Aviation Related? - Satellite could plummet to Earth

[Cargo Runner]

A "large" US spy satellite has gone out of control and is expected to crash to Earth some time in late February or March, government sources say.



Officials speaking on condition of anonymity said the satellite had lost power and propulsion, and could contain hazardous materials.

The White House said it was monitoring the situation.

A spokesman said "numerous" satellites had come out of orbit and fallen back to Earth harmlessly over the years.

"We are looking at potential options to mitigate any possible damage this satellite may cause," said Gordon Johndroe, who speaks for the US National Security Council.

Questioned by The Associated Press, he would not be drawn on whether the US would try to destroy the satellite, perhaps with a missile.

"We are looking at potential options to mitigate any possible damage this satellite may cause," he said.

An unnamed official quoted by AP said the US government was keeping lawmakers and other countries abreast of the situation.

The agency notes that the largest uncontrolled re-entry by a US space agency (Nasa) craft was Skylab, a 78-tonne abandoned space station that fell from orbit in 1979.

Its debris dropped harmlessly into the Indian Ocean and across a remote section of western Australia, the US news agency says. In 2002, officials believe debris from a 7,000-pound (3,175-kg) science satellite hit the Earth's atmosphere and rained down over the Persian Gulf, a few thousand miles from where they first predicted it would crash.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7211443.stm

[bowtie`]

A "large" US spy satellite has gone out of control and is expected to crash to Earth some time in late February or March, government sources say.



Officials speaking on condition of anonymity said the satellite had lost power and propulsion, and could contain hazardous materials. ...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7211443.stm

An interesting turn of the phrase. Could contain hazardous materials? Well if it had some type of nuclear power plant, yes it does. No question about it. Or was it possibly manufacturing hazardous materials as part of its mission? There use of the non-specific seems rather odd to me. But then I suppose it is par for the course for guberment werk.

[ATFS_Crash]

Questioned by The Associated Press, he would not be drawn on whether the US would try to destroy the satellite, perhaps with a missile.

Sounds like a sheerly idiotic idea to me. Sounds like a typical idiotic ideas that the media comes up with. Not like I've run the math, but one of my concerns would be if you tried to shoot it down using explosives or kinetics that it could disintegrate and nudge many smaller pieces into higher orbit.

The big pieces are easy to track and monitor. The smaller pieces are still a considerable threat to satellites and other spacecraft like the shuttle. There was one shuttle mission that I think a particle about the size of a grain of sand nearly penetrated the shuttle's windscreen.

Part of the reason that we don't like the Soviets and the Chinese and such exploding things in space is because it litters space with lots of small debris that cannot be tracked or detected, yet is hazardous to satellites and spacecraft. It would be somewhat hypocritical if we shot down a satellite using explosives or kinetic energy unless we had one heck of a good reason.

Another problem about shooting down a satellite is that instead of more less one large piece that is easy to do track that if you try to shoot down with explosives, that the result would be many small pieces that are hard to track that could rain over a very wide area and can threaten a large population. Whereas a more intact satellite would likely be easier to track and only threaten a smaller portion of population.

I would speculate that there might be a nuclear reactor on board, to me and makes more sense to let it would be more easy to detect, manage and clean up if the satellite is not exploded.

What we really need is a quick response new cheap version of the space shuttle. Or an even smaller recovery vehicle that could be launched and attach itself to a satellite to force a satellite to crash in a remote region that is semi controlled.

The only reasons I think the military/government might consider shooting it down would be to try to make it break up into more pieces and be more scattered so that the technology would be less likely to fall into hostile hands. If it is on a predictable path and is thought to continue its predictability and if it was thought it would impact in a populated area then maybe it might be worth trying to change its course by shooting it down, however then it's likely to be less predictable and affect a larger area.

Either way it's a gamble. However I feel unless we have one heck of a good reason, we should just let nature take its course.

Aviation Related?

As far as being aviation related, I think it is. IMAO

If they let it come down naturally I suspect there is much less risk of it hitting an aircraft. I think the odds of a direct hit on an aircraft is extremely low. However what I think it is more feasible and could possibly do more damage is if they decided to try to shoot it down and if the space debris knocked out other satellites that could interfere with communications and navigation.

[Princess Leia]

An interesting turn of the phrase. Could contain hazardous materials? Well if it had some type of nuclear power plant, yes it does. No question about it. Or was it possibly manufacturing hazardous materials as part of its mission? There use of the non-specific seems rather odd to me. But then I suppose it is par for the course for guberment werk.

Could be something as simple as fuel (just because the engines don't work doesn't mean the tanks are empty) or coolant for the electronics payload. Hazardous can mean a lot of things according to OSHA....

[HalcyonDays]

The only reasons I think the military/government might consider shooting it down would be to try to make it break up into more pieces and be more scattered so that the technology would be less likely to fall into hostile hands.

Most if not all of it is likely to burn up completely. I suppose there may be some bits reaching the ground, eg. if it is already in low-earth orbit, and/or if it is as big as Skylab or Hubble. Shooting it down would be the height of hypocrisy after the criticism directed at what the Chinese did around about this time last year.

[screaming_emu]

Could always ask the Chinese to blow it up for us

[ATFS_Crash]

I think most if not all of the spy satellites are solar powered however I think there is a remote possibility that some of them are nuclear.

