US to shoot down broken spy sat

so, what i'm gleaning is that this spy satellite has a (generally) Polar orbit

as opposed to a northern latitude eastern trajectory orbit, from a launch site like Cape (kennedy) Canaveral.

i'm a neophite, just how did this special orbit path happen?
or are we attributing fuzzy lights-in-the-sky as eyewitness fact of documenting the terminal Spy-satellite?

bon't bother answering, it'll take youse away from the "circle"


amen

It actually has an equatorial orbit, launch 2006-57A. Out of Vandenberg I thought. LEO... Iran snoop-mobile gone bad some say. No matter. I'd put recon assets in a polar orbit... but I'm old fashioned. I have no idea why it's in the orbit it's in... it's really, really far South... and not so much North. About 4 orbits from now a shot from the North Pacific is doable for about three orbits... haven't figured the next window. Beer.

Vic

[edit on 16-2-2008 by V Kaminski]

So I'm on the phone with a friend and we're talking about the "safety issue" as the MSM and what the US gubmint wants sold... he's a lawyer right. Well, he says if it was an issue the onus would then be on the US gubmint to divulge what it knew that would be directly related to public safety.

So I says, "What would you do to cover your butt if you were them?". He laughs and says NASA as a civilian agency with the means and opportunity should publish all the satellite tracking data to minimize risk and liability. OK. Don't care really... but I thought about it...

So I go looking... Oh yeah, NASA has sat tracks... lots. Not this one. Beer. Link. Last updated May 29 2007. Burp. Less than 158 Min altitude this last pass.

Vic

Oh, too cool Goddard is back up. Here.

Awesome data. Not!

Just as good experimentally speaking.

The data collections are priceless.

Can't say I didn't look. Whiskey or Vodka? Rum.

Vic

[edit on 16-2-2008 by V Kaminski]

reply to post by V Kaminski


Dude I was just thinking about that. If I were running this trainwreck, I would have NASA publishing sat data for all to see, except it would be wrong data (a different sat or just fake data since there aren't that many people who would be looking (I know there are a few, but a simple answer of delaying web info and it being anywhere from a few minutes to hours behind could fix that). This solves the problem of Russia or China takin' it out before we do.
Also, I would hype up the danger of the fuel, so this missile shield test would seem VITAL to the safety of the US and the world.
And I would say that the sat would crash in the continental US - thus enhancing the illusion of danger, again, to push for the launch.
And if there is a small amount of Plutonium on board to keep the electric and heat going on the sat, I would shoot the thing down either over the ocean or over enemy land - I know they say the test will be in the Pacific, but let's wait and see.
Finally, I would alter the data of when it would crash - and flood the MSM of other countries so they think it will land in their back yard, ensuring world wide support of this mission of ours.
Just my $0.02.

...figured the 'ol web-bot affiliate works here:

"Plutonium 238 is/was used as a primary fuel in spy satellites. The hydrazine story is a smokescreen. Pu238 decays so fast (88-yr half-life) it is used to produce thermo-electricity by a process that boils a liquid and the condensation of the liquid (mercury used to be used) creates a thermal-gradient voltage...

A micro-gram of any of the Pu species lodged in a lung can produce cancer from both or either chemical and radioactive reactions."

PU is fatal chronically (over long periods of exposure, causing cancer) in the concentration of one PU atom for a cubic foot of air. Literally, if you inhale one PU atom, ever, you are a goner. So that material could be a panic inducer if it is on board. But this is usually used only for extra-system space travel, not orbits. So is it some other material or data on board. What images was this thing transmitting? Planet X? Asteroid?

www.urbansurvival.com...

Also, keep in mind "the U.S. has 413 of the world's 795 satellites."*

(Ref., 'War in Heaven' -- Caldicott, '07 New Press)

reply to post by harddrive21


Your tuppence is valued here. Sounds about right. Dig this, Stan Love right? Astro and astronomer on ISS/STS now says get this, haven't seen a star since I've been up here. Rex Walheim has an interesting CV. The assembled crew laughs... 'cept the Russkies. They'll be awake in a couple hours. 193 SE of Hawaii. This Op is pretty much like a can of smashed tomatoes... Condi show? It's pretty clumsy. 2 more orbits and a bit and a N Pacific launch is doable... 3 plus hours-ish.

