[meteorite-list] Watch out for falling metal, guys with sunglasses and dark suits

From: Sterling K. Webb <sterling_k_webb_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 23:12:56 -0600
Message-ID: <019e01c860a3$476b4fd0$a12f4842_at_ATARIENGINE>

Hi,

    Not to quarrel with so impeccable a news source
as The Fox, most of this story does not compute. The
"small bus" size (or 64-65 feet) means a KH-11s or
KH-12, which weigh 13,000 to 18,000 kilograms (or
30,000 to 40,000 pounds), not "about 20,000 pounds."

    Much of that weight is propellant, from 11,000 up to
15,000 pounds of it. Such "satellites" are really orbital
spacecraft that maneuver from one orbit to another,
at widely varying altitudes, eccentricities and orbital
("sun-synchronous") orientations. Such a satellite might
weigh "about" 20,000 pounds if its propellant was totally
exhausted.

    Also, its re-entry would not be uncertain if it still had
the propellant to inject itself into a proper re-entry orbit
configuration and maneuver once in that orbit. So, either
one failed and can no longer be controlled or cannot
maneuver, or someone kept one up and working, even
though they would have known it meant a disastrous
re-entry. Or one could have been damaged in orbit by
debris. None of these possibilities seem the sort of
thing the NSC would so freely blab about.

    If you're not familiar with the KH-11 or KH-12, just
relabel it as the "Hubble Space Telescope," with its 2.3
meter optics. The HST is just a KeyHole with a some
custom factory options. The last of the original KH-11's
was de-orbited in 1996; they had a three year operational
lifetime. The KH-11s or "advanced model" and the KH-12
may have an operational lifetime of up to eight years. And
there's the newer KH-13, but I doubt one of them is coming
down.

    In the 1970's, we had two satellites in orbit at a time,
replacing them as they were used up. Then, we had four,
then six. Hard to say how many might still be up there now.
Or, if the weight is accurate, it would have to be an old and
much earlier KeyHole, which were all film return satellites.
However, since the news story mentions the "risk [of the]
exposure of U.S. secrets," requiring protecting our valuable
technology by the complete destruction of the satellite, it
can't very well mean the old film return satellites, which
were about as technologically sophisticated as anything
designed in 1963! That is to say, not very.

    The freely given "leak" of security information and the
friendly breezy White House (NSC) confirmation of such
a security breach (they're always so chatty!) suggests to me
that whatever is falling from orbit in the next few months, the
very last thing it's likely to be is an "old photo reconnaisance
satellite" (makes it sound like it was a yard-sale Polaroid
camera).

    This just in! 53 minutes ago, from tomorrow's New York
Times, more (and quite unofficial) information than Fox News:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/us/27spy.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=us&adxnnlx=1201410051-QMwiKApZXIsGtpj/gpaQ4w

    "Specialists who follow spy satellite operations suspect
it is an experimental imagery satellite built by Lockheed Martin
and launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California in
December 2006 aboard a Delta II rocket. Shortly after the
satellite reached orbit, ground controllers lost the ability to
control it and were never able to regain communication. Since
it was launched, the experimental satellite has been in a slowly
decaying orbit. As of Jan. 22, it was moving in a circular orbit
at about 275 kilometers above the Earth... In the last month,
its orbit has declined by 15 to 20 kilometers... it's now just a
matter of weeks before it falls out of orbit."

    Was it possibly a prototype for the planned "Future Imagery
Architecture" digital imaging spacecraft?

    It is curious that, on the one hand, we cannot afford
to maintain or replace the one HST, originally planned to
let it spin down, then decided we'd save it one last time,
haven't done it yet, but then plan to let it go down in 2013,
after which there will no visible light telescope in orbit.

    While, on the other, we seem to have no objection to
the cost of continuing to keep launching, controlling, and
maintaining the almost identical and almost as costly KH-12's
(at least four of them) and the KH-13's (at least three of
them) and a minimum of 10 KH-11's and a minimum of
20 KH-9's, and oh, a number of LACROSSE/VEGA radar
"spy" satellites and the network of orbital communications
satellites that service and coordinate all of them and...

    You'd think we could afford ONE visual light telescope
in orbit after 2013. Hey, I got an idea! Let's borrow the
money for it from the Chinese, like we do for everything
else!


Sterling K. Webb
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darren Garrison" <cynapse at charter.net>
To: <Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 7:37 PM
Subject: [meteorite-list] Watch out for falling metal,guys with sunglasses
and dark suits


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325829,00.html
______________________________________________
http://www.meteoritecentral.com
Meteorite-list mailing list
Meteorite-list at meteoritecentral.com
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
Received on Sun 27 Jan 2008 12:12:56 AM PST