Reply With Quote
I don't think the US is the only country capable of shooting down a satellite.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330778,00.html
U.S. Officials Defend Plan to Shoot Down Satellite
Friday, February 15, 2008
E-Mail Print Share:
DiggFacebookStumbleUpon
U.S. Air Force
The Delta II rocket carrying spy satellite USA-193/NRO L-21 launches Dec. 14, 2006, from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
WASHINGTON — Taking a page from Hollywood science fiction, the Pentagon said Thursday it will try to shoot down a dying, bus-size U.S. spy satellite loaded with toxic fuel on a collision course with the Earth.
The military hopes to smash the satellite as soon as next week — just before it enters Earth's atmosphere — with a single missile fired from a Navy cruiser in the northern Pacific Ocean.
The dramatic maneuver may well trigger international concerns, and U.S. officials have begun notifying other countries of the plan — stressing that it does not signal the start of a new American anti-satellite weapons program.
• Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Space Center.
Military and administration officials said the satellite is carrying fuel called hydrazine that could injure or even kill people who are near it when it hits the ground.
That reason alone, they said, persuaded President Bush to order the shoot-down.
"That is the only thing that breaks it out, that is worthy of taking extraordinary measures," said Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a Pentagon briefing.
RelatedStories
Astronauts Make Final Spacewalk of Shuttle Mission Pentagon Plans to Shoot Down Failing Satellite U.S. Military Prepares to Handle Crashing Spy Satellite Dead Spy Satellite Could Hit Earth Within a Month, Officials Say He predicted a fairly high chance — as much as 80 percent — of hitting the satellite, which will be about 150 miles up when the shot is fired.
The window of opportunity for taking the satellite down, Cartwright said, opens in three or four days and lasts for about seven or eight days.
"We'll take one shot and assess," he said. "This is the first time we've used a tactical missile to engage a spacecraft."
Deputy National Security Adviser James Jeffrey discounted comparisons to an anti-satellite test conducted by the Chinese last year that triggered criticism from the U.S. and other countries.
"This is all about trying to reduce the danger to human beings," Jeffrey said. "Specifically, there was enough of a risk for the president to be quite concerned about human life."
There might also be unstated military aims, some outside the administration suggested.
Similar spacecraft re-enter the atmosphere regularly and break up into pieces, said Ivan Oelrich, vice president for strategic security programs at the Federation of American Scientists.
He said, "One could be forgiven for asking if this is just an excuse to test an anti-satellite weapon."
A key issue when China shot down its defunct weather satellite was that it created an enormous amount of space debris.
"All of the debris from this encounter, as carefully designed as it is, will be down at most within weeks, and most of it will be down within the first couple of orbits afterward," said Jeffrey. "There's an enormous difference to spacefaring nations in ... those two things."
He and others dismissed suggestions that this was simply an attempt by the U.S. to flex its muscles, and that officials were overstating the toxic fuel threat.
Left alone, the satellite would be expected to hit Earth during the first week of March. About half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft would be expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and would scatter debris over several hundred miles.
If the missile shot is successful, officials said, much of the debris would burn up as it fell. They said they could not estimate how much would make it through the atmosphere.
They said the largest piece that would survive re-entry would be the spherical fuel tank, which is about 40 inches wide — assuming it is not hit directly by the missile.
The goal, however, is to hit the fuel tank in order to minimize the amount of fuel that returns to Earth, Cartwright said.
A Navy missile known as Standard Missile 3 would be fired at the spy satellite in an attempt to intercept it just before it re-enters Earth's atmosphere.
It would be "next to impossible" to hit the satellite after that because of atmospheric disturbances, he said.
Known by its military designation US 193, the satellite was launched in December 2006. It lost power and its central computer failed almost immediately afterward, leaving it uncontrollable. It carried a sophisticated and secret imaging sensor.
Software associated with the Standard Missile 3 has been modified to enhance the chances of the missile's sensors recognizing that the satellite is its target. The missile's designed mission is to shoot down ballistic missiles, not satellites.
Other officials said the missile's maximum range, while a classified figure, is not great enough to hit a satellite operating in normal orbits.
"It's a one-time deal," Cartwright said when asked whether the modified Standard Missile 3 should be considered a new U.S. anti-satellite technology.
He said that if an initial shoot-down attempt fails, the military would have about two days to reassess and decide whether to take a second shot.
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told reporters that analysis shows the hydrazine tank would survive a fall to Earth under normal cir stances, much as one did when the space shuttle Columbia crashed.
"The hydrazine which is in it is frozen solid, as it is now. Not all of it will melt," he said.
