Pentagon to shoot satellite from sky

Posted on Thursday, February 14, 2008 1:24 PM ET
Filed Under:

By Jim Miklaszewski, NBC News Chief Pentagon Correspondent

Editor's Note: This post has been updated.

It sounds like a scene from "Star Wars." Today, the Pentagon will reveal its plans to knock a dead spy satellite out of the sky with missiles launched from Navy ships. This is the first time the U.S. military will have used a surface-to-air missile to destroy a satellite in space.

The spy satellite has lost all power and is expected to crash back on earth in early March, Pentagon officials say, spreading debris and potentially hazardous fuel over several hundred miles of Earth. Instead, the Pentagon will rely on part of its Missile Defense System to destroy the satellite while still in orbit over the Pacific.

Sometime next week, the Navy will fire two or three SM-3 missiles from a cruiser and destroyer off the Northwest coast of Hawaii. The SM-3s, which are more of a medium-range interceptor, had to be modified with more fuel and new software to reach the disabled spy satellite in orbit. If the intercept and "kill" are successful and the satellite is blown to bits, it appears most of the debris will become orbiting "space junk" and not reenter the earth's atmosphere, Pentagon officials say.

The spy satellite designated US-193 was launched in December 2006 and its central computer went dead almost immediately. It belongs to the highly-secretive National Reconnaissance Office and carries top-secret imaging devices.

The question critics are sure to raise is why the Pentagon and military believe it's necessary to shoot the satellite down. It's about the size of a school bus and weighs in at only about 2,500 pounds. Compare that to the 79-ton Skylab space station that fell from orbit in 1979. It survived re-entry and scattered debris in the Indian Ocean and in remote sections of Australia. Pentagon observers say there's a desire to shoot the spy satellite down because military officials can-the capability wasn't available in 1979-and because it gives the Bush Administration a chance to show off the potential of the controversial missile defense system.

The Pentagon will hold a briefing on the failing satellite today, with Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Jim Cartwright; Assistant to the President and deputy national security advisor, Ambassador James Jeffries; and NASA administrator Michael Griffin. 

 

Comments

How can you believe anything our government is doing!!!

They already have proved they lie all of the time.

tax payer, strapped, michigan (Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:24 PM)

They want to do it because they can??

The fact that it will increase debris in orbit, endangering future space operations doesn't enter into this??

If they want to shoot it down to prove they can, they should wait until it starts to re-enter, to reduce the debris left behind.

Steve (Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:32 PM)

As you say in your article, teh Sky Lab survived re-entry and scattered itself. It just MAY be that this satellite could survice as well. And being a so-called "Spy" Satellite it could contain somewhat "sensitive" materials that our governmeny doesn't want to share with certain factions in the world. That being noted, just for curiosity, I'd like to know what the cost is for shooting it down.

Dennis, Dayton, Ohio (Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:33 PM)

Since "most of the debris will become orbiting "space junk" and not reenter the earth's atmosphere", whouldn't the 2,500 pounds of debris present significantly greater problems than having most it burn up in the atmosphere upon re-entry?

Jim C, San Diego, CA (Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:35 PM)

I believe the real reason for wanting to shoot down the satellite is to prevent any of its remnants from being aquired by the wrong countries

John M. Manchester, NH (Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:36 PM)

There are three reasons for this:

1) to display the missile defense system.
2) to ensure the destruction of classified imaging systems.
3) Because China did the very same things a year or two ago to one of their failed satellites. (How short is your memory?) China did this to show they could destroy their satellite, but more importantly, someone else's. This is the proportional response.

John, Oceanside CA (Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:37 PM)

Your liberal bias is showing, as well as your desire to paint the government and the military in a bad light.  At the very least, you might want to get your facts straight first.  

The satellite weighs nearly 5000 lbs., not 2500.  

Secondly, the satellite contains toxic rocket fuel, which could contaminate the area if it crashes.

Third, and probably the most important of all, if that satellite were to re-enter the atmosphere, at least half of it would not burn up.  So now you have an object still weighing over one ton coming down at tremendous speed to impact the ground.  Should the government run the risk of that object coming down in a populated area??  I don't think so.

That sounds much more rational than "The Bush administration just wants to show off the potential of their new missile defense system."  

Richard, Boise, Idaho (Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:39 PM)

How acurate a demonstration of the missile shield capabilities is it when the Pentagon has had months to track this thing, plot its course, adapt payload and fuel requirements and choose an "optimum" time to intercept it? I fear that we would never have that much lead time to defend against any real threat.

