Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Tuesday, 7th October 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Missile strike on spy satellite 'a success' say US officials



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 21 February 2008
A MISSILE fired to shoot down an out-of-control spy satellite orbiting 130 miles above the Earth's surface successfully destroyed the hazardous onboard fuel tank, US officials said today.
In the first mission of its kind, the US Navy struck the satellite with its first attempt.

But Chinese officials said China was on alert today for possible harmful fallout from the fuel tank and urged Washington to release data to allow the countries likely to be affected to take precautions.

Two US officials said the missile, fired from a US Navy warship, apparently achieved the main aim of destroying the onboard tank of toxic fuel.

President George Bush made the decision to shoot down the 5,000lb USA 193 satellite, which is about the size of a small bus, after predicting that about half the satellite would survive its descent through the atmosphere.

It was equipped with small rocket "thruster" loaded with toxic hydrazine fuel, which can cause coughing, irritated throat and lungs, convulsions, seizures, and long-term exposure can damage the liver, kidney and reproductive organs.

The missile attempt was approved by the US president out of concern that the toxic fuel on board could crash to earth.

The Pentagon said the USS Lake Erie, armed with an SM-3 missile designed to knock down incoming missiles – not orbiting satellites – launched the attack from the Pacific Ocean at around 10.26pm EST on Wednesday (3.26am GMT today).

It hit the satellite as the spacecraft travelled at more than 17,000mph.
The Pentagon spokesman said: "A network of land, air, sea and space-based sensors confirms that the US military intercepted a non-functioning National Reconnaissance Office satellite which was in its final orbits before entering the earth's atmosphere.

"The objective was to rupture the fuel tank to dissipate the approximately 1,000lbs (453 kg) of hydrazine, a hazardous fuel which could pose a danger to people on earth, before it entered into the Earth's atmosphere."

Speaking at a news conference, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said China was "continuously following closely the possible harm caused by the US action to outer space security and relevant countries".

He continued: "China requests the US to fulfil its international obligations in real earnest and provide to the international community necessary information and relevant data in a timely and prompt way so that relevant countries can take precautions."

The Pentagon said debris would begin to re-enter the earth's atmosphere immediately.

The spokesman said: "Nearly all of the debris will burn up on re-entry within 24-48 hours and the remaining debris should re-enter within 40 days."

The US government organised hazardous materials teams, under the codename Burnt Frost, to be flown to the site of any dangerous or otherwise sensitive debris that might land in the United States or elsewhere.

Some observers said the mission blurred the lines between defending against a hostile long-range missile and targeting satellites in orbit.
But US officials insisted it was different to when the Chinese intercepted a satellite in January last year, because that had not posed any risk to human life.

China's anti-satellite test was criticised for being dangerous. The targeted satellite was located about 500 miles (800km) above the earth and the resulting debris threatened communication satellites and other kinds of orbiting space vehicles.

Denny Roy, an expert on the Chinese military at the East-West Center in Honolulu, said the distinction between the two incidents may be lost on many people.

"What the American (have done) greatly undercuts the condemnation heaped on China last year," he said.

The full article contains 611 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 21 February 2008 12:42 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

John Blackley,

Winter Garden, FL 21/02/2008 13:16:48
Given that the current US administration has never declared the purpose of this satellite, what is on board the satellite or where the funding for the satellite came from and, given that their excuse for shooting it down - "out of concern that the toxic fuel on board could crash to earth" - is baloney, I'm not going to buy this 'oh we got it on the first try' story.

In fact, I'll be keeping the dog inside for the next month or so. I don't think a satellite falling in its head would do much for its quality of life.
2

AJ Fife,

21/02/2008 13:17:28
Of course it was a success, everything the Pentagon says is true!
3

azp,

21/02/2008 13:31:40
What complete bologne - also moving targets - shoot down sats to test if could shoot down other targets like alien (foreign) missiles - and what is the carbon footprint for this ?
4

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 21/02/2008 13:35:13
#1, I have to agree.
If the major portions of the 5000 lb Sat. will burn up in the atmosphere so would the volatile fuel. This explanation is non-sense.

"Hydrazine was first used as a rocket fuel during World War II for the Messerschmitt Me 163B (the first rocket-powered fighter plane), under the name B-Stoff (hydrazine hydrate). If mixed with methanol (M-Stoff) and water it is called C-Stoff.