It reminds me of the story of the Soviet hunters in winter that found a rock/metal that was warm, so they huddled around it to keep warm and carried it around in their pocket to help keep warm. I think one of them eventually died from radiation sickness.

The problem with media like Hollyweird “educating” people is they often learned the wrong thing as stereotypes. So many people expect radioactivity to have stereotypic glow. However radiation is usually invisible. I would think if I found a warm rock or piece of metal that stayed warm despite normal environmental conditions, it would set a alarm bells off. Of course these individuals may not have the advantage of modern education since they seem to be in remote regions and living fairly primitively.


I think one of these two stories might be about them.

In 2002, three hunters in the former Soviet republic of Georgia were severely irradiated after stumbling across an RTG that had been in the wood for years. Huddling around the strontium battery as a heat source, all three spent months in the hospital battling radiation sickness

During the investigation, the scientists passed through the Svaneti

mountains where few settlements have access to electricity. Here they

stumbled on a shepherd who proudly showed them his "magic box" - a cylinder

the size of a coffee tin which gave off everlasting heat and kept his family

warm during the winter months.



The experts discovered the "magic box" was in fact a strontium battery,

containing a highly toxic osteotrope which attacks bone marrow and can

trigger leukaemia. Strontium 90 has a radioactive output of 45,000 curies -

1.7 billion times the acceptable level for nuclear industry workers in

France.



It explained the medical complaints and physical exhaustion, which had

dogged the shepherd's family for months.

Shooting it down would be the height of hypocrisy after the criticism directed at what the Chinese did around about this time last year.

I would tend to agree. I was probably a little too gentle and politically correct with my wording. However I still think there are some circumstances that it might be warranted. But for the most part I agree it is probably very hypocritical and foolish.

The apparently foolish and hypocritical idea to shoot it down seems to be coming from the press/media rather than the military.

[Willezurmacht]

Cool posts on the Russian strontium batteries. I expect that this satellite does indeed contain radioactive substances. I also wonder what they mean by "large." Correct me here- isnt a Hubble-sized object close to the maximum for a single-flight launch?

[HalcyonDays]

Cool posts on the Russian strontium batteries. I expect that this satellite does indeed contain radioactive substances. I also wonder what they mean by "large." Correct me here- isnt a Hubble-sized object close to the maximum for a single-flight launch?

There's something on the globalsecurity.org website to the effect that it is known as either NROL-21 or USA-193, launched from Vandenburg in 2006. Contact was lost immediately after orbital insertion. It wasn't a Shuttle launch and will be considerably lighter than a Hubble-sized satellite (eg. the KH series). I would rather doubt it has any nuclear materials on board.

[Willezurmacht]

Thanks, here is the link.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/e-305.htm

[Willezurmacht]

This link is interesting as well,

http://science.nasa.gov/realtime/

[Dmmoore]

You can not shoot down an object in orbit. You can fragment an object into small enough pieces that they should burn up when the orbit decays.

[FlyingPhotog]

[b]"We are looking at potential options to mitigate any possible damage this satellite may cause," said Gordon Johndroe, who speaks for the US National Security Council.

Questioned by The Associated Press, he would not be drawn on whether the US would try to destroy the satellite, perhaps with a missile.

"We are looking at potential options to mitigate any possible damage this satellite may cause," he said.

Does this guy work in the Department of Redundancy Department?

[Dmmoore]

Does this guy work in the Department of Redundancy Department?

He works for the U.S. government, same thing.

[Highkeas]

This sounds like a lot of media hype to me.
Here is what the AIAA said about the satellite in a recent news letter http://webmail.pas.earthlink.net/wam/msg.jsp?msgid=22009&folder=INBOX.Trash&isSeen=true&x=840892381fficeffice" />>>
Falling satellite unlikely to be dangerous, experts say.>>

In continuing coverage from yesterday's briefing, Time (1/28, Kluger) reported that "20,000 lbs. of flaming metal are going to start raining out of the sky, and nobody can say exactly where on Earth it's going to happen," because a U.S. spy satellite stop responding to its controllers. "The upside is, there's almost no rational reason you should give it a second thought." Seventy percent of the Earth's surface is water and "the majority of the Earthly land mass is uninhabited." Along with "the small size of the doomed craft," it "probably means its death will be nothing more than a pleasant sky show for the few people lucky enough to see it." >>

New Scientist (1/28, Plamer) added, "Most experts...see little to be concerned about." During reentry, the satellite should break up into "tea-tray-sized chunks of debris." Still, "it is currently impossible to work out where pieces of the satellite are likely to come down" and "the likely crash area will only become clear about a day before re-entry." Also, while "the most dangerous component aboard is hydrazine, a highly poisonous rocket fuel," John Locker, a British engineer and satellite consultant, "points out that USA-193 did not tap into its fuel reserves, meaning the tanks are probably still full. This makes them much more likely to explode during re-entry." >>

BBC News (1/28, Westcott) noted, "Some sections of the media...have seized the opportunity to sound the alert, recalling the ffice:smarttags" />lace>Hollywoodlace> blockbuster, Armageddon." AFP (1/2 and the Aero-News Network (1/2 also covered the story. >>

White House said to be monitoring situation. MSNBC (1/2 reported that White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe "said the lace>U.S.lace> government was monitoring the satellite's descent from orbit and examining different options to 'mitigate any damage.'" While the military could hit the satellite with a missile, a senior lace>U.S.lace> defense official said "that was unlikely for several reasons, including concern about creating space debris." >>