US spy satellite falling to earth

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 06:36:29 -0800 (PST), wrote:


The Delta II launch fits with the 20,000 lbs mass report, so it's much
smaller than a KH-12. Probably a prototype or pathfinder mission for
FIA.

Too heavy for Delta II

True. More like 10,000 lbs. I suspect someone in the media got "10
tons" and "10,000 lbs" mixed up (not the first time.)

All indications are that this is NROL-21 (USA-193), launched December
14, 2006 on Delta 322.

10,000 lbs. still buys you a lot of satellite. Aqua is only 6-7,000
lbs. NROL-21 didn't go perfectly polar or sun-synchronous, either. It
went to a 58.5 deg. orbit (unusual for Vandenberg launches) meaning it
could be significantly heavier than Aqua.

Brian

"Stealth Pilot" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:53:50 +1100, Sylvia Else
wrote:

BradGuth wrote:
On Jan 26, 4:24 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...116226-5001028,...

""We are looking at potential options to mitigate any possible damage
this satellite may cause," he said."

I wonder what options they might be.

Sylvia.

I think China could help, or possibly our ABLs.
- Brad Guth

It's not clear to me that blowing it to pieces is a good idea. I think
all the debris would soon re-enter, but I'm not sure.

Of course, there's a clear risk that you'll end up with a large piece
intact which then lands where it can do a lot of damage, and people will
say it should have been left alone.

On balance, I suspect attempting to shoot it down is a bad idea.

What's clearly required is something that can snare it and apply a
controlled de-orbit burn to bring it down somewhere safe, but developing
such technology is not going to be on anyone's priority list until after
the first city takes a hit.

Anyone know what kind of orbit a spy satellite would be in? Would they
always be polar, or might Sydney be safe?

Sylvia.

if you can catch it why not refuel it and push it back into a stable
orbit?

1 - it's dead
2 - it is already full of fuel

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:38:53 +0900, Stealth Pilot
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:53:50 +1100, Sylvia Else
wrote:

BradGuth wrote:
On Jan 26, 4:24 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...116226-5001028,...

""We are looking at potential options to mitigate any possible damage
this satellite may cause," he said."

I wonder what options they might be.

Sylvia.

I think China could help, or possibly our ABLs.
- Brad Guth

It's not clear to me that blowing it to pieces is a good idea. I think
all the debris would soon re-enter, but I'm not sure.

Of course, there's a clear risk that you'll end up with a large piece
intact which then lands where it can do a lot of damage, and people will
say it should have been left alone.

On balance, I suspect attempting to shoot it down is a bad idea.

What's clearly required is something that can snare it and apply a
controlled de-orbit burn to bring it down somewhere safe, but developing
such technology is not going to be on anyone's priority list until after
the first city takes a hit.

Anyone know what kind of orbit a spy satellite would be in? Would they
always be polar, or might Sydney be safe?

Sylvia.

if you can catch it why not refuel it and push it back into a stable
orbit?
You are talking about an object that probably weighs 10-15 tonnes,
and if you got a good look at it, probably bears striking resembelence
to the Hubble Space Telescope. From what's been said publicly, it is
almost certainly a KH10 or KH11.

The bind with catching is that depending upon exactly what has gone
wrong, it may not be catchable. For example if the communication link
has gone out, it may still be catchable, because the stabilization
system is probably still operation. If it truly is a complete power
failure, what you have is 15 tonnes turning at an unknown rate
probably about all 3 axes.

The problem with simply blowing it up, is the fact that you
converted 1 piece of junk in several thousand with a total mass of
perhaps 15 tonnes. Major hazard to navigation! If you are going to
blow up, do so from above and in front so that the bits de-orbit
promptly.

However even it comes down over a populated area, the chances of it
doing much damage are surprsingly small. The Space Shuttle was a lot
larger, and failed to hit anything of signifcance as it came down over
the US.

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 00:40:44 GMT, "The Old Bloke" wrote:


"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
. au...
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...001028,00.html

"“We are looking at potential options to mitigate any possible damage this
satellite may cause,” he said."

I wonder what options they might be.

Sylvia.

Do these things contain any nuclear fuel?

Only the Russians built Spy sats that were nuclear powered.

