The satellite now confirmed as US 193 will be destroyed in space prior to entering the atmosphere by a missile from a U.S. Navy cruiser. It will be discussed (more likely "released") publicly at a Pentagon briefing later today (Thursday).
Guess they don't want any big secret pieces left to reach the ground.
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
Thorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 7032 times:
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 4): And reduces the need to have a quick-deployment force ready to retrieve whatever DOES hit the ground - don't want parts of a sophisticated spy satellite potentially falling into the wrong hands...
It is vanishingly unlikely anything sensitive would survive to reach the surface (Columbia wreckage did, but Columbia was built to survive re-entry and didn't disintegrate until late in the re-entry, that won't be true of NROL-21.) This is far more likely a convenient excuse to remind China that they aren't the only ASAT power, and "make sure no one gets hurt by falling wreckage" (it is large for a general satellite, but not particularly large for a spy satellite) is always good PR.
Quoting N328KF (Reply 8): Don't forget that the Navy's system is a lot cheaper than the Air Force's system.
ABL isn't operational yet. Once it is, the Air Force will have a cheaper and far more versatile system.
Tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5783 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 6941 times:
Quoting Corsair1107 (Reply 6): Anybody else hope they heavily document this and release neat pictures, videos etc?
Oh it'll be photographed, videoed, and documented up the yin-yang but the public will likely see none of it. I'm sure other "resources" will be focused on the task to rate how well the missile worked, how effective it was, and what if anything remains.
If the public does get to see anything it'll be crappy video/pics.
Ozair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 881 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 6831 times:
Quoting Sphealey (Reply 12): Is the Standard designed to make a direct kinetic kill? Seems that is what you would need to ensure significant breakup of the satellite.
Yes the SA)">SM-3 used for ABM work has an IR seeker which provides far greater accuracy than the SA radar seeker. WIll be interesting the altitude the intercept is made at as it will give an indication of how capable the system really is.
Sprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1855 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6816 times:
Quoting Sphealey (Reply 12): Is the Standard designed to make a direct kinetic kill?
I know the SM-1MR wasn't, but we did a skin to skin on a Talos in the VA-CAPES op-area. Two AEGIS CG's and a KIDD class DDG couldn't shoot it so a lowly FFG had to do a "over the shoulder" shot that was"impossible to do". Our CO was talking shit when we got back into Norfolk.
USAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 6798 times:
Quoting Ex52tech (Reply 16): I wouldn't doubt any of those reasons, but I understand that this satalite is powered by a reactor, and maybe smaller pieces will burn up easier also.
There have been some rumors of the satellite being nuclear powered, but the Pentagon has denied that. After launch, the spacecraft failed to respond to commands and it's hydrazine propellant tank is probably half full.
It seems to me that the DoD is taking appropriate action.
336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB