Log in

View Full Version : Large spy satellite could hit North America


Maverick
January 29th, 2008, 09:35 PM
Large spy satellite could hit North America
U.S. military developing contingency plans to deal with possibility

WASHINGTON - The U.S. military is developing contingency plans to deal with the possibility that a large spy satellite expected to fall to Earth in late February or early March could hit North America.

Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, who heads U.S. Northern Command, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the size of the satellite suggests that some number of pieces will not burn up as the orbiting vehicle re-enters the Earth's atmosphere and will hit the ground.

"We're aware that this satellite is out there," Renuart said. "We're aware it is a fairly substantial size. And we know there is at least some percentage that it could land on ground as opposed to in the water."

A U.S. official confirmed that the spy satellite, which lost power and no longer can be controlled, was launched in December 2006 and could weigh as much as 10,000 pounds. It carried a sophisticated and secret imaging sensor but the satellite's central computer failed shortly after launch.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the information is classified as secret, said the satellite is designated by the military as US 193, but it never reached its final orbit and the Pentagon declared it a total loss in early 2007.

Renuart added that, "As it looks like it might re-enter into the North American area," then the U.S. military along with the Homeland Security Department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency will either have to deal with the impact or assist Canadian or Mexican authorities.

Military agencies, he said, are doing an analysis to determine which pieces most likely would survive re-entry. But he cautioned that officials won't have much detail on where or when it will crash until it begins to move through the atmosphere and break up.

Renuart added that there does not as yet appear to be much concern about sensitive technologies on the satellite falling into enemy hands.

"I'm not aware that we have a security issue," he said. "It's really just a big thing falling on the ground that we want to make sure we're prepared for."

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photo_StoryLevel/080129/080129-gene-renuart-hmed-6p.standard.jpg
Image: Air Force Gen. Victor "Gene" Renuart Jr.
Haraz N. Ghanbari / AP
"It's really just a big thing falling on the ground that we want to make sure we're prepared for," says Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart.

The satellite includes some small engines that contain a toxic chemical called hydrazine — which is rocket fuel. But Renuart said they are not large booster engines with substantial amounts of fuel.

Initial estimates were that the satellite would take years to degrade and re-enter the atmosphere.

Video images of the satellite captured by John Locker, a British amateur satellite watcher, show it to be about 13 feet to 16.5 feet across. Locker calculated its size with data on its altitude and location provided by other amateur satellite watchers, using the International Space Station as a yardstick.

Satellite watchers — a worldwide network of hobbyists who track satellites for fun — have been plotting the satellite's degradation for a year. They estimate it is now at an altitude of about 173 miles, and Locker believes it is dropping about 1,640 feet a day.

Where it lands will be difficult to predict until the satellite falls to about 59 miles above the Earth and enters the atmosphere. It will then begin to burn up, with flares visible from the ground, said Ted Molczan, a Canadian satellite tracker. From that point on, he said, it will take about 30 minutes to fall.

In the past 50 years of monitoring space, 17,000 manmade objects have re-entered the Earth's atmosphere.

Whisper
January 29th, 2008, 11:06 PM
"deal with the impact or assist Canadian or Mexican authorities"
WTF does that mean?

Oh were sorry our fat ass spy satellite failure that weights 10,000 pound broke up into a million toxic fiery balls and slammed downtown Vancouver killing god knows how many...but uhh....heres a mop, no hard feelings :)

Blow it up before it falls
most powerful military on the planet and your gonna let this happen?
pathetic

Glasgow
January 29th, 2008, 11:23 PM
They can't be bothered to blow it up

Doc.
January 29th, 2008, 11:51 PM
You don't watch the history/national geographic channel do you? If you have then you would know that it goes by the same principle as trying to blow up an asteroid. Blowing it up would cause more collateral and widespread damage than just a single impact area. Also, Whisper, as much as respect you I'm going to say this once and only once: don't ever insult the United States. Don't ever fucking insult it.

thesphinx
January 29th, 2008, 11:53 PM
How do you suggest they blow it up?