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:16:28 +1100, Sylvia Else
wrote:

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 20:11:36 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:


My guess is most likely a KH-12 or similar craft. (I think the Lacrosse are
too high up to be a concern.)

It's almost certainly the NRO satellite launched in late 2006 that
promptly died. There are reports that its solar panels never unfurled.

The Delta II launch fits with the 20,000 lbs mass report, so it's much
smaller than a KH-12. Probably a prototype or pathfinder mission for
FIA.

Brian

If that's the case, then we're presumably talking about quite a lot of
manoeuvring fuel, being highly toxic hydrazine, rather than the little
bit referred to by Craig. What happens when a tank of that stuff arrives
upwind of a school playground at lunchtime?

Sylvia.
The Space shuttle often returns with a fair amount of maneuvering fuel
(hydrazine). Giant fans are used to disperse the stuff after landing.
It is nasty, but we are talking about at most a couple hundred liters,
and it is safe bet that it will vaporize in an uncontrolled re-entry.

On Jan 26, 4:53 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Jan 26, 4:24 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...116226-5001028,...

""We are looking at potential options to mitigate any possible damage
this satellite may cause," he said."

I wonder what options they might be.

Sylvia.

I think China could help, or possibly our ABLs.
- Brad Guth

It's not clear to me that blowing it to pieces is a good idea. I think
all the debris would soon re-enter, but I'm not sure.

Of course, there's a clear risk that you'll end up with a large piece
intact which then lands where it can do a lot of damage, and people will
say it should have been left alone.

On balance, I suspect attempting to shoot it down is a bad idea.

What's clearly required is something that can snare it and apply a
controlled de-orbit burn to bring it down somewhere safe, but developing
such technology is not going to be on anyone's priority list until after
the first city takes a hit.

Anyone know what kind of orbit a spy satellite would be in? Would they
always be polar, or might Sydney be safe?

Sylvia.

A pair of our best ABLs taking aim should make its reentry so extra
hot, in that much less of its mass would remain prior to whatever
ocean/surface impact. Perhaps a number of terrestrial based laser
cannons could contribute a few hundred megawatts. Then we could
always nuke whatever impact site for an extra good measure of
eliminating DoD spy technology secrets.
.. - Brad Guth

Stealth Pilot wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:53:50 +1100, Sylvia Else
wrote:

BradGuth wrote:
On Jan 26, 4:24 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...116226-5001028,...

""We are looking at potential options to mitigate any possible damage
this satellite may cause," he said."

I wonder what options they might be.

Sylvia.
I think China could help, or possibly our ABLs.
- Brad Guth
It's not clear to me that blowing it to pieces is a good idea. I think
all the debris would soon re-enter, but I'm not sure.

Of course, there's a clear risk that you'll end up with a large piece
intact which then lands where it can do a lot of damage, and people will
say it should have been left alone.

On balance, I suspect attempting to shoot it down is a bad idea.

What's clearly required is something that can snare it and apply a
controlled de-orbit burn to bring it down somewhere safe, but developing
such technology is not going to be on anyone's priority list until after
the first city takes a hit.

Anyone know what kind of orbit a spy satellite would be in? Would they
always be polar, or might Sydney be safe?

Sylvia.

if you can catch it why not refuel it and push it back into a stable
orbit?

Leaving aside the complexity of a refuelling, the problem in this
instance is that there is no communication with the satellite. Pushing
it into a higher orbit would defer the problem, but sooner or later it's
going to make an uncontrolled re-entry.

Sylvia.

matt weber wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:38:53 +0900, Stealth Pilot
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:53:50 +1100, Sylvia Else
wrote:

BradGuth wrote:
On Jan 26, 4:24 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...116226-5001028,...

""We are looking at potential options to mitigate any possible damage
this satellite may cause," he said."

I wonder what options they might be.

Sylvia.
I think China could help, or possibly our ABLs.
- Brad Guth
It's not clear to me that blowing it to pieces is a good idea. I think
all the debris would soon re-enter, but I'm not sure.

Of course, there's a clear risk that you'll end up with a large piece
intact which then lands where it can do a lot of damage, and people will
say it should have been left alone.

On balance, I suspect attempting to shoot it down is a bad idea.

What's clearly required is something that can snare it and apply a
controlled de-orbit burn to bring it down somewhere safe, but developing
such technology is not going to be on anyone's priority list until after
the first city takes a hit.