Hydrazine is also used as a low-power monopropellant for the maneuvering thrusters of spacecraft, and the Space Shuttle's Auxiliary Power Units. In addition, monopropellant hydrazine-fueled rocket engines are often used in terminal descent of spacecraft. A collection of such engines was used in both Viking program landers as well as the Phoenix lander launched in August 2007.

In all hydrazine monopropellant engines, the hydrazine is passed by a catalyst such as iridium metal supported by high-surface-area alumina (aluminium oxide) or carbon nanofibers,[14] or more recently molybdenum nitride on alumina,[15] which causes it to decompose into ammonia, nitrogen gas, and hydrogen gas according to the following reactions: " It burns.

5

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA....Bye Bye Bush -Cheney..u. evil lead 21/02/2008 14:32:50
Hey Dudes this is another example of our Pentagon trying to cover up what their real intention was .
A practice shoot.

So they can take out any other country's spy satellites when the need arises.

GC
6

SouthernGent,

21/02/2008 14:33:09
Its a simple chess game. After China showed what they can do, the next move was up to the US. The powers are simply moving the pawns.
7

,

21/02/2008 14:40:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

Sandi,

San Diego 21/02/2008 15:42:27
Well this is a red letter day indeed. We all agree that the whole story stinks!
9

Lanna,

21/02/2008 16:15:03
#2 AJ,
well of course it is.... ;)

#6 SouthernGent,
interesting observation, Sir
10

Waspy100,

21/02/2008 16:15:36
Am I alone in finding this story a little bit reassuring?
Knowing there is the means to take out rouge satellites
or even rouge misiles from unfriendly nations whom keep threatening to "blast the West"
New cold war eh?
The present wars are too hot for my liking
11

Bob Fae Fife,

21/02/2008 16:19:52
What crap!!! Would the fuel not have ignited & burnt up when entering the Earth’s atmosphere?
The Pentagon just didn’t want any of its secrets falling (literally) into foreign hands.
12

mike - across the pond,

reading republic... 21/02/2008 16:22:10
from what I initially heard this fuel tank posed some giant risk... a LITTLE more information would have clarified things IMMENSELY... however that would have cut the legs from under the sexxy panic factor quality of the story...

bottom line, you didnt read all of the article on hydrazine you quoted...

the part you missed is how it is stored... "By storing the hydrazine in a tank full of a double-bonded carbon-oxygen carbonyl, the fuel reacts and forms a safe solid called hydrazone. By then flushing the tank with warm water, the liquid hydrazine hydrate is released."

plug THIS little factoid into the story the ever so responisible media gave us... and the story becomes a lot less sensational....

If we had done nothing and the tank somehow survived re-entry intact it could have left a rather large pile of this stuff that could then have released its hydrate when exposed to rain... or ground water...

this way it will burn up on re-entry...

and even if this isnt exactly how it was stored, it most likely was stored in a chemically similar fashion....
13

Lynne,

USA 21/02/2008 16:26:18
Southern Gent..I agree with you. China did not care what any other country was thinking and saying when they did this.. Someone had to respond, and as ususal it was us. Just pawns on a chessboard making strategic moves.
14

Hickory,

US 21/02/2008 16:39:17
Well,well,it looks like our yanks have something up their sleeve to stop Iran's madness. You lefties will just have to rant and rave. The destruction of innocents can be stopped so, take an aspirin and you'll get over it. If you can't, tough stuff.
15

Ben More,

Edinburgh 21/02/2008 17:00:48
U....S....A....U....S....A....U....S....A! (It starts as a slow, quiet chant and grows to a deafening, roaring crescendo). If you listen, you can hear it building. It's on the lips of the free world today. Rest easy, ya whinging lefties, SNP stooges and useful idiots, Uncle Sam's going to protect you.
16

Reading Public 1,

Wisc 21/02/2008 17:02:19
#12, Mike from across the pond,
Hi Guy, thanks for adding that part, but it seems to me that used as a propellant it would be in a combustible form; however at 1000lbs It enters at 17,000 MPH I'm pretty sure it would burn even if it was water.
I think the point being the Pentagon does not want parts of the Sat to get through.
What I find on the + side it they have obviously come a long way with President Reagen's "Star Wars" scenario.
17

SouthernGent,

21/02/2008 17:07:53
Another way to look at it - IF the satellite was going to come down anyway, this was perfect on-the-job training. A chance for the Navy to use their systems in live action. Its not everyday that items fall out of space. Remember, there have been previous tests that have failed. I for one would rather them know it works, before it fails if ever truly under attack.
18

El_Kabooko,

Sacramento 21/02/2008 17:30:26
#4,

Save everyone some time and just link to Wikipedia.org!

As for burning up, the compound in question was in frozen form and contained in a tank. So it's possible it would make it to the ground. It's not like a tank of gasoline! They use the term "fuel" erroneously; it's basically a thruster that uses compressed gas to maneuver. That's why there was only type of fuel.

This is part of the reason I don't respond to this site much anymore. No one here wants to read up and then respond intelligently, they just chuck out whatever comes to mind, which includes all the conspiracy junk!
19

Waspy100,

21/02/2008 17:31:30
#15
Wouldnt go that far. whinging lefties? SNP stooges,? and useful idiots?
Which one do you belong to?
20

Amparo de Glasgow,

21/02/2008 17:49:30
#6
SG
+
#13
Lynne

Yup just a wee bit of posturing huh??

Och well ...

"Boys will be boys"
21

,

21/02/2008 17:52:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

Amparo de Glasgow,

21/02/2008 17:57:56
#17
Southern Gent ...

The problem both United States and Chinese strikes have is all they wee fragments (which fly at incredible speed)
... which are difficult to track.

Next time the Shuttle goes up
... and the Astronauts need to do a 'space-walk'

... to repair the heat-shield (hence ensuring no repeats of other exploding Shuttles during re-entry)

It makes all space-walks extremely hazardous
... because these fragments travel fast and wallop into the astronauts
... i.e. sudden death
... or bad injuries with no Earth-based hospital facilities to treat injured party.

Pretty stupid of the Chinese and your own government really.
23

Ben More,

Edinburgh 21/02/2008 18:49:07
19--none of the above, thank you. Although intentionally overblown, I was, at the end of the day, quite serious. I am heartened by this American demonstration of ability and resolve.
24

W Smith,

Middle East 21/02/2008 19:32:48
#23 Ben
Well said.

In my opinion, Salmond and his "the Islamic faith is one of the world's great religions" nonsense coupled with his reaction to the incident at Glasgow airport is far more sinister.

Apologising for and trying to excuse Muslim fanatics while trying to trivialise their terrorist acts isn't remotely William Wallace-ish and nothing to do with being patriotic.

25

SouthernGent,

21/02/2008 19:53:38
#22

The difference as I understand it is the US satellite is closer to earth (aprox 130 miles), while the Chinese satellite was at aprox 500 miles up. If that is the case, then the US fragments should continue to re-enter the atmosphere and burn up, while the Chinese fragments will remain in space for awhile creating the circumstances you suggest.
26

Conan,

Chile 21/02/2008 20:08:43
Now, let's all stipulate that none of us ACTUALLY know the facts and circumstances of the Chinese or US actions in destroying sattelites. We are totally reliant on what we are told. That is then comingled with the prejudices and tendencies cited above and - voila - a lot of nonsense is posted.

I'm with #10 on this - it is generally a very good thing.

Although, not a new thing. The technology has existed for quite some time for aircraft-launched missiles with boosters to be directed at low-orbit satellites - the first of these trials were in the mid-60's.

Plus, I am reasonably sure that the Space Shuttle, with its cargoi capacity, may well have the capability of being outfitted with a package that could carry multiple small 'missiles' that could be used to move around the skies and 'clean-up' any offending satellites. Obviously, I don't know this for a fact - but it would not surprise me to learn that such a system was already in the US' arsenal for the day in the future when it would be most helpful.
27

57Nomad,

california 21/02/2008 20:23:58
#22 Amp

Amp, you are comparing two dissimilar things. The Chinese hit an orbiting satellite. Consequently the fragments created by the impact will stay in orbit and provide a threat to other spacecraft. The satellite shot down by the navy had fallen out of orbit and every piece of it will continue to fall out of orbit, reenter, burn up, and pose no danger for other space craft.
28

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 21/02/2008 20:51:16
#23 W Smith, you must HATE living in the Middle East surrounded by millions of Muslims, are you a Christian missionary?
29

Waspy100,

21/02/2008 21:00:16
#28 refer #23 to #24
30

Sambo,

The deep south 21/02/2008 21:27:51
This gave me a sense of accomplishment having worked on this program since 1999.
31

Lynne,

USA 21/02/2008 21:48:40
Congrats from me.
32

Black Beard,

21/02/2008 22:01:54
Excellent job USofA!!! Blast those satellites out of orbit and whatever else might be up there.
33

57Nomad,

california 21/02/2008 22:06:33
#11 BFF

BFF said:

"What crap!!! Would the fuel not have ignited & burnt up when entering the Earth’s atmosphere?
The Pentagon just didn’t want any of its secrets falling (literally) into foreign hands."

