1

      Negativeland - Escape From Noise?

      --
      The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
  43. Answers to some of the Hydrazine questions by usul294 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I had a chat with my grandfather who works on attitude control systems for commercial satellites about hydrazine. Hydrazine is used for attitude control and orbit stabilization. Since contact was never made with this USA 193, the hydrazine tank should be full. The ignition for hydrazine is heat, so all they do to fire it is have a little toaster that ignites a little bit of fuel at a time. Because the ignition source is heat, the hydrazine tank has to be incredibly well insulated to maintain a constant temperature. If the tank were to survive reentry, by being shielded by other components melting off, it would most likely rupture when it hit the ground at terminal velocity. Hydrazine is a pretty serious hazmat, and even a small concentration of that into your system will do serious, potentially permanent or even fatal damage to your lungs. Even worse, the hydrazine could ignite upon hitting the Earth and cause a small explosion, though the gas leak is more likely. If you took the surface of the earth and divided it into 1 acre chunks, I doubt more than 5% of those acres would have people in them( figure 10% of the Earth is inhabited, and large portions of that are farm) Nevertheless, a 1/20 chance of killing/permanently damaging anywhere from 1(hits near Bear Grylls in the desert) to 10,000 people(hits Rio), it certainly seems like a politically influenced decision to get rid of a potential disaster.

  44. Re:Disappointing. We need to LASER it. by professorfalcon · · Score: 1

    What does that have to do with the dolphins with lasers on their heads?

  45. Lunar eclipse is a red herring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It will be daylight in Hawaii, for a start. Moreover, I highly doubt they are going for a visual target acquisition on this one.

    1. Re:Lunar eclipse is a red herring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think it even counts as a red herring. It's just coincidence.

      The Aegis ballistic missile defense system receives target data initially from the ship's radar and guides to the target area based on instructions from the ship. Then the kinetic kill vehicle separates from the missile and acquires it's target with a high resolution infrared camera (much more sophisticated than the older Sidewinder air-to-air missile seekers).

  46. Who are they spying ON? by tekrat · · Score: 0, Troll

    I've looked at the orbit of this satellite. Have you noticed that it goes over North America and Africa, otherwise, it spends most of it's time over the oceans?

    Okay, there's very little to spy on over the middle of Africa. So, I'm very much coming to the conclusion that the REAL reason they want to shoot it down is because it's very embarassing for someone else to get the data from this bird that shows that what the government is spying on is US -- the USA.

    Bush can chant the Patriot act all he wants, but when the Washington Post prints data from the satellite that shows the NSA is intercepting every American's mundane existence, and performing massive invasions of privacy, the Repblican party's chances of re-election will be sunk.

    That's what this is really about. Covering your ass in an election year.

    TTYL

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:Who are they spying ON? by zenkonami · · Score: 1

      Or maybe there are states in Africa that actually concern our government? Rogue states, of course. Legitimate governments don't concern us because we put them there.

      Naval maneuvers would also be handy to spot. I admit to speculating here and will likely get assaulted for it, but I'd think (depending on the altitude and trajectory of the orbit) that passing over North America would give you a good look at both Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.

      --

      Do You Experiment?
    2. Re:Who are they spying ON? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for some very specialized oribits, a satellite's ground track is never so rigid. A satellite's orbital 'angle' (there is probably a more technical term, too lazy to look it up right now) determines how much of the earth, in terms of lattitude, the satelite will possibly cover. Its longitudinal coverage is pretty much taken care of by the earth spinning under it.

      I [i]guess[/i] (orbital physics is not my strong suit) that a satellite's oribital velocity could be synched up with the spin of the Earth in such a way that the satellite would always miss certain areas, but I don't think this is generally done.

      For USA 193 and other satellites I've tracked, if you are within their lattitude limits they will eventually pass over you.

  47. Cover all bases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...during the totality of Wednesday's lunar eclipse, which may or may not make debris easier to observe."

