US to Try to Shoot Down Spy Satellite

advertisement

WASHINGTON — Taking a page from Hollywood science fiction, the Pentagon said Thursday it will try to shoot down a dying, bus-size U.S. spy satellite loaded with toxic fuel on a collision course with the Earth.

The military hopes to smash the satellite as soon as next week — just before it enters Earth's atmosphere — with a single missile fired from a Navy cruiser in the northern Pacific Ocean.

The dramatic maneuver may well trigger international concerns, and U.S. officials have begun notifying other countries of the plan — stressing that it does not signal the start of a new American anti-satellite weapons program.

Military and administration officials said the satellite is carrying fuel called hydrazine that could injure or even kill people who are near it when it hits the ground. That reason alone, they said, persuaded President Bush to order the shoot-down.

"That is the only thing that breaks it out, that is worthy of taking extraordinary measures," said Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, during a Pentagon briefing.

He predicted a fairly high chance — as much as 80 percent — of hitting the satellite, which will be about 150 miles up when the shot is fired. The window of opportunity for taking the satellite down, Cartwright said, opens in three or four days and lasts for about seven or eight days.

"We'll take one shot and assess," he said. "This is the first time we've used a tactical missile to engage a spacecraft."

Deputy National Security Adviser James Jeffrey discounted comparisons to an anti-satellite test conducted by the Chinese last year that triggered criticism from the U.S. and other countries.

"This is all about trying to reduce the danger to human beings," Jeffrey said. "Specifically, there was enough of a risk for the president to be quite concerned about human life."

There might also be unstated military aims, some outside the administration suggested.

Similar spacecraft re-enter the atmosphere regularly and break up into pieces, said Ivan Oelrich, vice president for strategic security programs at the Federation of American Scientists. He said, "One could be forgiven for asking if this is just an excuse to test an anti-satellite weapon."

A key issue when China shot down its defunct weather satellite was that it created an enormous amount of space debris.

"All of the debris from this encounter, as carefully designed as it is, will be down at most within weeks, and most of it will be down within the first couple of orbits afterward," said Jeffrey. "There's an enormous difference to spacefaring nations in ... those two things."

He and others dismissed suggestions that this was simply an attempt by the U.S. to flex its muscles, and that officials were overstating the toxic fuel threat.

Left alone, the satellite would be expected to hit Earth during the first week of March. About half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft would be expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and would scatter debris over several hundred miles.

If the missile shot is successful, officials said, much of the debris would burn up as it fell. They said they could not estimate how much would make it through the atmosphere. They said the largest piece that would survive re-entry would be the spherical fuel tank, which is about 40 inches wide — assuming it is not hit directly by the missile.

The goal, however, is to hit the fuel tank in order to minimize the amount of fuel that returns to Earth, Cartwright said.

A Navy missile known as Standard Missile 3 would be fired at the spy satellite in an attempt to intercept it just before it re-enters Earth's atmosphere. It would be "next to impossible" to hit the satellite after that because of atmospheric disturbances, he said.

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.

Software associated with the Standard Missile 3 has been modified to enhance the chances of the missile's sensors recognizing that the satellite is its target. The missile's designed mission is to shoot down ballistic missiles, not satellites. Other officials said the missile's maximum range, while a classified figure, is not great enough to hit a satellite operating in normal orbits.

"It's a one-time deal," Cartwright said when asked whether the modified Standard Missile 3 should be considered a new U.S. anti-satellite technology.

He said that if an initial shoot-down attempt fails, the military would have about two days to reassess and decide whether to take a second shot.

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told reporters that analysis shows the hydrazine tank would survive a fall to Earth under normal circumstances, much as one did when the Space Shuttle Columbia crashed.

"The hydrazine which is in it is frozen solid, as it is now. Not all of it will melt," he said. If the tank hits the ground it will have been breached because the fuel lines will have broken off and hydrazine will vent out, he said.

Jeffrey said members of Congress were briefed on the plan earlier Thursday and that diplomatic notifications to other countries were being made by the end of the day.

"It should be understood by all, at home and abroad, that this is an exceptional circumstance and should not be perceived as the standard U.S. policy for dealing with errant satellites," said House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton.

___

Associated Press Writers Pauline Jelinek, Robert Burns and Ted Bridis contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil

  • 12 Votes
  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top

Published to:

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
10
5.9
2.4
{"commentId":1470147,"authorDomain":"restso"}

Gotta show China their display will not go unanswered... even if it's a little more than a year later...

{"commentId":1470147,"threadId":"219572","contentId":"1301423","authorDomain":"restso"}
  • 2 votes
Reply#1 - Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:18 PM EST
{"commentId":1470199,"authorDomain":"TeddRi"}

Just think of all that wonderful space junk now scattered all over space. Should be interesting, hope they don't miss and take out someone else satellite, that could be a bit embarrassing....

{"commentId":1470199,"threadId":"219572","contentId":"1301423","authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:29 PM EST
Reply
{"commentId":1470230,"authorDomain":"TeddRi"}

Here is a little more details of why.

U.S. Considering Shooting Down Satellite

{"commentId":1470230,"threadId":"219572","contentId":"1301423","authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#2 - Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:33 PM EST
{"commentId":1470527,"authorDomain":"divbyzero"}

I think it would be a good test of our anti-satellite weaponry.

{"commentId":1470527,"threadId":"219572","contentId":"1301423","authorDomain":"divbyzero"}
  • 2 votes
Reply#3 - Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:32 PM EST
{"commentId":1470652,"authorDomain":"TeddRi"}

From that side, I agree, we never have done a real test. I just hope it does not end up getting to many nations thinking we are starting up "Star Wars" again.

