In a move considered unnecessary by many experts, the Bush administration has recently decided to shoot down an uncooperative and secret American spy satellite. The pentagon and Gordon Johndroe at the NSC cited a large amount of unburned hydrazine rocket fuel on board as the reason that Bush would want to play a revived version of Ronald Reagan’s 1980’s “Star Wars” defense game.
Much larger orbiting objects such as Skylab (which was massive in comparison) and sub-orbital objects like the comparatively large Challenger Space Shuttle have impacted with minimal harm, so why the concern? The (until recently) secret spy satellite is believed to weigh in at an estimated diminutive 7,000 pounds. It is also rumored to be one of the first of a new breed of compact and more precise spy satellites. Its size therefore would make it much more difficult to successfully hit, much less predict where the debris of most of it would land once it was destroyed.
Since the Earth is mostly covered with ocean, it’s highly unlikely that the satellite would land in an inhabited area. The majority of Skylab plunged into the Indian Ocean, and the pieces that hit Australia landed harmlessly in a barren section of western Australia. This satellite most likely would break apart during its tumbled descent and the resulting smaller pieces and fuel would burn during reentry. Logically, satellites of that type should, and probably are, by necessity designed intentionally to self-destruct and/or disintegrate during a mishap either during launch or afterward, should they fail to attain an approximate 170-mile orbit.
Another question would be the method of bringing it down. Is the effort worth revealing the technology we’d use, be it guided rocket from by a U.S. Navy cruiser, or an advanced laser from a military aircraft?
The doomed and defective satellite malfunctioned just after launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base in December 2006 and soon after that started disregarding all attempts at contact. U.S. military ground controler’s efforts at trying to dump and/or burn the experimental imaging device’s supply of volatile hydrazine fuel so far have failed. Is it possible that the Bush administration is worried that should parts of the satellite actually land intact (which is unlikely,) that a competing or adverse foreign power could play “finders keepers” with it? Is it probable that they might gain some technical knowledge from a semi-destroyed and melted piece of our orbital spying equipment?
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jet in Columbus
Could the editor on deck please remove the 's from in front of Bush in the title?
2 - Deano
Why not shoot it down? It's a valid field test of anti-satellite military technology. I don't even see this as an issue...
3 - Jet in Columbus
It's along the same lines as trying to shoot a small incoming asteroid. It's preferable to have only one piece fall than several hundred.
Also there's the expense of a multi-million dollar missile to perform what many experts consider an unnecessary operation that can't be confirmed as a success.
If it's a confirmable hit, Bush paints himself as a biblical hero striking down the mighty foe.
If it's an unconfirmed hit, half Arab the world will call us a liar.
If its a confirmed miss, the U.S. will be branded a fool for trying to hit such a small target, and a bragging failure. There's also the chance that the missile could go haywire, miss its target and then fall on an ally's territory. (don't forget we're talking about a missile most likely built with the same unreliable technology as the satellite that got us into this mess in the first place.
Either way, it's not worth the millions and the risk to try to shoot down something the size of a school bus with little preparation.
again, most experts have said that it'd burn up in the admosphere and would pose very little danger to anyone.
In either case it's wasting millions on an operation that doesn't need doing
Of course that's only my opinion.
4 - Dr Dreadful
It is a bit strange. It seems like the sort of decision Bush wouldn't normally need to be involved in.
The official explanation about the hydrazine fuel tank being likely to survive re-entry isn't very convincing.
My guess is that someone said something in a briefing which came out the wrong way, and Bush got it into his head that this was some sort of major danger that he needed to take executive action on.
Now everyone's getting into a tizzy about it, not least because the planned impact location is in the North Pacific Ocean. All this publicity is probably to make damn sure the Russians and the Chinese don't freak out when they detect the missile launch.
5 - Clavos
It's still not a bad exercise for the navy to practice their gunnery, with no harm done. They plan to shoot it at a point in the trajectory where, if they hit it, the pieces won't hit anything or anyone, and if they miss, ditto.
As for the cost, so what? It's still good training, and training is expensive, no matter what it's for.
I think it's a great idea; hydrazine or no hydrazine.
They should do it more often (safely, of course).
6 - Les Slater
I don’t believe it has anything to do with concerns about safety or any sort of buffoonery on the part of the Bush administration. It clearly looks like a calculated decision.
Russia says that it’s an escalation, or reinstituting, of the arms race. It does seem that way to me too.
