Image: Defense Dept. photo by U.S. Navy
The U.S. military successfully destroyed a malfunctioning satellite using a missile to prevent the bus-size hunk of metal from leaking highly hazardous fuel into the atmosphere as it falls to Earth.
See what we're tweeting about
David_Bressan Alfred Russel Wallace - land surveyor - http://t.co/EmpxwR6jGe David_Bressan How Geologists see the world in a cobble http://t.co/fAlY5xMc5E
tvjrennie .@NautilusMag @nametyb
Coq au Venus.
Fomalhaute cuisine.
Peanut butter & Rigellian sandwich.
Soft-shelled Crab Nebulans.
#ediblealiens
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
29 Comments
Add CommentI do not believe the USA. They are lying. The reason they shot down this satellite was NOT to prevent its "hazardous fuel" from hurting people. That explanation is utter garbage. I expect S.A. to
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisexamine the science and refute this "explanation," not credulously repeat it without examining.
Hi Warren,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, we agree with you, but nobody has any concrete evidence to back up such assertions. Anyway look for a blog post on Sciam Observations -- and coverage of it in our weekly video roundup, The Monitor, soon.
The Navy did not shoot down a satellite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can shoot down a airplane, you can shoot down a bird, but goddammit, you cannot shoot down a satellite. I can see The Idaho Statesman with a headline like a that, but Scientific American? WTF?
You can shoot a satellite with a 1,000 rounds from a 50 caliber machine gun but if you do not reduce it's speed it is not coming down. This satellite was coming down whether the Navy "shot it" or not, so the Navy did not shoot it down. And anyway the Navy shot it and it still has not come down so how can they say that the "Navy Shoots Down Satellite".
"The Navy pulverizes a satellite that is in a decaying orbit." There - fixed.
The schoolbus size satellite moved above with deadly outcome is now over! and people on earth are now safer than days ago! You might like it or hate it! but all of us are safe now and I do appreciate this great effort conducted by the great and very talented USN folks and others greatest scientists and technologists!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA well done, flawless mission is one of the greatest achievement or outcome!
It's a very difficult task! and it's wonderful technolological and scientific efforts combined!
Some people like it! and some others dislike it! But it proved itself as a wonderful effort!
the next stept could be applied to destroy some colosal asteroids! that may visit this planet earth in the not very long future!
it's great! And many thanks to all involved greatest and talented folks!
I can well imagine that a number of issues were considered before the decision to destroy the satellite was reached: 1) A good opportunity to check our systems and obtain test data. 2) Show our capability to the world. 3) Reduce the already slim chance of hurting anyone. 4) Reduce the chance that any surviving pieces would reveal secret technology. 5) tell the world that although we launched a flawed satellite, we own up to it and are willing to try to minimize possible damage or injury.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo need to yell - we're all in the same tiny gray box here. Anyway, we fixed the headline. Yay user feedback!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegardless of the "actual reason" for this launch, I think it is very different from the Chinese launch about a year ago where they destroyed a satellite. 1) The US announced ahead of time we were going to do this, while they didn't and even denied it happened for some days. 2) The US waited for the orbit to decay enough that the debris will supposedly fall quickly to earth (as one poster pointed out the original satellite would have anyway), while they shot down something in a higher orbit that created debris that I believe (someone know?) is still up there and creating a hazard for others. 3) The US at least has a credible reason other than a show of force.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, this is what I was looking for:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=ML0HIDWIRUAT4QSNDLSCKHA?articleID=206801144
The Jan. 12, 2007, Chinese test occurred at 850 kms, close to orbits crowded with functioning satellites. Tens of thousands of debris bits were created instantly, some of which may complicate space operations for decades if not centuries, experts say.
