Comments on: Video of USA193 satellite being shot down

Video of USA193 satellite being shot down

6am — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:34:10 -0800

A video has been posted showing the shooting down of satellite USA193 high over the Pacific!

Extra wicked photos. The pricey missile used. How to keep an eye out for flaming debris...

By: jeblis

jeblis — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:41:29 -0800

Amazing what you can do with computer animation these days.

By: DU

DU — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:42:38 -0800

That was a weird angle in the video. We were looking way way down on the ship and then way way up at the satellite. Airborne camera? Anyway, this is final proof to critics that the Star Wars program works. Provided we have 14 months of lead-time for any incoming missile. And no bad weather.

By: DU

DU — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:43:24 -0800

Oh and Heavens Above rules, though I've never spotted anything they said I should be able to.

By: Mike D

Mike D — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:47:34 -0800

"Nice shooting." -- Riker, grudgingly, after the Tamarian ship disables but doesn't destroy an Enterprise shuttlecraft trying to effect a rescue of Picard. (Star Trek: The Next Generation, "Darmok")

By: limon

limon — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:48:56 -0800

Pay close attention, China! Three cheers for the militarization of space!

By: Atom Eyes

Atom Eyes — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:49:06 -0800

It blowed up real good!

By: brain_drain

brain_drain — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:51:50 -0800

Alien 1: This satellite is a perfect place to stop and rest before we finish our journey to Earth and replicate ourselves into an attacking army. Alien 2: What's that outside? Alien 1: Oh shit! It's a mis--

By: Mike D

Mike D — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:52:30 -0800

Oh man... a brand new satellite image shows the first shot actually MISSED!

By: ceribus peribus

ceribus peribus — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:53:24 -0800

Wouldn't a spy satellite have a self destruct device? Did USA193 have one that wasn't working?

By: samsara

samsara — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:53:33 -0800

Beautiful explosion..hopefully directors take note for future sci-fi films.

By: Avenger

Avenger — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:55:53 -0800

Was that just me, or did that missile have a massive second-stage separation? I would imagine so, since a regular SM-3 doesn't have a ceiling of 140 miles. And hey, in 5 years the Chinese will have this technology and will be able to shoot down any of our satellites and/or the space shuttle. We'll probably need to spend another few hundred billion to develop anti-anti-satellite missiles.

By: kickback

kickback — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:56:37 -0800

Very good post. With how expensive, important and increasingly vulnerable they are, it strikes me as odd that no one's really talking about shooting sats down for purposes other than "it's defective and off course". You'd think we would be shooting down other countries' down all the time, just to, y'know, flex our (big) muscles.

By: chillmost

chillmost — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:00:38 -0800

Hey! Look what we can do!

By: DU

DU — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:01:15 -0800

it strikes me as odd that no one's really talking about shooting sats down for purposes Google "asat". ...in 5 years the Chinese will have this technology... The Chinese did it a year (or was it two?) ago. But I'm thinking shooting down a US asset would be an act of war, so they might prefer to just poison children's toys for a decade or two. Weaken the next generation.

By: kickback

kickback — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:01:53 -0800

ceribus peribus, i believe shortly after launch they lost all communication with the satellite, so maybe it did have a self destruct, they just couldn't get a dial tone.

By: Camofrog

Camofrog — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:04:40 -0800

Can they do that to a Fox News satellite next? While carrying it live on Fox News?

By: kickback

kickback — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:04:50 -0800

Google "asat". Nice! Now I just need a failed state and some of those laser pulse rifles

By: hupp

hupp — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:25:09 -0800

Does anyone else think they were much more worried about spy satellite hardware falling into foreign lands than the risk from fuel? Not that there's anything wrong with that...

By: signal

signal — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:39:01 -0800

Mmmmmh, war pr0n.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:40:06 -0800

It's only a model.

By: Floydd

Floydd — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:42:48 -0800

It's been done. Space Soldiers Conquer the Universe

By: Skorgu

Skorgu — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:46:01 -0800

Shooting down an effectively dead satellite with a known orbit borders on the trivial if you've got a good budget. It's one of those weak points that stay un-attacked because of the political consequences more than any technical difficulty of attack. See also submarine cables.

By: Poolio

Poolio — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:50:13 -0800

This ended well.

By: quin

quin — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:53:16 -0800

I'd lay odds that it wasn't actually USA193 (or NRO L-21) but it was actually a super-powered death ray space station. What we didn't see was the British operative that had just gotten done fighting some cybernetic kung-fu master and had short circuited his robot claw into clamping down on the device that was preventing a radar-lock. (Rumor has it that he uttered the line "get a grip" as he did so) just before welding shut the main control room, thus trapping inside the Franco-Germanic-Chinese billionaire who had financed it's construction. He then made his way to the escape pod, pausing only long enough to rescue the beautiful lead engineer who had been kidnapped and forced to complete the death ray construction. The missile hit just as the pod cleared the safe distance. Naturally. But when the press announces it, it's always a "successful decommission of a reconnaissance satellite with a decaying orbit" or something.