DSOTM (Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:41 PM)

It sounds like the Bush Administration wants to use this as a reason to build the missile defence system.  It could be the first time of success for it versus other test.  They need to justify spending Billions of dollars on something very few believe is worth the cost and not needed.

David - MI (Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:48 PM)

HAZMAT aside the reason they must shot this down is, if it lands mostly intact in a land area not friendly to the US or world interests... Well let’s just say do you want the Chinese to violate more copyright technology?? Or for that matter some homegrown radical in Nevada getting to it first???

Greg Pearson Mannhiem Germany (Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:49 PM)

Sure, let's give it a 'shot'! Given the sensitive nature of the beast and the fact that a good many components are most likely hardened against an attack anyway, re-entry could quite possibly be a survivable journey. Wouldn't want any 'evil ones' picking up the pieces, now would we?
Richard Walters, Captain USN retired, University Place, WA

walters1221@comcast.net (Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:54 PM)

No offense, but "It sounds like a scene from "Star Wars."?"  Has the author ever seen "Star Wars?"  Nothing about this story is like that film.

In regards to the planned operation, one should have asked the following questions: "Is there really any concern that debris from the intact satellite will make it the surface?  Are they more concerned about potentially exposing people to hazardous materials debris or disclosing top secret technology?  Will blowing it up in orbit mean the smaller parts are more likely to burn-up in re-entry, or is it just a way for the defense department to waste several million dollars?"

P, Phoenix , AZ (Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:57 PM)

Do we really need all that junk orbiting the earth searching for a collison.  

Tom, Austin (Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:58 PM)

why not cause an explosion in front of the satellite slowing it down so as to drop the whole thing into the atmosphere where it could break up and burn, saving all that junk floating in space.

Richard Ellison, Vancouver, BC (Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:58 PM)

Shooting it down will create a field of space junk.  why not take the shuttle (do something productive with it)and retrieve it while the shuttle is already in space. Lets show off the potential of the space program

Brett, SLC, Utah, Brett298@msn.com (Thursday, February 14, 2008 3:00 PM)

PLESE WARN THE WORLD ABOUT THIS WHEN THE TIME COMES

ALAN BROOKLYN NY (Thursday, February 14, 2008 3:02 PM)

Yeah, right...coming from Bush and the Pentagon gotta be more to this. Don't much trust this duo. Perhaps this "spy satellite" is expecting to land in Iran or Russia. Perhaps its one involved in eavesdropping on Americans and is political very sensitive. I suspect a cover up but I hope I'm just overly skeptical of our government.  

Frank. El Paso, TX (Thursday, February 14, 2008 3:03 PM)

Since we've outsourced everything else, wouldn't it be cheaper to hire the chinese to do this? Plus they've done it once successfully. If we miss this one what happens next? Remember our star wars systems only worked on one of 3 tests.

John anders Miami (Thursday, February 14, 2008 3:04 PM)

I hope they don't miss,it would look really bad if they did.

Grant, Provo, Utah (Thursday, February 14, 2008 3:04 PM)

Duh, they want to make sure that nothing survives and to send a not so subtle message to the Chinese and Russians.

David, San Diego (Thursday, February 14, 2008 3:19 PM)

"Shoot down"? Uh, the pieces will still be in orbit, nimrods, and will still decay and reenter, now only over a much greater area. Our gubment superbrains in action..

JackT, Seattle, WA (Thursday, February 14, 2008 3:20 PM)

The Pentagon is utilizing this opportunity as an answer to China's threatening ASAT test in January 2007, which increased total space junk by over 20%.  What does Michael Griffin have to say about this and the dangers that space junk poses to our astronauts?

Spencer, Columbia, MD (Thursday, February 14, 2008 3:34 PM)

1. You blow it up into pieces then the majority of it, if not all of it, burns up on re-entry.

2. You cannot get the space shuttle to get it because it is in too low of orbit.

3. They need 3 rockets to take it down. First rocket misses, second rocket takes out the target, and the third one was mis-programmed and 'accidently' takes out a Chinese satellite. Ooops. Our bad...

EJK, Chicago, IL (Thursday, February 14, 2008 3:37 PM)

For John anders
Our "star wars" system as you all call it has actually been tested 15 times and failed once during it's infancy. All of the skeptics should really research the topic before making a comment.

