So, what’s with the administration shooting down that satellite?

February 15, 2008

Malfunctioning satellites aren’t really on my beat. But Bush administration officials misleading the country about their decisions is very much on my beat.

I saw a few news items yesterday about the Pentagon’s announcement that it would shoot down an “out-of-control” spy satellite that no longer works. The thing is reportedly the size of a school bus filled with 1,000 pounds of toxic fuel (hydrazine rocket propellant), which, if released into the air, could create a serious public health hazard. After seeing the news items, I thought, “OK, sounds good.”

As it turns out, I’m probably not being nearly cynical enough. The WaPo noted today that the official rationale isn’t exactly impressing the experts who know better.

The announcement set off an immediate debate on defense blogs and among experts who questioned whether there is an ulterior motive. Some experts said the military is seizing an opportunity to test its controversial missile defense system against a satellite target.

But others noted that the Standard Missile-3 has successfully been tested against warhead targets, which are far smaller than the satellite.

“There has to be another reason behind this,” said Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a liberal arms-control advocacy organization. “In the history of the space age, there has not been a single human being who has been harmed by man-made objects falling from space.”

An even closer look suggests most of the explanation for shooting the satellite down don’t hold up — the gas isn’t especially dangerous, and other hydrazine-filled objects have crashed on Earth to no effect.

The always-great Noah Shachtman quoted one military satellite observer saying, “Everything they said made sense except for the reason for doing the intercept in the first place.”

“The hydrazine tank is a 1-meter sphere containing about 400 liters of hydrazine. The stated hazard area is about 2 hectares, something like 1/10,000,000,000 of the area under the orbit,” he adds. The potential for actual harm in unbelievably small. Which means the hydrazine rationale just doesn’t hold up, literally not within orders of magnitude.”

“The cynic in me says that the idea that this is being done to protect the lives of humans is simply a feel-good cover story tossed to the media,” another veteran space security specialist adds. “It is true that hydrazine is very toxic and could result injury or death, but the odds of this happening are minuscule. The average person in American is many thousands of times more likely to be killed in a car accident than by any falling debris. In fact, no one has ever been killed by space debris (I have heard of one or two being struck but only minor injuries). So pretty much everything else you can think of (including getting hit by an asteroid/comet) is many times more likely than dying from this. Having the US government spend millions of dollars to destroy a billion-dollar failure to save zero lives is comedic gold.” […]

So what could that other reason be?

Our veteran space security specialist believes there are several. To him, the satellite shot is a chance for the military to try out its missile defense capabilities; a way to keep secret material out of the wrong hands; and a warning to the Chinese, after they destroyed a satellite about a year ago.

Josh Marshall added, “One of the challenges of covering the Bush Administration these days is resisting the temptation to assume that everything they do is a stunt or a con. Sure, more often than not it is. But you have to keep your wits about you.”

Quite right. And yet, when I try to think of subjects about which the Bush administration has been honest and forthcoming, I can’t seem to think of a single topic.

Think that was actually DK at TPM

  • I had heard they were going to use the rationale that “the release of hydrazine into the atmosphere may exacerbate global warming” but it never got past the WH sensors.

  • I seem to remember reading about the missile defense system to miss occasionally. Wouldn’t it be odd if we “missed” and flew our missile into Iran?

    If I’m right about this… It won’t matter, hello Nuclear Holocaust.

  • The writers strike is over. The military is now trying to help the economy by suggesting a block buster plot line. Bruce Willis will star.

  • The first thing I thought of was a chance to test the missle defense system. But since the failure rate on that is like 99%, I don’t think they’d announce it ahead of time, since it’s certain to miss…

    The other reason would be secrecy/classified technology that needs to be kept from the wrong hands. But that would melt and/or be destroyed upon impact, right?

    Maybe it isn’t what they say it is…like a space weapon?

  • It seems like we have come to the point where we can make a distinction about the Bush administration.
    They are not only liars, they appear to be pathological liars. Given the choice of telling the truth or telling a lie, they lie.
    So there may or may not be a reason why they are lying about this. We just know that it’s not the truth.
    But 24 to 30% of Americans think he’s doing a good job.

  • When I first heard this story yesterday, it didn’t add up for me. My thought was, “Why are they really doing this?” It sounds like the plot for a Bruce Willis movie.