My initial reaction is to withhold judgment regarding the accuracy of the Navy's account of this event.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand your evidence is....I thought so...what did the doctor give you to take every day, that you forgot today?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, perhaps there was no great need to blow the thing up, but its better to be safe than sorry, and the Military guys must have been over the moon at the chance to show off a little.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDanger to Joe Public reduced, chance of sensitive equipment falling into the wrong hands eliminated , no space debris to worry about and a nice little show of power for the less democratic among the worlds leaders. Every ones a winner as I see it.
The danger here is that this "poster child" for Missile defense is a long way away from proving that it could ever reliably work. Instead it has gone a long way to promote a system that will only offer marginal protection at best.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Satellite was on a relatively static path, decaying slightly each orbit towards reentry. Its position and velocity had been tracked with a high level of certainty over a long period of time. Support ships were on hand to refine radar resolution in mid ocean. The window for a safe reentry had been worked out.
In the real world few of these conditions would exist.
A rogue missile from a terrorist organization would offer little for warning of its launch position.
The trajectory would have to be determined in flight there could be no consideration for the fallout or what assets are under it. The best solution for interception would have to be the one taken.
In the controlled tests the existing system has not shown even a 50/50 chance of success .
With a few simple modifications an enemy missile could start evasive patterns when it detects a strong radar signal reducing the odds of impact at 22,000 miles per hour to effectively nil.
The system itself will actually put people at risk if you are to take the military at face value. They launched a spy satellite that failed ( a key part of the National Missile Defense ) It posed a risk sufficient enough to justify a 30+ million rocket launch.
Claiming this as proof that this system could ever reliably work amounts to a political stunt from the military industrial complex, this has nothing to do with the science. This is about Trillions of dollars to be spent lining their pockets. When 30 million is seen as a marketing investment this starts to make more sense.
If I was in the business I would be overjoyed with China they would be justifying my job. China is going to the moon, China can take out satellites. The most successful deterrent and cash cow for the MIC to date has been MAD. A return to its basic tenants will be required in order justify the vast expenditure. Mad Requires a perceivable enemy not a real one.
Sciam carried a very clear position on this several years ago . The sensationalized headline you are carring now seems toundermine that position. We need appropriate scientific watchdogs over the evangelical zeal exuding from the MI complex. I look forward to the upcoming Monitor issue for signs of objective reporting.
-Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. - Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can complel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Feed the people.
--
Edited by Just a Thawt at 02/22/2008 7:17 AM
--
Edited by Just a Thawt at 02/22/2008 7:25 AM
--
Edited by Just a Thawt at 02/22/2008 7:27 AM
You are missing a couple of points here,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, the military have never advertised this as anything more than what it actually was, breaking a lump of satellite that was falling to Earth from a VERY low orbit into lots of small lumps of satellite which are falling to Earth. All the hysteria has been cooked up by the media, not the Pentagon. (that isn't to say the Military didn't love being able to show off, they obviously did)
Second , Anyone with any technical knowledge will understand that this is very different from shooting down something from a realistic LEO or a hitting a moving missile.
Thirdly , 30 million is very small money in the grand scheme of the US defense budget.
fourthly, They did this without creating any space debris, this makes it a whole different exercise than the Chinese fiasco a few months ago.
And finally , don't forget , it was a good thing to do, I don't want any hydrazine landing on my head, thanks very much!!
Hi. I'm the author of Space War: Coming to a Sky Near You? in the March issue of the mag. I posted the following as commentary there:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://
www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=space-wars-coming-to-the-sky-near-you
but see most of the discussion of the latest event is here. This is what I posted yesterday:
In hope of generating some discussion and debate, I'm throwing out a few questions to see what folks might think.
Does the Navy's use of a missile defense interceptor to take down a satellite change the definition of space weapons?
Does it justify Russian and Chinese fears that the U.S. missile defense program is an offensive space control program in disguise?
Do you think the Russians and Chinese are sincere in their effort to kick start treaty negotiations to ban weapons on orbit?
Given that weapons that shatter satellites create enormous amounts of junk in space -- such as the one the Chinese tested last year, and the capability that the U.S. displayed last night -- do you think that the United States should lead an effort to ban testing and use of these types of weapons?
