US spy satellite falling to earth

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.

On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 20:28:58 GMT, 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,...

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?

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.

And if you do catch it, the problem with refuelling it is that it pretty
much doesn't have a refuelling port. The fuel and pressurant tanks were
designed to be filled *once*, in the factory or assembly building, and
never again. They probably weren't actually have been welded shut after
that first fill, but they might as well have been.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

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.

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

In sci.space.policy message
..au, Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:53:50, Sylvia Else
posted:

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

If you mean the Sydney in Australia (Vanuatu, South Africa, and Canada
also have at least one each, and the USA has at least two), then it is
at about 34 degrees South. A good proportion of the places worth spying
on, like most of the USA, are further from the Equator than that.
Sydney is therefore unlikely to be safe.

There may be no such satellites over the Poles, since (IIRC) one gets a
typical sun-synchronous orbit with an inclination of 98 degrees. And
there's little worth spying on at the North Pole, and the USA knows what
is at the South Pole. So stay within 480 miles of a Pole for
comparative safety.

--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

On Jan 28, 12:48*pm, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.space.policy message
.au, Sun, 27 Jan 2008 11:53:50, Sylvia Else
posted:



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

If you mean the Sydney in Australia (Vanuatu, South Africa, and Canada
also have at least one each, and the USA has at least two), then it is
at about 34 degrees South. *A good proportion of the places worth spying
on, like most of the USA, are further from the Equator than that.
Sydney is therefore unlikely to be safe.

There may be no such satellites over the Poles, since (IIRC) one gets a
typical sun-synchronous orbit with an inclination of 98 degrees. *And
there's little worth spying on at the North Pole, and the USA knows what
is at the South Pole. *So stay within 480 miles of a Pole for
comparative safety.

Earth rotation and 98 degress inclination covers most of the planet.
That is why EO Sats use that orbit. A spy satellite might more likely
be a GEO Sat over a particular area like the Middle East, China or
Russia. Or, be in a Molniya orbit for similar reasons. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molniya_orbit

Eric

On Jan 26, 6:53 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:

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


The satellite that's extremely likely to be the one in question,
USA-193, is in a 58.5 degree orbit. So if you live in northern Canada,
a fair chunk of Russia, most of Scandinavia, or Antarctica, you're
safe. Everybody else is (safe - epsilon), where epsilon is a teeny
quantity.

Week-old TLE retrieved from Heavens Above:

USA-193
1 29651U 06057A 08022.26925691 0.00105000 00000-0 21306-3 0 07
2 29651 58.5247 160.3977 0003288 53.6760 306.3240 15.98950761 06

In sci.space.policy message c6162db7-da70-446a-b71c-aa26b5282199@f10g20
00hsf.googlegroups.com, Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:52:04, Allen Thomson
posted:

The satellite that's extremely likely to be the one in question,
USA-193, is in a 58.5 degree orbit. So if you live in northern Canada,
a fair chunk of Russia, most of Scandinavia, or Antarctica, you're
safe. Everybody else is (safe - epsilon), where epsilon is a teeny
quantity.

That's one way of annoying, by ignoring, the inhabitants of Alaska,
Greenland, and Iceland, for a start. Also of the Faeroes and of part of
the UK.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 6.05.
Web URL:http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html - Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.

On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:02:57 +0000, Dr J R Stockton
wrote:

In sci.space.policy message c6162db7-da70-446a-b71c-aa26b5282199@f10g20
00hsf.googlegroups.com, Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:52:04, Allen Thomson
posted:

The satellite that's extremely likely to be the one in question,
USA-193, is in a 58.5 degree orbit. So if you live in northern Canada,
a fair chunk of Russia, most of Scandinavia, or Antarctica, you're
safe. Everybody else is (safe - epsilon), where epsilon is a teeny
quantity.

That's one way of annoying, by ignoring, the inhabitants of Alaska,
Greenland, and Iceland, for a start. Also of the Faeroes and of part of
the UK.

And don't forget the all-important Antarctic population.

But hey, we promise we'll make it up to you. From now on, every military
transport aircraft on a trans-polar route will carry a piece of surplus
space hardware with orders to randomly kick it out the back somewhere
above 60 degrees latitude. You can have space debris raining on you just
like everyone else; no need to feel ignored :-)


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

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.

ABL warming of a reentry item is going to reduce its impact mass.

Upon impact we could always nuke whatever remains.
- Brad Guth