U.S. Officials Say Broken Satellite Will Be Shot Down (NYTimes)

[Muttocracy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/science/14cnd-satellite.html

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon plans to shoot down a disabled 5,000-pound spy satellite because the rocket fuel it carries could be a danger to people, Pentagon officials said Thursday.

The operation will be carried out from a Navy ship that will fire a Standard Missile 3 anti-aircraft device, Gen. James C. Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a Pentagon briefing. Navy ships routinely carry missiles to shoot down aircraft, and the Pentagon will modify the missile or missiles to be fired at the satellite, Pentagon officials said.

President Bush ordered the military to try to pick off the satellite because “there was a possibility of death or injury to human beings beyond that associated with the fall of satellites and other space objects normally, if we can use that word,” a deputy national security adviser, James Jeffries, said.

General Cartwright, of the Marine Corps, said that “a window of opportunity” would open in the next three to four days to pick off the satellite before it enters Earth’s atmosphere, and that the Navy then would have seven to eight days to take up to two shots at the satellite, if necessary. If the satellite is not destroyed, it will tumble out of control into the atmosphere in early March, he said.

Many satellites have fallen harmlessly out of orbit during the space age, in part because they often break apart and the pieces generally burn upon re-entry. And when pieces do survive re-entry, they have usually landed in remote areas or in an ocean, simply because the Earth’s surface has more remote regions and seas than it does heavily populated areas.

What makes this case different is the presence of up to 1,000 pounds of hydrazine, the highly toxic fuel used in thrusters to control a satellite’s movements, and the likelihood that the fuel tanks could survive re-entry, the officials said.

(continued)

[LakeSamish706]

1. Any bets they miss the Fricken thing? n/t

[Muttocracy]

3. or hit something else instead? nt

[Johonny]

7. IT would be amazing

if they missed and hit something else. There's a lot of nothing up there.

[Muttocracy]

8. I know, but they have a way of defying normal parameters ;-) nt

[BeFree]

5. Well

It oughtta be fun to watch. And you know the ruskies are gonna be watching.

Didn't know we had ship based missiles capable of getting into space. Learn something new everyday.

[Disturbed]

6. The Chinese have successfully shot down a Satalite with a

Laser. Maybe Busholini should out source this.

[maddiejoan]

2. I heard

Cheney is on it!

[Muttocracy]

4. LOL! well, ok, then! nt

[TooBigaTent]

9. Little georgie probably wants to press the button himself. nt

[C_U_L8R]

10. I saw this on a Creature Double Feature

I think they end up lighting the sky on fire

[happyslug]

11. Hydrazine is dangerous, but so is gasoline or other CHEMICAL rocket fuel

Thus it makes no sense to shoot this satellite DOWN just because it MIGHT land somewhere and the tanks survive. This sounds to me like an excuse "I had to blow up the car, because if I did not the gasoline might blow up" when the purpose was the destruction of the car not the gasoline.

I suspect the same with this Satellite, the Pentagon has lost control over the Satellite, it may land anywhere AND parts of it may survive. Given that both China and Russia has the capability to track the Satellite, there is a good chance either may recover it BEFORE the Pentagon could. The technology on this Satellite (A spy Satellite from earlier reports) is among the most advance technology in the world, and apparently the Pentagon is willing to spend big bucks to make sure it enters the atmosphere in small pieces (Which will all burn up) as opposed to one big piece that may survive.

Remember the rocket to shoot it down has to get to the ship, from the US. i.e. the missile must be airlifted to the Ship (Probably by C-130 or even C-5 or other cargo plane, and then either airdropped or helicopter landed on the Ship). This is NOT some cheap solution to a problem, the cheap solution is just ot leave it come though the atmosphere, the probability of it hitting anyone is slim. No, it is not the safety of Humans that is the concern, it is to make sure this Satellite either whole or in pieces, does NOT make it to the earth.

For more on Hydrazine, Known since as least WWII:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine

[Muttocracy]

12. spy satellite; cost

NPR report I heard in the car on the way home said it may be a Lockheed one, though Pentagon denies it's for security reasons. Reporter said you'd have to breathe the gases up close for a long time for it to be a threat. Audio should be up soon.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19055519

And as for the cost, yeah, that's my next question, how much did we spend to buy a satellite that turned out to be faulty and then shoot it down. Reminiscent of building nukes in Reagan era and then paying to get rid of them later.