By: Mister_A

Mister_A — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:05:22 -0800

Does anyone else think they were much more worried about spy satellite hardware falling into foreign lands than the risk from fuel? Not that there's anything wrong with that... That's exactly what I thought. I have found that the US govt. does not always disclose the whole truth when it comes to military matters.

By: The World Famous

The World Famous — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:06:27 -0800

I prefer the original edit, where the satellite shot first.

By: gagglezoomer

gagglezoomer — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:11:56 -0800

When will the high def version of this be available for my blu-ray player?

By: Tehanu

Tehanu — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:23:33 -0800

"Nice shooting." -- Riker, grudgingly, after the Tamarian ship disables but doesn't destroy an Enterprise shuttlecraft trying to effect a rescue of Picard. (Star Trek: The Next Generation, "Darmok") Vote for your favorite scifi characters in the Best Cosmic Duo to Destroy a Wayward Spy Satellite poll. Kirk and Spock are currently winning. The bastards. Jayne, vote for Jayne!

By: Turtles all the way down

Turtles all the way down — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:27:15 -0800

The United States is very good at blowing things up in unimaginably impossible high-tec ways. If you watch this video you will believe that phenomenally practical and remarkably intelligent minds are behind this technological achievement. In contrast, US foreign (and domestic) policy makes it seem as though kindergarteners are its architects. And members of the US press dutifully mouth the lines they have been given by the six-year-olds.

By: kcds

kcds — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:36:18 -0800

It's my understanding that the satellite had almost an ounce of plutonium on board in the form of small pellets used to generate heat to prevent critical parts of the spacecraft from freezing up and malfunctioning - and my layman's guess is that, long-term, the hazard to life created by an ounce of atomized plutonium entering the upper atmosphere and getting distributed around the world would be greater than the "two to three football-fields" worth of debris field contaminated with hydrazine should the fuel tank have hit the ground intact. So, yes, my guess is that the greater concern was over foreign access to classified technology than any putative hazard to life.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:38:41 -0800

In contrast, US foreign (and domestic) policy makes it seem as though kindergarteners are its architects. And members of the US press dutifully mouth the lines they have been given by the six-year-olds. posted by Turtles all the way down at 2:27 PM on February 21 The reason for this is simple. The military and high-tech defense contractors are staffed with people who dedicate their education and careers to building impossible things that make other things go boom. By contrast, anyone who can pass the foreign service exam can work at the state department. And idiots can be elected president.

By: unixrat

unixrat — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:45:06 -0800

It's my understanding that the satellite had almost an ounce of plutonium on board in the form of small pellets used to generate heat to prevent critical parts of the spacecraft from freezing up and malfunctioning - and my layman's guess is that, long-term, the hazard to life created by an ounce of atomized plutonium entering the upper atmosphere and getting distributed around the world would be greater than the "two to three football-fields" worth of debris field contaminated with hydrazine should the fuel tank have hit the ground intact. Yeah, this is a classic example of 'penny wise, pound foolish'. The idea that it's better to spread that shit through upper atmosphere than to let tech possibly fall into someone else's hands is asinine. "Spy satellites for us, cancer for everyone!"

By: casarkos

casarkos — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:51:27 -0800

See, Star Wars works after all! Now let's get to building those silos in Poland...

By: HuronBob

HuronBob — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:53:59 -0800

And ~~idiots~~ an idiot ~~can be elected~~ is president. FTFY

By: Pecinpah

Pecinpah — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:59:59 -0800

I made a wish on it.

By: brownpau

brownpau — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:03:43 -0800

Here's an ostensible cameraphone video of NROL-21's launch from VAFB. Now you've seen the beginning and the end.

By: Kid Charlemagne

Kid Charlemagne — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:20:05 -0800

It did have a self destruct device. A 140 mile fall. I'd be more worried about that plutonium hitting the ground in a 2-3 football fields area than the hydrazine. I question this, though, because I though heat disposal was the big issue in the sunny climes of Earth orbit and that they didn't break out the plutonium until Jupiter or Saturn.

By: The Light Fantastic

The Light Fantastic — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:29:31 -0800

Boom! heh heh heh heh

By: Catfry

Catfry — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:10:35 -0800

There's really very little reason to use radioactive thermal generator energy sources in low earth orbit rather than solar power, and since that's the only plutonium dependant power plant that is known to be actively used, I doubt this satellite had anything.

By: Catfry

Catfry — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:12:34 -0800

Apparently RTG stands for radioisotope thermoelectric generator so substitute above.

By: socalsamba

socalsamba — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:16:23 -0800

Yea . . . it's really easy to shoot down satellites now. Wait until they start firing back.

