Fallen Satellite could kill many if direct hit

[itsbob]

So the theory goes. I saw a lot of little debris from the shuttle. I'm sure it reentered more slowly though.

Which shuttle?? The fuel tank rupture or the failed tile?

I don't think the Fuel Tank Rupture made it to orbit.

From what I understand they think the Hydrazine fuel has frozen in the time that satellite has been in space. If was still a liquid the satellite would break up into small pieces and burn up (mostly) on re-entry. VERY small pieces would make their way back to earth, resulting in little or no risk to humans.

ONE scientist showed his theory that with the hydrazine as a solid made the satellite a perfect re-entry vehicle and the satellite would survive re-entry mostly intact.. and would strike the earth at a sizable mass, not a bunch of small pieces.

IF the satellite struck the Sahara desert, no biggy, but if it ended up in Manhattan of Bejing BIG problems, massive casualties. Nobody has control of the satellite, and when it's going to re-enter, and the possible strike zone has several major cities in it.. solution.. Hit it with a missile in space, breaking the fuel cell and minimizing the mass of frozen fuel. It no longer would be a perfect re-entry vehicle and whatever pieces are left would be broken down, and burnt up upon re-entry.

They don't even need a perfect hit, just a glancing blow to disfigure the fuel cell..

 

[Larry Gude]

See...

...this is the second opportunity to do something awesome in space. The moment Columbia was in trouble, an emergency launch should have been ordered by W to go rescue them. There should have been an pod or some sort of rescue chamber they could have taken up to get them or repair materials. Goddamn, lose a second crew trying, don't just sit there and watch one crew die, helplessly.

Now, there should be a mission executed to go get the satellite, capture it and take it apart or kill it in space.

Anything but this impotence.

Having said that, I am all for shooting the crap out of the thing.

 

[clevalley]

These things are orbiting the earth at ~ 26000 KMH - re-entry heat would instantly thaw the fuel - the tanks will rupture (some of the metal will survive, but the gas will expel) and as soon as that orange gas hit the heat - woosh - it's gone - vaporized... satellites are not designed for re-entry of the atmosphere.

How much material from a satellite will survive reentry?

Other satellites have exploded in the air and the hydrazine vapors dissapate...

I think it is more about other items on the satellite they do not want a REMOTE chance of anyone finding... or prove to ourselves we have the capability.

Which shuttle?? The fuel tank rupture or the failed tile?

I don't think the Fuel Tank Rupture made it to orbit.

From what I understand they think the Hydrazine fuel has frozen in the time that satellite has been in space. If was still a liquid the satellite would break up into small pieces and burn up (mostly) on re-entry. VERY small pieces would make their way back to earth, resulting in little or no risk to humans.

ONE scientist showed his theory that with the hydrazine as a solid made the satellite a perfect re-entry vehicle and the satellite would survive re-entry mostly intact.. and would strike the earth at a sizable mass, not a bunch of small pieces.

IF the satellite struck the Sahara desert, no biggy, but if it ended up in Manhattan of Bejing BIG problems, massive casualties. Nobody has control of the satellite, and when it's going to re-enter, and the possible strike zone has several major cities in it.. solution.. Hit it with a missile in space, breaking the fuel cell and minimizing the mass of frozen fuel. It no longer would be a perfect re-entry vehicle and whatever pieces are left would be broken down, and burnt up upon re-entry.

They don't even need a perfect hit, just a glancing blow to disfigure the fuel cell..

 

[nhboy]

Shot at satellite unlikely Wednesday

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy is unlikely to try to shoot apart an errant satellite on Wednesday due to rough seas in the Pacific, a senior U.S. military official said.

"We don't anticipate the weather being good enough today," said the official, briefing reporters at the Pentagon on condition of anonymity.

The official said that assessment could change but at the moment it did not appear the Pacific would be calm enough to ensure a successful operation for the Navy ship charged with firing a missile at the satellite."

Shot at satellite unlikely Wednesday: official | U.S. | Reuters

 

[itsbob]

These things are orbiting the earth at ~ 26000 KMH - re-entry heat would instantly thaw the fuel - the tanks will rupture (some of the metal will survive, but the gas will expel) and as soon as that orange gas hit the heat - woosh - it's gone - vaporized... satellites are not designed for re-entry of the atmosphere.

How much material from a satellite will survive reentry?

Other satellites have exploded in the air and the hydrazine vapors dissapate...

