The problem doesn't stop with the possibility of fatal damage should the satellite fall in the wrong place. An anonymous official has added there may be the possibility the satellite could be carrying hazardous materials. During atmospheric burn-up, this unknown material could be spread over thousands of miles of atmosphere.
Fun, they don't mention nuclear material at all.
Could they be actually be frightened of US security here?
Cool, was wondering how the reactors worked in satellites. Was thinking it could be done with the Seebeck effect*. Then the posts about RTG's had me wondering what an RTG was, the Wikipedia entry answered it nicely for me.
One thing thats not explained in the wiki tho, is how the cold side of the Seebeck devices are cooled. I s'pose it's the coolant system that keeps the rest of the satellite warm? Anyone know?
Just figured if there was any excess heat that a convection-heatsink Isn't gonna be very helpfull in space! Maybe they have some sort of Emissivity-heatsink?
* If you have a Peltier cooled camera, next time you pack it in for the night and power it down, have a small low voltage light globe handy and run it off the cold Peltier. Your Peltier device just became a Seebeck device.
I heard from someone, unconfirmed, that NASA insists that all pieces of skylab are their's and private ownership of pieces is forbidden. Explains why I have not seen skylab pieces on Ebay. If NASA were able to lay claim on all pieces of skylab, then such pieces are effectively worthless!
"NROL 21 is the cover-name for one-off classified satellite. Although nothing is known about the mission, the orbit hints for an experimental radar reconnaisance satellite."
The plot thickens, the satellite in the site you give is a drawing of a deployed solar array, but the statement in the site you give says;
"Soon after launch John Locker in the UK reported that the NROL-21 satellite failed within hours of its launch and the solar arrays never deployed."
"The rectangular bus box does appear to be covered with solar arrays and the spacecraft does appear to be darker than would be expected except for the down link dish rack and un-deployed hardware. At least they did not deploy properly thus the reports of the general power failure. That is at least my present impression based on the interpretation of the low resolution spacecraft imagery. To a degree I am speculating here based on low resolution ground based imagery and what we can gather from its appearance. I would have to say once I saw this imagery the common FIA bus idea vanished from my present thinking."
This is the most cryptic double speak I've read for a while...
Frankly with all this spin here - anything could be the truth...
http://news.smh.com.au/us-to-shoot-d...0215-1sfb.html
"President George W. Bush has directed a US warship to shoot down an out-of-commission spy satellite before it crashes to Earth, senior US officials said Thursday.
"The president directed the Department of Defense to carry out the intercept" after concluding that it would help prevent loss of life from the uncontrolled descent, said Deputy National Security Adviser James Jeffrey.
Jeffrey and other senior officials said the risk posed by an estimated 1,000 pounds of hydrazine, a toxic propellant, aboard the schoolbus-sized satellite was a key factor in the decision.
They denied that it was driven by the desire to protect the highly classified satellite's secrets, or that the shoot-down was intended to demonstrate a US anti-satellite defense capability..."
I'm curious how visible the debris cloud from this would be, given that it would be making a pass over Australia around 5-7 hours after a North Pacific descending node intercept. Given that they want to hit it quite high up, pieces would be re-entering for quite a few orbits afterwards, possibly days/weeks. Expect a light show if it is night here.
I'm also amused that they say the most likely piece to survive an intercept would be the fuel tank, despite the fact that it is the piece they claim to be aiming to destroy. Look out below!
Russia has accused the US of using a plan to shoot down a broken spy satellite as a cover for testing an anti-satellite weapon.
The US said last week that it would use a missile to destroy the satellite, to stop it from crash landing. Officials say the satellite contains hazardous fuel which could kill humans. But Russia's defence ministry said the US planned to test its "anti-missile defence system's capability to destroy other countries' satellites"...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7248995.stm
"...The US military has said it hopes to smash the satellite as soon as next week - just before it enters Earth's atmosphere - with a single missile fired from a US Navy cruiser in the northern Pacific Ocean.
The US has told Australia and a handful of other nations to be on standby for falling debris from the highly classified satellite, because there is a minute possibility of the strike misfiring and debris falling on land rather than water..." http://news.smh.com.au/australia-pre...0218-1sse.html
According to Satobs, an aviation warning has been issued for an area near Hawaii for several hours during which time, USA193 will be passing overhead. It's believed that this is when it will be shot down.
Attached is the orbit immediately following the intercept attempt. Note that it does not include whatever vector will be imparted by the intercept if it is successful (or even potential orbital shift if it is unsuccessful).
Notable areas it passes over are Vancouver Island, Alberta just north of Edmonton, and Adelaide. However, given the shape of the NOTAMS area, the missile will likely be launched to the North West, imparting a slight sideways motion after impact, which I would speculate would shift the orbit to be a bit more polar. I guess it really depends on if it is strictly kinetic, and the velocities involved at the time. I am no specialist on the subject, but have alerted my friends and family who live under the re-entry path to go out and have a look.
A few people were on about nuclear-powered satellites and that reminded me of an ad that I saw in an old Scientific American, so here it is. It's from the August 1966 edition. The ad is for a 25 watt nuclear 'battery' that weighs 3000 pounds (mostly shielding) and a guaranteed life of 5 years per fuelling. Obviously, without the shielding it would only be a few pounds. The cost is $63,320. For comparison, there is another ad in the SA for an E-type Jag and that is about $6000.
It works by using isotope(s) that generate heat and then thermocouples to generate the electricity.
I think I'll buy one and run my 'scope mount on it - don't have to worry anymore about carrying around heavy lead-acids batteries that go flat all the time!
Note that a second NOTAM has been issued for the day after the first, which would cover a second attempt if the first fails for some reason:
Quote:
02/067 (A0708/08) - AIRSPACE STATIONARY RESERVATION WITHIN AN AREA BNDD
BY 3145N/17012W 2824N/16642W 2352N/16317W 1909N/16129W 1241N/16129W
1239N/16532W 1842N/17057W 2031N/17230W 2703N/17206W SFC-UNL. 22 FEB 02:30 2008
UNTIL 22 FEB 05:00 2008. CREATED: 19 FEB 12:30 2008
Evidence of Frightened Bunnies??
The Truth is Out There... I Think