Vic

[edit on 17-2-2008 by V Kaminski]

reply to post by V Kaminski


Thanks friend. That quote of "I haven't seen any stars" is quite a line. May I ask your opinion of something - Do you think we made it to the moon (just a yes or no - nothing crazy)?
Just the comments about the stars on the Apollo missions and the issues of the Van Allen Belt have always given me about 1% doubt. There were enough people listening/watching in the 60's that if it was faked, we would have been called out.
I ask this because of the weird issues that keep coming up on shuttle flights and ISS comments/problems.

reply to post by harddrive21


Yeah, I DO have some reservations about the Moon... have "we" been there? Likely, but maybe not the way the story is currently told. I still get hung up on the dust kicked up by the astros bootfalls and jumps... the dust doesn't fall at the expected rate in Apollo vids. The Van Allen, yeah. Toaster oven without shielding in a SME... lotta probs. All explainable. Wink.

I question much of what I was conditioned to believe all my life... more as I get older. USA 193 does sort of "stick out" as an event for some reason... I'm likely just afraid of space being weaponized. I'm old and when we were young fear of the nuclear future burned bright in many of my cohort's nightmares... the pounding of shoes on the dias at the UN... it's all a bit dodgey and disingenuous sometimes.

Look for a pass over the North Pacific where 193 arcs nicely back down the center of the Pacific away from Hawaii... just after it heads back down... six to eight minutes later. Something should happen. A pass like that between now and next Friday is as long as I'd leave it.

I bet they know what they "expect" to happen. Let's hope that's "good" for everyone. 238 or not.

Cheers and hope,

Vic

Oh, where's Green Peace? I'm too tired to look... they used to do some wack stuff back when the late Bob Hunter was involved.

[edit on 17-2-2008 by V Kaminski]

Hmmm. Beryllium tank? That's what some are saying. Uh, likely Titanium. Be is too difficult to work into a sphere. I could be wrong. 1000lbs of ice say some. Who makes those tanks?? EADS does... hmmm, EADS and Lockheed do biz. Do a Google Image search for "Hydrazine Tank". AEGIS is a Lockheed system... so is the USA193 according to some. LOL.

Hmmm. I think Be might actually react with certain hydrazine blends. I could be wrong. Beryllium melts at 2332 deg F, Ti at 3034 deg F, the likely hydrazine involved boils at 188 deg F and freezes at -60 deg F. 1000lbs would be 453592.4 grams, MMH is 0.88 grams per CC (liquid) or a volume of 515445.9091 cubic centimeters. About 136 gallons if the 1000lb figure other sites are throwing around is correct.

Hmmm... 136 gallons would be a pretty big sphere if there is only one tank... bigger than the one in this EADS photo:



It may not have failed cold either... and if there is a nuke heater onboard it would be a great test of an advanced discriminator protocol as opposed to infrared only acquistion. Let's see "MIND" comes to mind, SAIC, Raytheon, Lockheed, Eads... if it did fail "cold" and freeze solid... it might not be so good to shoot it in orbit as ice solids shatter... do it in daylight for sure if safety is an issue maybe.

If it gets into the atmosphere it wouldn't take much to get it to the boil at 188 deg F. Kerboom soon after that and dissipate.

Voice of Russia radio says the whole satellite is two tons. LOL. Really. I heard it on CBC radio overnight about two hours ago. So the Lake Erie, Decatur, Shiloh... could be others. 3 sounds about right.

So the Lake Erie, Decatur and Shiloh and maybe others, but three sounds about right. This is a straight up missile test... saber rattling. An opportunity for the US to flex is glutius maximus and break-wind in the general direction of her international neighbors... or there really is something super-valuable onboard like a next-gen-SAR or maybe something else.

Orbit is still decaying at about the same rate... coffee time. Daytona.

Vic

[edit on 17-2-2008 by V Kaminski]

This was on Fox today. What I found interesting is that they said "FEMA posting rescue teams across the country."