Doc.
January 30th, 2008, 12:01 AM
You don't blow it up kid, blowing it up is bad. Then again, some idiot might try it and instead of the satellite hitting just Detroit, it hits Detroit, Chicago, Toronto, Toledo and other areas.

thesphinx
January 30th, 2008, 12:06 AM
I never said blowing it up was a good idea I am say "How" would you blow it up?

0=
January 30th, 2008, 12:10 AM
Actually, with such a small object it would be feasible to "blow it up". Those shows you watched about asteroids were about objects a couple kilometers across that would break into chunks the size of this satellite. Have you seen what a few pounds of explosives can do to a car? It's just four times the size, so it wouldn't be too difficult to reduce it to tiny pieces of rubble. As to how this would be accomplished you could fire a missile at it. I'm sure the military has aircraft we don't even know about which can intercept it in the upper atmosphere and engage it directly, too.

Whisper
January 30th, 2008, 12:19 AM
You don't watch the history/national geographic channel do you? If you have then you would know that it goes by the same principle as trying to blow up an asteroid. Blowing it up would cause more collateral and widespread damage than just a single impact area.
This isn't an asteroid, I'm not talking about a rock of solid iron a mile wide its a satellite and the majority of it will burn up only the larger chunks will survive and impact
if they blow it into tiny then there is a higher likely hood less is any will make it through reentry
At the very least the highly toxic fuel would no longer be an issue

What if it hits the great lakes? Worlds largest fresh water supply?
Drinking water for literally millions of people
If it hits a populated city?
We all saw how you helped New Orleans, would you even bother if it hit a Canadian or Mexican city?

For the sheer sake of human lives I honestly do hope it hits Canada because were the most sparsely populated less chance of casualty's
and then we'll be forced to clean up yet another of your mistakes

Also, Whisper, as much as respect you I'm going to say this once and only once: don't ever insult the United States. Don't ever fucking insult it.

Okay you joined a few days ago...so really.......I just honestly don't think you understand the gravity of the mistake you just made
Be very careful with how you talk to people

Welcome to VT

thesphinx
January 30th, 2008, 12:33 AM
and then we'll be forced to clean up yet another of your mistakes


First of all its not like Canada has never made a mistake.
Second of all if you want to just keep dissing US then think about how we help you, living right near the US has a lot of benefits mainly protection the US holds a lot of the worlds weight when it comes to protecting people.

Whisper
January 30th, 2008, 12:50 AM
And Canada has been a large help to the states more so then most people realize
I'm not talking about the past
I'm talking about a 10,000lbs toxic satellite thats going to crash into us
I find it odd that nobody seems to have a contingency plan for a situation like this other then let it hit and clean up the corpses
that just strikes me as...odd


If it was a Canadian satellite that was at risk of smashing into the states "somewhere" how would you or your gov react?

thesphinx
January 30th, 2008, 10:46 AM
I just don't see what they can do? Do we have technology to get rid of it safely or is the safest thing to let it hit you don't know all the statistics.

Hauptmann Kauffman
January 30th, 2008, 10:56 AM
We dont have the technology to shoot down a nuclear missile, why would we have the technology to shoot a satellite? Plus, shootingit would just spread debris over a larger area. Keeping it isolated is a good idea.

Glasgow
January 30th, 2008, 10:57 AM
Wow, for a subject not really that huge its stirring up a whole lot of controversy. Lets just leave it alone, im sure they wont let anyone die.

Bobby
January 30th, 2008, 04:56 PM
First off. This isn't a debate.

Second off, correct me if I'm wrong, but won't this go through the atmosphere, therefore breaking it down?

Patchy
January 30th, 2008, 05:01 PM
sorry if I've missed something but why is it falling? you dont see all the satellites in space falling so has the us army made another shitty technology that is failing?

Blowing it up could help or they could fix it?

Maverick
January 30th, 2008, 05:02 PM
Why not bother reading the article before making assumptions and do country bashing?

Patchy
January 30th, 2008, 05:08 PM
Why not bother reading the article before making assumptions and do country bashing?

Country bashing...I was just simply saying what the news of the world said about the usa's army technology and how they need to research more.

but there must be some way though of powering it back up...like some how re-fuelling it. But I dunno I'm not a professor of space or rocket science.

Gumleaf
January 30th, 2008, 05:46 PM
in reference to the original post. i think one word sums it up. "bugger"!