    Awesome. Thanks for clearing that up! So tell me, I'm assuming the shootdown either will or won't work, am I right on this?

    1. Re:Cover all bases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      am I right on this?


      Hmm, maybe...
  48. Re:In Soviet Russia by Ex-MislTech · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Also in soviet Russia F117's shot down in Serbia years
    ago are reverse engineered to make stealth cruise missiles
    for the Bear Bombers that recently went back on patrol.

    http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jsws/jsws0485.html

    I have never looked at my shovel so fondly before.

    --
    google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
  49. Boiling point of hydrazine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "Their more concerned about the full tank of hydrazine that would survive a normal reentry and create a hazardous materials nightmare near a populated area. "

    Really?

    The boiling point of hydrazine is 113.5C (Merck, 1983; CRC, 1994).That is: very low.

    I'd really like to now how you can keep a tank inside a molten steel ball at 113C max. I'd even say it's not possible.

  50. Will a nuclear battery blend? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    The reactors (as used since the soviet crash 30yrs ago) are designed to be a 'chunk', the thing it powers is not. Since the 'chunk' is small, heavy, and moving at considerable speed, it will make a 'crater'. Where the chunk falls out of the debris cloud and forms said crater is anyone's guess.

    OTOH: Atmospheric testing demonstrated how nasty plutonium condensate can be in the upper atmosphere and the 'indestructable' reactors have only been tested in the blenderrr..., I mean lab.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Will a nuclear battery blend? by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The reactors distinctly do not reenter as a single chunk and leave a crater. Cosmos 954, for example, scattered its fuel over a 370 mile path in the Canadian wilderness, leading to a search that covered 48,000 square miles, and later an even larger one. They only recovered 1% of the fuel.

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    2. Re:Will a nuclear battery blend? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Ummm I started the post with...'The reactors (as used since the soviet crash 30yrs ago)...'. Cosmos 954 was soviet, used a reactor and crashed 30yrs ago?

      Technically you are correct because reactors are no longer used, they use a thing called an RTG, it's a type of 'atomic battery' powered by plutonium. Cosmos 954 carried a true reactor powered by plutonium. Here is the wiki link you were looking for. :)

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:Will a nuclear battery blend? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Cosmos 954 was soviet, used a reactor and crashed 30yrs ago?

      Yes, yes, and yes. Wow, can't you even follow a link?

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    4. Re:Will a nuclear battery blend? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I read your link and countered with another that you failed to comprehend/read. The link clearly support what I was saying, and yes, bumping the reactor into a higher orbit is another option but how does that help if you can't communicate with it?

      Here are a couple of quotes from my link...

      "The US Department of Energy has conducted seawater tests and determined that the graphite casing, which was designed to withstand reentry,..."

      "...plutonium dioxide which survived reentry into the Earth's atmosphere intact, as it was designed to do"

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  51. Re:Good coverage, bad coverage by ErkDemon · · Score: 1

    If it's really going to be happening during eclipse totality, that doesn't sound like "broad daylight" ...

  52. there is one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's the terminal phase sensor that guides the interceptor in the last seconds, & will be a popular clip on the classified network;-)

  53. Relax... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By the time the satellite hits our atmosphere, it'll have burned up and be no bigger than a chihuahua's head.

  54. correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sm-3

  55. See USA 193 - before it's gone for good by indyweb · · Score: 1

    There's still a last chance to see the satellite before the destruction attempt (or before it disintegrates). Visit one of the many satellite-tracker sites, such as the Heavens-above link below and enter your location to see if you'll have a favorable time to view it (binoculars or naked eyes). http://www.heavens-above.com/usa193.aspx?lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET

  56. JDAMS use gps? hahahahha by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    More like they set their initial target using GPS, but ongoing realtime telemetry would use inertial based calculation, with GPS as a backup/check.
    Otherwise all an enemy needs to do is launch a few high alt balloons transmitting bogus GPS data.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  57. UTC by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    If you need to know what time 3:30 is, this article gives offsets from UTC to your time zone.

