| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/20/2008 11:16:23 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by SDW:
... The decision to shoot down the failing SAT at a cost of $30 to $40 million dollars to do the software upgrade for this one-time event is more of national security than the threat to life. ... |
Scott - Not disputing your info, just want to know where you found this. I'd be interested in reading the background/article on the cost of the software upgrade.
Thanks. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 11:22:55 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Makka:
It's apparently been done and was a direct hit! |
Most impressive. I have to admit, I half expected failure on the first try...
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 11:26:18 PM · #53 |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 11:31:49 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by SDW:
... The decision to shoot down the failing SAT at a cost of $30 to $40 million dollars to do the software upgrade for this one-time event is more of national security than the threat to life. ... |
Scott - Not disputing your info, just want to know where you found this. I'd be interested in reading the background/article on the cost of the software upgrade.
Thanks. |
Here's one article that actually says $60 million.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 11:51:57 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Makka:
It's apparently been done and was a direct hit! |
But hmmm... how do we REALLY know that for sure??? hmmmm :D
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 11:54:21 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by colorcarnival:
Originally posted by Makka:
It's apparently been done and was a direct hit! |
But hmmm... how do we REALLY know that for sure??? hmmmm :D |
I dunno... better take the umbrella outside just in case. :-)
|
|
|
|
02/21/2008 12:09:55 AM · #57 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by SDW:
... The decision to shoot down the failing SAT at a cost of $30 to $40 million dollars to do the software upgrade for this one-time event is more of national security than the threat to life. ... |
Scott - Not disputing your info, just want to know where you found this. I'd be interested in reading the background/article on the cost of the software upgrade.
Thanks. |
US Expected To Shoot Down Satellite Wednesday
Last Edited: Wednesday, 20 Feb 2008, 8:13 AM CST
Created: Wednesday, 20 Feb 2008, 12:05 AM CST
A crippled U.S. spy satellite will be shot down out of the sky Wednesday night. SideBar
Related Items
Stories
Images: Dead Satellite Will Be Shot Down
China Concerned About US Satellite Plans
Satellite Shootdown Won't Affect Station
US Plans to Shoot Down Broken Satellite
By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer
WASHINGTON -- An attempt to blast a crippled U.S. spy satellite out of the sky using a Navy heat-seeking missile -- possibly on Wednesday night -- would be the first real-world use of this piece of the Pentagon's missile defense network. But that is not the mission for which it was intended.
The attempted shootdown, already approved by President Bush, is seen by some as blurring the lines between defending against a weapon like a long-range missile and targeting satellites in orbit.
The three-stage Navy missile, designated the SM-3, has chalked up a high rate of success in a series of tests since 2002 -- in each case targeting a short- or medium-range ballistic missile, never a satellite. A hurry-up program to adapt the missile for this anti-satellite mission was completed in a matter of weeks; Navy officials say the changes will be reversed once this satellite is down.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Missile Shoot-Down: Video Simulation
Missile Shoot-Down: Watch Another Computer Projection (Video: MyFoxDetroit)
Missile Shoot-Down: How Will It Work?
Missile Shoot-Down: Where Is The Satellite Right Now?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The government issued notices to aviators and mariners to remain clear of a section of the Pacific beginning at 10:30 p.m. EST Wednesday, indicating the first window of opportunity to launch an SM-3 missile from a Navy cruiser, the USS Lake Erie, in an effort to hit the wayward satellite.
Having lost power shortly after it reached orbit in late 2006, the satellite is well below the altitude of a normal satellite. The Pentagon wants to hit it with an SM-3 missile just before it re-enters Earth's atmosphere, in that way minimizing the amount of debris that would remain in space.
Adding to the difficulty of the mission, the missile will have to do better than just hit the bus-sized satellite, a Navy official said Tuesday. It needs to strike the relatively small fuel tank aboard the spacecraft in order to accomplish the main goal, which is to eliminate the toxic fuel that could injure or even kill people if it reached Earth. The Navy official described technical aspects of the missile's capabilities on condition that he not be identified.
Also complicating the effort will be the fact that the satellite has no heat-generating propulsion system on board. That makes it more difficult for the Navy missile's heat-seeking system to work, although the official said software changes had been made to compensate for the lack of heat.
The Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell, said Defense Secretary Robert Gates was briefed on the shootdown plan Tuesday by the two officers who will advise him on exactly when to launch the missile -- Gen. Kevin Chilton, the head of Strategic Command, and Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who held Chilton's post until last summer.
"We all have an agreed-upon series of steps that need to be taken for this launch to be given the go-ahead," Morrell said, adding that no final decision has been made on when to make the attempt.
