Hydrazine and the Upper Atmoshpere

A malfunctioning satellite was hit by a missile and most likely the fuel
tank containing 1000 kg (or what it 1000 lbs?) of hydrazine was
punctured. Thus a large amount of hydrazine, a dangerous reactive
chemical, was released into the upper atmosphere. What is the impact of
dumping this toxin into the atmosphere?

How stable is this chemical?

Will it remain intact eventually being inhaled or ingested?

Will it react with oxygen and water vapor reducing it
to harmless compounds or less toxic compounds?

Will it react with ozone, destroying amounts of ozone?

Just what will it do? Please, reply only if you actually know the
chemical properties of hydrazine.

-- The following report has been abridged.

From: Andrew Yee
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Followup-To: sci.space.policy
Subject: Satellite Debris Analysis Indicates Hydrazine Tank Hit (Forwarded)

"By all accounts this was a successful mission. From the debris analysis, we
have a high degree of confidence the satellite's fuel tank was destroyed and
the hydrazine has been dissipated," said Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"The successful satellite engagement was truly a collaborative effort from
across the U.S. government, the armed forces, industry and academia working
together to reduce the risk to human life, said Cartwright.

A single modified tactical Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), fired from the USS
Lake Erie was used to engage the satellite. The remaining two modified
missiles will be configured back to their original status as tactical
missiles and the operational computer software programs aboard the Aegis
ships will be re-installed.

The Joint Functional Component Command for Space Joint Space Operations
Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., is tracking less than 3,000
pieces of debris, all smaller than a football. The vast majority of debris
has already reentered or will shortly reenter the Earth's atmosphere in the
coming days and weeks. To date, there have been no reports of debris landing
on Earth and it is unlikely any will remain intact to impact the ground.

U.S. Strategic Command space surveillance sensors continue to track and
characterize the debris to ensure timely notifications are made, if
necessary, with regards to ground or on-orbit debris-related risk.

----

On 27 Feb, 10:36, William Elliot wrote:
A malfunctioning satellite was hit by a missile and most likely the fuel
tank containing 1000 kg *(or what it 1000 lbs?) of hydrazine was
punctured. *Thus a large amount of hydrazine, a dangerous reactive
chemical, was released into the upper atmosphere. *What is the impact of
dumping this toxin into the atmosphere?

How stable is this chemical?

Will it remain intact eventually being inhaled or ingested?

Will it react with oxygen and water vapor reducing it
to harmless compounds or less toxic compounds?

Will it react with ozone, destroying amounts of ozone?

Just what will it do? *Please, reply only if you actually know the
chemical properties of hydrazine.

-- The following report has been abridged.

From: Andrew Yee
Newsgroups: sci.space.news
Followup-To: sci.space.policy
Subject: Satellite Debris Analysis Indicates Hydrazine Tank Hit (Forwarded)

"By all accounts this was a successful mission. From the debris analysis, we
have a high degree of confidence the satellite's fuel tank was destroyed and
the hydrazine has been dissipated," said Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

"The successful satellite engagement was truly a collaborative effort from
across the U.S. government, the armed forces, industry and academia working
together to reduce the risk to human life, said Cartwright.

A single modified tactical Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), fired from the USS
Lake Erie was used to engage the satellite. The remaining two modified
missiles will be configured back to their original status as tactical
missiles and the operational computer software programs aboard the Aegis
ships will be re-installed.

The Joint Functional Component Command for Space Joint Space Operations
Center at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., is tracking less than 3,000
pieces of debris, all smaller than a football. The vast majority of debris
has already reentered or will shortly reenter the Earth's atmosphere in the
coming days and weeks. To date, there have been no reports of debris landing
on Earth and it is unlikely any will remain intact to impact the ground.

U.S. Strategic Command space surveillance sensors continue to track and
characterize the debris to ensure timely notifications are made, if
necessary, with regards to ground or on-orbit debris-related risk.

----

http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/...tionNumber:2.2

Gives an account of the properties of Hydazine. Browse though this. It
would appear :-

1) That although it is toxic it is not that toxic. Literature mentions
1ppm in water as being a safe disposal. It is a powerful reducing
agent and (if not burnt up) will decompose in time.

2) I can't see how it can reenter without decomposition. If the
satellite had been allowed to reenter it would have exploded on
reentry anyway.


- Ian Parker

Ian Parker wrote:
:
:http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/...tionNumber:2.2
:
:Gives an account of the properties of Hydazine. Browse though this. It
:would appear :-
:
:1) That although it is toxic it is not that toxic. Literature mentions
:1ppm in water as being a safe disposal. It is a powerful reducing
:agent and (if not burnt up) will decompose in time.
:

Which is why they wanted to break open the tank at altitude.