    Fot US Central time its offset is -6 hours, so if my math is correct (don't laugh, I'm still on my first cup of coffee) it should be about 9:00 here.

    I wonder if it's a coincidence that they're shooting this thing down during an eclipse?

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  58. fake weapons test made to fail. by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Id say a fake test, made to fail, so they can go ask for another 100billion in fony funding.

    Afterall , if it works well, there's no need for more funding/testing is there.

    Its going to fail REAL REAL WELL!!!

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  59. Re: Why not in 1997? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Why, do you think, did we not shoot down the Delta II second stage that reentered in 1997 with a large amount of residual hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide onboard?"

    Perhaps because Bush cares more about the environment than Clinton? (And previous Presidents?)

    (Not on Slashdot of course).

  60. When... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they going to shoot down that spy plane that's been flying over the DFW area for the past 6 months?

  61. The Earth turns by MutantEnemy · · Score: 1

    You're only looking at the current path over land. Because the Earth rotates, every orbit travels over a different area of the Earth, because the Earth itself has turned. So it basically passes over most land at one point or another.

    --
    Grr! Arg!
  62. No, it's "I'll blot out the moon!" by An+dochasac · · Score: 1
    It goes like this:

    • China blows up a satellite with a missile to prove it can be done.
    • The U.S. says, "knock it off or I'll blot out the moon", launches missile
    • Total lunar eclipse commences. Cannibals are impressed.
    Oh wait, Columbas tried that already as did that fictional Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's court. Do you think the Cannibals of the world have caught on yet? Nah, surely the rest of the world also has the the attention span and long term memory of a knat.

    BTW, does anyone know what Britany Spears will be up to during the eclipse?
  63. Dunno what the real story is by Ranger · · Score: 1
    But here are my wild speculations:
    • DoD knows exactly where it's going to reenter and know sensitive equipment will survive.
    • It's an excuse to test a new missile defense system.
    • Dick Cheney is going hunting again.
    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  64. Re:Good coverage, bad coverage by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    You do understand that the earth has a peculiar shape, right? Let's invent a word and call it "spherical". Being this "spherical" shape, one part of the world is always going to be facing the sun, even if there's another part of the world observing a total eclipse of the moon.

    Hawaii is UTC-10. Since this will be happening at 03:30 UTC, that means it will be 17:30 local time. Broad daylight.

  65. Re:Disappointing. We need to LASER it. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Wow... I've not seen a Real Genius reference on Slashdot in years, much less a mostly on-topic one... kudos.

  66. Nothing to see here, unless you're under it by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    > I find it quaint, the notion that the real reason they have to shoot the satellite down is because it has a tank of hydrazine onboard

    If the tank survives to low atmosphere or impacts the earth, the by then gaseous (boiling point 114 C) hydrazine would come flying out when the tank ruptured. It would be heated by the still hot tank shards and explode (flash point 37 C). A 1,000 lbs. cloud of gas burning a large volume of oxygen would leave behind a large vacuum and cause a major implosion. This is how a daisy cutter bomb works. Those are hardly quaint.

    And if it didn't blow itself out with an implosion, it'd be a large 800 C fireball. It'd set an enormous fire, another non-quaint outcome. The land areas under the last orbits are southern Africa and mid Russia/Siberia. Lots of flammable land area. Either way the result would be much worse than a few pieces of radioactive material landing in small lumps, such as the Cosmos that crashed into Canada.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:Nothing to see here, unless you're under it by Rei · · Score: 1

      Few pieces? It was an entire nuclear reactor. And not the only one.

      Since when do *any* large tanks from *anything* survive intact through reentry? Name *one* example. I can get you lots of pictures of busted up tanks from all sorts of spacecraft. Reentry heating and drag do not play around.

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
  67. 193 was to confirm whether putin had a soul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was supposed to look into his eyes. Bush says Soul, McCain says KGB.