If the tank hits the ground it will have been breached because the fuel lines will have broken off and hydrazine will vent out, he said.
Jeffrey said members of Congress were briefed on the plan earlier Thursday and that diplomatic notifications to other countries were being made by the end of the day.
"It should be understood by all, at home and abroad, that this is an exceptional cir stance and should not be perceived as the standard U.S. policy for dealing with errant satellites," said House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton.
Does anyone else find this odd? I may be way off base but I am beginning to wonder if we are getting ready to show the world (China) that we can shoot down satellites. Of course the only way to show this without causing WWIII is to have a reason to do it. I'm ok with it.. It's good to let China know that we are still watching them..
I don't think the US is the only country capable of shooting down a satellite.
I think China would agree with that statement. Since they
have done just that.
I have no idea about the health hazards of the fuel, but I can imagine not wanting the "sophisticated and secret imaging sensor" to fall into other hands. Normally you can just direct it to fall where you want and be the first one there to salvage, but since this one is uncontrollable...
I just hope the Navy doesn't screw up and miss. Egg on
face would not even begin to cover a miss.
I wouldnt blame the Navy if they missed if the missle theyre using is as "temporary" as they make it sound.
Personally, I dont buy the bull about the missle. I bet its a new type and this is its field test.
But I have nothing to back that up. A missle that can bring down a satellite in orbit can only be tested one way, and its very very public to any country with their eye to the sky. So you better have a cover story...
I don't see what the big deal is, the USAF has had the capability to "shoot down" satellites utilizing F-15's since the '80's.
shooting down an incoming satellite at the speed of an incoming ICBM or an incoming Columbia.....would be impressive, and imposing.
Violence is not the answer.
China already demonstrated a couple years ago that they can shoot down satellites, and really shocked the US NatSec people.
Russia is putting lots of pressure in E.Euro countries not permit installation of US missiles aimed at ... Russia.
duh, what's the matter, Putin, haven't bought into dubya's "all fear all the time"? Relax pull down your pants, bend over, dubya's EXCELLENT at ing people over gratuitously.
boutons, get up to speed if you are going to post.
Putin > Bush
Got it.
The only problem with pacifists throughout the ages, is that they always get killed by the aggressors.
God damn man - I thought everyone who read Tom Clancy knew that!
in all seriousness yeah. Its all a matter of physics that really aren't that hard by today's standards. ABM is much harder than ASAT.
You are such a ing sheep.
Obviously we should let this thing come down wherever, the with the possibility it could land in a city or whatever and kill some people.
If we can shoot it down and not worry about it having to land on someone's head, what's the big deal?
Oh that's right, you're the whiniest on the board and have to about it.
I don't remember the exact year, but the USAF killed on old weather satellite with a missle but shelved the program over concerns about treaties. I'm on my phone, but there's an account of it on Global Security. My guess is that is posturing to show the advanced naval capabilities.God damn man - I thought everyone who read Tom Clancy knew that!
Sure, why not fill up space with more junk to dodge.
The US complained mightily about China's satellite hit for this reason, and now, the US is going to do the same thing?
I was thinking the same exact thing today. DarkReign sheds even more light on it.
They have known this moment would come since the satellite went into orbit years ago, IIRC. And we just heard news a couple weeks ago that Iran plans to send a satellite into orbit very soon. I don't think its coincidence, and its convenient for the government to use the plausible health hazard excuse to knock it down. This isn't to show off to China or Russia, but probably for Iran. DarkReign may be onto something, I wouldn't doubt they are knocking down two birds with one stone and testing a new anti satellite missile.
I heard gets to pull the trigger!
I think that's one problem with it. I believe they cannot control the thrusters!
Is he going to ride the missile up amd take his shotgun?
That would be f'n sweet. He'd be a bigger hero than Rambo.
Shows how serious I take the politics and spin behind this.
I trust the officials in this case to shoot it down. I don't care about any politics behind this. Just tell me when the mission is accomplished, or failed, and if it fails, where it may fall.
Otherwise, this is a waste of cyberspace.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-16-2008 at 01:28 PM. Reason: spelling, changred "shoes" to "shows."
no, us is going to shoot it closer down so more of it burns up.
"The US complained mightily about China's satellite hit for this reason, and now, the US is going to do the same thing?"
USA has one set of rules fo USA (USA can over everybody else), and another set of rules for everybody else (frown at us and we'll bomb your ass).
The USA installing missiles on Russia's doorstep is OK.
But if Russia began sailing surface-surface missile cruisers continuously just outside USA's territorial waters, the USA would go nuts.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
