[greg3564]

This should be interesting.

HOUSTON - Less than a month ago, White House officials said a falling spy satellite would likely pose little threat to humans — but on Thursday, the Pentagon said President Bush himself approved an unorthodox plan to destroy the satellite with a missile strike.

What could warrant such a change of heart? It's the realization that the spacecraft could be bringing a toxic iceberg back down to Earth.

Aboard the 2.5-ton derelict satellite, designated "USA-193," is a fuel tank containing half a ton of hydrazine. Since the satellite went dead within hours after launch 14 months ago, the fuel has not been depleted by normal rocket maneuvers.

Hydrazine is a nasty chemical that could poison the area where it is released. Until recently, U.S. officials were saying that the tank would be crushed as the satellite fell through the atmosphere, sometime in early March. If that were the case, the toxic hydrazine would almost certainly be burned off and safely dispersed during the fiery fall.

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin sketched out a different scenario, however, during Thursday's news conference with Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Griffin said NASA experts calculated that the hydrazine was frozen solid due to the satellite’s yearlong drift through the cold of space. The tank, with its half-ton ice core of hydrazine, would thus become one of the most perfect re-entry vehicles ever to fall back to Earth.

Griffin explained that the contents of the tank could turn to slush during the fall, but would very likely survive and leak toxic gas over the crash site. Another expert told msnbc.com privately that the solid ice would provide structural support against the 20 to 25 G’s of deceleration experienced by the satellite during re-entry.

Safety first?
Pentagon officials said it was that safety concern, rather than the intention to test a potential anti-satellite weapon, which led them to develop the plan for a missile intercept. They hope the impact of the warhead on a modified Standard Missile-3, or SM-3, will shatter the satellite — and particularly the spherical hydrazine tank. The first shot could occur as early as next week, after the space shuttle Atlantis' return from its mission to the international space station.

Would a direct hit be required? Experts on space debris told msnbc.com that even a glancing blow would likely be enough. The force of a missile hitting an orbiting object is much more violent than the force of a bullet striking a target, or even an anti-aircraft missile hitting an airplane. In the space case, the tremendous speed of the impact carries so much kinetic energy that both vehicles literally explode due to the hypersonic shock waves sweeping through their structures.

If the missile strike leads to such a disintegration, sharp observers should be able to spot the ice fragments from the fuel tank. As the fragments evaporate in direct sunlight, they could create mini-comets visible from Earth’s surface, lasting for hours before dispersing.

Pentagon officials said the intercept would occur within range of military optical and radar sensors. Their goal would be to confirm the existence of dispersed hydrazine in the debris. If the sensors don't show the fuel dispersing, missile operators would target the fragment judged most likely to be the still-surviving fuel tank. A second shot could occur within a day or two of the first.

Giving the missiles a boost
Last week's orbital readings indicated that the satellite was circling Earth at an altitude between 160 and 168 miles (255 and 268 kilometers) and descending at an increasing rate, currently about six-tenths of a mile (1 kilometer) per day. Gen. Cartwright said the intercept would be attempted when the satellite descended to about 150 miles (240 kilometers).

The SM-3 has typically been used for testing the Pentagon's missile defense system, and reaches a nominal maximum altitude of just 100 miles (160 kilometers). For the satellite intercept, three missiles — one each on three different AEGIS-class Navy cruisers — will be modified to reach the higher altitude.

This isn't the first time hydrazine has posed a problem in space: The fuel freezes at temperatures below 36 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), and satellites without active heating will drop to temperatures below that — as a case involving the Soviet Salyut 7 space station demonstrated dramatically in 1985.

After Salyut 7's power system failed, the water in its supply tanks froze solid, along with the hydrazine in its propulsion system. A pair of cosmonauts reached the icy station and were able to activate its electrical system, and then carefully thawed the frozen tanks.

[golfhobo]

I heard a bit about this today, but I don't know all the facts. But, I can't help coming to some conclusions, anyway!

1. This MAY be just another attempt by dubya's administration to show how our missile defense systems are viable, and to impress this fact upon IRAN and North Korea, and others.

2. It is just an attempt to keep pace with China's recent satellite destruction.

3. If we FAIL, the implications concerning our SDI capabilities will NOT be misunderstood by those same enemies!

4. A simple "self destruct" mechanism on ALL U.S. satellites would have saved us millions of dollars!

5. My OWN "personal" design for a Strategic Defense Shield, is WAY more superior to what our Defense Dept is now considering!

6. Our government has LONG since lost any ability to consider the consequences of its actions in space..... or elsewhere!

7. Not ONE thing we have learned from the Billions of dollars we've spent on "deep space" satellites has helped us ONE BIT in avoiding THIS scenario.... and we've found no evidence of LIFE out there!

8. I don't believe a WORD George W. Bush says ANYWAYS!! If his lips are moving.... he's LYING!!! :roll:

[Twilight Flyer]

1. This MAY be just another attempt by dubya's administration to show how our missile defense systems are viable, and to impress this fact upon IRAN and North Korea, and others.

So? Why would that be such a bad thing? :?