I didn't really notice it myself, until a few people in the comments mentioned that. Just thought I would throw that into the mix.

Although I don't see them sending us to summer camp over a satellite.

reply to post by GetOutOfMyRabbitHole


So if the 3 6million dollar missiles miss and the sat lands in the US, it's FEMA time? This ain't no summer camp here in Michigan - it's too cold. But that does open up a different question. From what has been presented over the last 8 pages of this post, an area 2 football fields in length, if the sat didn't completely burn up upon re-entry, would be the "toxic" area from the Hydrazine. When Columbia failed it's re-entry, it did go down over some populated area's without problem (and it did have some Hydrazine on board) and no FEMA mobilization. The only difference may be a small reactor on board for power and heating - sounds like someone is afraid some nuke fallout or some kind of EMP maybe?

reply to post by harddrive21


I can offer a reasoning for why STS-107's tank made it down. First, they are fabric wrapped... so over pressurization is less likely than on a plain metal tank with a temperature management system... like an RTG? Second the big Hydrazine tanks on STS are located just ahead of the rear bulkhead with two on one side and one on the other.. pretty much in the core of the strongest part of Shuttle architecture. The ones on STS (the big ones) are far more heavily surrounded by structure than the tank on a 5000 lb SAR Lockheed spy sat... no hydrazine of consequence (say above 4ppm) lotsa hydrazine stuff has gone kaboom on the ground... didn't hear of any FEMA action.

Even the General, Cartwright guy say it'll out-gas so ice isn't in the picture JMHO. Nope, there's either imaging tech or a radition threat. Beryllium doesn't even figure... struts and bracket material. Mostly titanium... some lithium for bolts... composites. Super-lightweight construction... not designed with any really big hunks of metal.

You know... if I was designing a sat like a spy sat... I'd make sure everything burned up all by itself in an uncontrolled re-entry. Wink. Jeff Foxworthy's show... ah, whatever. LOL. Beer. n2yo is down... not down, just won't show me USA193, last Min altitude I had at about 7:00AM Eastern was 157 something at 4.64 miles per second. Hey if it's tumbling it'd be like one of those trick basketballs like the 'Trotters use... could make it harder to hit.

I'll check n2yo.com from time to time during the race.

The structure of STS and this bird are pretty much apples and oranges. The FEMA stuff? I don't know from FEMA. 'cept that their old PR dude is the PR dude at NASA now...

Cheers,

Vic.

[edit on 17-2-2008 by V Kaminski]

Quick update... passing up the Eastern seaboard now. Altitude over Sothern Florida 155.77 statute miles and velocity of 4.68 miles per second.

[edit on 17-2-2008 by V Kaminski]

This thing passes over Florida? Great like I need to worry about a satellite smacking me in the head . I have great faith in our Navy though. They will probably hit it dead on as that SM-3 has been very good so far.

Just a quick question,
If the 'first' missile misses the blinkin' thing, where will that missile end up, will it keep going, or enter an orbit?

Worth thinking about??

reply to post by Havalon


It will keep on truckin out into space. Its a hit to kill weapon. It don't have explosives on board.

I heard of one projected disappointment...

one statement said they doubt the missile could fly fast

enough to catch up with the satellite.

Yes another confused scientific bureaucracy.

LOL this pic is so fake its funny.

Originally posted by V Kaminski

ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote

[edit on 2-18-2008 by worldwatcher]

reply to post by princeofpeace


What aspects of the the photo provided in good faith would lead one such as princeofpeace to assume is "so fake it's funny". If one so wise were to use a little data provided... one could find MANY such photographs provided to the public by EADS. Or one could simply state what aspect one considers fake rather than COMPLETELY misusing tha ATS quote function and making a new "friend" in me. Muhhuhuhuhahahaha. Hmmm, princeofpeace eh? Tick, tick, tick... STS/ISS separation coming up in an hour and a half.

Station fly around not long after. STS-122 is nominal. Bumpy roads for others. LOL. Wink.

Vic

someone has probably hacked the satellite computers. and it's probably using it against us. spying on us. I think that's why they have to take it out.