Posted on 02/14/2008 9:07:45 AM PST by montag813
how about several satellites sweeping around the earth with big aerogel panels on the front? That should capture the smaller particles.
____________________________________________________________________________-
With our luck, we’d probably catch The Andromeda Strain.
how about several satellites sweeping around the earth with big aerogel panels on the front? That should capture the smaller particles.
______________________________________________________________________________
Remember Skylab. The aussies were not terribly enamored by our scattering junk all over their outback. Especially the anonymous remark by a Carter Admin. staffer about there being nobody out there to be hurt other than “a wallaby or two.”
Wonder what could be on it that they don’t want to take any chance of it surviving re-entry.
No, it's a lower orbit that will decay. Shooting it down will just ensure that it won't come down in one piece.
ping
did you watch? anything new?
Well, no, not exactly...not if one includes our Moon, as being in or "on" Earth orbit.
But I would think you would be correct if speaking of all of the man-made, near Earth satellites.
Like others have pointed out, in this case, this satellite is coming down, one way or another...if it's hit and broken up while in rapidly decaying orbit, becoming increasingly slowed by the atmosphere, even before being hit, then most likely the pieces will fall to Earth shortly.
Everything else nearby, unless some force acts upon them to increase their seperate velocities, or even only retain their current velocity, will slow, and eventually if not sooner fall. Or so we are led to believe, there being nothing else in evidence to dispute it...
Yes. Too bad that you aren't clever enough to see the *difference* between shooting down a failed and falling satellite from that of blowing one up that is in a stable orbit, though.
Wait, lemme guess, you're a libertarian?! Or a Conservative Party voter?!
No. This satellite is already falling. Shooting it down means that you get to determine (roughly) where the pieces land. The pieces continue to fall after the explosion, after all.
In contrast, blowing up a satellite in a stable orbit means that a debris cloud is created.
That would be a bad guess.
Nope. Shooting down a falling satellite won't add to orbiting debris.
Lots space techincal stuff.
Risk asssessment: Better to shoot than not; potential chemical damage not a lot unless one’s near thorozine for over 2 minutes;
Location: 2-300 yrd area in Pacific or North America
Translation: Nutrooots will ape saying the ozone will be deatroyed and we’ll all die.
AP story:
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush decided to make a first-of-its-kind attempt to use a missile to bring down a broken U.S. spy satellite because of the potential danger to people from its rocket fuel, officials said Thursday.
Deputy National Security Adviser James Jeffries, briefing reporters at the Pentagon, did not say when the attempted intercept would be conducted, but the satellite is expected to hit Earth during the first week of March.
Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the same briefing that the “window of opportunity” for such a shootdown, presumably to be launched from a Navy ship, will open in the next three or four days and last for seven or eight days. He did not say whether the Pentagon has decided on an exact launch date.
Cartwright said this will be an unprecedented effort; he would not say exactly what are the odds of success.
“This is the first time we’ve used a tactical missile to engage a spacecraft,” Cartwright said.
After extensive study and analysis, U.S. officials came to the conclusion that, “we’re better off taking the attempt than not,” Cartwright said.
He said a Navy missile known as Standard Missile 3 would be fired in an attempt to intercept the satellite just prior to it re-entering Earth’s atmosphere. It would be “next to impossible” to hit the satellite after that because of atmospheric disturbances, Cartwright said.
A second goal, he said, is to directly hit the fuel tank in order to minimize the amount of fuel that returns to Earth.
Cartwright also said that if an initial shootdown attempt fails, a decision will be made whether to take a second shot.
Shooting down a satellite is particularly sensitive because of the controversy surrounding China’s anti-satellite test last year, when Beijing shot down one of its defunct weather satellites, drawing immediate criticism from the U.S. and other countries.
A key concern at that time was the debris created by Chinese satellite’s destruction—and that will also be a focus now, as the U.S. determines exactly when and under what circumstances to shoot down its errant satellite.
The military will have to choose a time and a location that will avoid to the greatest degree any damage to other satellites in the sky. Also, there is the possibility that large pieces could remain, and either stay in orbit where they can collide with other satellites or possibly fall to Earth.
It is not known where the satellite will hit. But officials familiar with the situation say about half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft is expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and will scatter debris—some of it potentially hazardous—over several hundred miles. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.
The satellite is outfitted with thrusters—small engines used to position it in space. They contain the toxic rocket fuel hydrazine, which can cause harm to anyone who contacts it. Officials have said there is about 1,000 pounds of propellent on the satellite.
Known by its military designation US 193, the satellite was launched in December 2006. It lost power and its central computer failed almost immediately afterward, leaving it uncontrollable. It carried a sophisticated and secret imaging sensor.
Isn't this fuel on the Space Shuttle? Didn't seem to be a concern when Challenger (fully loaded) or Columbia (with residuals) broke up.
Not if they wait until it is low enough. I think that was the complaint about the Chinese test. Where they shot, the debris field stayed in orbit for a long time. This thing is already pretty low so most of the debris should hit atmosphere fairly quickly, start dragging, and then that’s it.
Point is, the hydrazine danger is overstated, IMO.
V < Ve
Although it doesn't seem like much of a test - the thing has to have the radar cross section of a barn. Then again, maybe it has desirable IR properties (as a target) from being up there and shut down for so long? . . .
thanks.
Go Aegis!
Someday even the moon will again collide with Earth.
So the idea is to break it into smaller pieces that won’t make it through the atmosphere?
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.