2. It is just an attempt to keep pace with China's recent satellite destruction.

That actually did cross my mind and I'm sure that's part, even a small part, of the decision making process.

3. If we FAIL, the implications concerning our SDI capabilities will NOT be misunderstood by those same enemies!

That's certainly something to consider and I'm sure the military minds behind it have done so. Read up on Hydrazine. Miss or not, it's probably a good idea to at least try. I'd hate to see this thing come down in a populated area, unless of course it came down in the mountains of Pakistan and took out Osama Still Missing. Now wouldn't that be something.

4. A simple "self destruct" mechanism on ALL U.S. satellites would have saved us millions of dollars!

Would it be accompanied by Star Trek's sexy computer voice?

5. My OWN "personal" design for a Strategic Defense Shield, is WAY more superior to what our Defense Dept is now considering!

So why are you driving a truck?

6. Our government has LONG since lost any ability to consider the consequences of its actions in space..... or elsewhere!

Are you an anti-space nut then?

7. Not ONE thing we have learned from the Billions of dollars we've spent on "deep space" satellites has helped us ONE BIT in avoiding THIS scenario.... and we've found no evidence of LIFE out there!

I think that answers the last one. :roll:

For the record, space exploration is one of the most boring sciences out there, at least today. However, the potential benefits from space exploration far outstrip any other science.

8. I don't believe a WORD George W. Bush says ANYWAYS!! If his lips are moving.... he's LYING!!!

Somehow, I knew your post would end with blaming Bush for something. I don't much like what the current president has done, either, but geez, Hobo. Get some new material. :roll:

[Roadhog]

What would impress me, is if they could program the satellite's trajectory to land a direct hit on Bin Laden's spider-hole. Now...that would be sweet. 8) OOO-RAH!!



AH-LALALALALALALALALALALALALA up yer ass you SOB!

[DaveP]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

5. My OWN "personal" design for a Strategic Defense Shield, is WAY more superior to what our Defense Dept is now considering!

Do you have any idea how many layers of tinfoil that would require?

Nobody would be able to hold their head up. :lol:

[Roadhog]

Originally Posted by Twilight Flyer

I'd hate to see this thing come down in a populated area, unless of course it came down in the mountains of Pakistan and took out Osama Still Missing. Now wouldn't that be something.

Sorry, I missed the comment made by TF. But...I guess great minds think alike.....sorta. :? :P

I've become more accustom to scanning long paste and posts with greater apathy. This makes me look bad, and I regret that. I'll try to pay more attention, but I'm afraid I'm only saying that, and I really doubt I'll change.

I wasn't this jaded when I first joined CAD. It's too late for me. I am afraid I've taken too much of a pasting, for any hope. I'm a wondering soul. Too many words... too many words.... :cry:

:lol:

[golfhobo]

So? Why would that be such a bad thing? :?

That actually did cross my mind and I'm sure that's part, even a small part, of the decision making process.

That's certainly something to consider and I'm sure the military minds behind it have done so. Read up on Hydrazine. Miss or not, it's probably a good idea to at least try. I'd hate to see this thing come down in a populated area, unless of course it came down in the mountains of Pakistan and took out Osama Still Missing. Now wouldn't that be something.

Like I said, Twilight.... I was just kinda thinking out loud. I don't suppose it would be bad to show our capabilities UNLESS we fail, but like you said... considering the danger, I guess we HAVE to try if there is no alternative.

But, we DO have a shuttle in space equipped with the "crane" arm (whatever they call it,) and we HAVE affected repairs to satellites before. That IS what the shuttle system was designed for, in part! And, I THINK we knew of this problem before we launched the shuttle last week.

Would it be accompanied by Star Trek's sexy computer voice?

If a sexy voice screams in space and no one is there to hear it.... does it matter that it was sexy?? :lol:

So why are you driving a truck?

Because I would need the help of an aerospace engineer to properly write up the proposal either for a patent (which I would want) OR even to properly present it to the government (so I wouldn't be laughed at!) It's actually a fairly simple concept, but the powers that be have headed off in an opposite direction, and show no signs of ever changing.

Are you an anti-space nut then?

I think that answers the last one. :roll:

For the record, space exploration is one of the most boring sciences out there, at least today. However, the potential benefits from space exploration far outstrip any other science.

No... not really. I AM a fan of space science. I liked the Hubble idea and was mad as heck when they almost scrapped it. I just don't think we need to do deep space probes looking for signs of life! We HAVE gotten many benefits from space science, but I'm not so sure they ALL outstrip what COULD have been done in other areas such as health or engergy with all that money.

Somehow, I knew your post would end with blaming Bush for something. I don't much like what the current president has done, either, but geez, Hobo. Get some new material. :roll:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Don't worry, I WILL when y'all elect another Republican president! :lol:

[Twilight Flyer]

But, we DO have a shuttle in space equipped with the "crane" arm (whatever they call it,) and we HAVE affected repairs to satellites before. That IS what the shuttle system was designed for, in part! And, I THINK we knew of this problem before we launched the shuttle last week.

I think I read somewhere last week or so when this story broke, that the issue was its deteriorating trajectory and/or unstable spin made a shuttle repair job impossible. Not sure where I read that at.

