Slashdot Mirror
Why Shoot Down a Satellite? Analyzing an Analysis
A reader, name withheld by request, writes "Writing in the IEEE Spectrum, James Oberg analyzes whether there was, in fact a significant risk to humans from the satellite which the US military shot down on 21 February, purportedly 'to head off the possibility of its splashing a half ton of toxic hydrazine fuel somewhere on Earth.' Previous experts had 'scoffed' at the rationale put forth, pointing out that there was trivial possibility that any significant amount of toxic fuel would make it to the ground intact. Oberg's analysis, titled 'the inside story,' purports to debunk this, and claims that indeed it's possible, and even likely, that there could be a danger to the ground. Unfortunately, the analysis is full of flaws and lack of rigor — indeed, lacking any sort of numerical reasoning. It seems to be too much repeating official 'spin,' and could have used a hefty dose of skepticism — and could also use a little bit of actual analysis using numbers, rather than handwaving." Read on for the rest of an interesting analysis of a topic that suddenly seems more complex.
The submitter continues:
"Here's the first number that Oberg should have quoted: 32 Megajoules per kilogram. That's orbital energy, which is how much energy has to be removed by ablation or otherwise dissipated for the hydrazine tank to enter the atmosphere and hit the ground undamaged. For reference, TNT holds about 4.6 MJ/kg.
Oberg quotes 'Hydrazine requires a tremendous amount of energy to go from solid to liquid.' This energy is known as the heat of fusion, and for hydrazine it is just a little under 400 kJ/kg. That's about 1% of the energy released by entry heating. Hardly a 'tremendous' amount of energy, compared to the entry energy that's nearly a hundred times greater.
Oberg goes on to quote 'There is a widespread notion that meteorites falling to Earth arrive red hot.' He is correct here. In fact, meteorites falling through the atmosphere typically explode, shattering into dozens or hundreds of pieces; something that occurs at the point when the dynamic pressure on the leading face exceeds the yield stress of the material. This occurs for meteoroids of all compositions, including nickle-iron meteorites that are far more robust than hydrazine tanks. If the atmospheric entry of meteorites is relevant, it hardly bolsters the case that a tank will enter intact (and if it's not relevent, why did Oberg bring it up?)
Furthermore, if you look at a typical nickle-iron meteorite, you'll see a surface pitted and mottled with holes ranging from the size of golf balls up to pits the size of baseballs. These are known as regmaglypts; they are the areas ablated away by the entry plasma. Even a single such ablation pit would, of course, destroy a hydrazine tank.
The second number Oberg should have quoted is a number called ballistic coefficient, the mass divided by the area of the tank. Basically, the smaller the ballistic coefficient, the less stressful the entry will be. Unfortunately, a full hydrazine tank has a very high ballistic coefficient. It is an empty tank, not a full one, that is likely to enter intact. Talking about empty film canisters, or even empty fuel tanks, making it intact through atmospheric entry is really about as relevant as talking about dropping a piece of paper on the floor.
The article contains a quote from Andrew Higgins, with a link to (purportedly) the research done that contains the quote. Unfortunately the link does not actually contain the quote used in the article; in fact, it seems to be mostly a discussion of a side issue. Let me emphasize this: Higgins did not say what he is quoted as saying in the place he was reported as saying it. This may merely be sloppy journalism — maybe he said it somewhere else — but I am again left with the question: if I can't even trust the simplest things he says that can be easily checked, why should I trust anything else?
In short, Oberg's article is poorly thought out, avoids even simple back-of-the-envelope calculations, and accepts uncritically information that should have been aggressively questioned. He concludes that a well-defined and thoroughly researched technological hazard assessment — of a kind that someday, for better or worse, will be needed again — has wound up buried in obscurity and obfuscation. This may be true, but no well defined nor thoroughly researched technological hazard assessment was anywhere in evidence. The analysis he gives in the article is buried in obscurity and obfuscation.
(apologies for posting as Anonymous Coward. I work in the field.)"
Oberg goes on to quote 'There is a widespread notion that meteorites falling to Earth arrive red hot.' He is correct here. In fact, meteorites falling through the atmosphere typically explode, shattering into dozens or hundreds of pieces; something that occurs at the point when the dynamic pressure on the leading face exceeds the yield stress of the material. This occurs for meteoroids of all compositions, including nickle-iron meteorites that are far more robust than hydrazine tanks. If the atmospheric entry of meteorites is relevant, it hardly bolsters the case that a tank will enter intact (and if it's not relevent, why did Oberg bring it up?)
Furthermore, if you look at a typical nickle-iron meteorite, you'll see a surface pitted and mottled with holes ranging from the size of golf balls up to pits the size of baseballs. These are known as regmaglypts; they are the areas ablated away by the entry plasma. Even a single such ablation pit would, of course, destroy a hydrazine tank.
The second number Oberg should have quoted is a number called ballistic coefficient, the mass divided by the area of the tank. Basically, the smaller the ballistic coefficient, the less stressful the entry will be. Unfortunately, a full hydrazine tank has a very high ballistic coefficient. It is an empty tank, not a full one, that is likely to enter intact. Talking about empty film canisters, or even empty fuel tanks, making it intact through atmospheric entry is really about as relevant as talking about dropping a piece of paper on the floor.
The article contains a quote from Andrew Higgins, with a link to (purportedly) the research done that contains the quote. Unfortunately the link does not actually contain the quote used in the article; in fact, it seems to be mostly a discussion of a side issue. Let me emphasize this: Higgins did not say what he is quoted as saying in the place he was reported as saying it. This may merely be sloppy journalism — maybe he said it somewhere else — but I am again left with the question: if I can't even trust the simplest things he says that can be easily checked, why should I trust anything else?