Anyone know what kind of orbit a spy satellite would be in? Would they
always be polar, or might Sydney be safe?

Sylvia.
if you can catch it why not refuel it and push it back into a stable
orbit?
You are talking about an object that probably weighs 10-15 tonnes,
and if you got a good look at it, probably bears striking resembelence
to the Hubble Space Telescope. From what's been said publicly, it is
almost certainly a KH10 or KH11.

The bind with catching is that depending upon exactly what has gone
wrong, it may not be catchable. For example if the communication link
has gone out, it may still be catchable, because the stabilization
system is probably still operation. If it truly is a complete power
failure, what you have is 15 tonnes turning at an unknown rate
probably about all 3 axes.

I envisaged something like a scoop shaped net. As the satellite enters
the net, the mouth would be closed. If the satellite is tumbling then
the net, control and reaction systems start tumbling with it. All that's
then required is to cancel the rotation, and perform the de-orbit burn.

The net doesn't have to be very strong, because the most significant
forces acting on it will be the acceleration of the control and reaction
systems during capture. In particular, the mass of the satellite being
captured is irrelevant to the strength of the net, though it obviously
affects the amount of reaction mass to be carried.

But I can imagine that getting this to work reliably would involve some
considerable development effort. Also the existence of the technology
would worry other nations because of the scope for using it militarily.

Sylvia.

Jorge R. Frank wrote:


Oh, come on. We could always launch a shuttle crew of retired
astronauts, one of whom just happened to be the designer of the
satellite's control system, to go reactivate it. Maybe send it to the moon.



Now that sounds like a good idea. Maybe you chould find someone to make
a movie about it





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

matt weber wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 21:38:53 +0900, Stealth Pilot
wrote:

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:53:50 +1100, Sylvia Else
wrote:

BradGuth wrote:
On Jan 26, 4:24 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...116226-5001028,...

""We are looking at potential options to mitigate any possible damage
this satellite may cause," he said."

I wonder what options they might be.

Sylvia.
I think China could help, or possibly our ABLs.
- Brad Guth
It's not clear to me that blowing it to pieces is a good idea. I think
all the debris would soon re-enter, but I'm not sure.

Of course, there's a clear risk that you'll end up with a large piece
intact which then lands where it can do a lot of damage, and people will
say it should have been left alone.

On balance, I suspect attempting to shoot it down is a bad idea.

What's clearly required is something that can snare it and apply a
controlled de-orbit burn to bring it down somewhere safe, but developing
such technology is not going to be on anyone's priority list until after
the first city takes a hit.

Anyone know what kind of orbit a spy satellite would be in? Would they
always be polar, or might Sydney be safe?

Sylvia.
if you can catch it why not refuel it and push it back into a stable
orbit?
You are talking about an object that probably weighs 10-15 tonnes,
and if you got a good look at it, probably bears striking resembelence
to the Hubble Space Telescope. From what's been said publicly, it is
almost certainly a KH10 or KH11.

Trouble is, what's been said publicly is probably a lot of hooey.

The spacecraft in question is almost certainly USA-193, which was
launched on a Delta II in 2006. That would preclude it being a 10-15
tonne KH-10 or 11 class bird, since the Delta II can't lift that much.
It is more likely that it is in the 10 klb class and that somehow got
mangled into 10 tonnes.

The bind with catching is that depending upon exactly what has gone
wrong, it may not be catchable. For example if the communication link
has gone out, it may still be catchable, because the stabilization
system is probably still operation. If it truly is a complete power
failure, what you have is 15 tonnes turning at an unknown rate
probably about all 3 axes.

It's a moot point since there is no chance of a "catch" mission being
fielded before the bird re-enters.

The problem with simply blowing it up, is the fact that you
converted 1 piece of junk in several thousand with a total mass of
perhaps 15 tonnes. Major hazard to navigation! If you are going to
blow up, do so from above and in front so that the bits de-orbit
promptly.

Even then many bits will remain in orbit. The explosion would be
omnidirectional and the bits ejected posigrade will gain enough velocity
to offset the retrograde velocity of the impactor. The US does not have
an operational ASAT system anyway. There will be no attempt to blow up
this bird.