:
:2) I can't see how it can reenter without decomposition. If the
:satellite had been allowed to reenter it would have exploded on
:reentry anyway.
:

That last bit certainly isn't a given. And if the tank reenters
intact you have to worry about both impacts and the subsequent gas
close before it disperses.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On 28 Feb, 14:59, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

:
:http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/...tionNumber:2.2
:
:Gives an account of the properties of Hydazine. Browse though this. It
:would appear :-
:
:1) That although it is toxic it is not that toxic. Literature mentions
:1ppm in water as being a safe disposal. It is a powerful reducing
:agent and (if not burnt up) will decompose in time.
:

Which is why they wanted to break open the tank at altitude.

:
:2) I can't see how it can reenter without decomposition. If the
:satellite had been allowed to reenter it would have exploded on
:reentry anyway.
:

That last bit certainly isn't a given. *And if the tank reenters
intact you have to worry about both impacts and the subsequent gas
close before it disperses.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

My rule of thumb is Columbia. When it lost parts of its heat shield it
broke up pretty well completely. To me a hydrzine tank without a heat
shield MUST explode.


- Ian Parker

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Ian Parker wrote:

On 27 Feb, 10:36, William Elliot wrote:

A malfunctioning satellite was hit by a missile and most likely the
fuel tank containing 1000 kg *(or what it 1000 lbs?) of hydrazine was
punctured. *Thus a large amount of hydrazine, a dangerous reactive
chemical, was released into the upper atmosphere. *What is the impact
of dumping this toxin into the atmosphere?

How stable is this chemical?

Will it remain intact eventually being inhaled or ingested?

Will it react with oxygen and water vapor reducing it
to harmless compounds or less toxic compounds?

Will it react with ozone, destroying amounts of ozone?

Just what will it do?

http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/...tionNumber:2.2

Gives an account of the properties of Hydrazine. Browse though this. It
would appear :-

1) That although it is toxic it is not that toxic. Literature mentions
1ppm in water as being a safe disposal. It is a powerful reducing agent
and (if not burnt up) will decompose in time.

From rocket launching sites, it is getting into the Colorado river and
from there into the Imperial Valley where it is sucked up and concentrated
by green leafy vegetables to an extend of concern, if not alarm.

2) I can't see how it can reenter without decomposition. If the
satellite had been allowed to reenter it would have exploded on
reentry anyway.

That would be expected. If it burns up in the atmosphere it likely reacts
with oxygen and water vapor. What are the by products? All safe? Does
the site cover that?

Of more concern is the entry into the upper atmosphere where it can react
all the more readily with ozone. Was any study made of the effects a 1000
kg of hydrazine could have upon the ozone layer?

Warning. This paragraph is about suspected government lapse of duty.

What smells in this story was that no environmental impact concern was
raised or even mentioned nor was any environmental impact study considered.
This could mean either none was made or potential hazards were withheld
from the public.

Warning! This paragraph is about government corruption.

In either event, it's another sign of an unaccountable government. A
government that makes environment studies of the decommissioning of the
Shuttle dare to skip an environment study of an uncontrollable release of
toxins? Yup, the same government that won't make environment assessments of
the use of depleted uranium or agent orange unless it's forced by
victims into admission of guilt.

----

Hydrazine (in this case, probably monomethyhydrazine) is a
nitrogen/hydrogen compound; catalytically decomposed it breaks down into
ammonia, nitrogen and hydrogen (and carbon dioxide with monomethyl). It
will burn with the oxygen in the air, probably yielding nitrogen and
water vapor, and not much else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine (see section on rocket fuel)

Considering the rather small amount of material involved, a dispersal in
orbit probably doesn't require an environmental impact statement,
whereas a ground impact could. Conclusion: smash it while it's still
way up there. Result: no problem.

--Damon

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 28 Feb, 14:59, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: :
: :http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/...tionNumber:2.2
: :
: :Gives an account of the properties of Hydazine. Browse though this. It
: :would appear :-
: :
: :1) That although it is toxic it is not that toxic. Literature mentions
: :1ppm in water as being a safe disposal. It is a powerful reducing
: :agent and (if not burnt up) will decompose in time.
: :
:
: Which is why they wanted to break open the tank at altitude.
:
: :
: :2) I can't see how it can reenter without decomposition. If the
: :satellite had been allowed to reenter it would have exploded on
: :reentry anyway.
: :
:
: That last bit certainly isn't a given. *And if the tank reenters
: intact you have to worry about both impacts and the subsequent gas
: close before it disperses.
:
:
:My rule of thumb is Columbia. When it lost parts of its heat shield it
:broke up pretty well completely. To me a hydrzine tank without a heat
:shield MUST explode.
:

Then you need a new 'thumb', where physics and reality rather than
your opinion become the diviners of what "MUST" happen.