    Since there has been occasional panic in some countries when a large satellite is coming down (India comes to mind), why didn’t they just shoot it down without any prior announcement and then keep quiet about it? Why announce the plans to the world, and face extreme embarrassment if (when) the missile misses. (Do they call them missiles because they miss?)

    No, there’s a whole additional agenda that we weren’t supposed to notice. The problem is that this bunch is too stupid by at least one order of magnitude to pull off something that clever.

    CB says “As it turns out, I’m probably not be nearly cynical enough.” Yep, it sounds like I’ve gotten ahead of you. Way ahead of you. Let’s be working on that cynicism now, hear?

  • I doubt it – if Bush wanted to test missile systems, he would just come out and say so, loud and clear – it’s really no secret. After the failed tests of the “son of Star Wars”, he wants to know if anything works, and if they do, it won’t be a secret.

    I think he’s simply trigger-happy – merely bombing civilians in Iraq 20 people at a time (like we did last week) just doesn’t cut it anymore. He want to see huge explosions.

  • Question One—who put that “spy satellite” up there in the first place?

    Question Two—for what purpose was it placed in orbit?

    Question Three—why is the Pentagon so worried that this satellite will survive re-entry?

    Anyone care to bet that this “spy” satellite isn’t really a “spy” satellite?

  • If it has been compromised (others can hack into it and spy on us etc.) is there anyway of shutting it down other than blowing it up? Remember the Russian intel from their satellite that identified a low level frequency beam directed for two hours at that bridge that collapsed, its exact coordinates before it collapsed and then disappeared after the collapse they claimed came from inside the US. Perhaps they are in the business of trying out new weapons on this satellite. It still doesn’t explain why “this” satellite. But I do know this administration lies about everything and are not to be trusted or taken at their word.

  • The only thing worse than spending billions of dollars on anti-satellite warfare systems is spending billions of dollars on anti-satellite warfare systems and not being able to blow any sh*t up with it. Yeah, let’s blow some sh*t up!

    But first, we should send up Jack Bauer, or possibly Alberto Gonzales as his surrogate, to torture said spy satellite and get all possible information out of it, since after all it is a ticking f*cking timebomb that’s going to fall out of the sky and then we’re all going to die!

  • From the Noah Shachtman story:

    My first thought is that MDA [Missile Defense Agency] is always looking for ways to PIMP their systems and provide further justification that they work. The upcoming change in Administration is almost guaranteed to result in missile defense losing the top-level advocacy that it has enjoyed for the last several years. Any additional missions and justifications that the missile defense community can provide would increase the likelihood of their systems (and budgetary power) surviving.

    Dang. That probably nails it. But what about the dirty “p” word there? I’m pissed at its gratuitous usage. Language matters! The veteran space security specialist being quoted there should be outed and axed. I expect Ms. Clinton will be on that ASAP.

  • The only defense I can think of for the Bush admin. is that the sounds like the sort of thing that the military would like to pull under any circumstance, regardless of who the President is.

  • I think they’re trying to make sure all their secret stuff burns up on re-entry and doesn’t end up being sold to the Chinese. Supposedly that satellite was the creme de la creme of our spy junk.

    Or maybe they just like shooting at stuff when given the chance. I know I do!

  • Steve –

    Question One—who put that “spy satellite” up there in the first place?

    We did. Last year. The thing malfunctioned as soon as it got into orbit.

    Question Two—for what purpose was it placed in orbit?

    To spy on someone.

    Question Three—why is the Pentagon so worried that this satellite will survive re-entry?

    The official explanation WAS that they were concerned that it would land in a foreign country and some of that malfunctioning-yet-still-highly-confidential equipment would fall into foreign hands. Last I heard the “foreign hands” were either Mexico’s or Canada’s, but still “foreign”.

    Today’s little post is the first I’ve heard of a rationale that they might shoot it down to prevent injuries – yesterday’s NPR report on the drive home was pretty much all about making sure the technology in the satellite didn’t end up falling into the hands of another country.

    Anyone care to bet that this “spy” satellite isn’t really a “spy” satellite?

    Nah – I’ll bet it’s a real spy satellite. I remember when they launched this multi-million dollar hunk-o-junk last year and had it die as soon as it got out of the atmosphere. Massive boondoggle, but people were distracted by various other boondoggles, so it didn’t get much attention IIRC.