Charlie, Washington DC (Thursday, February 14, 2008 4:09 PM)

I agree with Brett, if you can't retrieve it with the shuttle, throw a net over it and parachute to earth or something. My land these geniuses figure out ways to get this junk up there they should be made to be responsible for getting it back safely when it doesn't work. Where are the real scientific super geniuses when you need them.

Dennis, Atlanta GA (Thursday, February 14, 2008 6:43 PM)

Could they nuke it to make sure they get it all? Or is it too close to earth.

Joe, Magnolia, Ma (Thursday, February 14, 2008 7:02 PM)

The pressure vessels containing thruster fuel are NOT protected from the effects of re-entry----for obvious reasons. The danger posed by the re-entry of this satellite is small compared to the re-entry of the shuttle (even disintigrating), and it would take an escapee from Belleview to rationalize that the navy ships scheduled to "shoot down" the already falling satellite will be only "lucky" to be in the correct position on the face of the earth to have a chance to hit this thing (which means "they" probably already know where it will land if left unmolested), not to mention the debris field created by any explosion (even if they miss).
Insanity is a prerequisite in this administration.
Lord help us----no one else will.

Emmitt Kelly, Gorham, Maine (Thursday, February 14, 2008 10:31 PM)

The space shuttle burned up and exploded upon re-entry due to a minor lack of protection from the extreme heat. I had learned at some point in my life that a rock the size of an RV and much more dense than the shuttle would completely burn up through the atmosphere, though granted that object would be at least twice the velocity of the shuttle. I am to believe that a Cadillac moving at 18,000 mph will somehow survive re-entry? Unless there is a supremely protected secret on board this craft, I can conceive of no reason to waste the time, the energy, the expenditure, the talent nor the propaganda required to fool the world about an action of which there is so much uncertainty in the first place. How can it be unknown where it will land when we have been able to cross the path of a comet with a satellite much smaller than this one? This, right here and now, is the first time I have ever questioned whether reaching the moon was a fraud. Someone, please, JPL or anyone with the intelligence, please speak out. This can't be reality.

M Coombs, Turnersville, NJ (Friday, February 15, 2008 1:01 AM)

What if they miss?

Dolores, Kansas City, MO (Friday, February 15, 2008 9:49 AM)

In answer to Joe's question about "nuking" the satellite: 1) Setting off a nuke near the atmosphere has a potential for doing alot of other damage to say, the ozone layer, ionospshere, etc;  2) The electro-magnetic pulse generated could significantly harm civilian electronics wihin in line of sight up to hundreds of miles away (and possibly in low earth orbit too); 3) There are radiation effect to be considered, even a nuke wouldn't vaporize the target completely and you could have radioactive material spread out over a much larger area than the hydrazine in the fuel tanks; 4) None of our ICBMs are configured for a space shot/satellite kill, and there is not enough time to reconfigure software, hardware, and load one into the reusable silos at Vandenburg AFB (or use one of the one-shot silos at a missile base); and 5) I can only imagine the world-wide condemnation for using a nuke...

Doug Fingles, Warner Robins, GA (Friday, February 15, 2008 11:35 AM)

Throw a net over it?  Try and match orbits with an object a) out of control; b) losing about a mile in altitude every day; c) At orbital velocities. Does anyone really think we have a shuttle on standby with a large net configured with a parachute that we can launch within 7 to 10 days?

Here's a comparison:  Go get a fishing net, rig it with a parachute (somehow), get in your car and get on the freeway and match velocities with another car radomly changing lanes, and try to a) stop it; or b) slow it down;  You have 1 day to figure it out and enact your plan.  Ready....Go.  Let us know how it turns out (assuming you live through it).

Doug Fingles, Warner Robins, GA (Friday, February 15, 2008 11:45 AM)

The article is mistaken. Most of the debris will re-enter and burn up in the atmosphere in a few weeks. A very small percentage of the debris field could theoretically get placed into orbits that could stay there for a longer peiod.

Roger, Philadelphia, PA (Saturday, February 16, 2008 11:27 AM)

Hey Atlantis crew!

How about swinging by the non-functional, toxic satellite for a service call? Way more glorious than returning to home to avoid the debris that will result from this crazy notion of shooting it down. You could save the nation approx. $60 milllion (and counting). If you can't get the satellite up and running with a new power supply, latch onto it and drag it into a higher orbit and return another day to service it. Isn't that the beauty of having a space shuttle with a manipulator arm and a bay?

