Science and Society
The Latest Developments in Science and Technology
Ned Potter is the science correspondent for ABC's "World News with Charles Gibson." He has reported on such topics as space exploration, the human genome and climate change.
RECENT POSTS
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
How to Down a Wayward Satellite
February 15, 2008 1:40 PM
ABC's Luis Martinez reports the following new details on how the Navy would try to intercept USA-193, the disabled reconnaissance satellite the Pentagon announced yesterday it would try to destroy before it re-enters the atmosphere:
-- The total cost of the operation to hit the satellite is $74 million. Three SM-3 missiles have been modified for this mission at a cost of $10 million each. For comparison, the first test of an SM-3 fired from a destroyer last June cost $50 million.
-- The first missile will be fired from the cruiser USS Lake Erie. Two destroyers will also be a part of the mission and each will be equipped with back-up missiles.
-- The ships will be operating in waters west of the Hawaiian island of Kauai, mainly because that is where the Navy's missile tests take place Therefore, all the clearances, procedures and authorizations are already in place.
-- The seven or eight day window for launching the missile at the satellite begins Sunday, Feb. 17. However, the Navy will not fire the missile until after the shuttle Atlantis returns to earth on Feb. 20.
One extra point: there have been a lot of posts, some joking and others not, about where the remains of the satellite might land. The government's problem is that it doesn't know. The density of the upper atmosphere varies constantly because of temperature, solar wind, and other factors. NOAA actually runs a Space Weather Prediction Center; find more HERE.
==============
UPDATE, Friday evening:
ABC's Gina Sunseri, covering the current shuttle mission from Houston, reports that in order to get Atlantis on the ground and out of the Defense Department's way, it will activate the landing strips at both the Kennedy Space Center and Edwards Air Force Base in California on Wednesday, when the shuttle is scheduled to land.
This is not standard procedure. To save expense and trouble, NASA usually only brings up KSC on the first landing day, and if the weather interferes, they wait. It's actually cheaper to let the astronauts orbit for an extra day than it is to have landing crews at the ready at Edwards, and then ship a shuttle all the way across the country to Florida.
Atlantis, orbiting somewhat higher and in a very different orbit from USA 193, is not actually "in the way" of potential debris if the Navy's missile works, but shuttles have been dinged by small pieces of space junk before, and, well, things have gotten complicated enough.
(Above: ABC News graphic, based on drawing from GlobalSecurity.org.)
February 15, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (78)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
What if they miss?
Posted by: Dan | Feb 15, 2008 1:55:34 PM
Anyone think this is a waste of money.... ????
Posted by: jahli | Feb 15, 2008 2:01:48 PM
Everything the government does is a waste of money. Why should this be any different?
Posted by: Josh | Feb 15, 2008 2:08:08 PM
I'm betting one of these missiles end up on Iranian soil.. OOPS! Did we do thaaaat??
Posted by: DJ | Feb 15, 2008 2:20:40 PM
Given that this satellite cost hundreds of millions to put in space and was 'officially' never used for anything...yeah...it's a waste of money.
Posted by: Pip | Feb 15, 2008 2:31:12 PM
Why not open bids? Maybe China can do it cheaper?
Posted by: TarAndFeathers | Feb 15, 2008 2:35:04 PM
Johnathan Karl who says something like this has never been done before? Did you forget china did shoot a satellite down a few months ago?
Posted by: Ruskin | Feb 15, 2008 2:40:34 PM
Ok, anyone that thinks this is being done to prevent ‘fuel’ from reaching earth [NY Times, 2/15/08] is either delirious or so completely ignorant of space propulsion systems as to be a complete idiot.
Here’s the deal.
1.More than 100 metric tons of man-made objects reenter the atmosphere in an uncontrolled fashion each year .
2.We have NEVER needed to ‘shoot’ any of it down.
3.Fuel tanks are NOT designed to withstand reentry. Ever. They will burn up in the atmosphere along with any unspent fuel.
No, there can only be one of several reasons this satellite poses a danger. The more plausible reasons the US would spent $70million to take this thing down is that this Spy satellite has ‘something’ aboard that is sensitive. I could believe that:
a.It has a ‘hard drive’ containing intelligence data - or other type of memory or equipment; pictures, etc. - that could survive and fall in the wrong hands;
b.It uses an advanced nuclear power source – Isn’t that prohibited by international treaty or something?
c.It has a defunct defensive weapon system on board – also, I believe, prohibited by international treaty.
d.It has a defunct offensive weapon system on board – I KNOW that is prohibited by international treaty.
But don’t think for a minute that it is a ‘fuel hazard'.
Posted by: JWB | Feb 15, 2008 2:41:37 PM
Seems too expensive to fire a single missile. But hey, I am sure there is a no-bid contract to buy another solid gold missile.
And no price is too high to keep the public from finding out the real details of the spying. And that's what the real motivation is. they are worried the electronics will survive re-entry and someone will determine the extent of thier spying. They dont care about your safety.
Posted by: ken | Feb 15, 2008 2:43:40 PM
Ken: I would not suggest that they don’t care about our safety. I have worked on many government and military programs. There are many good citizens and genuine patriots in our government.
I'm just saying I don’t think that they would spend $70mil to cover a 1% probability of danger given the amount of space junk that enters the atmosphere every year unnoticed.
Posted by: JWB | Feb 15, 2008 2:52:04 PM
As there is no homing beacon on it, I would give long odds that they miss.
All of their other "hits" required a beacon.
No one has brought up the fact that they may just want to play with expensive toys.
Posted by: Ed | Feb 15, 2008 2:53:34 PM
It is a shot in the dark but for that kind of money and the salvage value of the satellite, why doesn't NASA send the shuttle to retrieve it?
Posted by: Peter Sellers | Feb 15, 2008 2:56:53 PM
Why not ask the Chinese to do it? Afterall, they have the capability and experience.
Posted by: R | Feb 15, 2008 2:59:40 PM
Senator Spector wants the Patriots spy satilight removed so they can't continue taping signals.
Posted by: old viking45 | Feb 15, 2008 3:04:25 PM
Give me a break! How much money do these fools waste every single minute of every single day? They could care less if it killed anyone - other than themselves. Probably has a nuke on it or something; I don't believe anything they say.
Posted by: Grim Reaper | Feb 15, 2008 3:05:43 PM
That satallite was sent up in Dec. 2006, I would think that these scientist would of put a self–truction mechanism on all satallites sent up. It would of cost a couple of dollars compared to this.
Posted by: Charles | Feb 15, 2008 3:06:14 PM
to JWB:
You said: "3.Fuel tanks are NOT designed to withstand reentry. Ever. They will burn up in the atmosphere along with any unspent fuel."
There are LOTS of debris that has survived reentry including FUEL TANKS.
Delta Stage 2 563lb stainless steel tank
Delta fuel tank
Pressure sphere
Orbital Debris Recovered Objects
Posted by: crow | Feb 15, 2008 3:08:51 PM
Why doesn't it get picked up by Atlantis to be returned in its cargo bay?
Posted by: stan | Feb 15, 2008 3:10:27 PM
stan , if you were the astrounut would you want to carry that thing in re-entry
Posted by: Charles | Feb 15, 2008 3:12:24 PM
Didn't have to worry about shooting Skylab down, now did we?
Posted by: newztixr | Feb 15, 2008 3:16:09 PM
Post a comment
