F-16.net

The NRO spy satellite currently orbiting aimlessly in space will be zapped by an SM-3 missile from a USN DDG-51.

A good excuse for some target practice! Wonder what happened to ASAT? There is only a small window of opportunity, about a week, then the DoD has instructed the Earth`s populace to don tinfoil hats and respirators if the three SM-3`s don`t get the job done. Laughing

It is interesting to note that it would be so much harder to target once it enters the atmosphere. The SM-3`s will have to be "tweaked" somewhat to enable them to do the job.

Good luck guys.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7245578.stm

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2832

This won't be a scripted range event. Should be interesting. Laughing

Veteran Joined: Jan 20, 2008 Posts: 279 Status: Offline

I hope it hits my house- we need our luck to change for the better. Shrug

StolichnayaStrafer wrote:

I hope it hits my house- we need our luck to change for the better. Shrug

The insurance claim could be interesting Very Happy

Let`s see, a secret NRO satellite that doesn`t really exist landed on your house and spilled 1,000lb`s of imaginary Hydrazine into the surrounding area, hmmm!!!

ELP, it is indeed an unscripted event, just the kind of scenario the BMD system was designed to handle, albeit with a different target set.
It is a no lose scenario for naval BMD, if it hits the target, the system is fantastic, with a miss, well, it wasn`t really designed to take down errant satellites.
Should be a good workout for the surveillance and tracking/co-ordination/comms side of the system.

Elite Joined: Dec 14, 2005 Posts: 688 Status: Offline

snypa777 wrote:

Wonder what happened to ASAT?

The ASM-135 ASAT Twisted Evil

From Wiki:

Quote:

The first, and only, successful interception was on September 13, 1985. The F-15 took off from Edwards Air Force Base, climbed to 80,000 feet and vertically launched the missile at the Solwind P78-1, a US gamma ray spectroscopy satellite orbiting at 345 Miles (555 km), which was launched in 1979. Although successful, the program was cancelled in 1988.

From: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/s ... grams.html

Quote:

in December 1985, the Democratic-controlled House and the Republican-led Senate included in its budget authorization bill a ban on testing the ALMV on a target in space. This decision was made only a day after the Air Force sent two target satellites into orbit for its next round of tests. The Air Force continued to test the ASAT system in 1986, but stayed within the limits of the ban by not engaging a space-borne target.

The ban on testing the ASAT system was renewed in 1986 and the Soviets continued to observe a voluntary moratorium on ASAT testing. In November 1987, the White House and Congress negotiated a compromise on arms control provisions in the authorization bill that extended the ban on ASAT testing but allowed the ban to be suspended should the Soviets resume their ASAT tests. The political opposition to pursuing the ASAT system appeared entrenched, and the Air Force, unable to perform its final tests, dropped development of the ALMV system.

I wonder if the US Government will allow a program again with the recent test of a Chinese ASAT program?

Doh

Notice the F-15 pilot in the photo is wearing a David Clark "Pilot Protective Assembly" (Full-pressure Suit) I believe they are a USAF requirement when flying ABOVE 50,000 Ft. (Like U-2/SR-71 flights) Makes one wonder if the F/A-22 Raptor is compatible with the David Clark Suits?

Veteran Joined: Jan 20, 2008 Posts: 279 Status: Offline

I bought that F-15 model in 1/32 scale a while ago... I don't remember the markings looking like that. I think I will dig that kit out of storage and check it out- maybe it's high time that it got built!

T_E_G, beautiful picture! I forgot the ASAT was killed by treaty.

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

I wonder if the US Government will allow a program again with the recent test of a Chinese ASAT program?

Would piss off the Russians a bit I think, and kick start a new race even though the Chinese seem to have started that one already.

Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 Posts: 439

My vague out on the limb opinion.

I question the wisdom of the “shoot down” for the reasons given. I hope someone has ran some estimates to see what the risk is of blasting some debris into higher orbit and being a threat to satellites and space craft. If we shoot it while it's still in higher orbit, I would think it would be easier to hit. I think as it reenters it might be harder; the course often becomes erratic and debris might start flaking off and plasma could confuse radar making it harder to detect and isolate/target.

Another reason I question this wisdom; is that shooting it for the alleged safety reasons would likely make many pieces, so the odds of hitting something important on the ground increases dramatically.

I'm a little skeptical of the official story of preventing a fuel vapor cloud. Wouldn't it be quite likely that the tank would be breached and the fuel vented as it reentered? If that was their real concern, it's too bad we don't have a high-altitude laser in-service. All it would take would be a small hole to vent the fuel. Though since it's a military satellite it might be designed to resist a laser.

I am suspicious that the reason they are shooting it down is to try to break it up into smaller pieces so that it would be more difficult to recover the technology if it falls into the wrong hands.