And I'd be happy to answer any questions that I can.
I don’t believe I missed those points loonyman
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey simply failed to make an impression on me as being correct.
Defense secretary Robert Gates is definitively using this as a platform to “prove†the technology [url http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7257865.stm]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7257865.stm[/url]
So does this mean by your volition that he is not intelligent?
Or is he being misquoted?
A broader search brings us the following.
[url http://news.google.ca/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&ncl=1133645778&topic=w]http://news.google.ca/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&ncl=1133645778&topic=w[/url]
I think it’s clear they are in fact using this to bolster the image of the besieged program.
[url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Missile_Defense#Technical_Criticisms]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Missile_Defense#Technical_Criticisms[/url]
At no point are they saying “of course this is not the same as the real thing†Even though intelligent folk know better.
What the Chinese did was wrong agreed. What the US did was not right either.
There where risks involved in this shot. The hydrazine was a solid block. If they missed the fuel tank or even partially hit it they risked elevating some of the debris to higher orbit despite the downward impact angle. A football sized piece of debris sounds pretty reasonable unless of course you’re on the Space Station where anything bigger than a millimeter is cause for concern They are now saying it all went well ,we will see if it does I sincerely hope so. It still does not justify the risk or expense unless you’re looking for a poster child. $30 mil is chump change agreed, but what value they got for it this time! I don’t think there is any clear evidence that shooting down this “lump†was motivated by anything less than a need to control security on the device.
Its orbit took it over territory that was worth observing. It’s was a risk to let it fall into the wrong hands.
The official position before they tried the shot was that if it fell to earth there would be very little risk to human life. This is doubled as fallback position if they missed. Well shucks we tried.
Add to this the benefit of an apparently effective NMD system. And I think you really start to appreciate your tax dollars at work. Having a sitting duck to shoot hasn’t hurt the MIC. The problem is it’s the public being misled.
--
Edited by Just a Thawt at 02/22/2008 10:08 AM
Theresa in answer to your questions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(Q)Does the Navy's use of a missile defense interceptor to take down a satellite change the definition of space weapons?
(A) I think it changes the perception what can be done. The danger of this perception is that it can mislead through inference a capability beyond what they can ever hope to have.
The NMD program is focused on small attacks say 5 missles at a time. To assume a country/or terrorist organization would have the capability to build and launch ICBM’s or lesser missles but not have the ability side step the NMD is an unsupportable position. Again I suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Missile_Defense#Technical_Criticisms
(Q)Does it justify Russian and Chinese fears that the U.S. missile defense program is an offensive space control program in disguise?
(A) The only thing that it would take to turn this into an offensive system is willingness.
It would be far more effective as offensive weapon system then as a defensive one. With space based weapons this becomes even more problematic.
(Q)Do you think the Russians and Chinese are sincere in their effort to kick start treaty negotiations to ban weapons on orbit?
(A) Given the effectiveness of past disarmament treaties and providing the willingness of each member to remain transparent to the agreement’s regulation. There should be no reason to think it would not be effective.
But the US position is that they are not concerned about threats from China or from Russia but from rogue nations and organizations, who won’t sign any treaties. This leads to the justification for the system, despite the unlikelihood of an effective attack or an attack of any kind in the first place let alone a effective defense.
(Q)Given that weapons that shatter satellites create enormous amounts of junk in space -- such as the one the Chinese tested last year, and the capability that the U.S. displayed last night -- do you think that the United States should lead an effort to ban testing and use of these types of weapons?
(A)Absolutely
I have to bite the bullet and say I was mistaken here,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen I first heard about this issue the spin on it was very different. When the news first broke then the impression I got was that the US were being very honest and up front about it all, I cannot find the reference at the moment but the general line was that the missile they were using did not have the capability to reach a realistic LEO, and besides the US already proved there anti satellite capability more than 20 years ago.