As far as electing a Republican president, you don't have any worries there. McCain is probably the worst choice we could have made and he doesn't stand a chance against Obama. Once Obama/Clinton hit the white house, I give it maybe a year before you and the rest of the democratic side of the fence will be clamoring for the glory days of George Bush.

This country is finished. Welcome comrade, to the USRA: The United Socialist Republic of Amerika!

:evil:

[golfhobo]

Twilight said:

I think I read somewhere last week or so when this story broke, that the issue was its deteriorating trajectory and/or unstable spin made a shuttle repair job impossible. Not sure where I read that at.

Okay, yeah.... that would be a problem. Like I said, I've been on the road and didn't have all the facts. I think I heard someone say today, that at least this would be a REAL test of our SDI system. I guess I'm not against that, I'm just very NERVOUS about the outcome. I just don't have alot of faith in the "bullet with a bullet" system that we are developing. MY system (I wish I could tell you what it is,) would be a foolproof solution to THIS problem, as well as any ICBM attacks.

As far as electing a Republican president, you don't have any worries there. McCain is probably the worst choice we could have made and he doesn't stand a chance against Obama. Once Obama/Clinton hit the white house, I give it maybe a year before you and the rest of the democratic side of the fence will be clamoring for the glory days of George Bush.

This country is finished. Welcome comrade, to the USRA: The United Socialist Republic of Amerika! :evil:

I'm sorry for the way you feel about McCain. I really DO understand it, as I felt the same way about GORE... and Kerry to some extent!! But, I don't know that he won't win against Obama. My best friend is a Southern Democrat, and HE is going to vote for McCain!! (or so he says.) Since I am more of a Centrist, and McCain is more of a moderate, even "I" have been toying with the idea of voting for him.

I think I really LIKE Obama, and don't feel the same about Clinton, but I'm not sure which way to go. I KNOW he is inexperienced, but so was JFK, and I don't think HE was too soft on Kruschev!

I SURE don't like what McCain said about a hundred years in Iraq! But, I am not for "cut and run" either. I know y'all think Dems just want to raise taxes, but the sorry FACT is that we will HAVE to in order to pay our way out of the debt Dubya has incurred! It seems that is always the case when a Dem takes office from a REP, but we get no credit for HAVING to do what is necessary!

I, and most Dems, don't really WANT a Socialist country anymore than YOU do! but we DO differ on what "we" consider Class Warfare. I DO know ONE thing, and that is that Government employees, especially Congressmen, have pretty good health insurance coverage, and it seems only FAIR to me that, since WE are paying for it, the same system might work for all Americans. If that can be done without breaking the bank, I'm all for it! And if it "bends" the bank..... well..... what do you think Dubya's WAR is doing? :roll:

Just one more point about HealthCare. I don't have the figure at hand, but we ALL know that a HUGE percentage of bankruptcies today are caused by skyrocketing medical costs. So.... it would seem obvious to me, that YOUR plan isn't working! It might be preferable, but ONLY if it doesn't lead to the economic demise of the country. So... we MUST try something different! Anything!

Without EVERY aspect of our government/economics going socialistic....could you POSSIBLY accept the socialization of medical care "IF" it led to economic recovery for the lower AND middle classes? i.e: IF this ONE concession would make our economy stronger by strengthening the financial stability of both the lower AND middle classes, wouldn't that be GOOD for the economy and the country?

Dubya touts creating jobs (although we ALL know they are "straw" numbers.... the net is still a LOSS) but, the real problem is those who HAVE taxpaying jobs who can't stay afloat because of medical costs! Many have found it necessary to "lose" their jobs and go on Medicaid just to get by. There is something WRONG with that!

At any rate, we've had Democratic administrations before, and the country didn't fall into Socialism. So, it won't happen NOW, either. The GOP defaulted on its "contract with America." Now it's time to let the Dems have a try. And I guarantee I won't EVER be "clamoring" for more of George W. Bush! :shock: :lol:

[Slimland]

I dont usualy get into these discussions..But :lol:

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't this the problem caused by the people? arn't they the ones who vote the idiots into office?

If we would have kept the buisnesses, Plants, etc. Here without making them be governed by so many Laws, and Taxing the Hell out of them to begin with. And stoped inporting so much CRap. Maybe we could of exported what we import.. and make the money.. But we have Money Hungry people, and a Government that cant seem to stay out of anyone elses busness. Exspecialy our own.. Then we send money to other countries, while we let our own starve, and live on the streets.. What the Hell happened to this grand ol USA.?

I tell you MOP-- It is the people who are in Office, the same People we Vote in, and one of the reseons I see that they get voted in, is because they have the money to get there word out, which usualy is a bunch of Lying bull crap to begin with.

Give me the old USA, that spoke softly and carried that big freeking stick! Let men be men and Women be women.. Let a buisness be a buisness and let us grow all over again.. Build our millitary, our weopons, so that way if someone does attack us again, we can sucsefuly make them glow, while still being able to protect our own.. Drill our own damn oil, support ourself's. and let the dream of the American Dream, still be possible..

I am not smart in this area, I am simple.

Slimland