Comments on: The United States to join China’s follies in creating space debris? http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/02/14/us-space-debris/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:39:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Bryan http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/02/14/us-space-debris/comment-page-1/#comment-24013 Bryan Fri, 02 May 2008 14:31:46 +0000 http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/02/14/us-space-debris/#comment-24013 I thought this sounded a bit alarmist. The shooting down of the US satellite was specifically planned to not create space debris. Thank You NASA for being a responsible space agency. "The intercept attempt, which will involve a Standard Missile 3 fired from a U.S. Navy Aegis ship, will take place during a window that opens after NASA's space shuttle Atlantis returns from its International Space Station-construction mission Feb. 20 and will remain open for several days. The window was selected based on the satellite's current re-entry trajectory and the U.S. government's desire to minimize hazards in space, in the air and on the ground." Quoted from space.com I thought this sounded a bit alarmist. The shooting down of the US satellite was specifically planned to not create space debris. Thank You NASA for being a responsible space agency.

“The intercept attempt, which will involve a Standard Missile 3 fired from a U.S. Navy Aegis ship, will take place during a window that opens after NASA’s space shuttle Atlantis returns from its International Space Station-construction mission Feb. 20 and will remain open for several days. The window was selected based on the satellite’s current re-entry trajectory and the U.S. government’s desire to minimize hazards in space, in the air and on the ground.”
Quoted from space.com

]]> By: Cyde Weys http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/02/14/us-space-debris/comment-page-1/#comment-16342 Cyde Weys Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:30:59 +0000 http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/02/14/us-space-debris/#comment-16342 Well that isn't my TFA. The one I linked had decidedly less information. So they're going to shoot down the satellite at 150 miles. I wonder what percentage of the debris will be blasted into a higher orbit, where it will be able to survive much longer than the two weeks figure given for the 150 mile orbit? Well that isn’t my TFA. The one I linked had decidedly less information. So they’re going to shoot down the satellite at 150 miles. I wonder what percentage of the debris will be blasted into a higher orbit, where it will be able to survive much longer than the two weeks figure given for the 150 mile orbit?

]]> By: drinian http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/02/14/us-space-debris/comment-page-1/#comment-16335 drinian Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:23:15 +0000 http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/02/14/us-space-debris/#comment-16335 Tsk, you have failed to RTFA. (<a href="http://www.space.com/news/080214-sn-destroy-spysat.html" rel="nofollow">Here's a good one</a>). The satellite is going to be intercepted during re-entry, in order to ensure that the space junk _doesn't_ end up in orbit. I'll be pretty impressed if they can pull this off, although as I understand it these are pretty big satellites. Tsk, you have failed to RTFA. (Here’s a good one). The satellite is going to be intercepted during re-entry, in order to ensure that the space junk _doesn’t_ end up in orbit. I’ll be pretty impressed if they can pull this off, although as I understand it these are pretty big satellites.

]]> By: Cyde Weys http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/02/14/us-space-debris/comment-page-1/#comment-16323 Cyde Weys Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:16:24 +0000 http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/02/14/us-space-debris/#comment-16323 Unshielded re-entry is harsh on objects that are designed to be as light as possible to make it to orbit in the first place. Whatever pieces do end up coming down in one piece are still going to be mostly destroyed, and it would be one hell of a reverse-engineering effort to work on. I think the real motivation is the same kind of propaganda that China got from destroying its satellite. There is a real military PR benefit to demonstrating the capability of taking down satellites. I think they're using this failed satellite as a flimsy pretext of having something to shoot at. Remember, the satellite the Chinese took out was at end-of-life too. Unshielded re-entry is harsh on objects that are designed to be as light as possible to make it to orbit in the first place. Whatever pieces do end up coming down in one piece are still going to be mostly destroyed, and it would be one hell of a reverse-engineering effort to work on.

I think the real motivation is the same kind of propaganda that China got from destroying its satellite. There is a real military PR benefit to demonstrating the capability of taking down satellites. I think they’re using this failed satellite as a flimsy pretext of having something to shoot at. Remember, the satellite the Chinese took out was at end-of-life too.

]]> By: Kelly Martin http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/02/14/us-space-debris/comment-page-1/#comment-16321 Kelly Martin Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:10:08 +0000 http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/02/14/us-space-debris/#comment-16321 The reason they're shooting it down is that this is a spy satellite with sooper-sekrit technology that they don't want falling in someone else's hands. So they're going to try to blow it up. The satellite itself is disabled; normally what they do with these when they hit end of life is deliberately steer them either into a long-lived outer orbit or into a controlled reentry somewhere where they can recover it. This one failed shortly after launch and never responded to commands, though, so they can't do that. I also think part of the motivation is simply that blowing things up is fun. The reason they’re shooting it down is that this is a spy satellite with sooper-sekrit technology that they don’t want falling in someone else’s hands. So they’re going to try to blow it up. The satellite itself is disabled; normally what they do with these when they hit end of life is deliberately steer them either into a long-lived outer orbit or into a controlled reentry somewhere where they can recover it. This one failed shortly after launch and never responded to commands, though, so they can’t do that.

I also think part of the motivation is simply that blowing things up is fun.

]]>