I still believe that the initial decision to blow it up was more guided by public safety and to not let the technology aboard fall into the wrong hands than any sales pitch for anti missile systems. However, now I have checked out the current state of the story it now seems that the spin machine is running full speed ahead and twisting the story out of all proportions, and therein lies the danger.
If the US convinces the rest of the world that this is proof they have a great missile defence or anti satellite system then the rest of the world has an obligation to respond to protect there own interests.
Once more Spin triumphs over sanity, but I suppose not many Americans are surprised after 7 years of the Bush administration.
Sorry for shooting off at the mouth befor getting up to date on the facts Just a Thawt.
Oh, And Theresa Hitchens, I shall give you my thoughts on your questions for what they are worth a little later, right now my 8 months pregnant girl friend needs me more than the PC ;-)
--
Edited by loonyman at 02/22/2008 11:20 AM
I'm new to your site. It's refreshing to hear from people not getting their worldview from either cable TV or AM radio. Militaries have always used "target practice" to evaluate the effectiveness of their existing weapons. It's not surprising that when an opportunity presented itself they acted predictably. However, it was very high profile and dangerous. To state the humanitarian (high toxicity) reason for the shoot down, was, in my opinion, a bit lame. To stick to the original line of protecting their strategic investment is far more plausible. This controvery reminds me of Barbara Tuckman's books describing generals and so on expecting to fight the next war like the last - often at their grievious peril.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's my cynical take.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Does the Navy's use of a missile defense interceptor to take down a satellite change the definition of space weapons?
A: I'd say if the definition was changed it was by the Chinese, since this was earlier and a hit on a higher object. Not sure, though.
2. Does it justify Russian and Chinese fears that the U.S. missile defense program is an offensive space control program in disguise?
A: I don't think it is surprizing that the same system could do both, at least to some extent. And if it was already known that the US rocket could have hit a higher target, I'd think that was known before this too. I think there is a lot of political posturing and pretending to be shocked & dismayed, etc. Seems to me that when the opportunity presents itself, many (most?) nations will make a big deal out of a rival's actions to make themselves look better, regardless of appropriateness. Come to think of it, this goes on every election cycle in the US....
3. Do you think the Russians and Chinese are sincere in their effort to kick start treaty negotiations to ban weapons on orbit?
A. No, I don't. I think they just plan to work covertly. The Chinese denied their test for days! Either the right hand didn't know what the left was doing or they thought nobody would notice??? Either way, how can a ban work under these conditions... Seems hard to believe.
4. Given that weapons that shatter satellites create enormous amounts of junk in space -- such as the one the Chinese tested last year, and the capability that the U.S. displayed last night -- do you think that the United States should lead an effort to ban testing and use of these types of weapons?
A: I don't know. I'd like to say yes, but then how do you enforce? I know you'll know when someone does a test, but what do you do then? Look at nuclear testing by N Korea, etc. What about covert development? Seems like this is just a setup for failure. Hopefully I'm just too cynical.
ANTI BALLISTIC MISSILES TECHNOLOGY (ABMT) IS THE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE USA AND IT MUST INVEST MUCH MUCH MORE EFFORTS TO PERFECT THIS SELF-DEFENSE CAPABILITY IN THE WORLD FULL WITH EVILS! AND UNPREDICTABLE FOES! AND UNRELIABLE PARTNERS!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisABM is purely defensive not offensive military arsenal! therefore, it must be perfected as much as possible and forgetting valueless accusations from others!
EXISTING ABM CAPABILITY IS JUST THE DAWN OF THE TECHNOLOGICAL WONDER THAT THE USA HAS HEADED INTO! THE WORLD IS FULL WITH FOES AND THIS ABM IS SO GOOOOD TO MAKE IT PERFECT AND FLAWLESS FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL CITIZENS AND ALLIES!
This is a new chapter in military self-defense of the USA! all offensive technologies seem less urgent than the this ABM self-defense military technologies!