I think it is more about other items on the satellite they do not want a REMOTE chance of anyone finding... or prove to ourselves we have the capability.

ONE scientist showed his theory that with the hydrazine as a solid made the satellite a perfect re-entry vehicle and the satellite would survive re-entry mostly intact.. and would strike the earth at a sizable mass, not a bunch of small pieces.

What you say is true, but I'm guessing this one scientist is smarter than both you and I.

I would guess he ran some models with the shapes involved.. filled with liquid and frozen hydrazine.. and the one with the frozen fuel had unexpected results. I'm thinking that it had just enough effect on the satellite that it didn't fully disintegrate.. or didn't fall apart enough to be considered safe to hit the Earth's surface.

In the end, all the articles I'm reading about this "weapons test conspiracy" state the Hydrazine fuel as the danger, but the one article I read as to the reasoning states the object itself to be the danger.

A satellite isn't very big, but how big a piece do you need to kill >100 people if it hits in Manhattan?

 

[SouthernMdRocks]

...this is the second opportunity to do something awesome in space. The moment Columbia was in trouble, an emergency launch should have been ordered by W to go rescue them. There should have been an pod or some sort of rescue chamber they could have taken up to get them or repair materials. Goddamn, lose a second crew trying, don't just sit there and watch one crew die, helplessly.

Now, there should be a mission executed to go get the satellite, capture it and take it apart or kill it in space.

Anything but this impotence.

Having said that, I am all for shooting the crap out of the thing.

They would have never been able to launch a second shuttle crew in time for the rescue of Columbia. It was a sad situation and thankfully the crew was unaware until the re-entry. Then they knew what was up.

 

[desertrat]

Which shuttle?? The fuel tank rupture or the failed tile?

Missing tiles.

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy is unlikely to try to shoot apart an errant satellite on Wednesday due to rough seas in the Pacific, a senior U.S. military official said.

"We don't anticipate the weather being good enough today," said the official, briefing reporters at the Pentagon on condition of anonymity.

What? So our anti missile defense only works in calm seas? Nice.

They would have never been able to launch a second shuttle crew in time for the rescue of Columbia. It was a sad situation and thankfully the crew was unaware until the re-entry. Then they knew what was up.

We were discusing that today and it's amazing how many people thought they knew the tiles were missing before reentry.

 

[itsbob]

...this is the second opportunity to do something awesome in space. The moment Columbia was in trouble, an emergency launch should have been ordered by W to go rescue them. There should have been an pod or some sort of rescue chamber they could have taken up to get them or repair materials. Goddamn, lose a second crew trying, don't just sit there and watch one crew die, helplessly.

Now, there should be a mission executed to go get the satellite, capture it and take it apart or kill it in space.

Anything but this impotence.

Having said that, I am all for shooting the crap out of the thing.

Well, this is a lot different than any other satellite capture or re-entry. This satellite has been 'dead' since it's release.

Nobody has EVER had control of it, no motors work nothing.. It's just a tumbling mass in space.

You can't send the shuttle up there to capture it, because this tumbling mass is too chaotic, too random. You ever see the footage where they capture the Hubble or other satellites, it looks like they are stationary next to the shuttle. Either they fire the satellite engines to stop or slow it's rotations, or it's slow enough and big enough the shuttle can match it's rotations. No way can you do that with a satellite that we have no control over, no engines, nothing, just randomly tumbling in space.


As to the re-entry issue.. sure we've had satellites re-enter, burn up.. etc.. etc.. usually at the end or well beyond the end of their useful life. Their fuel is spent.. and the orbit disintegrates.. old metal.. worn from space, empty fuel tanks that will just collapse.

This is a NEW satellite, has never used any fuel.. Tanks are full, and now the fuel is probably frozen. Metal hasn't been fatigued.. and the frozen fuel (I think) would stop the fuel tanks from collapsing long enough for the satellite (or at least the fuel tanks) to make it through re-entry somewhat intact.

I want to see the footage from the satellite's perspective when they shoot at it.

 

[clevalley]

ONE scientist showed his theory that with the hydrazine as a solid made the satellite a perfect re-entry vehicle and the satellite would survive re-entry mostly intact.. and would strike the earth at a sizable mass, not a bunch of small pieces.

What you say is true, but I'm guessing this one scientist is smarter than both you and I.

I would guess he ran some models with the shapes involved.. filled with liquid and frozen hydrazine.. and the one with the frozen fuel had unexpected results. I'm thinking that it had just enough effect on the satellite that it didn't fully disintegrate.. or didn't fall apart enough to be considered safe to hit the Earth's surface.

