It probably has some sensitive equipment we don't want others to know about. Besides, it has lost power so anything you want to do to it is going to be very difficult. Sure you can predict where it will land. However, if it is off, are you going to get pissed off if it lands in your backyard?

You sure of that? I wouldn't be too sure of it.

Sensitive equipment is just that. it is most likely passive multispectral or hyperspectral scanners of high resolution and active systems like LiDAR and RADAR. None of those systems, shielded for space but not insulated, cooled and or cushioned for re-entry would survive.

Chances are that these images have been degraded and distorted to protect methods and means. Also, the new satellite would probably be as much an upgrade to this one as this one was to it's predecessor. Let physics & your imagination be your guide.

http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/kh-12.htm

I believe the face value story: A ton if hydrazine is threat enough, even if the orbit were predictable. A ton of hydrazine hitting an extremely dense urban population like say, Calcutta or Mexico DF could be catastrophic. Even threatening a pile of crap in Louisiana would be a nightmare for everybody except a few whiney ground-pounders with bad memories.

Here is how we KNOW that it is not a conspiracy.

The satellite soon to be shot down was launched in 2006 and two years later the military has an exact day they plan on shooting the thing down.

We can put a man on the moon but there is absolutely no way our government could execute a plan to happen on a specific day two years in advance.....friggin impossible. Also if the fuel tanks are so strong that they can survive re-entry what is the guarantee that the warhead will hit the satellite in the right place to make them explode? I've seen many anti-armor munitions fired and if the hit is not in a kill zone it may make a bang but the vehicle will still run, I don't think they can get that kind of accuracy with a missile on a target 150 miles away.

I think they want to shoot it down for the following reasons in no particular order.

a. To show the world that they can.

I wonder how much this is going to cost the taxpayers?:eek::D I bet that boom costs us $20B.

2 or maybe 3 different issues.

1. Was it put in orbit just so DoD could shoot it down? (Foil hat. Too stupid an idea to discuss further.)

2. What would happen if the fuel tank struck the earth intact vs exploded in during re-entry?

3. Is #2 worth the risk of shooting at it in low Earth orbit?

It a ton of fuel and is traveling at about 20,000 mph. Even if it were totally inert -- a ton of concrete -- mass traveling at that velocity is going to transfer a hell of a lot of kinetic energy into whatever it hits. And we don't know what the tank's mass is.

Now look again at the MSDS that I previously posted. Imagine taht the tank breaks-up in low re-entry. Hydrazine, even if it doesn't explode, is probably carcinogenic. Let's all imagine the number of lawsuits that will accrue from any inhabited area over which that plume descends. Pretend it is say, Guangzhou.

No imagine that it explodes on impact in say, Mumbai. Does anybody remember Bhopal?

If it were to rupture in Earth orbit, even low Earth orbit, the fuel would disperse and quickly oxidize over millions of cubic kilometers of space and upper atmosphere. It would be no in health or aviation factor at that density and altitude.

Now to the weapon used to knock it down. First, accuracy. Since the 1960's we (the USA, the former USSR, and the EU) have had the scientific and technical ability to hit Earth orbiting bodies. It started with Gemini. And yes, everybody knew there were direct military applications to the space program. That is why nearly every mission has a military or intelligence component, even today. It's KASOC's.

Ballistic missiles can hit smaller target areas than needed to put a nuke into a definite kill zone. In a scientific and technical sense, it is easier to hit a orbital body than it is to ballistically strike a long-range target on Earth. Think about it -- you only have to compute 1/2 arc.

This is a kinetic kill, not an explosive kill. A bullet, not a bomb. But if the orbit is stable then striking the target is no more a technical problem than getting the space shuttle to the space station -- all computer controlled.

I'll bet the USAF & USN is wetting all over themselves struggling to be the branch that takes the shot. Both have ASAT capabilities demonstrated back in the 1970's. Now they get to show off!

Unless they miss. Then Congress with want somebody's ass, and that somebody will have 2 stars or more and his name will be Mud.

B

Good post B, I just read the the weapon used is a exo-atmospheric kill vehicle between that and you post I concede that I did no know enough about the weapon to make a rational judgment on what may happen.

Here's some maps:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/19/sat_shoot_notam_airspace_warning_declared/

I know it's terrible to say, but I really really hope they miss... damn would that be entertaining..:P

Whenever the shuttle lands, the USS Lake Erie will get the "green light" to shoot shortly thereafter.

Would you find it entertaining if it hit your house?

The shuttle is supposed to land in an hour or so. Should get pretty interesting soon.

I didn't think I was implying that at all, or that it would be entertaining if it hit someone elses house... It would be funny if they missed because it would be somewhat of a national embarassment, necessitating that they shoot it again:rolleyes:

Problem is people don't find it entertaining when it hits them. Hence the US govt has to try shoot it down, among other things.

Pentagon officials have argued that if the satellite were to fall through the atmosphere with no missile interference the hydrazine tank could survive the fiery descent to reach Earth's surface intact, spewing toxic gas over an area about the size of two football fields. Those who inhaled it would need medical attention.

"In this case, we have some historical background that we can work against for the tank that contains the hydrazine," said Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright during a Feb. 14 press briefing. "We had a similar one on Columbia that survived re-entry. We have a pretty reasonable understanding that, if the tank is left intact, it would survive the re-entry."

However, destroying the fuel tank and dispersing the hydrazine requires a direct hit on the possibly tumbling satellite. The high closing speeds for the satellite intercept and the uncertainty of puncturing the fuel tank could make that goal questionable, according to an analysis done by Geoffrey Forden, an MIT physicist and space expert.

"If they do shoot at it, even if they hit it, there's just a 30 percent chance that the shrapnel connected by the intersection hits the hydrazine tank," Forden said.

What if the missile misses?

"As we reviewed the data, if we fire at the satellite, the worst that could happen is that we miss," Cartwright said. "Then we have a known situation, which is where we are today." He continued, "If we hit the hydrazine tank, then we've improved the potential to mitigate that threat. The regret factor of not acting clearly outweighed the regret factor of acting."

They wouldn't know for at least a day whether the tank had been destroyed, said Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell.

"The FEMA document notes, “Any debris should be considered potentially hazardous, and first responders should not attempt to pick it up or move it.”

That's probably mostly BS. They more likely don't want people picking-up interesting bits of highly classified electronics.

One shot, from a ship in the Pacific, off the satellite and nothing but net . . . :D

http://adweek.blogs.com/photos/uncat...haeljordan.jpg