Facetious
Moderated
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080214/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/dead_satellite
And I was just saying yesterday :
:dunno: Oh well :o
Pentagon will blast crippled satellite
- Thread starter Facetious
- Start date
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080214/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/dead_satellite
And I was just saying yesterday :
:dunno: Oh well :o
Mass ignorance (below LEO orbit)
There's mass ignorance on this topic, but that's because most people don't know the first thing about Low Earth Orbit (LEO), let alone orbital mechanics.
The reason for international outcry (not just US) in the Chinese case was the fact that China blew up a satellite at 475 miles. Typical LEO is 100-400 miles (for man spacecraft), or up to 1,500 miles for other applications (unmanned). The space junk from the Chinese test will cause issues for LEO satellites for a long, long time (decades).
In this case, the satellite is going to be destroyed well below LEO, but as its already skimming the atmosphere. The debris are going to burn up or they will stay below LEO in the worst case (and burn up soon). I believe the intercept is 90 miles (150 km), although the apogee may be higher (but not where the intercept will take place). The junk is already coming down, whether it's whole or in pieces.
This thing is huge for a typical satellite, designed to carry a lot of fuel for repositioning for 20 or so years. That fuel, which will come down intact, will cause a toxic gas leak. While the probability of killing anyone is low if it hits land (although injuries may be another story), and it would be just a "localized toxic gas issue," this presents a prime test for peaceful purposes.
I.e., I'm sure the US wants to demonstrate it can use the new SM-3s with the matured EKV (exo-atmospheric kill vehicle) for peaceful purposes, like destroying large satellites that will come down whole. They also get multiple shots at it, every 90 minutes or so.
There is no issue of space junk at all. The EKV can't "bump it back into orbit" like a lot of ignorant people say either. It would only modify its trajectory, not its velocity, possibly just causing it to come down more steeply. Again, the thing is re-entering the Earth's atmosphere, whether whole or in pieces. The EKV itself isn't an issue either, it's sub-orbital and will come down even if it misses.
Again, a lot of ignorance on orbital mechanics at work here. There is 0 issues with this attempt. It's an ideal test case. In fact, I'd buy the engineer who proposed this a beer.
There's mass ignorance on this topic, but that's because most people don't know the first thing about Low Earth Orbit (LEO), let alone orbital mechanics.
The reason for international outcry (not just US) in the Chinese case was the fact that China blew up a satellite at 475 miles. Typical LEO is 100-400 miles (for man spacecraft), or up to 1,500 miles for other applications (unmanned). The space junk from the Chinese test will cause issues for LEO satellites for a long, long time (decades).
In this case, the satellite is going to be destroyed well below LEO, but as its already skimming the atmosphere. The debris are going to burn up or they will stay below LEO in the worst case (and burn up soon). I believe the intercept is 90 miles (150 km), although the apogee may be higher (but not where the intercept will take place). The junk is already coming down, whether it's whole or in pieces.
This thing is huge for a typical satellite, designed to carry a lot of fuel for repositioning for 20 or so years. That fuel, which will come down intact, will cause a toxic gas leak. While the probability of killing anyone is low if it hits land (although injuries may be another story), and it would be just a "localized toxic gas issue," this presents a prime test for peaceful purposes.
I.e., I'm sure the US wants to demonstrate it can use the new SM-3s with the matured EKV (exo-atmospheric kill vehicle) for peaceful purposes, like destroying large satellites that will come down whole. They also get multiple shots at it, every 90 minutes or so.
There is no issue of space junk at all. The EKV can't "bump it back into orbit" like a lot of ignorant people say either. It would only modify its trajectory, not its velocity, possibly just causing it to come down more steeply. Again, the thing is re-entering the Earth's atmosphere, whether whole or in pieces. The EKV itself isn't an issue either, it's sub-orbital and will come down even if it misses.
Again, a lot of ignorance on orbital mechanics at work here. There is 0 issues with this attempt. It's an ideal test case. In fact, I'd buy the engineer who proposed this a beer.
tartanterrier
Is somewhere outhere.
I guess it'll give the navy some shooting practice 
member006
Closed Account
Re: Mass ignorance (below LEO orbit)
Is the air thin up there Prof?
On the other hand I am as proud as a mother at graduation that at least somebody knows where Google is.
As I posted in the original thread about this, I had hoped it would be destroyed upon reentry or by us. Logic tells anyone that if it fell to earth even in pieces that damage/injury would be inevitable, unless it hit the ocean. Even then the fuel damage could not be avoided. They must do something.
LL
Is the air thin up there Prof?
On the other hand I am as proud as a mother at graduation that at least somebody knows where Google is.
As I posted in the original thread about this, I had hoped it would be destroyed upon reentry or by us. Logic tells anyone that if it fell to earth even in pieces that damage/injury would be inevitable, unless it hit the ocean. Even then the fuel damage could not be avoided. They must do something.
LL
I take it there's no way to recover it rather than blast it?
Facetious
Moderated
Re: Mass ignorance (below LEO orbit)
We're blessed to have you available to articulate the matter :hatsoff:
and I'm not being facetious.
What was it that *I heard that the fuel cell apparatus would be capable of enduring the reentry and therefore would crash to earth only to disperse the secret highly toxic energetic upon us all !!! :eek:
We're blessed to have you available to articulate the matter :hatsoff:
and I'm not being facetious.
What was it that *I heard that the fuel cell apparatus would be capable of enduring the reentry and therefore would crash to earth only to disperse the secret highly toxic energetic upon us all !!! :eek:
Hope a plane or a skydiver doesn't get in the way after they fire the missle.:eek:
Facetious
Moderated
Worse - If we miss an opportunity to reveal that we can stay on par with the Chinese.
