A satellite is no longer responding
About the planned destruction of a satellite
February 17, 2008
The Americans announced that one of their spy satellites, NORAD 29651, launched on December 14, 2006 from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, by a Delta 7920 rocket, orbiting the Earth on a nearly circular orbit (354 x 376 km), in 90 minutes, has escaped their control and is losing altitude at a rate of one kilometer per day. Currently, its orbit is becoming more circular (275 km x 279 km), which indicates the behavior of a light object that has escaped control. At this rate, it should re-enter the atmosphere in early March.
A few days ago, to everyone's surprise, the American military announced its intention to destroy the satellite by a missile shot as soon as it reaches an altitude of 200 kilometers, citing the danger posed by the hydrazine (500 kg according to some sources, a ton according to others) in its tanks and the risk of poisoning for the population.
This explanation appears to be a mere pretext. The presence of hydrazine is common on satellites. Used in the presence of a catalyst (carbides and nitrides of molybdenum and tungsten), this nitrogen compound operates the microthrusters used for attitude control and orbit adjustments. Several of these satellites have fallen back without causing any concern from the authorities or the public. Moreover, if hydrazine is relatively toxic and even lethal in large doses, it decomposes at a few hundred degrees and turns into an innocuous gas.
It should also be noted that hydrazine is contained under high pressure in titanium or stainless steel tanks, whose thin walls (0.1 to 0.5 mm) do not withstand atmospheric re-entry. As for the satellite itself, its usual structure made of composite materials or aluminum sandwich quickly disintegrates, and only some light metal components may reach the ground.
One can therefore wonder what the real motivation of the Americans is, as they have announced, at the initiative of President George W. Bush, to use a sea-based missile system for this destruction. One can obviously mention a demonstration of force, several ships equipped with the Aegis interception system (SM-3 missiles) having been deployed elsewhere for other purposes, such as in Israel, Korea, and Japan, among others.
This hydrazine issue does not hold up for a single second. Nor does the one about "mysterious components that other powers would like to examine." There is another, much more plausible and worrying one.
An international treaty prohibits placing weapons in orbit, especially fission or fusion bombs. Is this treaty respected? It is difficult to say, especially regarding a major power capable of allowing its territory to be crossed by a B-52 carrying six cruise missiles, each carrying a 100-kiloton bomb (eight times Hiroshima). What would be the risk of having such orbital bombs?
If we exclude the very low risk of an unintended activation of such a weapon in space, which would cause strong radio-electrical disturbances on the ground, or even fry all electrical systems over an area equivalent to that of the United States, in case of failure of the engines intended to maintain the altitude, it would be sufficient to remotely trigger the satellite's destruction. Then the fissile materials would be widely dispersed in space and fall back to Earth as microparticles of plutonium oxide over a very large area. Moreover, this fall would be very slow. The high-altitude jet streams would spread these debris over such large areas that the phenomenon would not even be detectable.
It would be entirely different if the bomb's self-destruction mechanism refused to work. Then the dispersion of radioactive products would be infinitely less, limited to a few tens of square kilometers. In case of a fall on a continent, these debris could contaminate a vast area for eternity. A dose of one microgram of plutonium is enough to kill a man. Do the math: a plutonium bomb's charge is 10 kilograms, which alone is enough to kill ten billion human beings.
Suppose the Americans launched a bomb into orbit in December 2006, not to attack Iran, but their own fleet, which is stationed in Bahrain, to create a Pearl Harbor II.
There is another possibility, since it could be a spy satellite whose solar panels apparently did not deploy. Suppose it is equipped with an MHD propellant using as a primary energy source that provided by a nuclear reactor, producing electricity using simple thermocouples. Again, the presence of a nuclear reactor on this satellite (a common feature for long-duration space missions and at great distances, such as the famous Galileo) would imply carrying a large mass of fissile material, such as plutonium capsules. In these conditions, this satellite would not need solar panels on its way.
Suppose this troublesome machine has become uncontrollable to the point that it is impossible to keep it in orbit and impossible to trigger its destruction. There remains only one solution:
Fire a missile from the ground to destroy this satellite and scatter its deadly cargo in space
We live in a wonderful era, don't you think?