US: Broken satellite will be shot down

Discussion in 'Serious' started by Cthippo, 15 Feb 2008.

  1. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    102
    Original story

    This falls under the category of theoretically possible, but I doubt they can pull it off.
     
  2. DarkReaper

    DarkReaper Alignment: Sarcastic Good

    Joined:
    9 Jan 2004
    Posts:
    1,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, the irony...

    They could always ask China for help? :lol:
     
  3. ElThomsono

    ElThomsono Multimodder

    Joined:
    18 Mar 2005
    Posts:
    3,388
    Likes Received:
    688
    [​IMG]

    It's too big.

    For the space shuttle?
     
  4. DXR_13KE

    DXR_13KE BananaModder

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    9,138
    Likes Received:
    382
    maybe attach boosters to it and launch it against the sun or something.....
     
  5. Brett89

    Brett89 Minimodder

    Joined:
    15 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    1,322
    Likes Received:
    25
    This is a pretty cool idea, I hope it succeeds.
     
  6. DLoney

    DLoney What's a Dremel?

    Joined:
    21 Feb 2005
    Posts:
    208
    Likes Received:
    0
    that would be a much better option, and everyone knows it.
    They just want to test out their Anti-Satellite weapons like china did a few months ago.
     
  7. Brett89

    Brett89 Minimodder

    Joined:
    15 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    1,322
    Likes Received:
    25
    politics aside, the logistics of getting someone up there to do that would be immense, a shuttle launch, the ISS needs supplies and parts still, so the shuttle is tied up in that.
     
  8. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    102
    THis thing is going to spatter in something like two weeks, so there is no time to put together a mission to do something about it. Honestly, I'm not sure if the 137 lb controlled fragmentation warhead on an SM3 will really do much to a 5000 lb satellite, but it should be interesting to watch.
     
  9. Jumeira_Johnny

    Jumeira_Johnny 16032 - High plains drifter

    Joined:
    13 Nov 2004
    Posts:
    3,708
    Likes Received:
    144
    The standard missle III isn't an anti-satellite. It's anti-ballistic missle. We (the Americans) have a dedicated anti-satellite missle, have since the late '80s. It's a kenetic kill warhead though, not intended to bring a satellite down from orbit. This satellite is in a decaying orbit and we need to break it up enough to get the big pieces to burn up while minimizing the amount of debris left in orbit. This isn't a concern in a kenetic kill warhead, since you just want to shut down the spacecraft. You don't really worry about the fuel or debris.
     
  10. Cthippo

    Cthippo Can't mod my way out of a paper bag

    Joined:
    7 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    6,783
    Likes Received:
    102
    The SM3 isn't even really an anti-ballistic missle. Like the Patriot, it's a long range anti-aircraft missle that has been coopted into the ABM role with limited success. The original intention of the SM3 design was to provide the fleet with a very long range weapon to attack cruise missle carrying aircraft before they could launch their missles. That said, the SM3 is now part of the US "missle shield" intended to bring down strategic warheads in the mid-course phase of flight and so the profile of this satellite as a target is somewhat similar to that of an incoming warhead.

    If they can hit the satellite, fine. If not, how do they expect to hit a warhead 1/10th the size moving significantly faster with a weapon designed to hit subsonic bombers?
     
  11. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,559
    Likes Received:
    1,981
    Of course they do. There is no reason to shoot down the satellite. The stated concern is that it might release 'toxic gasses' on impact --namely the hydrazine that powers the thrusters. Now the thing about hydrazine is, it is very flammable (as rocket fuel is supposed to be). The thing about re-entry into the atmosphere at orbital decay velocity is, it is very, very hot. Get the picture yet?

    That satellite is going to be a fireball as soon as it hits the upper atmosphere. There is no significant risk.
     
  12. seebul

    seebul Minimodder

    Joined:
    9 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    1,211
    Likes Received:
    1
    So you work for NASA now?:eyebrow:
     
  13. DXR_13KE

    DXR_13KE BananaModder

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2005
    Posts:
    9,138
    Likes Received:
    382
    maybe he works for common sense.... what he says has lots of logic.
     
  14. Krikkit

    Krikkit All glory to the hypnotoad! Super Moderator

    Joined:
    21 Jan 2003
    Posts:
    23,615
    Likes Received:
    454
    No, but he can apply common sense and a smattering of knowledge...
     
  15. Brett89

    Brett89 Minimodder

    Joined:
    15 Dec 2005
    Posts:
    1,322
    Likes Received:
    25
    No, he works for the ESA!:rock:
     
  16. Amon

    Amon inch-perfect

    Joined:
    1 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    2,467
    Likes Received:
    2
    Anyone notice the irony of a secret spy satellite being the center of attention?
     
  17. mvagusta

    mvagusta Did a skid that went for two weeks.

    Joined:
    24 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    4,639
    Likes Received:
    523
    i believe Nexxo works for Relix. I hope all the debris burns up on re-entry :eeek:

    But since when do satellites fall down? Why wont this thing just stay in orbit? And if you blow up a satelitte in orbit, then the debris would just spread in all directions from the force of the explosion right?

    But this thing isn't in orbit, right? I guess they "unintentionally" "lost control" during "routine manevours", which is why it's currently on course for earth? Yeah, that's right, another bloody conspiracy theory - bad luck, sue me :D

    I wonder what part of the world the satelitte/debris is headed for? Nevada Maybe? They wouldn't want this secret spy tech debris falling into enemy hands!
     
  18. pranks7er

    pranks7er mange tout

    Joined:
    25 Dec 2002
    Posts:
    3,515
    Likes Received:
    0
    [​IMG]

    so any indication were it will hit wonder if we will see much if over our side world
     
  19. TheoGeo

    TheoGeo What are these goddamn animals?!

    Joined:
    10 Jun 2003
    Posts:
    2,218
    Likes Received:
    14
    The satellite won't completely burn up, far from it in fact and the part that is most heavily shielded (for obvious reasons) is the fuel tank. Add that to the fact that oxygen is needed for the fuel to burn (there is no oxygen in the fuel tank) and you come to realise that its actually the most likely part to survive and it will only be a hazard once it hits the earth when the fuel tank could rupture.

    Ideally an orbit is permanent but there are always going to be disturbances that alter the orbit slightly and so all satellites need boosters to occasionally adjust their orbit. Once they have run out of fuel most satellites stay close enough to their original orbit that it isn't an issue but it had to happen eventually and with the increasing number of dead satellites in space it is only going to happen more and more frequently.
     
  20. mvagusta

    mvagusta Did a skid that went for two weeks.

    Joined:
    24 Dec 2006
    Posts:
    4,639
    Likes Received:
    523
    So what goes up really has to come back down? damn
    Expensive options, retrival, or weapon development, or sending the dead satellites to the sun - the only cheap option is to let them burn up on re-entry, but apparently they don't burn up that easy?

    Developing new weapons to take them out sufficiently is probably the cheapest?
     

Share This Page