The PRC recently accomplished one of these exercises . . . can we ?
I think that blasting the satellite isn't as much about not leaking toxic substances as it is about protecting spy technologies. The satellite in question is equipped with top secret hardware that I don't think the CIA would be too keen if it were picked up by someone from, say, North Korea.
So it's an educated guess?
Not that I believe this at all, but it's a convenient end to the object to have it blown out of the sky while the issue with the Russians arguing about Polish based missiles is a hot topic around the Kremlin. This will scare the shit out of them, but I would never suggest this was the reason. It must be a reason that represents American values. Ask any Indian about honesty in high government.
Not that I believe this at all, but it's a convenient end to the object to have it blown out of the sky while the issue with the Russians arguing about Polish based missiles is a hot topic around the Kremlin. This will scare the shit out of them, but I would never suggest this was the reason. It must be a reason that represents American values. Ask any Indian about honesty in high government.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I heard on the news last night that the real reason they want this thing blasted into oblivion is because it employs new satellite technologies that neither the Russians nor the Chinese have but would kill to get. They want to make sure it (or what's left of it) doesn't end up in the wrong hands.
If fragments of it end up in your yard you can probably get a good price for them on ebay.
If fragments of it end up in your yard you can probably get a good price for them on ebay.
Facetious
Moderated
Ask any Indian about honesty in high government.
Very astute point :hatsoff:
IIRC - Wasn't it the indian chiefs that initially sold out to the Neo American politicons and their manufacturing accomplices ?
:Takes chief whitehorse aside and offers him 10 rifles for "X" acres of land :
Sorta like that ? Isn't that how it all went down . . so to speak ?
Also, a moot point here. T or F - With respect our tearing Indian Chief, wasn't there a rumor that he in fact was pulling a "Ward Churchill" on us i.e. a white man - not a native American in any capacity.
Seems like I've heard this for the last 20 years xxxxxxxxxlol
^^
Gunsling - You make a very good point that I actually pondered at bedtime last nite. :hatsoff:
There is an overwhelming possibility if it comes down whole that the tank will survive (among other things).
If we strike it with a hit-to-kill (HTK) exo-atmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) and open it up, there is an overwhelming possibility it will completely break up.
Simple probability. There is "nothing special" about re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere. Hell, it's high school physics 101.
The more surface area and limited volume, the more something breaks up. The more unexposed volume, the less it breaks up. The tank is at the center of the unit, protected the most (for obvious reasons in space).
It's orbital velocities (Mach 20+) hitting air that increasingly thickens. The question is how much burns up before it slows down enough.
Striking it kinetically with a EKV will most certainly increase the surface area and make it a far greater possibility -- especially it struck in the fuel tank, which we have three (3) attempts to do so.
I honestly do.
First off, the probability of injury is low. Let's get that straight. It's not a "grave threat." I don't think anyone has done that. The administration has been brutally honest about that.
Secondly, this is not a "realistic missile defense" test. We A) know the trajectory exactly, B) we know exactly where it's going to be, when and can "try for it" multiple times, and C) it's much bigger than a typical RV (re-entry vehicle), even one with a nuclear warhead.
No one in their right mind is calling this a "test" of "missile defense." It's unrealistic ("too easy") conditions all around.
But the reality is, we have the capability, and we can show we can use it for peaceful purposes. This is a real nice capability to have for breaking up satellites that will have portions that come down whole.
It likely started with one engineer who said, "hey, why don't we try blowing it up with a SM-3?"
And some astrophysicists probably chimed in, "yeah, there is no danger of space junk lingering around."
And another engineer said, "and yeah, we'll get multiple passes too."
And then some statistician perked up, "and we not only get multiple chances to hit it with each orbit, but we have the exact, accurate trajectory."
Again, media meets mass ignorance = assumptions.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not even the fuel tank will surive an impact whole, so how will sensitive spy equip?
Any internal computing technology will be useless. I'm sure the second the satellite was considered unusable, anything other than its basic guidance program was destroyed. The US has strict guidelines on levels of protection. E.g., guidance is a much lower level than spying tech, so the computers and their interconnects were probably, physically separate. I.e., I'm sure it was fried long ago remotely.
So what would remain if it came down whole? The non-sensitive innards. This is namely the tank and superstructure around it. And given an impact on land, even that wouldn't "survive."
Here's an analogy ...
Have you guys ever dropped a computer from 10 stories? I have. The case will open and components spill apart. The superstructure of satellites are no tougher than metal computer case -- seriously! Now try to read the hard drive, just from 10 stories. You'll have trouble. Now imagine sensitive spy technology surviving what a reinforced superstructure and tank cannot.
You guys would so fail Statics. But that's not your fault. The one college major that is completely lacking from the US media is engineering first and foremost.
The advanced sensory equipment will be destroyed in any burn-up, whole or in pieces, regardless.
Any internal computing technology will be useless. I'm sure the second the satellite was considered unusable, anything other than its basic guidance program was destroyed. The US has strict guidelines on levels of protection. E.g., guidance is a much lower level than spying tech, so the computers and their interconnects were probably, physically separate. I.e., I'm sure it was fried long ago remotely.
So what would remain if it came down whole? The non-sensitive innards. This is namely the tank and superstructure around it. And given an impact on land, even that wouldn't "survive."
Here's an analogy ...
Have you guys ever dropped a computer from 10 stories? I have. The case will open and components spill apart. The superstructure of satellites are no tougher than metal computer case -- seriously! Now try to read the hard drive, just from 10 stories. You'll have trouble. Now imagine sensitive spy technology surviving what a reinforced superstructure and tank cannot.
You guys would so fail Statics. But that's not your fault. The one college major that is completely lacking from the US media is engineering first and foremost.