7 - JustOneMan
This article illustrates how low the looney left had gotten...here are some other posts soon to come...
Snow Storms Hit The Midwest - Bush Suspected of Using Secret Ant-Global Warming Device
Satellite Nears Earth While Bush Passivley Watches -Dumbocrats Call for an Investigation
JOM - "The Dumbocrats - Home of the Loons and Raciists"
8 - Jet in Columbus
Clavos, do you think it's a good idea because your St. Bush is behind it, or do you really think it's a good idea?
Despite the wasted money for what most experts say is an unnecessary expense, not to mention the eventual worldwide derision if they miss.
Our space technology isn't exactly great, witness the faulty satellite that got us into this in the first place.
Are you willing to gamble the long odds that we'll actually hit the thing, much less avoid the rain of debris that'd follow?
The Navy appears to be planning to try to destroy it after it is already tumbling through the atmosphere.
9 - Jet in Columbus
Les, what if we shoot and miss and the damned missile lands in London or Paris, or Pittsburgh?
If we can't rely on a satellite to self destruct, which all military satellites are supposed to do, can we really rely on a missile to do the same thing?
10 - Jet in Columbus
JOM, that comment illustrates how low the looney right has gotten...here are some other posts soon to come...
Winter snows retreat from Midwest - Bush disputing Global Warming has caused irreversable damage to U.S. agriculture.
Rocket misses Satellite and falls to Earth in China While Bush Passivley Watches and reads another elementary school goat book -Republican'ts try to blame Communism and call for war with Hawaii
"The Republican'ts - Home of the Diests and scam artists"
11 - Jet in Columbus
According to Reuters the U.S. has begun reassuring concerned countries NOT that they won't miss, but that the U.S. will pay for any damages caused by the fallen satellite if it hits their territory.
Sounds real confident doesn't it?
12 - Les Slater
Jet,
“…what if we shoot and miss and the damned missile lands in London or Paris, or Pittsburgh?”
As I said before, the U.S. government’s motivation in this has nothing to do with caring if any people are killed or injured, or if there is any property damage.
The only thing that makes sense is that this is a military test. Some in this thread responded, in a matter of fact way, ‘It's still not a bad exercise for the navy to practice their gunnery’ see this as a useful military exercise. It is the most reasonable explanation.
“If we can't rely on a satellite to self destruct, which all military satellites are supposed to do, can we really rely on a missile to do the same thing?”
Just because this satellite failed, for whatever reason, a missile to destroy it wouldn’t necessarily have to fail. I am not privy to what they believe the rocket, or other technology can do. There may be some signal emanating from the disabled satellite that could make intercept guidance much easier and more effective.
Les
13 - Jet in Columbus
So Les, are you saying that the odds of us missing this, are smaller than the risk of it burning up harmlessly in orbit?
Trying to shoot it down may do more damage than good.
By the way thanks for contributing to the discussion
Jet
14 - Clavos
Jet #8:
"Clavos, do you think it's a good idea because your St. Bush is behind it, or do you really think it's a good idea?"
I'm not a Bush supporter. I'm a conservative libertarian; he's neither. I think, as I said above, the practice for the Navy is a good idea.
"Despite the wasted money for what most experts say is an unnecessary expense, not to mention the eventual worldwide derision if they miss."
Again, as I said above, training, especially of the military is expensive; I don't have a problem with that.
"Are you willing to gamble the long odds that we'll actually hit the thing, much less avoid the rain of debris that'd follow?"
Opinions from the so-called "experts" on both sides are at odds: some say it's no big deal, others say we'll we'll miss and might endanger people in the process. I choose to believe the former.
So, once more, yes. I think it's a good idea.
15 - JustOneMan
Oh my this cannot be!!! A leading Dumbocrat supporting Bush!!
From yesterdays New York Times Story
A Congressional Democrat considered one of the party’s experts on missile defense agreed that the United States had to take responsibility for any threat posed by the satellite.
Jet didnt you read the Huffington Post or this weeks Dumbocratic Talking Points email before writing this um...er..post?
JOM "The Dumbocrats - The Party of Fools"
16 - Deano
Jet,
First point - the missle being used to hit this won't have the range to 'hit" London or Paris etc. We are not talking about an ABM but something much much smaller. Previous tests of anti-satellite missiles have occurred - both plane based weapons and others. We are talking about a relatively small warhead - the main damage is kinetic, not explosive.
