Satellite Shootdown

[bazbear]

I have no qualms about it, but what do the true space experts here think about it, ie. was it about safety,was it about showing (or maybe more a real world test) ASAT capability? Was it a bit of both?

[Ian Pearse]

I believe they tested an ASAT missile back in 1985, launched from an aircraft. It worked. Would they need to do it again? Personally, I'm not too worried about the motive behind it all. They seem to have taken care of a potentially toxic problem in a an effective manner.

[LunarOrbit]

I am sure there is a bit of truth to the idea that they wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to try test the concept, and I bet the fact that there was secret technology in the satellite had crossed their minds. But I do think the safety of the people on the ground was their primary concern.

[JayUtah]

It's so not about hydrazine and beryllium. Challenger released far more hydrazine than this satellite would have. Yes, hydrazine is very toxic. But it's also highly reactive. (Actually that's what makes it toxic.) Thus it doesn't stick around long in a natural environment. So the actual danger posed by the fuel doesn't really justify the cost of the mission to shoot it down.

[gwiz]

bazbear said:

I have no qualms about it, but what do the true space experts here think about it, ie. was it about safety,was it about showing (or maybe more a real world test) ASAT capability? Was it a bit of both?

Yes. Partly to stop a tonne or so of frozen poison from surviving re-entry (and intact tanks can survive), partly a response to the Chinese anti-satellite test a year ago.

[reynoldbot]

jayutah said:

It's so not about hydrazine and beryllium. Challenger released far more hydrazine than this satellite would have. Yes, hydrazine is very toxic. But it's also highly reactive. (Actually that's what makes it toxic.) Thus it doesn't stick around long in a natural environment. So the actual danger posed by the fuel doesn't really justify the cost of the mission to shoot it down.

Sure, but what would be the consequences if on the off-chance some people had gotten hurt by the hydrazine? Better safe than sorry.

[JayUtah]

The contamination would have been limited to a couple hundred meters square, and lasted for maybe a day. The off-chance is way off.

The Apollo 15 CM post-mission safing crew was unexpectedly exposed to hydrazine from the CM RCS. While hospitalization was required, all made a complete recovery.

$20 million is a whole lotta safe for not much sorry.

[LunarOrbit]

In a world where frivolous lawsuits result in multi-million dollar payouts I bet $20 million is considered a cheap way to cover their butts.

[JayUtah]

Good point. And a missile intercept is a whole lot more exciting than a lawsuit.

[Jason]

I go for the combo idea - genuine safety and a chance to practice shooting a satellite down.

[LunarOrbit]

Plus imagine what would have happened if the satellite came down somewhere like China, Korea, or Iran. Even if they couldn't recover technology from the satellite, and even if no one was hurt, they could still claim the US had done them harm in some way. The political ramifications wouldn't have been good.

[Jason]

They're already claiming we're harming them - by weaponizing space. Of course that ignores that China did the same thing a year ago, only with less finesse. They left a bunch of junk in orbit.

[Obviousman]

Yep. I think it was an ideal scenario for a missile test. There were many factors in favour of destroying that sat, and only about one not to conduct it.

[PhantomWolf]

I'm not really sure what ther fuss was about, as was mentioned above, the US had proven that had ASAT weapons which could be launched from an F-15 in 1984. The Soviets had developed and tested their own ASAT technology by 1973, and the Chinese did it last year. It seems to me that the major reason the US decided to shoot the satelite was not to test a weapon system, but to prevent the possible political fall out (no pun intended) of the satelite falling on an "unfriendly" country and being accused of hurting or killing hundreds of people with a chemical weapon.

[Data Cable]

phantomwolf said:

...to prevent the possible political fall out (no pun intended) of the satelite falling on an "unfriendly" country and being accused of hurting or killing hundreds of people with a chemical weapon.

...and/or preventing said country from potentially salvaging classified technology.