I'd bet most people, moi included, wondered about that (heat of reentry burning off the unspent fuel) also. From what I've read from some of the more informed posters is that hydrazine is used less as a combustible propellent, e.g., liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen mixtures, and more like a steam generator. The hydrazine passes over a catalyst and some of it expands like steam coming out of a nozzle and this provides the thrust. Short version, it could be that it is not combustible and therefore may survive reentry. I do believe that it is extremely poisonous, perhaps carcinogenic. If you will wait a moment I will google it and let you know.

Ok, thanks for waiting. Here's what I found:

1,2-Dimethylhydrazine has caused colon cancer in laboratory animals following a single exposure.

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that hydrazine and 1,1-dimethylhydrazine are known carcinogens.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that hydrazine, 1,1-dimethylhydrazine, and 1,2-dimethylhydrazine are possible human carcinogens.

The EPA has determined that hydrazine, 1,1-dimethylhydrazine, and 1,2-dimethylhydrazine are probable human carcinogens.

I believe this is the main concern regarding this satellite. Not much needs to survive and the simple inhalation of hydrazine aerosols may cause cancer. It's better to blow the tank apart in space as the Navy wisely did.

As for this:

"The Pentagon just didn’t want any of its secrets falling (literally) into foreign hands."

Is this something that should surprise anyone? Are you of the belief that the US military should not try to keep its secrets from falling into foreign hands?



34

Sambo,

The deep south 21/02/2008 22:33:32
#57 Nomad
I believe there were a number of objectives involved in the shoot. I retired a year and a half ago from the program. When I worked on the program we had a number of successful shoots, these were "bullet hitting a bullet" type scenarios. The kinetic impact blew the incoming target to dust.
In this case our target wasn't a hot target which was a challenge to our exoatmospheric kill vehicle and thus reduced the heat profile. At the speeds of impact most of the satellite was disintegrated with a possibility of the largest piece of debris maybe the size of a soccer ball which would burn up in reentry.
Perhaps we had an opportunity to try out our system an opportunity I welcome to the success of the program.
35

Sambo,

The deep south 21/02/2008 22:56:04
#31 Lynne,
If the congrats. was for me, thanks, not bad going for a wee lad from Largs. Just goes to show you can go from shipyards to missile defence.
The US is a wonderful country.
36

Conan the Librarian™,

21/02/2008 22:59:28
27
Apart from the fragments which were boosted back into orbit by the energy of the missile detonation.
Possibly.
37

Conan the Librarian™,

21/02/2008 23:05:41
Any Rocket scientists about?
It canny be that hard.
38

Lynne,

USA 21/02/2008 23:08:06
#35 Sambo..the Congrats were for you and all who worked on this project.. It's nice to "meet" someone here who appreciates the US of A.!!
39

Sambo,

The deep south 21/02/2008 23:26:50
Thanks Lynne, It was a pleasure to work on the system. Something that one of our greatest presidents Ronald Reagan initiated. The upcoming election will be interesting.
I am proud to be Scottish and so proud to be an American.
40

Conan the Librarian™,

21/02/2008 23:30:50
Sambo, were you ever at the Ferranti plant in Edinburgh?
41

Sambo,

The deep south 21/02/2008 23:34:31
Conan, No I never was.
42

J J MAROONER,

School of Artillery 21/02/2008 23:34:56
#37

ITS ALL TO DO WITH BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:

Rotation of the earth, Slant Range, Air Speed, Density, Temperature, Magnus Effect, Trajectory etc,etc,
43

2dogs in D.C.,

21/02/2008 23:45:15
Some truly fancy shooting. I've heard,though, that this "spy sat." never worked since the day it was launched.
44

J J MAROONER,

School of Artillery 21/02/2008 23:48:09
43#

Maybe it was never meant to work, amazing what the military will do for a decent target

45

Sambo,

The deep south 21/02/2008 23:56:26
Conan, I worked with Raytheon who built most of the hardware for the system. Can't go into much detail but it's my belief that we in the United States will very shortly be up against a formidable opponent, not Iran or the old Soviet Republic. I believe that China will be the major enemy. The dominance of the Chinese economy will engulf all of the industrial commerce in the coming years. Motor vehicles will be first, then all kinds of electronic appliances.
The only thing that the US will have in it's favor is agriculture and fossil fuel.
As for Europe I think their economies are withering on the vine.
46

oder,

Scotland 21/02/2008 23:59:06
11
The Pentagon just didn’t want any of its secrets falling (literally) into foreign hands.