  68. Not an accurate comparisson by MythoBeast · · Score: 1

    For other systems, they still had some altitude control, and therefore could specify generally where the debris would hit. They have no communication with this satellite. It's a bus-sized LEO meteor with a hydrazine explosive punch when it hits, and it could land almost anywhere in the flight path. Toxicity doesn't really matter as much as the damage it could do if it lands in an inhabited area. This kind of lack of control is pretty well guaranteed to tick off the control-freak types who run the country.

    Besides, we want to test our ability to shoot evil badguy satellites out of the sky. Who knows when we'd get another excuse to try that?

    --
    Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
  69. just an unusual coincidence? by maven_johnson · · Score: 1
    1. Re:just an unusual coincidence? by PPH · · Score: 1

      If any satellite parts survive re-entry, they should appear on eBay shortly.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  70. Re:Disappointing. We need to LASER it. by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

    Wow... I've not seen a Real Genius reference on Slashdot in years, much less a mostly on-topic one... kudos.
    You're joking, right?
    --
    How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  71. Re:Disappointing. We need to LASER it. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    No, no joke. I hadn't seen one.

    Between coding 40/wk for a living and 24/wk for coursework, the last thing I do on weekends is get on the computer these days. Totally missed the story.

  72. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  73. Uh, great, so by cicho · · Score: 1

    Great, so the US government is using untested software and untested hardware to shoot a big chunk of explosive toxic shit out of the sky over my head. I see absolutely no reason why this should fail.

    Question.

    Even though there is absolutely no reason this should fail, let's just, you know, theorize. In the unlikely case it doesn't quite go as planned... what is the US government going to use to shoot the wayward missile out of the sky before *it* lands in somebody's backyard?

    --
    "Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity." - Marshall McLuhan
    1. Re:Uh, great, so by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      Missle is small enough that it will burn up on re-entry. It also has a self-destruct for range safety reasons. Only during time of war can the range safety self-destruct be turned off. Heck, even the Shuttle has a self-destruct, and all US space lauch vehicles as well.

  74. Bombing the Eclipse by nightcats · · Score: 1

    Is there anything in the universe, I wonder, that we cannot abide without throwing bombs and guns into it?

    --
    Development is programmable; Discovery is not programmable. (Fuller)
  75. More questions about hydrazine Re:Good coverage by universimmedia · · Score: 1

    What will happen or not to the hydrazine tank on re-entry has been widely discussed. But what will happen to it right at missile impact time? I read somewhere that the core target was indeed this hydrazine tank. Granted, there is no warhead in the missile, but if the hydrazine tank is touched, I guess it should help the thing to blow off in more pieces with more initial energy. Right? Does that change the picture in terms of debris cloud dispersion (downward and upward)? Strange nobody seems to speak (or think) about that, unless I miss something. Thoughts?

  76. Re:Good coverage, bad coverage by ErkDemon · · Score: 1
    Yeah, but I thought that "totality" usually referred to a combination of both time and space coordinates (in other words, that it only applied to observers within the zone being totally blacked out, at the time that it is totally blacked out).

    It's like, if someone says that something is going to happen in the sky at a location "at sunrise", you tend to hope that they mean sunrise at that location, otherwise it's a bit of a misleading thing to say.

    If the shooting down wasn't actually scheduled

    "during the totality of Wednesday's lunar eclipse"
    with respect to the area of the shooting-down zone, then I think it was a very misleading article. I mean, if I say that something happened in London "during a total eclipse", you're going to tend to assume that I'm referring to a total eclipse in London, aren't you? As opposed to something happening in London during a total eclipse in, say, Ecuador.

    If you're saying that the article got its wires crossed, or took a few liberties with phrasing in order to make a better story, I'll take your word for it.

  77. Re:Good coverage, bad coverage by ErkDemon · · Score: 1
    Ach. I get it. "Lunar" eclipse refers to the eclipsee rather than the eclipser. Bah. My bad. Apologies.

    NOT the satellite being shot at when the moon goes in front of the Sun.

    In which case ... what a desperately boring story!