The Pentagon has announced plans to fire a missile at a spy satellite in decaying orbit, ostensibly to prevent it from reaching Earth with its load of toxic hydrazine fuel. But some speculate they’re really doing this just to see if they can. Especially since China tested an anti-satellite weapon not too long ago. That actually seems plausible to me. I mean, satellites decay and fall into the atmosphere all the time, don’t they? And usually, nobody feels a need to do anything about it.
Sure, why not? I don’t see the big deal.
Don’t forget ‘psyching up the Republican base with can-do Starwars crappola’.
Actually there are some legitimate concerns about this satellite. It’s fairly large (estimated 3.3 tons), and most satellites of this size are brought down deliberately into the ocean at the end of the mission. There was one astronomical satellite (CGRO) that was deorbited while it was still operational and returning valuable data - because one gyroscope failed, and one more more gyroscope failure would have made it difficult to do a controlled deorbit. USA-193 (the spy satellite in question) malfunctioned right after launch so a controlled deorbit is not an option.
Also, most satellites don’t come down with a full tank of hydrazine fuel. There’s 100 lb of it on USA-193, most likely frozen solid.
I wish news sources would quit referring to “shooting down” this satellite. It’s not an airplane.
I expect it’s both. And why not? It’s an ideal opportunity.
Why can’t it be for both reasons?
Sure, satellites’ orbits decay and fall back to Earth on their own, but there’s always the chance that a large piece could land on someone’s head. A missile can be used to break the satellite into smaller pieces, which are more likely to burn up, as well as influence where the satellite will hit the Earth.
Also, it’s a great excuse for a missile test. Shows the flag and all that.
Exactly. We try it; it works - we have reduced the risk. We try it; it doesn’t - we haven’t hurt anything.
Regards,
Shodan
But it’s an election year! Therefore, suspect.
Plus, third reason, is to show-off. “Look! We can destroy satellites too!”
It’s a satellite that was created by Lockheed Martin in 2006. Right after it got up, it malfunctioned and was rendered useless. Another reason to shoot it down is to make it so another country can’t use the technology.
The hydrazine fuel is toxic, but it dissipates very quickly. Also, to do damage, you’d have to sit in a box of the gas for hours to show nasty effects.
But all the reasons to do it also include valid reasons not to tell the world we are doing it until after it happens. This way, we might end up demonstrating to the world that we can’t do it. With the election being the only positive benefit in publicity, it seems even more suspect.
Tris
Right. John McCain’s secret squad of Galactic Plumbers have conducted a covert Moonraker-like mission to break a very expensive spy satellite so that it would fall to earth shortly after he gets the Republican nomination. What better way to scare voters into knowing that Al Qaeda’s Space Corps can attack any time, any where, even in orbit!! :eek:
We probably just dont want it to fall into enemy hands. I dont think we need to “prove” we can do it just because China can, and I woudlnt count Chinas test as passing because there is something like ~42,000 fragments floating around right now. We dont need to prove that our aerospace and military prowess is better then China’s
I think that’s the real reason. It’s not an actual test of our technology, the missile system being used has been used to hit smaller and higher objects before, so its capabilities in this area seem to be well known. Likewise, as others have noted, the actual risk of satellite pieces hitting someone are pretty minuscule, I’m sure the small reduction in risk from blowing up the satellite wouldn’t be found to be worth the cost of the missile by any meaningful economic analysis.
I suspect that the real reason is to “show off”, that is, to get a story in the papers that show all the billions of tax payer money spent on these Missile Defense gadgets haven’t been for nothing.
We’ve already done it, in 1985. I saw the test where they dropped the ASAT from an F-15 (in a hangar, onto a large pad), and the radar images when I was with a different company.
President Bush: “Oops.”
You say “weapons test” like it’s a bad thing?
I prefer to think of this as a Bruce Willis movie.
The government has claimed we do not have the capability to do this routinely, and a Standard 3 missile will have to be sepcially modified for this one-time deal.
Grab some popcorn!
Sailboat
According to the US Government, it is.
The rationale being something like “satellite inspections and early warning are the best protection against accidental nuclear war; we want to avoid making satellites military targets and deter experimentation with ASAT systems in general.”
Sailboat