just like everyone else! to hit a target travelling at 17,OOO mph is no run of the mill operation, shows just how good American technical know how is, great shooting US Navy!
47

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 22/02/2008 00:10:38
Sambob, did your colleagues refer to you as Sambo when you were working at Raytheon?
48

thatscottishwoman®,

22/02/2008 02:32:36
#7 Roberta Burns

Troll
49

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 22/02/2008 06:08:06
Hello All,

What I'd like to point out to all the anti-USA proponents is the difference between the US and PRC Shoots:

The PRC Shoot was done start to finish, as a Covert Operation, SECRET, and with ZERO public information put out before the shoot.

The US Shoot was done, start to finish, as a Public Operation, Openly discussed about, Publicized in both the US and World Media, and kept at the forefront of the News Cycle.

Should you anti-US 'conspiracy' folks not understand this dichotomy, there is no hope for you: you are not rationale persons.

I would also like to point out that the sub-tones of the US Shoot, to make sure that highly sophisticated US technology remains in US hands and to NOT fall into the hands of either Russia or the PRC, is NOT 'secret': this rationale was also discussed publically.

It really makes me laugh, that you crazy lot are actually upset that a nation (any nation) would actually move to keep its technology secret and AWAY from its potential enemies and competitors.

Shades of Common Sense!!!

Particularly, it must be nice living in Fantasyland, or in this case Florida, in that one fellow exaggerated by saying he'd keep his dog inside for the next month.

Perhaps he should get some fresh air: because his brain quite obviously needs some oxygen.
Any sane government, interested in protecting its citizens, does its best to keep increasing technology to assist it in making its borders and citizens more secure.

A pity such sanity can't break through the Rad Left haze.

Cheers from the Rockies
50

57Nomad,

california 22/02/2008 19:32:00
#34 Sam

Yes, I believe that the doomed spy satellite presented a win-win scenario that was the right thing to do from an engineering standpoint and serendipitously gave the boys an unexpected opportunity to do some testing.

The fact that the target was cold was an added benefit, depriving the system of a thermal signature to help aim thereby increasing the difficulty of making the shot. It was very well done and the contractor and the troops are to be congratulated.
51

57Nomad,

california 23/02/2008 23:18:53
#36 C the L

C the L said:

"Apart from the fragments which were boosted back into orbit by the energy of the missile detonation.
Possibly."


Conan, that's the first thing I thought of also. And if some on put a gun to my head and told me to explain why that could not be so, I'd be a dead man. This is all, and I mean all, that I could come with.

The decay of the orbit of the failed satellite was known and therefore it might have been possible to compare the known characteristics of the collision of the KE warhead and the rate of decay of the orbit of the satellite and determine when it could be done to avoid the concern you have raised. That is to say, when the energy released by the impact is less than the energy required to reattain orbit.

When imagining this event it is important to keep in mind that there was no explosion. So it may be that the speed at which the target disintegrates from the KE warhead is smaller than the speed of expansion of an explosive warhead. That is may be, because I don't know.

If you find out would you let me know?
52

Fairfax,

28/02/2008 11:45:52
Reading Public 1 (4): "If the major portions of the 5000 lb Sat. will burn up in the atmosphere so would the volatile fuel. This explanation is non-sense."

I agree that the hydrazine story is a front, but am not sure that it would entirely burn in the atmosphere. Hydrazine is not itself a volatile fuel. As the references you give describes, it was used as a reductant when mixed with concentrated hydrogen peroxide.
53

Fairfax,

28/02/2008 12:01:12
C the L (36) and 57Nomad (51): "So it may be that the speed at which the target disintegrates from the KE warhead is smaller than the speed of expansion of an explosive warhead. That is may be, because I don't know."

The key is that the kinetic energy of the missile is only 0.2% of the satellite's kinetic energy, so its effect on orbital trajectory will be negligible. The details follow below.

If the satellite has a mass of 5000 lb (m = 2300 kg) and a velocity of 17000 mph (v = 7600 m/s), then its kinetic energy (0.5mv^2)is roughly 66 gigajoules. According to the information page for the missile, i.e.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sm3.htm
this kinetic energy weapon delivers 125 megajoules, i.e. 0.2% of the missile's kinetic energy. Thus it can break the missile up, but its effect on orbit will be tiny.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.