It is a great technology and very complex and costly one!
USA is the leader in this ABM self-defense field! and it must take this opportunity to be ahead of all foes and keep the distance much larger as possible!!!!!
Loonyman I hope you had a peacful time with the mother of your soon to be child. Us pen wielding world changers all wish for the same thing: peace on earth for the children.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have 5 children and in the summer ahead I will be a grandfather.We must all remain vigilant and build for that peaceful, enlightened future. For my part I have found the investment into human technologies such as conflict reslolution more worthy of my focus. It has outshone my boyhood wonderment of things that go bang.Developing the ability to see conflict through the eyes of another and allowing our perspective to be changed towards consensus is the hallmark of the mediator. It's nice to see we share these commonalities.
All the best.
Toannang I don't know how I missed all of this before.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for capatalizing your letters it has helped me develop a deep appreciation for the Military-Industrial complex and their great need for our money.
However you might want to consider that your not neccasarily casting the perspective you hold dearly in the best light when you present it in this manner.
And I mean this in the nicest possible way.
--
Edited by Just a Thawt at 02/22/2008 10:22 PM
History has shown to put all your resources into one defense system is myopic, a determined foe will always find your weak spot and exploit it. True, MAD was obscene, but for forty years it worked. I shudder to think what Pandora's Box will open when we go full tilt into some ABM program.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe program has not been well recieved abroad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCanada decided not to participate.
With the poltical pedulum mid swing in the US the hope would be that cooler heads prevail.
We need this kind of money and thinking for the enviroment and the ecomomic and social uphevals that will come as we retool the economy away from carbon + energy sources.
If we build ourselves a solid reputation for co-operation if we build trust out of actions not weapons then we can set the example. The present administration has pushed the pedulum hard in the opposite direction, thank the stars gravity is dependable....
--
Edited by Just a Thawt at 02/22/2008 10:40 PM
Well, if anyone cares, my own thought process here is that this will be read by the Chinese hawks as OK to proceed, and to the Indians and Israelis the same. I think the geopolitical downsides totally outweigh any upfront "wins." We have just risked starting an ASAT race we might actually not want to finish. The USAF has always said (and I believe, meant) that they don't want to use or see anyone use destructive weapons in space because of the debris. There are REAALLYY good reasons for that stance, but this particular event has undercut that stance. Bad for USAF, and bad for us all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI completely agree with your assessment here Theresa. This presents a golden opportunity for the Chinese, North Koreans or any other country interested in political blackmail to get strategic parity on "the cheap" so to speak. They won't even need to show that they have the capability to knock down satellites, bluffing will suffice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother issue with the "shoot down" is that it may come with political opportunity costs vis a vis China. In the wake of their own ASAT test, and the widespread international criticism they took, it is my understanding that a debate opened in China on the wisdom of further pursuing and testing such weaponry. At the same time, many in the U.S. defense establishment were coming around to the idea that we now really need to open a dialogue with Beijing about space, especially but not only military space, in order to try to tamp down growing tensions and perhaps come to some mutual understanding -- given that China and the United States certainly would both lose in any space war. We may well have blown the chance to influence Beijing's direction, as I am sure the Chinese will see the "shoot down" as a direct response to their own test (a kind of 'bring it on' gesture.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne thought regarding international agreements and treaties: remember that there are treaties that don't focus on trying to restrict technological development (which is hard vis a vis space given the dual use nature of almost all space technology), but instead focus on actions. You could, for example, seek an international treaty to ban the testing and use of debris-creating weapons. That doesn't stop people from gaining capabilities, but it does put a political price (or even potentially an economic one) on breaking the taboo. Both the Chemical Weapons and Biological Weapons Conventions fall into this type of treaty. Indeed, the BWC doesn't even have a verification regime attached.
[comment withdrawn]
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by slobone at 03/17/2008 10:20 PM
One of the most informitive if sometimes politically correct website on the internet
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this