shootin down that recon satellite

Currently briefing on nasa tv from joint chiefs.

They're certain the hydrazine tank with 1000lbs of slushy hydrazine
hitting the ground intact with a partially breached tank. To minimize
the danger, they're going to take a shot at it with an Aegis class
destroyer as late as they can before it enters the atmosphere. They
need to shoot it before it becomes unstable as it gets into the
atmosphere, but they dont' want to hit it too early because they want
all the debris to come down.

This shot will be taken after the shuttle returns to earth.

They seem to have thought this through quite thoroughly.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

Yeah, I'd no idea there even was a Pentagon TV channel, I'd love to see
their sit comms and reality shows, assuming they know what reality is of
course. Takes tongue from cheek.

I just wonder if they know why it failed so soon after reaching orbit.
Nobody seems to have said much about this, but as its you folks tax dollars
that paid for it, and assuming they have no idea why it failed, then it
could keep happening. I was under the impression that all spacecraft had
redundancy these days, or does this not apply to the NRO payloads? If not
why not.

I mean, short of the thing blowing up as that comet chaser did a few years
back, there should have been something still working!

Now I'm a little dubious of the ability to actually o what they suggest
myself, but lets hope they have it right this time.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Todd H." wrote in message ...

Currently briefing on nasa tv from joint chiefs.

They're certain the hydrazine tank with 1000lbs of slushy hydrazine
hitting the ground intact with a partially breached tank. To minimize
the danger, they're going to take a shot at it with an Aegis class
destroyer as late as they can before it enters the atmosphere. They
need to shoot it before it becomes unstable as it gets into the
atmosphere, but they dont' want to hit it too early because they want
all the debris to come down.

This shot will be taken after the shuttle returns to earth.

They seem to have thought this through quite thoroughly.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

"Brian Gaff" writes:

Yeah, I'd no idea there even was a Pentagon TV channel, I'd love to see
their sit comms and reality shows, assuming they know what reality is of
course. Takes tongue from cheek.

I just wonder if they know why it failed so soon after reaching orbit.
Nobody seems to have said much about this, but as its you folks tax dollars
that paid for it, and assuming they have no idea why it failed, then it
could keep happening. I was under the impression that all spacecraft had
redundancy these days, or does this not apply to the NRO payloads? If not
why not.

One reporter in the news conference, quite confrontationally and
strenusouly asked this very question, and pressed further calling for
which contractor was to blame, and how they'd be held accountable.

The panel dodged the question saying instead they're presently
focusing on the public safety issue at hand.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

On Feb 15, 1:52�am, (Todd H.) wrote:
"Brian Gaff" writes:
Yeah, I'd no idea there even was a Pentagon TV channel, I'd love to see
their sit comms and reality shows, assuming they know what reality is of
course. Takes tongue from cheek.

I just wonder if �they know why it failed so soon after reaching orbit.
Nobody seems to have said much about this, but as its you folks tax dollars
that paid for it, and assuming they have no idea why it failed, then it
could keep happening. I was under the impression that all spacecraft had
redundancy these days, or does this not apply to the NRO payloads? �If not
why not.

One reporter in the news conference, quite confrontationally and
strenusouly asked this very question, and pressed further calling for
which contractor was to blame, and how they'd be held accountable.

The panel dodged the question saying instead they're presently
focusing on the public safety issue at hand.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H. �http://toddh.net/

reportedly main computer failure..........

not a good design

Reality check please:

I realise that "shooting down a satellite" may be a stunt that the USA
military would very much like to do to at least match what the chinese
did recently.

But in reality, wouldn't sending a missile to blow up the satellite
cause a hell of a lot of debris in LEO ?

I read that they are concerned about hydrazine. Is hydrazine so stable
that it would really survive the heat of re-entry ? Why would it be a
concern for this satellite but not the many others that fall down ?
(and why would they have built this one satellite with re-entry
resistant tank if other satellites don't need it ?)

Is the military just looking for an excuse to try its missiles ?

With this satellite, wouldn't radar tracking allow the military to have
a pretty good idea of its landing target at least half a day before
total de-orbit ?

On Feb 15, 9:37*am, John Doe wrote:
Reality check please:

I realise that "shooting down a satellite" may be a stunt that the USA
military would very much like to do to at least match what the chinese
did recently.

But in reality, wouldn't sending a missile to blow up the satellite
cause a hell of a lot of debris in LEO ?

I read that they are concerned about hydrazine. *Is hydrazine so stable
that it would really survive the heat of re-entry ? *Why would it be a
concern for this satellite but not the many others that fall down ?
(and why would they have built this one satellite with re-entry
resistant tank if other satellites don't need it ?)

Is the military just looking for an excuse to try its missiles ?

With this satellite, wouldn't radar tracking allow the military to have
a pretty good idea of its landing target at least half a day before
total de-orbit ?

It sounds like a publicity stunt by the Bush administration, probably
timed just now for bigger reasons than those advertised -- as you seem
to point out.

JTM

John Doe writes:

Reality check please:

I realise that "shooting down a satellite" may be a stunt that the USA
military would very much like to do to at least match what the chinese
did recently.