My fingers are crossed and I hope all goes well. I hope no one on the ground is hurt and I hope that debris doesn't compromise our satellites and spacecraft.

I can understand shooting it down to try to keep the technology from falling in the wrong hands. However I am a little skeptical of the safety issues that are officially given.

At least it's good practice and field test.

Elite Joined: Jun 29, 2004 Posts: 961 Status: Offline

Smaller pieces will completely burn up in the atmosphere...at least that's the theory

Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 Posts: 439

Roscoe wrote:

Smaller pieces will completely burn up in the atmosphere...

I tend to respectfully disagree. (Not that I'm an expert on this matter) I'm under the impression that if an object stays intact that more of that will burn up because it will maintain its velocity until it hits the denser air and heats up quickly. Whereas I think smaller less aerodynamic pieces that are formed after a breakup have a tendency to decelerate more gradually in the thinner air.

Remember that when the space shuttle broke up since it was in smaller pieces it seemed like less of it burned up, a surprising amount of debris reached the surface. The pieces I saw recovered in the news didn't have any evidence of burning up.

I think the smaller pieces also tend to dissipate the heat better.

Elite Joined: Jul 30, 2005 Posts: 739 Status: Offline

I tend to trust the folks with PHD's and stuff like that Smile

I'm sure they are open to suggestions though ATFS. Give em a ring Smile

Veteran Joined: Dec 15, 2006 Posts: 439

akruse21 wrote:

I tend to trust the folks with PHD's and stuff like that Smile

I'm sure they are open to suggestions though ATFS. Give em a ring Smile

I think they may be more concerned about guarding the technology, which is a concern of national security. I think venting the fuel may be a plausible secondary reason rather than the primary reason. Wink

I wouldn't waste their time calling them. Wink

Orbital Debris Impacts on Spacecraft
http://www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/protect/impacts.html
If you think FOD is bad on jets.

From what I understand the shuttle windscreen damage that is shown at the link was caused by a paint chip the size of a grain of sand.

Elite Joined: Oct 30, 2006 Posts: 627 Status: Offline

They should develop the ABL for an alternate mission of destroying satellites. Space Junk will continue to fall from the sky in future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Laser

Elite Joined: Jan 31, 2004 Posts: 1496 Status: Offline

ATFS_Crash wrote:

Roscoe wrote:

Smaller pieces will completely burn up in the atmosphere...

I tend to respectfully disagree. (Not that I'm an expert on this matter) I'm under the impression that if an object stays intact that more of that will burn up because it will maintain its velocity until it hits the denser air and heats up quickly. Whereas I think smaller less aerodynamic pieces that are formed after a breakup have a tendency to decelerate more gradually in the thinner air.

If an orbiting object is broken up into smaller pieces prior to entry interface (still outta the atmosphere), all of the leftovers are still traveling at the same relative velocity at the time they re-enter. Regardless of their shape, not a single piece of the debris has enough surface area remaining to dissipate the immense kinetic heat generated over such a very short time period. They simply ignite and vaporize. Remember that Skylab re-entered pretty much intact, yet large chunks survived re-entry and impacted in rural Australia. I think Mir did pretty much the same thing although I can't remember if it impacted land or water.

ATFS_Crash wrote:

Remember that when the space shuttle broke up since it was in smaller pieces it seemed like less of it burned up, a surprising amount of debris reached the surface. The pieces I saw recovered in the news didn't have any evidence of burning up.

What was left of the Shuttle survived re-entry 'cause it was designed to. The RCC leading edges, the tiles, even some of the thermal blanketed stuff. Columbia had already dissipated much of its re-entry heat. But in the relatively thicker air of the lower atmosphere the damaged left wing imparted an unrecoverable left yaw and left roll. The autopilots tried as best they could to compensate but with Mach 20 winds tearing thru the hole in the left wing LE, the damaged internal wing structure was doomed, and the rest is history.

The busted satellite has no requirement to survive re-entry. In fact if it can't be retrieved it's supposed to do just the opposite when the time comes.

Smile

Link just made me think about another issue. Is it at all possible to recover the bird? I know it would have to be in the right place and be stable before that could be done. I guess it would too dangerous for a shuttle to recover or at least not worthwhile for what it is, ie the cost of a shuttle mission versus the worth of the satellite.

I just remember satelites being captured by the shuttle`s robotic arm before now and recovered, repaired and sent back into service. I would presume the NRO bird is a write off as it stands now and not worth the effort./risk.

It makes perfect sense to me to try to disintegrate the satelite into smaller chunks before re-entry, both from the safety and security viewpoint.

F-16.net

Forum: Technology

USN to shootdown dud satelite.