Pull the other one, it's got bells on
I'm not very happy. The US is still going ahead with their decision to fire a missile at a spy satellite, though at least now it seems I can blame Bush specifically. What really annoys me is their arguments.
White House Officials say they have no idea where it might land, which is not unreasonable. According to the BBC, experts believe that the most likely scenario is that the pieces will drop into the sea somewhere, given that almost three-quarters of the Earth's surface is covered by water. So far so good, so why shoot it down at all? Oh... there is the possibility, however, that it could land in Russia or China. Gotcha.
"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." Sounds reasonable, half a ton of toxic propellant is not a pleasant thing to have falling on your head. But it's used as propellant for a reason, and this isn't the first time a spacecraft which contains a large amount of it has failed - without consequences.
So what says Dr Ruediger Jehn, a space debris analyst at the European Space Agency (ESA)? "Only heat-resistant or very heavy objects will survive. There is a risk in this case that something will hit the ground, but given that the Earth is so big, the probability in this case that someone will be hit is really remote." OK, but the US isn't talking about much about the odds of peppering people with debris, what about the hydrazine? "This could reduce the risk of it crashing into the Earth. When the velocity of the satellite is reduced during entry into the denser layers of the atmosphere, the satellite will get very, very hot. The hydrazine will probably cause it to explode and it will be broken up into many, many pieces." A small flaw in the US logic appears, in my ever so humble opinion.
Bizarrely, General James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been quoted as stating that the plan is to "get rid of the hydrazine and have this fall in the ocean". Right. And they're going to do this by "hitting the satellite at a point in its orbit where any debris will quickly fall out of orbit and re-enter the atmosphere over the ocean". Whilst simultaneously stating that "about half the debris will come down in the first two orbits, but it could take longer than a month for some of the smaller debris". And this allows them to meet their objective to "reduce the risk .. to the earth, cities, people, etc".
So in short, shooting it down will result in a debris cloud which will take longer to de-orbit than not doing so, and naturally scatter the debris over a wider area. Whilst not shooting it down is still likely to result in the spacecraft exploding with no hydrazine surviving to the ground. Yes, I can see the logic clearly.
What really adds icing to the cake is his answer to being asked why this intercept was any different than the Chinese anti-satellite test - Cartwright said the United States was "notifying the international community beforehand and was conducting the intercept near the edge of space". Because filling the sky with debris is so much less of a problem when you tell people in advance, obviously.
Ah well. At least the spacewar article has an amusing url, even if the arguments are somewhat shot down (pun intended) by this BBC article.
White House Officials say they have no idea where it might land, which is not unreasonable. According to the BBC, experts believe that the most likely scenario is that the pieces will drop into the sea somewhere, given that almost three-quarters of the Earth's surface is covered by water. So far so good, so why shoot it down at all? Oh... there is the possibility, however, that it could land in Russia or China. Gotcha.
"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." Sounds reasonable, half a ton of toxic propellant is not a pleasant thing to have falling on your head. But it's used as propellant for a reason, and this isn't the first time a spacecraft which contains a large amount of it has failed - without consequences.
So what says Dr Ruediger Jehn, a space debris analyst at the European Space Agency (ESA)? "Only heat-resistant or very heavy objects will survive. There is a risk in this case that something will hit the ground, but given that the Earth is so big, the probability in this case that someone will be hit is really remote." OK, but the US isn't talking about much about the odds of peppering people with debris, what about the hydrazine? "This could reduce the risk of it crashing into the Earth. When the velocity of the satellite is reduced during entry into the denser layers of the atmosphere, the satellite will get very, very hot. The hydrazine will probably cause it to explode and it will be broken up into many, many pieces." A small flaw in the US logic appears, in my ever so humble opinion.
Bizarrely, General James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been quoted as stating that the plan is to "get rid of the hydrazine and have this fall in the ocean". Right. And they're going to do this by "hitting the satellite at a point in its orbit where any debris will quickly fall out of orbit and re-enter the atmosphere over the ocean". Whilst simultaneously stating that "about half the debris will come down in the first two orbits, but it could take longer than a month for some of the smaller debris". And this allows them to meet their objective to "reduce the risk .. to the earth, cities, people, etc".
So in short, shooting it down will result in a debris cloud which will take longer to de-orbit than not doing so, and naturally scatter the debris over a wider area. Whilst not shooting it down is still likely to result in the spacecraft exploding with no hydrazine surviving to the ground. Yes, I can see the logic clearly.
What really adds icing to the cake is his answer to being asked why this intercept was any different than the Chinese anti-satellite test - Cartwright said the United States was "notifying the international community beforehand and was conducting the intercept near the edge of space". Because filling the sky with debris is so much less of a problem when you tell people in advance, obviously.
Ah well. At least the spacewar article has an amusing url, even if the arguments are somewhat shot down (pun intended) by this BBC article.