By: kowalski

kowalski — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:18:33 -0800

My perspective on this is that this was more a question of a) the missile defense folks getting the chance to score another successful though completely unrealistic kill (with a tonne of media attention, more than a typical missile defense test), on which they can establish a secondary institutional mission ("planetary defense"), and thus position themselves better to lobby the next administration; and b) the Bush Administration (and really the U.S. military and any American presidency) never running from the chance to make a spectacle out of blowing something up; with a little bit of c) answer the Chinese ASAT test. I don't think the tiny risk that carbonized but still-classified technology would fall into the wrong hands factored into the decision. Certainly the risk that someone on the ground would get hurt was nothing but pretext.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:51:19 -0800

Boom! heh heh heh heh I didn't need to read the "posted by" to know this was you, TLF. I actually heard it in your voice.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:03:00 -0800

The real reason the satellite got shot down... Let's just say "snitches get stitches."

By: Atreides

Atreides — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:08:27 -0800

The voices...in my head...they suddenly stopped. So lonely.

By: mattoxic

mattoxic — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:12:36 -0800

The quality of the footage looks like it's circa 1946. Is that a V2?

By: adricv

adricv — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:30:19 -0800

Oo, I'd be chuffed if someone could explain to me why there was an explosion in an ostensibly oxygen-free vaccum! Does it have something to do with the atmosphere being close by, or the liquid oxygen fuel or something? Just groping in the dark here.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:00:59 -0800

The quality of the footage looks like it's circa 1946. It's probably reconnaissance FLIR. Wouldn't a spy satellite have a self destruct device? Did USA193 have one that wasn't working? Normally they de-orbit them into the Pacific using all that hydrazine propellant they go up with. In this case, they had lost communication almost from the beginning. Does anyone else think they were much more worried about spy satellite hardware falling into foreign lands I think this is only slightly more plausible than the hydrazine story. I think it simply provided a perfect example in the wake of the Chinese ASAT last year. ~~Also, it was probably timed to spike the McCain story in the NYT.~~ It's my understanding that the satellite had almost an ounce of plutonium on board in the form of small pellets used to generate heat to prevent critical parts of the spacecraft from freezing up and malfunctioning - and my layman's guess is that, long-term, the hazard to life created by an ounce of atomized plutonium entering the upper atmosphere and getting distributed around the world would be greater than the "two to three football-fields" worth of debris field contaminated with hydrazine should the fuel tank have hit the ground intact. It's possible it had an RTG heater on board, but not everyone agrees that it's necessary. In any case, those plutonium pellets are encased in a pretty solid chunk of inert metal that is designed to survive re-entry and then some. That said, they don't always. But keep in mind that there are satellites coming down practically every week. If it's immoral to shoot it down, it's probably immoral to put it up there in the first place. explain to me why there was an explosion in an ostensibly oxygen-free vaccum Because explosion is not necessarily the same thing as fire. If you provide your own combustibles you do not need a surrounding atmosphere.

By: Dillonlikescookies

Dillonlikescookies — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:23:03 -0800

there was a lot of discussion about this last night on the radio, given that the local coastguard was warned about potential "falling debris" i think the fuel concern is quite low on the motivation scale. ultimately, i think it's about either 1) not wanting technology or data to fall into anyone elses hands (which is dubious, considering it's a 30y.o satellite) or more importantly, 2) proving that they can, in fact, shoot down a satellite. it's interesting that someone brought up the underwater cables, between taking down satellites and cutting undersea cables a country could shut down all communication with the outside world. to be honest, i think this is just about them proving that they can. satellites are phenomenally expensive and difficult to launch, having the technology to destroy them was an obvious step.

By: jfuller

jfuller — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 16:56:38 -0800

> Alien 1: This satellite is a perfect place to stop and rest before we finish our journey to Earth > and replicate ourselves into an attacking army. > > Alien 2: What's that outside? > > Alien 1: Oh shit! It's a mis-- Oh dear, now I shall have to create more Martians.

By: Skorgu

Skorgu — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:19:46 -0800

adric hydrazine decomposes exothermally under the presence of a catalyst, no O₂ required. I'm sure getting hit by a kinetic kill vehicle would tend to disperse the catalyst nicely.

By: neuron

neuron — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:39:19 -0800

...if someone could explain to me why there was an explosion in an ostensibly oxygen-free vaccum There may have been little or no "explosion". The "kill vehicle" carried no explosive material. The satellite was destroyed by collision at roughtly 25,000 mph (most of that velocity belonged to the satellite). What looked like an explosion was probably just an expanding debris cloud reflecting sunlight. Yeah, there may have been some hydrazine action, too. Loosely related: amateur rocket enthusiasts have been grapling with the ATF for years on the definition of "explosion". Rocketeers use a solid fuel called ammonium perchlorate composite propellant (APCP) which, if you can get it to light, burns kinda like a road flare. The ATF calls it an explosive and require users to get an explosives permit. A pending lawsuit will likely overturn this ATF rule.

By: moonbiter

moonbiter — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:03:25 -0800

i think the fuel concern is quite low on the motivation scale. ultimately, i think it's about either 1) not wanting technology or data to fall into anyone elses hands (which is dubious, considering it's a 30y.o satellite) USA 193 was not 30 years old.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:55:40 -0800

"Mr. President, we cannot afford an anti-anti-satellite missile gap!!"