I for one, would call for the $60 million (and counting) that would have been spent to destroy the satellite to be reallocated for future NASA space shuttle missions :)

Darin Sullivan, Santa Barbara, CA (Saturday, February 16, 2008 2:01 PM)

I too always doubt the govt when they decide to do something for our own good. BUT people, this thing countains hydrazine. HYDRAZINE! For many of you that means nothing but I have to tell you when the Air Force even suspects a small hydrazine leak from a small missle, they evacuate damn near everyone from the the whole base! This "Bus" has 1000 pounds of the stuff! It doesnt need to touch you or get in your water....If you smell almonds......then you are already dead. Shoot it down yesterday.

Ruckus, Greencastle PA (Wednesday, February 20, 2008 12:26 AM)

If the missile misses can it be destroyed by remote?

rose a bronx ny (Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:05 AM)

I did had the patience to read but a few of the comments, but here are my two cents - whatever they are worth:

We need to stay abreast of upcoming new threats such as China.  As good as a "happy rainbow world" sounds with no one choosing to dominate space in the next ___ years because 'it's not right' - it's not realistic.  We have an obligation to ourselves and your children to be number 1.  

Hydrazine and whatnot are good reasons for doing this, but if we don't stay on the math, science, physics, and applied technology ball we will not enjoy our life as we do today.  Our very future hangs in the balance over the next ___ years.  We cannot let a twisted country like China get ahead, although that seems to be where the winds are blowing.  

I agree that the costs are astronomical, but so are the costs of "important" programs we throw money at by the pork barrel full, like the social security I'll never see.  We need to set our priorities straight, and I'm not sure anyone is willing or able to do that at this time.  

Sam J, Groton CT (Wednesday, February 20, 2008 7:35 PM)

There are three reasons for this:

1) to display the missile defense system.
2) to ensure the destruction of classified imaging systems.
3) Because China did the very same things a year or two ago to one of their failed satellites. (How short is your memory?) China did this to show they could destroy their satellite, but more importantly, someone else's. This is the proportional response.

John, Oceanside CA (Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:37 PM)

Worldbrain, Forked River, NJ (Thursday, February 21, 2008 2:19 AM)

This is where the chinese should learn from us-salesmanship!
They shoot down a satellite and all the morons here want to kill them for creating space debris and testing a new weapon.
We test a new weapon and fill the space with debris and all the morons here are thankful because the government saved us from the fuel inside the satellite (which could have been burnt by firing its rockets).
I imagine that after all the noise our government made about the chinese shoot down, they must come up with a fairy tale for the nitwits.

E. Bacus (Thursday, February 21, 2008 7:50 AM)

when something like this happens those of us who hate,dispise and do not trust the us govt. have to voice their stupid rhetoric to justify their ignorant beliefs. Maybe just maybe they blew it up to save the environment and lives.

f. hanke Tulsa Ok (Thursday, February 21, 2008 10:51 AM)

I'm sorry - this was purely a test to see if the US government could shoot down something in outer space.  Period.  Cannot tell me otherwise.

John Doe, Los Angeles, CA (Thursday, February 21, 2008 1:12 PM)

Well the rebutal on this certainly shows who has spent time serving the country and protecting it versus those who dream about things just happily going along. My biggest concern was a failure of hitting this thing and so glad we got it first shot. Was it a display of weaponry and tech? You betcha...good on ya NAVY. Good choice. If we can hit this from a ship moving on the water..ok Aegis class ships are pretty hi-tech..then what accuracy do we have from land? Thank you veterans, past present and future. Keep us safe..even those who object.

retnav, somewhere, Iraq (Thursday, February 21, 2008 2:15 PM)

you guys and blogging is stupid ,how do you know what anyone is doing unlees you are that somebody?
are you scientists ? elected officials ?

Michael , Saint Louis, MO (Friday, February 29, 2008 6:05 PM)



Send a comment

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.): 

 Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private)

About the blog

Deep Background is NBC News’ investigative blog. It covers national security, terrorism, spies, Iraq, and politics, as well as government waste, fraud and abuse. It is edited by NBC News Senior Investigative Producer Jim Popkin.

Recent Posts

Archives


Browse by topic:

Browse by date:

Add this blog to your news reader

msnbc.com weblogs