If no one is particularly worried about the "schoolbus sized satellite" impacting with any substantive damage resulting, then the pieces of the satellite or any debris is not likely to cause issues either...barring any type of radioactive power source being sprayed all over the landscape.
Be that as it may, I agree the argument about the hydrazine is pretty much silly and, at best, seems like an excuse to justify the use of the satellite as a live-fire exercise.
The political fallout is another question. Demonstrating strong anti-satellite capabilities during a time when the Chinese are in the process of planning a significant expansion of their own space program might be seen as provacative - except for the fact that most nations have a pretty good idea of the US anti-satellite capabilities anyway, so it isn't really a surprise to anyone that matters.
I suspect it's just a lame excuse for a test, but I would not be surprised to see, over the next 20 years, an increased militarization of the space, as near-earth orbits become more and more crowded with new space-capable nations trying to stake some 'ground".
17 - Jet in Columbus
Deano, that seems to be a fair assessment of the situation, thanks for contributing to the conversation...
18 - REMF
"I'm not a Bush supporter. I'm a conservative libertarian; he's neither."
- Clavos
Then why have you defended his desertion?
19 - Les Slater
An article in Today’s New York Times, Missile Defense Future May Turn on Success of Mission to Destroy Satellite pointed out the following:
“Should it succeed, the accomplishment would embolden those who champion even more spending on top of the $57.8 billion appropriated by Congress for missile defenses since the Bush administration’s first budget in the 2002 fiscal year.
20 - G
When NASA does'nt see the large "Dark Matter Objects" on a course towards Earth there scientists say, it's a near miss.Asteroids and comets come this close to Earth all the time.Well, if you check the recent trajectory of objects headed toward Earth, they are getting closer.So why complain if at least our government might have the sense and another reason for there satellites? As a democracy we must protect the world, for if we do not protect our neighbors,how can we protect ourselves?
21 - Les Slater
G,
“As a democracy we must protect the world, for if we do not protect our neighbors, how can we protect ourselves?”
The U.S. only wants to protect its political and economic interests in the world. It is incredulous to believe that a country that is not only been willing, but in actuality, has killed millions of people to maintain its world order, that it would invest $57.8 billion to protect a few from a falling fuel tank.
We have at least one example of where the precision of a U.S. missile destroyed a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, Sudan. The U.S. claimed it was a chemical weapons factory. Sound familiar? The U.S. did not have any substantial proof that it was such. The Sudanese government demanded of the U.N. Security Council that the site be investigated. The U.S. blocked that investigation. The U.S. also refused to send a team, at the request of the Sudanese government to investigate the site. Sound like a typical Bush crime? Maybe, but this was 1998 and it was the Clinton administration. As I have said on other threads, it doesn’t really matter who’s in the White House or to which party they belong.
These technologies will not only do great harm, but worse still; it will help keep the criminals in power that continue to rape and pillage the world.
Whether intentional, or not, pointing to a possible good use, like shooting down asteroids, only gives cover for the real intent and purpose for this technology.
Les
22 - Jet in Columbus
Les, I'd argue that Bush's intent is to use up as much military equipment as possible so that he can give more no-bid contracts to Halliburton to replace it.
After all Chenney's probably convinced him that they're owed a huge quid pro quo.
I used to complain about the state of U.S. Military's weaponry and space equipment by pointing out the fact that it all has been built by "The lowest bidder."
Now the problem is even worse, it built by the No-ist" bidder.
23 - Clavos
Two points:
1. Halliburton does not now, and never has, built any kind of military equipment or weaponry.
2. The company recently divested itself of its KBR division, which did provide construction and other services to both civilian and military customers, in order to concentrate on its core expertise of oil field exploration and services.
24 - Jet in Columbus
Just because it divested itself of KBR recently, does not negate the fact that the U.S. has for the last 7 years put tens of billions of dollars into Haliburton's pocket for military equipment and services at premium prices.
25 - Clavos
"has for the last 7 years put tens of billions of dollars into Haliburton's pocket for military equipment..."
Two points:
1. See point #1 above: "Halliburton does not now, and never has, built any kind of military equipment or weaponry."
2. Halliburton's Iraq contracts (which began to expire in 2006; most are now expired), totaled approximately $13 billion, (not "tens of billions"), which is less than 3% of the total $450 billion spent on the Iraq war through 2007. The Halliburton contracts had margins of between 1.5 and 2%.