{"commentId":1470652,"threadId":"219572","contentId":"1301423","authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
  • 1 vote
#3.1 - Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:57 PM EST
Reply
{"commentId":1470640,"authorDomain":"TeddRi"}

I feel that when this story hits more of the major media it is going to be a mess.

This is not the first nor the last satellite that has come down out of orbit and to me, it seems like there is way more put into this one then needed. With the vast majority of the earth's surface covered in water that cuts the chances of danger way down to begin with. Since it is a highly classified Lockheed Satellite, nobody agree's on what the actual weight of it really is, however I don't understand how they can come to the conclusion about that "half of the 5000 pd spacecraft is expected to survive". I have never seen those kind of survival figures ever stated for a satellite. They are not designed to re-enter the earth's atmosphere.

Even when we had the ill fated Space Shuttle Columbia disaster which is a space designed to withstand the rigors of re-entry, that broke into well over 2000 debris field's and no injuries to persons on the ground.

The rocket fuel hydrazine that the satellite normally carries and is one of the reasons that is stated for the dangers of the spacecraft is also a very unknown topic. There are no fuel gauges on board a satellite and the reason that the satellite is dead (as far as the public has been told is that it is out of fuel). Also I would think any hydrazine since it is highly flammable would burn off during re-entry.

The other Major Issue. The United Nations. I could see this as causing some major discussions at the moment especially considering the current debates on this topic.

U.N. Weighs a Ban on Weapons in Space, but U.S. Still Objects

{"commentId":1470640,"threadId":"219572","contentId":"1301423","authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
  • 2 votes
Reply#4 - Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:55 PM EST
{"commentId":1470662,"authorDomain":"comsen"}

The problem reported with the satellite's failure is that it suffered a computer failure shortly after launch. As a result, it has a full fuel load on board.

{"commentId":1470662,"threadId":"219572","contentId":"1301423","authorDomain":"comsen"}
  • 3 votes
#4.1 - Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:59 PM EST
{"commentId":1470749,"authorDomain":"TeddRi"}

OK thanks for that update. All the articles I had read, said it had run out of fuel which to me, I found hard to beleive as that is pretty rare to have happen especially with a almost brand new satellite.

{"commentId":1470749,"threadId":"219572","contentId":"1301423","authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
  • 1 vote
#4.2 - Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:21 PM EST
Reply
{"commentId":1471114,"authorDomain":"bluemutiny"}

"Oops, it landed in Iran."

{"commentId":1471114,"threadId":"219572","contentId":"1301423","authorDomain":"bluemutiny"}
  • 3 votes
Reply#5 - Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:56 PM EST
{"commentId":1471312,"authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
The Pentagon has confirmed today that the former US Spy satellite did successfully land in Tehran, Iran, however in the process of landing, the entire city was destroyed
{"commentId":1471312,"threadId":"219572","contentId":"1301423","authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
  • 3 votes
#5.1 - Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:44 PM EST
{"commentId":1472772,"authorDomain":"stevehouse"}

That's hilarious...

But since its so close to the UN proposing a ban on things like this, I have to say America is just trying to flex its muscles. It's such a good idea, too. I mean, look at how much using our military abroad has helped America's standing in the world.

{"commentId":1472772,"threadId":"219572","contentId":"1301423","authorDomain":"stevehouse"}
  • 1 vote
#5.2 - Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:22 AM EST
{"commentId":1474178,"authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
military abroad has helped America's standing in the world.

That's true. Its amazing how everyone loves us so much now....

{"commentId":1474178,"threadId":"219572","contentId":"1301423","authorDomain":"TeddRi"}
  • 2 votes
#5.3 - Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:07 PM EST
Reply
{"commentId":1472825,"authorDomain":"softfacts"}

Military and administration officials said the satellite is carrying fuel called hydrazine that could injure or even kill people who are near it when it hits the ground. That reason alone, they said, persuaded President Bush to order the shoot-down...

"We'll take one shot and assess," [Gen. James Cartwright] said. "This is the first time we've used a tactical missile to engage a spacecraft."

This may very well be a demonstration of our planetary might. Sources suggest that President Bush was "visibly shaken" after a recent screening of the documentary, Mars Attacks!

{"commentId":1472825,"threadId":"219572","contentId":"1301423","authorDomain":"softfacts"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#6 - Fri Feb 15, 2008 4:18 AM EST
{"commentId":1473292,"authorDomain":"divbyzero"}

In thinking about this last night, it struck me that the Pentagon likely realized that sizable salvageable chunks of the satellite would survive reentry and could pose an intelligence risk. Better to try to blow it up into smaller pieces than let it fall into the wrong hands. Otherwise it could very easily become a repeat of that Russian satellite that we recovered.

{"commentId":1473292,"threadId":"219572","contentId":"1301423","authorDomain":"divbyzero"}
  • 4 votes
Reply#7 - Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:40 AM EST
{"commentId":1473827,"authorDomain":"noah"}

*nods*

Destroying the technology is without a doubt the actual priority here.

{"commentId":1473827,"threadId":"219572","contentId":"1301423","authorDomain":"noah"}
  • 1 vote
#7.1 - Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:40 AM EST
Reply
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"219572","isPrivate":false}
Leave a Comment:
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
{"threadId":"219572","contentId":"1301423"}
Start TrackingStart Tracking
Stop TrackingStop Tracking