But in reality, wouldn't sending a missile to blow up the satellite
cause a hell of a lot of debris in LEO ?

No, according to this same question and accusation in the press
conference. It's all going to fall to earth which is why they're
waiting as late as possible in the decay before entry interface to
shoot it. Most things will be down within 2 orbits, everything will
be down within a week.

I read that they are concerned about hydrazine. Is hydrazine so stable
that it would really survive the heat of re-entry ?

Also addressed in the press conference. It's a big tank frozen solid
at present as there is no heating on the satellite. By the time it
reaches earth, it'll be a slush.

Why would it be a concern for this satellite but not the many others
that fall down ? (and why would they have built this one satellite
with re-entry resistant tank if other satellites don't need it ?)

Because this one died immediately on orbit insertion and it has a full
tank of unused, frozen solid fuel, and unlike other satellites that
have lost orbit, they have never had any control over this one.

Is the military just looking for an excuse to try its missiles ?

With this satellite, wouldn't radar tracking allow the military to have
a pretty good idea of its landing target at least half a day before
total de-orbit ?

No, because it's not an aerodynamic body and in the atmosphere its
flight will be totally unpredictable. They will only be able to say
with 2 hours notice whether they think it'll hit a land mass or not.

LIke I said, based on the 2 DOD and 1 NASA person on this panel in the
news conference, it appears they've put a lot of thought into this.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/

On Feb 15, 12:00�pm, (Todd H.) wrote:
John Doe writes:
Reality check please:

I realise that "shooting down a satellite" may be a stunt that the USA
military would very much like to do to at least match what the chinese
did recently.

But in reality, wouldn't sending a missile to blow up the satellite
cause a hell of a lot of debris in LEO ?

No, according to this same question and accusation in the press
conference. �It's all going to fall to earth which is why they're
waiting as late as possible in the decay before entry interface to
shoot it. � Most things will be down within 2 orbits, �everything will
be down within a week. �

I read that they are concerned about hydrazine. �Is hydrazine so stable
that it would really survive the heat of re-entry ?

Also addressed in the press conference. � It's a big tank frozen solid
at present as there is no heating on the satellite. � � By the time it
reaches earth, it'll be a slush.

Why would it be a concern for this satellite but not the many others
that fall down ? �(and why would they have built this one satellite
with re-entry resistant tank if other satellites don't need it ?)

Because this one died immediately on orbit insertion and it has a full
tank of unused, frozen solid fuel, and unlike other satellites that
have lost orbit, they have never had any control over this one.

Is the military just looking for an excuse to try its missiles ?

With this satellite, wouldn't radar tracking allow the military to have
a pretty good idea of its landing target at least half a day before
total de-orbit ?

No, because it's not an aerodynamic body and in the atmosphere its
flight will be totally unpredictable. �They will only be able to say
with 2 hours notice whether they think it'll hit a land mass or not.

LIke I said, based on the 2 DOD and 1 NASA person on this panel in the
news conference, it appears they've put a lot of thought into this. �

Best Regards,
--
Todd H. �http://toddh.net/

imagine if debris from destroyed satellite hit someone..........

could a rogue government like mid east claim it was intential act of
war?

Todd H. wrote:

Because this one died immediately on orbit insertion and it has a full
tank of unused, frozen solid fuel, and unlike other satellites that
have lost orbit, they have never had any control over this one

How do they know it is frozen if they have no data access to the dead
satellite ? Wouldn't the sun be heating it during the more than half of
an orbit where the sun shines on it ?

And since re-entry is capable of vapourizing metal, is it really
realistic to think that a fuel would not melt quickly and also be
destroyed ?

If you heat hydrazine sufficiently, won't it ignite and burn ? Or must
it absolutely be mixed with its catalyst to ignite ?


I find it odd that we are all told to never worry about de-orbiting
spaceships like progress etc , that they all burn up during re-entry,
and burn up to such a point that all dangerous stuff is destroyed. But
then comes this one satellite that has suddently become quite the menace
to humankind.

Looks to me like this is more of a case of the USA not wanting to pay
some other country for cleanup operations.


From a technical point of view, are ground/ship launched missiles so
sophisticated that they can truly aim at an object based solely on radar
information and precisely hit that object ? What happens if the missile
passes just 2 metres from the satellite and misses it ?

Would this be a missile that enters a similar orbit and chases the
satellite, or just one that goes straight up hoping to hit the satellite
from under ?

John Doe writes:

Todd H. wrote:

Because this one died immediately on orbit insertion and it has a full
tank of unused, frozen solid fuel, and unlike other satellites that
have lost orbit, they have never had any control over this one

How do they know it is frozen if they have no data access to the dead
satellite ? Wouldn't the sun be heating it during the more than half of
an orbit where the sun shines on it ?

And since re-entry is capable of vapourizing metal, is it really
realistic to think that a fuel would not melt quickly and also be
destroyed ?

I suggest suspending further questions until you watch the entirety of
the news conference.

I'm sure they have access to a lot more data than we do, and it'd be
folly to design a satellite that allowed solar heating to self heat a
fuel tank that much.

--
Todd H.
http://toddh.net/