    I will say that this is really odd – the “official” explanation yesterday on NPR sounded like a valid, if somewhat paranoid, national security concern. Today’s sounds like a PR move to make it sound like the government is stepping in to “protect us from harm”. Of course, the harm they’re “protecting” us from is their own lowest-bidder driven incompetence, but maybe they can spin this as a heroic destruction of a satellite and try to re-gain some of that public trust they’ve squandered over the years.

  • My tinfoil hat sense (akin to Spidey-sense) tells me that there’s more there, there. Something along the lines of shooting a missile at the satelite that “accidentally” misses its intended target and lands in Tehran, Bejiing,Moscow or N.Korea. “Opps,” they’ll say sheepishly. “Dammit! Some NASA ‘Rocket-scientist’ forgot to convert from inches to milimeters AGAIN!” Or they’re really aiming at the new super-secret Russian, or was it Chinese?, spy satelite that went up a few months ago. Or maybe the gov will say yea, we shot down our own satelite. But the Chinese, or Russians took offense and started hurling missiles at us. So martial law every one, and BTW, no elections.

    Yea, I AM paranoid. After 7+ years, we all should be. So no, Mr Benen, it’s not that you aren’t cynical enough, though you aren’t. It’s that you aren’t paranoid enough.

    If I’m right, what do I win, other than a trip to Guantanamo?

  • Anyone watch NOVA this week, about the “Astro-Spies” of the Manned Orbiting Laboratory program? The public story was that the Air Force (not NASA) would send military pilots up in Gemini capsules to perform “experiments” in a small space station. The Soviets didn’t buy it for a second; they knew damn well MOL was about spying — that’s why they were building their own space station!

    Point being, if the cover story looks flimsy, that’s because it is.

  • Sounds like a simple case of working on the militarization of space to me. Last week there was a story about Putin and talk of a new arms race; i heard it played as Cold War II, electric bugaloo…but what Putin was talking about was space militarization. Apparently the Chinese and the Russians have offered us two different treaties on the subject and we, not surprisingly, have given them the finger.

    Penis envy also runs very deep in this administration, and missiles are the biggest penises in the world. None-the-less, when the Chinese did this, they didn’t talk about how big their penis was before they did it. George Bush is the guy with the supped up Camero that all the girls giggle about behind his back. It will be interesting to see if he can get his missile up.

    I’d never heard about the Russian intel on the Minnesota bridge…that sounds like good stuff, i’ll have to spend some time a googlin’.

  • Typical Bush. Sounds good at first, but in the morning has the opposite effect of what he said he was trying to accomplish. Instead of explaining what’s going on, he’s raised questions.

  • The real reason, if there is an underlying one, is more likely concerned with Pentagon budget in-fighting. The Navy hasn’t been in the news for most of the Bush administration because they’ve had the smallest role in Bush’s wars. They want good press, so they can by more ships with Standard SM-3 missles on them.

    Then again, hydrazine is nasty stuff, and it doesn’t ned to fall on you to hurt you. It’s persistant. The real measure of the risk would be the percentage of land vs water the satellite travels over, and how populated that area is. (Hydrazine was the reason NASA told everyone to keep away from the debris of Columbia when it came down. They also had problems with leftover hydrazine from the thrusters on the Apollo-Soyuz spacecraft after spashdown. Didn’t Deke Slayton get sick from it?)

  • NonyNony,

    Your reply to my first question nails it. If the thing had malfunctioned on day 1, then the discussion to bring it down would have commenced—one day 1. I don’t think it malfunctioned. I think it did what it was designed for, and now the Bushies are afraid of the consequences of “non-Bushies” getting access to the onboard data storage drives.

    Yes—it was put up as a “covert data collection system,” and one can only wonder how much embarrassing data is aboard that one single machine. I remember the launch period, as well—right in the midst of trying to deny the existence of those “secret prisons.” It would be doubly embarrassing for the military to be found “complicit” in activities that are in violation of the Army Field Manual….