In short, Oberg's article is poorly thought out, avoids even simple back-of-the-envelope calculations, and accepts uncritically information that should have been aggressively questioned. He concludes that a well-defined and thoroughly researched technological hazard assessment — of a kind that someday, for better or worse, will be needed again — has wound up buried in obscurity and obfuscation. This may be true, but no well defined nor thoroughly researched technological hazard assessment was anywhere in evidence. The analysis he gives in the article is buried in obscurity and obfuscation.
(apologies for posting as Anonymous Coward. I work in the field.)"
That wins the award 'Epic Fail of the Week'.
And a cookie.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
Thank you for debunking the debunking of the debunking.
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
Actually, if there's a conspiracy, its this whole business of hydrazine being supposedly unsafe. Since I've been using hydrazine scalp cream, I've regained a full head of hair and my private assets have significantly increased in size. It's only because George Bush wants everyone to go bald, that the satellite was shot down.
This is my sig.
I got an, 'A' in rocket science. It's not nearly as hard as they make it out to be.
Is this on /. because it involves satelites, or because, the analysis is full of flaws and lack of rigor ... lacking any sort of numerical reasoning? Perhaps I should read TFA... :-)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
If we did not shoot it down we would lose one of our missile sites or one of our 6 cities!
Loss of a city is not bad, but loss of the center missile site can make life a bitch as that satellite comes by..
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Most 8 year olds I know are good at making up a pretext for getting what they want.
A: I really wanna shoot down a satellite!
B: You can't do that, it'll make you look like a violent war provocateur.
A: But! But! But! What if it was a dangerous satellite. Like it was going to kill everyone or something. And we had to shoot it down to save everyone! And it had racing stripes and a turret on top and played the A-Team theme song!
B: Well.... Okay, but only if it's a dangerous satellite.
A: Yay! Mom! Dad says we can shoot down a satellite!
That would be bad.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
http://www.sff.net/people/geoffrey.landis/
http://mit.edu/aeroastro/www/people/landis/landis.html
You're at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology and can not practice simple internet privacy.
elle oh elle to you, good sir.
Nonsense. You guys have got it all wrong, like you can only think one layer deep.
Clearly there is no reason for the US to demonstrate an ability to shoot down satellites, as everyone knows the US can shoot down satellites. And yet, there seems to be little good practical reason to shoot down this particular satellite.
The truth is obvious. This was not a "failed" satellite, but rather a test of a satellite-based anti-missile system. In other words, the launched sat contained countermeasures against exactly this kind of missile, and the only way to test those countermeasures was to launch a missile at it.
The problem was that anybody would see such a test, and so the military needed a cover story, and thus came up with this notion of a "pissing contest" (while claiming all the while that the reason was the hydrazine tank). I'm sure that the sat was rigged to self-destruct immediately after deployment of its anti-missile system, to make it look like the cover operation was successful.
"Why sit down on a silly hot seat in AZ? Gay anal lanes".
/.
Ahhh, the joys of being at work on a typically slow Monday with no bosses in the office to catch you reading
She's built like a steak house, but she handles like a bistro....
That's just how cookies work on the Internet I'm afraid.
Dr. Landis implies that Andrew Higgins didn't say the quoted item.
In fact, it's easily found in the link given.
In the linked text, Higgins gives a hyperlink back to a previous letter which was in The Space Review which contains that very quote and in the context Oberg said.
Landis snipes at Oberg for poor journalism, but apparently can't follow a bloody hyperlink. Why, even Cowboy Neal could do that and on a bad day to boot.
Secondly, Landis is an expert in solar cells and solid state devices. He apparently also works on elements of spacecraft electrical power systems, lander design and operation and writes articles on a variety of subjects. Impressive, but not directly in the area.
On the other hand, Andrew Higgins is a principle investigator and an expert in the behavior of materials under extreme hypersonic conditions and computer simulation of the same. His work on materials and combustion in hypersonic ram accelerators leaves him very well equipped to comment on the dynamics of reentry and the behavior of spacecraft materials and fuels under such extreme conditions.
Landis seems to be using the very sloppy and misleading tactics that he accuses Oberg of. Pot. Kettle. Black.
(Mild disclaimer. Andy Higgins is a friend going back to undergrad days (and believe me, it's been a while). I was mildly nettled that Landis invokes the name of an old friend and then becomes selectively blind when Andy gave the link to the very quoted item in the letter that Landis read.)
The headline in my rss tab was "Why Shoot Down a Satellite? Analyzing an Anal...".
This story is not what I expected to see.
Oh well, at least it's SFW,
ds
Said satellite contains expensive, highly-classefied equipment
When will the world learn that open source is the way to go ? Security through obscurity really means you don't know exactly how much the enemy knows about you, which of course means you're that much more worried and uptight about it all. If all your cards are out in the open, you might not have the intel advantage, but you also don't have to worry about how much China or Russia knows. You can safely assume they know everything, and you can concentrate on beating them with pure skill and ingenuity. If you can't, then you deserve to fail.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
The fact is 90% of the bleeding hearts would have been all over it if it ...
Maybe next time they could arrange for the bleeding hearts to be under it.
Yeah, cause we all know that bus-sized Hubble telescope is not only for taking pictures of far away galaxy's. It is also capable of raining down a terror of flaming My Little Ponies on unsuspecting nations.
That's all the proof I need!