"The secretary is the one who will decide if and when to pull the trigger," the spokesman said, adding that Gates was departing Wednesday morning on an around-the-world trip that will include a stop in Honolulu, Hawaii, where a military command center will be monitoring the satellite operation.
Left alone, the satellite would be expected to hit Earth during the first week of March. About half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft would be expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and would scatter debris over several hundred miles.
Known by its military designation US 193, the satellite was launched in December 2006. It lost power and its central computer failed almost immediately afterward, leaving it uncontrollable. It carried a sophisticated and secret imaging sensor.
Morrell said the cost of adapting the Navy anti-missile system for the shootdown mission was $30 million to $40 million.
China and Russia have expressed concern at the planned shootdown, saying it could harm security in outer space. At the State Department on Tuesday, spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters that the U.S. action is meant to protect people from the hazardous fuel and is not a weapons test.
China was criticized last year when it used a missile to destroy a defunct weather satellite.
The Navy ship-based system, which includes a command-and-control and radar system known as Aegis, as well as the SM-3 missiles, is just one segment of a larger, far-flung missile defense system that has been in development by the American military for more than three decades.
Managed by the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, the program includes interceptor missiles sitting in underground silos at Fort Greely, Alaska, and at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., as well as radars around the world that are used to track an enemy missile and help the interceptor hit it.
As currently configured the missile defense system is designed mainly to counter a threat from North Korea. The Bush administration, fearing an emerging missile threat from Iran, is in talks with Poland and the Czech Republic to place interceptor missiles in Poland and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic. Russia has objected strenuously, saying such bases would be a threat to Russia.
Link
|
|
|
|
02/21/2008 12:10:21 AM · #58 |
I hope they used a missile with one of those cameras on the front. That'd make more exciting footage than seeing one flying into a house window!
|
|
|
|
02/21/2008 12:11:16 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by photodude:
Originally posted by jjstager2:
Yet another situation where it's all Bush's fault.
It has 1000 lbs of toxic fuel. If it falls to earth and damages/poisons property/land/people - it's Bush's fault that it failed so miserably.
If we shoot it into a million pieces and further clutter up space - that's Bush's fault, too.
Why can't Obama be president already so none of this has to happen and we can all live Halcyon lives? |
Jeff, I agree with you on this one. W is not at fault here. But let's be real - he's not the brightest bulb in the lamp |
Uhhh, he's got a bachelor's degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard.
I wish I were that dim.
But more to the point, don't you think it's a little mind numbed to continue to blame everything (like this satellite thing) on Bush? I'm not a fan of the guy's politics but I'm a little tired of the Bash Bush fad. I really think we need to get over the hate.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2008 12:30:37 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by jjstager2:
But more to the point, don't you think it's a little mind numbed to continue to blame everything (like this satellite thing) on Bush? I'm not a fan of the guy's politics but I'm a little tired of the Bash Bush fad. I really think we need to get over the hate. |
Well, we actually know it's been Cheney pulling the strings all along... |
|
|
|
02/21/2008 12:36:19 AM · #61 |
(Tired, so I hope I'm not repeating.)
They actually hit it! Fox News report
So...who's got pics? |
|
|
|
02/21/2008 09:22:21 AM · #62 |
A follow-up "Thanks!" to Scott ( SDW) and Jeffrey ( levyj413) for the linked articles posted on specifics.
Much appreciated. :-) |
|
|
|
02/21/2008 09:27:24 AM · #63 |
It still amazes me that we can hit something that is moving from the distance of this. Are the exact number posted? I know it took the rocket 3 minutes to reach the satellite. How many mile was that and how big was that satellite?
|
|
|
|
02/21/2008 10:00:56 AM · #64 |
Originally posted by rex:
It still amazes me that we can hit something that is moving from the distance of this. Are the exact number posted? I know it took the rocket 3 minutes to reach the satellite. How many mile was that and how big was that satellite? |
Well, we managed to hit the moon from the earth 40odd years ago. Rocket ballistics / trajectories is actually pretty trivial. My brother's a rocket scientist[*]. He ain't so smart. the other fact is that this is a heat seeking missile designed to destroy fast moving, evasive incoming weapons that are small and agile. In comparison the satellite was moving on a fixed path at a fixed speed and is roughly 100x the size of the typical targets these weapons are designed to hit. It was the proverbial barn door. The missile system is something like 13/22 hits/trials so far in tests.