  • This is clearly not about protecting people from hydrazine: The satellite is uncontrollably de-orbiting because it is out of hydrazine rocket propellant, thus it should pose no threat due to hydrazine toxicity. If it had any propellant left in it, it would be used either 1) keep it in orbit, or 2) de-orbit in a controlled fashion to a remote patch of ocean. Question: if it is a sensitive spy satellite, why let it run out of propellant (and this is not an accident, propellant is very carefully monitored and used), so that safe (as in protecting the technology) de-orbit is not possible?

  • We can attempt to solve the problem now, or not.

    So why not try?

    It’s the military’s problem and if it does hurt someone, they’ll have to pay for it, so they might as well make a good-faith second attempt to nip it. (The first was on-board disabling, which didn’t work).

    Of all the things to worry about, shooting down a military satellite that is broke seems a bit silly.

  • MLE: You’re incorrect. This satellite failed shortly after launch, and they do not know if it has spent its fuel supply or not. Generally, you’d assume the worst, which is that since you didn’t tell it to use its supply, it did not, and the supply is still intact.

    So if you want to claim it is out of fuel, please link to your source.

  • Steve –

    Your reply to my first question nails it. If the thing had malfunctioned on day 1, then the discussion to bring it down would have commenced—one day 1.

    Well, first of all – no it wouldn’t have. At least, not necessarily. They initially hoped it would find a stable orbit and that they’d be able to get a crew up there to fix it, if I’m remembering the story from last year correctly. And recall when SkyLab started decaying in orbit no one suggested that it be shot down – they waited to figure out if it was going to hit land or water first. Since a majority of the globe is water, there’s always a good chance that a falling bit of debris is going to hit an ocean or something – which would make it less risky to just let it fall than it would to lob something at it.

    Plus – we don’t know that they didn’t start talking about shooting it down from day one. It may have been an option on the table the entire time. The fact that someone is telling the press about it now is probably only because we made big noise about the Chinese secretly shooting down a satellite a while back. Had we not then the administration might have just secretly shot it down without telling anyone.

    Actually – I’m wondering about those treaties now. I wonder if there’s a list of reasons you can use to lob a missile at a piece of falling space debris. If there are, I’ll bet “to keep the technology in them secret” is probably not one of them. But I’ll bet “to keep civilians safe” probably is. Which would explain why they’d be spinning this silly story instead of just coming out and saying that they’re worried about losing control of the tech.

  • If anything shows how low this administration has sunk, this does. This sounds like a perfectly normal and routine matter that nobody should be concerned about. But the level of distrust has risen so high that people automatically pick apart what they say to find holes in it.

    They’ve dug their hole so deep that every time they move, another bit of it collapses in on them.

  • Re 3 and 16,

    The missile they are going to send up doesn’t even have a conventional explosive warhead. It has to smack into the satellite to work. It isn’t going to blow up Tehran.

    For God’s sake read a news story once in a while.

  • I’m still wondering why they hung six cruise missiles that were on their way to be deactivated on the exterior pylon of a B-52.

    Wouldn’t the missiles have be more secured and safe tied down on a pallet in the cargo hold of a C-17?

    Back to the topic at hand, what if the missile misses? Then what? Are they then going to salvo-launch every NMD missile at the satellite?

    “Eh, one of ’em outa hit.”

  • I say the whole deal is a con. The satellite was launched with explosives on board to be detonated by remote control in the first place. The whole purpose of the thing was a scam to show off our defence capability.

  • Maybe the satellite really contains some substance (radioactive perhaps) that’s far more toxic than hydrazine.

  • If they miss, I would just love it if Ol’ Spooknik fell to earth in California and smacked down my soon-to-be X. I saw this on “Northern Exposure” a few years back and have been waiting ever since. Also bought a Lotto ticket.

    Is this what Brother Barack means by ‘the audacity of hope’?

  • Rest assured there is a reason for this attempt to destroy this sattelite,although farmers,busboys,carpenters,maids and the such who feel the need to voice there dissatisfaction with the Bush administration will probably never know ,I’m just happy there not making the big decisions for the country I live in and Love, maybe if there lucky someone with no experience with foreign affairs or military decisions like Hillary or Osama will be able to ruin it in the near future. then i wanna read there blogs

  • Just gotta add that the claim the Lake Erie was able to shoot down an object the size of a school bus from the ocean in the night with one shot is pretty unbelievable as well. Comedic gold, indeed! It is rip and read. We don’t need writers…just the White House and administrative flunkies telling these tall tales.

    • Comments are closed.