Navy claims succesful missile launch at satellite...


#1

5000 + mile an hour missile hit it’s target, a satellite travelling at 17000 + miles an hour at 140 miles above the earth.

Details to be released shortly.

cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/2 … index.html


#2

Got it on another thread…I have 2 sources saying the same.


#3

Beautiful feat of engineering. It may have cost a fair of money, but I am glad to know that if there is a need, they can strike something down travelling that high, that fast, and do so quickly.


#4

It seems like the navy could have some fun blasting old junk out of the sky. I am unfamiliar as to why it needed to be blasted rather than let fall though.


#5

I think the main concern was that the fuel tank that ran the satellite may have survived reentry releasing a chlorine type gas cloud should it have been compromised on impact after entry, thus blowing it up in space so the smaller pieces would burn up before impacting mother Earth. :smiley:

Allen


#6

That leads me to a question…

I have heard that the fuel tank on the satellite had a full of tank of “toxic hydrazine fuel” and that was of course the reason to destroy it.

However, how could the satellite have had a full tank of fuel (I read 1,000 pounds somewhere, I think CNN), but it has already been up there for a while (I presume)?

I have a bit of a feeling it was more along the lines of making sure the “sophisticated and secret imaging sensor” that was on board.

-Information in quotes courtesy of CNN.com


#7

From cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/02/2 … index.html it was launched two double oh six. Not sure of the MPG it gets or should that orbits per gallon? :smiley:

In the full scheme of things, seems to me that it was pretty new? But my knowledge of satellite technology is of the word only :slight_smile:

Allen


#8

Remember Skylab? Regretfully, I’m old enought to remember. :cry:


#9

While the imaging equipment was very “sensitive” technology and was worthy of destruction rather than falling (pun intended) :wink: into the wrong hands, the hydrazine propellant was a major concern due to its toxicity. The satellite was carrying the amount of propellant that it was to fuel its thrusters which control its postioning anywhere above the earth throughout its useful design life. A thousand + pounds would theoretically last many, many years. If they told us just how many, I’m sure they’d have to kill us…


#10

Ah, thank you sir. I read that very article (and pull my quotes from it) but missed that. On re-reading the article I have found the answer to my question,

“Because it malfunctioned immediately after being launched, it had a full tank – about 1,000 pounds – of frozen, toxic hydrazine propellant.”

Never mind then… I guess I’ll put my tinfoil hat away :stuck_out_tongue:


#11

“The fuel tank might have survived re-entry if the satellite had fallen to Earth on its own. It could have dispersed harmful or even potentially deadly fumes over an area the size of two football fields.”
-CNN.com

“Approximately 260 million kilograms [of Hydrazine] are manufactured annually”
-Wikipedia (obligatory pinch of salt included :stuck_out_tongue:)

Even with the small amount of information that we have available from Wikipedia, it does not say exactly how dangerous the 260 million kilograms of manufactured Hydrazine is compared to the stuff they use as rocket fuel… Sadly I could not personally confirm the Wikipedia information about the Hydrazine as you need to pay $30 to read the article that is sourced.


#12

I would imagine that it could be a pretty bad day if there was a mishap with the stuff during manufacture or transport… If I remember correctly, there has been issues resulting from handling/mishandling of the stuff with the Air Force. The F-16 has an EPU (Emergency Power Unit) that uses the stuff. I believe that there has been cases of health issues with service personell from hydrazine handling mishaps. And it’s a big deal with haz-mat recovery when an F-16 crashes. Several years ago there was a rash of F-16 losses from Luke AFB and the AZ Nat. Guard in TUS from some sort of an engine problem. I recall that officials were very concerned about the release of the hydrazine from these events.


#13

Hydrazine MSDS


#14

The Hydrazine MSDS needs a MSDS. :open_mouth:


#15

[quote=“wazzu90”]

I deal with materials that have some of the nastier MSDS that are out there, but this one is pretty bad.


#16

But I’m older than you! 8) My Fortran teacher in college co-wrote the program that docked Skylab with something while in space and now I can’t remember what it was. That’s how old I am LOL. I just remember she looked exactly like “Pat” from Saturday Night Live. But she was an awesome teacher.


#17

[quote=“EatSleepJeep”]

Wow, thanks for showing us that there… That is some dangerous material!


#18

In my dotage I now only train and certify folks in HAZMAT response, but when I still had my response companies we’d be called out for some very, VERY nasty stuff.

Among the worst was getting rid of approx. 200 gallons of old, dried out and unstable picric acid, which has been known to explode if you look at it too hard. Or unscrew the lid! Or pick it up! Or tip it! And by all means don’t ever drop it!

There have been many, many others.