Skip to comments.
U.S. Considering Shooting Down Satellite
Aviation Week ^
| David A. Fulghum
Posted on 02/13/2008 4:59:37 AM PST by maquiladora
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-95 next last
To: maquiladora
Somethin is fishy here. Hydrazine is Alar, you know the stuff they spray on apples and fruit. It’s used in boiler water treatment and in rocket fuels. It’s not like it’s some rare compound we’re not exposed to already.
2
posted on
02/13/2008 5:15:37 AM PST
by
blackdog
To: blackdog
I suspect they’re more concerned about some secret spy tech stuff surviving.
3
posted on
02/13/2008 5:20:28 AM PST
by
cripplecreek
(Just call me M.O.M. (Maverick opposed to McCain.))
To: blackdog
Hydrazine will kill you. It is very reactive and dangerous.
It will corrode your skin or lungs until you die a painful death.
4
posted on
02/13/2008 5:21:55 AM PST
by
battlecry
To: blackdog
Aerospace Corp., a California-based research organization that regularly advises the Defense Department, has assembled some basic data about falling satellites and what can be done about them. "For an orbiting object, shooting it down actually breaks the object into many pieces, some of which could be hazardous to other satellites," says the Aerospace Corp. "Many of the fragments will survive re-entry, but be spread over a much larger area. The pros and cons for a specific case would need to be examined."Translation: peel us off $10 million & we'll do a quickie 'study' for ya with a really nifty Power Point presentation.
5
posted on
02/13/2008 5:22:55 AM PST
by
Tallguy
(Tagline is offline till something better comes along...)
To: cripplecreek
We have a winner! Quite a lot survived the Columbia crash. That is on their minds. Bad guys may precisely track reentry and dig up what they can.
6
posted on
02/13/2008 5:23:49 AM PST
by
battlecry
To: blackdog
I guess it depends on the quantity or concentration. Just like the way there is radioactive material in some smoke alarms, but not enough for a dirty bomb :-)
To: cripplecreek
...debris could reveal U.S. national security secrets if recovered by other nations.Not likely that there is anything left that has not already been sold or given away by "persons of non-interest".
8
posted on
02/13/2008 5:26:29 AM PST
by
nygoose
To: battlecry
It is nasty but the amount on board the satellite pales in comparison to what’s on the Shuttle. We’ve had two of those burn up and not one spotted owl or snail darter was injured.
9
posted on
02/13/2008 5:27:19 AM PST
by
CholeraJoe
(Maybe tonight he'll be gone.)
To: maquiladora
Why does NASA not prepare and send a shuttle to retrieve the thing? isn’t that what the shuttle’s inception was all about?
10
posted on
02/13/2008 5:27:24 AM PST
by
azhenfud
(The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
To: maquiladora
.S. officials are studying the possibility of shooting down the errant Lockheed Martin intelligence satellite that was launched into space for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).
Set all Beebers to 'stun'.
11
posted on
02/13/2008 5:29:22 AM PST
by
Condor51
(Vote McInsane or Ugga-Bugga? Decisions, decisions, decisions.)
To: nygoose
Considering the fact that so much of our stuff is made in China its hard to say what is and isn’t secret anymore.
12
posted on
02/13/2008 5:29:36 AM PST
by
cripplecreek
(Just call me M.O.M. (Maverick opposed to McCain.))
To: maquiladora
Since it is an NRO sat, and supposed to have been in a 'secret' orbit, you can bet there are some other things onboard that the DIA doesn't want to fall into the wrong hands.
Maybe they will dust off the ASAT program for a one-shot.
13
posted on
02/13/2008 5:30:20 AM PST
by
Pistolshot
(Remember, no matter how bad your life is, someone is watching and enjoying your suffering.)
To: maquiladora
One person was brushed on the shoulder by a piece of debris in 1997. Yes, I remember the Clinton years...but it sure as heck wasn't just one, and the shoulder was just the start!
/hijack
To: maquiladora
What is missing here is exactly
how we would shoot down such a craft.
The last that I heard we no longer had the weapon systems to do this.
15
posted on
02/13/2008 5:31:24 AM PST
by
bill1952
(I will vote for McCain if he resigns his Senate seat before this election.)
To: battlecry
You mean like anhydrous amonia? Chlorine gas? Nitric acid?
16
posted on
02/13/2008 5:32:10 AM PST
by
blackdog
To: blackdog
Hydrazine is not Alar. A derivative of hydrazine is used to make Alar. Apples and oranges (so to speak).
To: azhenfud
Interesting point, although the satellite orbit might be considerable higher, oops, what orbit, that’s why it is falling. We need a space garbage truck. You know it is a full time job just tracking the garbage much less the active stuff.
18
posted on
02/13/2008 5:36:05 AM PST
by
wita
(truthspeaks@freerepublic.com)
To: maquiladora
The concern is that the spacecraft carries a full tank of hydrazine - a toxic propellant - that would have been used to reposition the satellite in orbit. Government analysts say the odds are that the tank will crack open during re-entry or than it will land in the ocean, which makes up 70% of the area where the breaking up satellite might land. As we say in the industry, dilution is the solution to pollution.
To: wita
EXCUSE ME....if the tank is full....fire it and put it back into orbit!!!!!
20
posted on
02/13/2008 5:40:17 AM PST
by
Wavrnr10
(Eagles soar but weasels don't get sucked in jet engines)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-95 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson