If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   China wants the U.S. to share data as to where the pieces of the spy satellite we shot down will land. You know, so they're certain they won't get hurt, yeah, that's it   (nytimes.com) divider line 21
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

764 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Feb 2008 at 11:52 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



21 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2008-02-21 12:07:01 PM  
I was wondering about this.....when the missile hit this satellite, isn't it possible/likely that pieces of the satellite will be accelerated to speeds capable of keeping them in orbit for a long time, thus adding to the problem of a quarter inch or smaller piece slamming into, say, the space station or a shuttle and causing lots of damage??
 
2008-02-21 12:07:21 PM  
They're making a fuss about this because they want to be seen as a space-faring nation on equal footing with the US and Russia. If they're given private telemetry data than they're seen as just as viable as the United States, is regarding orbital capacities, in the political eyes of the world.

The SM-3 is designed for a kinetic kill for 100% certainty of hitting, compared to proximity warheads that come standard with other missiles.

www.designation-systems.net

There ain't much left of that satellite after a direct hit from an SM-3, fell through our atmosphere and collided with the ocean to scatter under a multi-mile deep ocean.

/rockin' the hotlinks
 
2008-02-21 12:08:09 PM  
well they supposedly landed in the ocean.
maybe they'll join that 60 square m. sea of plastic in the middle of the pacific...
 
2008-02-21 12:11:28 PM  
Grither:

Its always a possibility. Low earth orbit pollution is a huge problem. Anything larger than 10cm is tracked due to its potential hazard. You can bet if pieces fly off, they'll be tracked, too.

http://www.pollutionissues.com/Re-Sy/Space-Pollution.html (new window)
 
2008-02-21 12:13:43 PM  
Regarding this, I keep hearing a fuss about the hydrazine tank on the dam thing. My chemistry teacher told me a while back that its really toxic as in causes mutations. It didn't mention that in wiki but here it is...

Hydrazine is highly toxic and dangerously unstable, especially in the anhydrous form. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:

Symptoms of acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of hydrazine may include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, dizziness, headache, nausea, pulmonary edema, seizures, coma in humans. Acute exposure can also damage the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system. The liquid is corrosive and may produce dermatitis from skin contact in humans and animals. Effects to the lungs, liver, spleen, and thyroid have been reported in animals chronically exposed to hydrazine via inhalation. Increased incidences of lung, nasal cavity, and liver tumors have been observed in rodents exposed to hydrazine.


And the fire diamond for it... is red 3 blue 3 yellow 3
www.delmar.edu

www.delmar.edu

seems like real nasty stuff...
 
2008-02-21 12:34:21 PM  
Grither: I was wondering about this.....when the missile hit this satellite, isn't it possible/likely that pieces of the satellite will be accelerated to speeds capable of keeping them in orbit for a long time, thus adding to the problem of a quarter inch or smaller piece slamming into, say, the space station or a shuttle and causing lots of damage??


Yeah, they acquire new orbits, but if you think about it because the bits got their delta V as a quick impulse, all the orbits pass through that original area where the explosion was. That point is low down in the atmosphere, so even those few pieces that got a kick into a high elliptical orbit will be returning to that low point and being subjected to air drag which will finish them off soon enough. Plus a lot of the possible orbits intersect the Earth on the next pass. It is not like the mess that China made where a hundred thousand or more pieces will orbit virtually forever, what a bunch of idiots.
 
2008-02-21 12:42:56 PM  
img360.imageshack.us
 
2008-02-21 12:45:35 PM  
We should just point to random places on the map and see if they go running to them.
 
2008-02-21 12:55:21 PM  
Apparently China has no orbital tracking capability of their own. How quaint and 3rd world.
 
2008-02-21 12:57:55 PM  
Grither: I was wondering about this.....when the missile hit this satellite, isn't it possible/likely that pieces of the satellite will be accelerated to speeds capable of keeping them in orbit for a long time, thus adding to the problem of a quarter inch or smaller piece slamming into, say, the space station or a shuttle and causing lots of damage??

I thought the SM3 was modified so that the warhead would be kinetic only no explosive payload. The impact was on the fuel tank so that it would be punctured and the fuel would vaporize in space or on descent.
 
2008-02-21 01:00:01 PM  
Spindle: We should just point to random places on the map and see if they go running to them.

OMG NO! What if they all run towards one point? Will the Earth tip over?
 
2008-02-21 01:23:54 PM  
Massa Damnata embedded patently racist image


img206.imageshack.us

/ so solly...
 
2008-02-21 02:46:44 PM  
peregrineeagle
maybe they'll join that 60 square m. sea of plastic in the middle of the pacific...


That thing is the size of Texas.
 
2008-02-21 02:55:23 PM  
Rock Hudson and Patrick McGoohan have been dispatched by submarine to check the impact point.
 
2008-02-21 03:41:00 PM  
Why doesn't uncle benny just axe us for a complete satellite?
 
2008-02-21 04:05:04 PM  
wasn't this the mechanism behind the zombie outbreak in "Shaun of the Dead"?
 
2008-02-21 06:45:22 PM  
1. The hydrazine story seems very questionable to me as what are the chances it or its container survive the re-entry intact? My "Bogus government smokescreen" detector is going off big time.

2. So could the real reason for all this fanfare be to demonstrate to the Rusians and Chinese that we can shoot their sattelites down any damn time we want to?

I long ago arrived at a point in my life where I never take anything the government says at face value. Spin Spin Spin, Lie Lie Lie.
 
2008-02-22 09:19:30 AM  
Gurrker: 1. The hydrazine story seems very questionable to me as what are the chances it or its container survive the re-entry intact? My "Bogus government smokescreen" detector is going off big time.

2. So could the real reason for all this fanfare be to demonstrate to the Rusians and Chinese that we can shoot their sattelites down any damn time we want to?

I long ago arrived at a point in my life where I never take anything the government says at face value. Spin Spin Spin, Lie Lie Lie.


1. That satelite was a 5,000 lb. Bus..With 1,000 gallons of frozen hydrazine. The fuel is stored in a tank that is extremely hard to breach. Entering the atmosphere was not enough to really destroy it with the amount of time it spends in there. When the Columbia shuttle blew up, the only intacked peice of debris they found was the fuel tank floating in the ocean. Its built not to fall apart.
2. Well why not? I don't think that was only reason we destroyed it. More Importantly, I think it demonstrates that we can shoot any other country's missiles down.
 
2008-02-22 10:10:54 AM  
Gurrker
doupathol:
When the Columbia shuttle blew up, the only intacked peice of debris they found was the fuel tank floating in the ocean.

No. Intact would be a big word, but there's a pic somewhere of the nose landing gear I believe, about the length of a car. The rubber on the tires hadn't even melted.
 
2008-02-22 11:24:29 AM  
flexflint: Gurrker
doupathol: When the Columbia shuttle blew up, the only intacked peice of debris they found was the fuel tank floating in the ocean.

No. Intact would be a big word, but there's a pic somewhere of the nose landing gear I believe, about the length of a car. The rubber on the tires hadn't even melted.


I apologize, I retract my earlier statement. Sometimes I am plagued with mis information. The hydrazine tank was found fully intact in a wooded area in Texas. Not the ocean. Although the Columbia Accident Investigation Report shows the landing gear but isn't even close to being the "length of a car".
Oh yes, and Columbia "blowing up" isn't right either...Pardon me.

/likes the taste of own foot in mouth.
 
2008-02-22 12:39:07 PM  
doupathol: Oh yes, and Columbia "blowing up" isn't right either...Pardon me.

/likes the taste of own foot in mouth.


Erm ... that "No" was in response to your "Entering the atmosphere was not enough to really destroy it", as in "No, you're right." Sorry for the confusion.

/Case of the Fridays.
//Have a nice weekend.
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report