In the end, all the articles I'm reading about this "weapons test conspiracy" state the Hydrazine fuel as the danger, but the one article I read as to the reasoning states the object itself to be the danger.

A satellite isn't very big, but how big a piece do you need to kill >100 people if it hits in Manhattan?

Very true... a perfect re-entry (I think it is called a thin slope) is one in a trillion, but it is still a one. Hydrazine is some REALLY BAD stuff (have worked at facilities that store it) and you do not want to get caught around it.

They do not even know if the tanks are frozen, they are hypothesizing - they don't know the orientation of the payload (no telemetry) so it could be pointed towards the sun and the fuel is warm... This still gets me, even at a "perfect entry" will still generate heat... I just have a tough time buying it - but that is just me.

I hope they do not use the same modeling software they use to predict the weather or he might be right!

I would say only the Pentagon and NRO knows for sure!

...and I know that scientist is probably smarter than I.

 

[Larry Gude]

So...

We were discusing that today and it's amazing how many people thought they knew the tiles were missing before reentry.

...everyone on the freaking planet knew for what, a week or more, and they didn't????????????????????????

 

[Agee]

Curious,

At what altitude do they intend on intercepting the target?

 

[Solja_Boy]

I just hope the satalite doesn;t crash into my chicken coop.

 

[desertrat]

...everyone on the freaking planet knew for what, a week or more, and they didn't????????????????????????

I may be wrong. I thought the first hint of a problem was when it burned up. I don't believe they even looked at the bottom of shuttles until after that incident. I'm sure they didn't know where the tiles were missing because it took them a while to put it together. I think.

 

[clevalley]

At what altitude do they intend on intercepting the target?

According to Aviation Leakly (Weekly) the Chinese bird was at 460nm- this one is around 105nm (degraded) from what I have read....

 

[desertrat]

At what altitude do they intend on intercepting the target?

About 150 miles.

 

[Larry Gude]

My...

I may be wrong. I thought the first hint of a problem was when it burned up. I don't believe they even looked at the bottom of shuttles until after that incident. I'm sure they didn't know where the tiles were missing because it took them a while to put it together. I think.

...memory was that they knew there was a problem at lift off and the ground people spent some time mulling over how much more was lost on this trip than 'usual' and if it was a problem. I thought they even had them go outside and take a look see. And then I thought everyone was watching with baited breath.

:shrug:

 

[desertrat]

...memory was that they knew there was a problem at lift off and the ground people spent some time mulling over how much more was lost on this trip than 'usual' and if it was a problem. I thought they even had them go outside and take a look see. And then I thought everyone was watching with baited breath.

:shrug:

I think I need to go do some research.

 

[clevalley]

...memory was that they knew there was a problem at lift off and the ground people spent some time mulling over how much more was lost on this trip than 'usual' and if it was a problem. I thought they even had them go outside and take a look see. And then I thought everyone was watching with baited breath.

:shrug:

If there was a loss of telemetry before they lit the fuse - it will halt... after T-15sec or 10sec they cannot stop the launch sequence.

When the gantry pulls back this is about T-6hrs - there is a no-man zone at about t-3hrs - I think about 10 miles if I remember right.

Either way - they will not launch if there is a hint of an anomally, the sponsor WILL NOT let it happen, believe me - there is a lot of countless hours that go into this.

Once those engines start, there is nothing that can be done - once the payload seperates from the booster and it don't work it becomes a floating brick with a short life.

:EDIT :Telemetry will be provided by the rocket until seperation - after that the satellite has onboard sequencing which will turn it on - if that does not work they try to "talk to it" and if that does not work (after so many tries) it is useless...

 

[desertrat]

I think I need to go do some research.

CNN.com - Remains thought to be from Columbia crew - Feb. 1, 2003

Officials said they will take another look at a piece of foam that came off during takeoff.

The fact that the foam struck the left wing, site of some of the sensors that failed Saturday, means that the incident will need to be investigated further, NASA chief flight director Milt Heflin said.

But Dittemore cautioned against jumping to conclusions, saying what looks like "the smoking gun" many times turns "out not even to be close."

I think they had no clue. They did replay the launch and show the foam coming off, but until they did tests they didn't think it could knock tiles loose.

 

[desertrat]

However I also found this.

While Columbia was still in orbit, some engineers suspected damage, but NASA managers limited the investigation on the grounds that little could be done even if problems were found.