[*] he really is. he's the smart one of the family
Message edited by author 2008-02-21 10:02:37.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2008 10:03:41 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by rex:
It still amazes me that we can hit something that is moving from the distance of this. Are the exact number posted? I know it took the rocket 3 minutes to reach the satellite. How many mile was that and how big was that satellite? |
Not sure how fast the sat was moving, but it was 130 miles up when it got hit and it was about the size of a school bus.
Since the warhead did not have explosives in it, the explosion in the video is a pretty sure sign they hit the 1000 gallon fuel tank directly, as hoped (which would be about the size of a VW bug). So not only did they hit it, they hit it where they wanted to hit it.
Very impressive!
|
|
|
|
02/21/2008 10:16:32 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Well, we managed to hit the moon from the earth 40odd years ago. Rocket ballistics / trajectories is actually pretty trivial. My brother's a rocket scientist[*]. He ain't so smart. the other fact is that this is a heat seeking missile designed to destroy fast moving, evasive incoming weapons that are small and agile. |
SM-3 is not really a heat seeking missile
Originally posted by Gordon:
In comparison the satellite was moving on a fixed path at a fixed speed and is roughly 100x the size of the typical targets these weapons are designed to hit. |
SM-3 is intended to shoot down medium to long range ballistic missiles that are about the size of a school bus. But since we seemed to have hit the fuel tank directly, as hopped, it says we could hit smaller targets.
Originally posted by Gordon:
It was the proverbial barn door. The missile system is something like 13/22 hits/trials so far in tests. |
SM-3 is 12 hits of 14 attempts thus far
|
|
|
|
02/21/2008 10:27:51 AM · #67 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
[quote=rex]
Very impressive! |
Yes it is still VERY Impressive.
Thanks for the answers.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2008 11:23:09 AM · #68 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
SM-3 is not really a heat seeking missile |
Weird, the guy they interviewed about it last night said it was. He's probably wrong.
Same for the rest of the facts - can't trust interviewees any more.
ETA : Urm ? Navy Hits Satellite With Heat-Seeking Missile
The other article I found mentions it uses longwave IR guidance for final targeting too.
Message edited by author 2008-02-21 11:32:43.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2008 11:38:58 AM · #69 |
It uses infrared in it's final stage right before impact for any small last minute directional changes, but it's guided to that point. i.e. if there were five sats next to each other it could be guided to the one we wanted to destroy where a standard heat seeker would most likely just hit the closest one. That's why I said "not really" kind of is, mostly isn't.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2008 11:46:17 AM · #70 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
It uses infrared in it's final stage right before impact for any small last minute directional changes, but it's guided to that point. i.e. if there were five sats next to each other it could be guided to the one we wanted to destroy where a standard heat seeker would most likely just hit the closest one. That's why I said "not really" kind of is, mostly isn't. |
Don't most heatseakers have some additional level of control/ selection and just use the IR for the final kill ?
Otherwise I'd be a bit concerned flying in a plane that launched one. Seems pretty similar? Haven't played with any guidance systems for a while though, so I don't really keep up with it any more.
Message edited by author 2008-02-21 11:48:26.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2008 12:20:15 PM · #71 |
//www.foxnews.com has a video of the hit. Not quite sure how to link the video but on there front page under the storyline clcik the video section.
Message edited by author 2008-02-21 12:51:22.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2008 12:48:27 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Don't most heatseakers have some additional level of control/ selection and just use the IR for the final kill ? |
I don't know enough to answer real intelligently. However, from what I'm guessing, most modern missiles are not relying on heat to hit a target. Flares, chaffs and low heat exhaust have all but made pure heat seakers ineffective.
Reading about it on Raytheon's site, it sounds to my like the infrared on the SM-3 is more of an assist to guidence.
|
|
|
|
02/21/2008 01:09:32 PM · #73 |
From what I've read the closing speed of the collision was something like 22,000 mph.
They also had to re-tune the IR sensors to detect much cooler objects than the missile is designed to detect when shooting down a ballistic missile.
They estimated that there was no debris bigger than a football and that all of it should burn up on re-entry. Compare that to the Chinese effort a few years back when they shot destroyed a weather satellite with a missile. They spewed 100,000+ chunks of satellite all over the place creating an even more hazardous environment. Most are still in orbit. |
|
|
|
02/21/2008 02:47:52 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by rex:
//www.foxnews.com has a video of the hit. Not quite sure how to link the video but on there front page under the storyline clcik the video section. |
All Politics aside, This is all I wanted to see.... And maybe a cool photo or two of it blowing up.....
|
|
|
|
02/21/2008 03:33:13 PM · #75 |
WOW, is that a big cloud. Cool video!
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 03:44:42 PM EDT.