You should probably also look at the size of pieces from a vehicle
that "broke up pretty well completely". There are hunks the size of
your couch that came down in one piece.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Damon Hill wrote:

Hydrazine (in this case, probably monomethyhydrazine) is a
nitrogen/hydrogen compound; catalytically decomposed it breaks down into
ammonia, nitrogen and hydrogen (and carbon dioxide with monomethyl). It
will burn with the oxygen in the air, probably yielding nitrogen and
water vapor, and not much else.

No methane? Surely some nitric acid. Ammonia itself is reactive.
So what oxygen will it reach first? Atmospheric oxygen or ozone?
Being in reach, if not (without foresight) aimed at the ozone layer, how
much O3 will it burn? Will there be any secondary or catalytic reactions.

Are we to assume there is no chlorine in hydrazine?
What does ammonia do to ozone? Nitric acid, maybe NO.
Oh my, yet more reaction until N2 and O2. Indeed, there's
much potential for O3 to destroyed first from hydrazine
and then more from the resultant ammonia which could require
more to react into nitric acid and NO and yet more to reach
stable elementary molecules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine (see section on rocket fuel)

Considering the rather small amount of material involved, a dispersal in
orbit probably doesn't require an environmental impact statement,
whereas a ground impact could. Conclusion: smash it while it's still
way up there. Result: no problem.

In connection with US refusal to sign a treaty banning development
of weapons effective again targets in space, it has a bad stench.

On 29 Feb, 10:38, William Elliot wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008, Damon Hill wrote:
Hydrazine (in this case, probably monomethyhydrazine) is a
nitrogen/hydrogen compound; catalytically decomposed it breaks down into
ammonia, nitrogen and hydrogen (and carbon dioxide with monomethyl). *It
will burn with the oxygen in the air, probably yielding nitrogen and
water vapor, and not much else.

No methane? *Surely some nitric acid. *Ammonia itself is reactive.
So what oxygen will it reach first? *Atmospheric oxygen or ozone?
Being in reach, if not (without foresight) aimed at the ozone layer, how
much O3 will it burn? *Will there be any secondary or catalytic reactions.

Are we to assume there is no chlorine in hydrazine?
What does ammonia do to ozone? *Nitric acid, maybe NO.
Oh my, yet more reaction until N2 and O2. *Indeed, there's
much potential for O3 to destroyed first from hydrazine
and then more from the resultant ammonia which could require
more to react into nitric acid and NO and yet more to reach
stable elementary molecules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine*(see section on rocket fuel)

Considering the rather small amount of material involved, a dispersal in
orbit probably doesn't require an environmental impact statement,
whereas a ground impact could. *Conclusion: smash it while it's still
way up there. *Result: no problem.

In connection with US refusal to sign a treaty banning development
of weapons effective again targets in space, it has a bad stench.

I am torn between two stools in this. Hydrazine will indeed end up as
water vapor and nitrgrogen. There is only Nitrogen asnd hydogen
present, and in the case of the methylated form carbon. If hydrazine
spills out into a high speed air flow it will become N2 + H2O very
quickly.

Also the fragents will all renter very quickly. Orbital dynamics tells
us that everything must return to the same altidude as any explosion.
Perigree will ALWAYS be at or below the altiude of explosion. It will
be at for material ejected along the tangent plane in a 180 degree arc
forwards. On this I can back Rand up.

However you are right. The lack of any discussion does indeed leave a
nasty taste in the mouth. The satellite would have been safe if left
alone, but the explosion created no extra risk. I can't help feeling
though that the main purpose was to demonstrate ASAT and ABM
capability.


- Ian Parker

Damon Hill ) writes:
Hydrazine (in this case, probably monomethyhydrazine) is a
nitrogen/hydrogen compound; catalytically decomposed it breaks down into
ammonia, nitrogen and hydrogen (and carbon dioxide with monomethyl). It
will burn with the oxygen in the air, probably yielding nitrogen and
water vapor, and not much else.

Nitpick 1: To get CO2 from monomethyl hydrazine, you need an
oxidiserr--combustion, not decomposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine (see section on rocket fuel)

Considering the rather small amount of material involved, a dispersal in
orbit probably doesn't require an environmental impact statement,
whereas a ground impact could. Conclusion: smash it while it's still
way up there. Result: no problem.

Nitpick 2: I suspect there would be an effect on the ozone layer. I also
suspect it would be local and short-lived.

--John Park