Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-21-2008, 12:10 PM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,298 posts, read 54,154,649 times
Reputation: 40621

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rggr View Post
That's a good question.


To my great dismay it seems everyday I have far more questions than answers

I know in the early days of the Space Program vehicles carried charges that could be detonated if they went awry, I believe that's still the case. I would've thought a spy vehicle would carry a similar charge so that if its launch or orbit went rogu there'd be a way to keep it from prying eyes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-21-2008, 12:15 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,413,343 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell View Post
Anyone know if there's some reason a spy satellite wouldn't have a self-destruct capability designed in from the start?
Tax cuts for the rich. Cutting the waste and fat from a bloated federal budget. That sort of thing...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 12:23 PM
 
Location: The Rock!
2,370 posts, read 7,742,763 times
Reputation: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell View Post
To my great dismay it seems everyday I have far more questions than answers

I know in the early days of the Space Program vehicles carried charges that could be detonated if they went awry, I believe that's still the case. I would've thought a spy vehicle would carry a similar charge so that if its launch or orbit went rogu there'd be a way to keep it from prying eyes.
The launch vehicle can be destructed if it should have problems but spacecraft themselves have never carried any destruct capability. The complete loss of the computer is not thought of as a credible failure so there "should" always be a way to ground command a reentry burn and destruction or in the case of a GEO bird a burn to place it an outward bound orbit. In this case, the non-credible failure of complete loss of the commanding actually happened so there was no other way to bring it down.

Just to add, even if it HAD a self-destruct capability, it would not have worked since the computer was totally dead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 12:32 PM
 
372 posts, read 847,476 times
Reputation: 126
Most satellites have thrusters on them, which allow NASA to control its re-entry and direct it into the ocean. The problem as I understand, is that since day one this satellite has been unresponsive, giving NASA zero control.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 12:37 PM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,298 posts, read 54,154,649 times
Reputation: 40621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormcrow73 View Post
The launch vehicle can be destructed if it should have problems but spacecraft themselves have never carried any destruct capability. The complete loss of the computer is not thought of as a credible failure so there "should" always be a way to ground command a reentry burn and destruction or in the case of a GEO bird a burn to place it an outward bound orbit. In this case, the non-credible failure of complete loss of the commanding actually happened so there was no other way to bring it down.

Just to add, even if it HAD a self-destruct capability, it would not have worked since the computer was totally dead.

Thank goodness we didn't have a 'credible' failure

Thanks for the info, seems that 'Murphy' isn't limited as to where his law may strike.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,478 posts, read 59,627,700 times
Reputation: 24860
Anything with Monomethyl Hydrazine in one tank and Nitrogen Tetroxide in another is going to explode when it his the atmosphere under any conditions. That combination is a very reliable hypergolic fuel that do not reqiure an ingniter to commence reacting.

BTW - a detonation setup can be made with a battery powered reciever and explosive detonator sensitive to a specific command and can be completely separate from the operating computer. That part is not "rocket science" but simple paranoia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 12:49 PM
 
Location: San Antonio-Westover Hills
6,884 posts, read 20,357,443 times
Reputation: 5175
I just had to laugh though when I heard China and Russia pouting about it. OH GEE, DARN! LOL!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 01:02 PM
 
Location: The Rock!
2,370 posts, read 7,742,763 times
Reputation: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by burdell View Post
Thank goodness we didn't have a 'credible' failure

Thanks for the info, seems that 'Murphy' isn't limited as to where his law may strike.
LOL...how many times have I seen things called not a "credible" failure wind up being just precisely what happens?!?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 01:08 PM
 
Location: Live in VA, Work in MD, Play in DC
699 posts, read 2,231,340 times
Reputation: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mom2Feebs View Post
I just had to laugh though when I heard China and Russia pouting about it. OH GEE, DARN! LOL!
Probably because the U.S. put up a HUGE fuss when China shot down one of their satellites last year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2008, 03:15 PM
 
Location: Hopewell New Jersey
1,398 posts, read 7,695,449 times
Reputation: 1069
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Anything with Monomethyl Hydrazine in one tank and Nitrogen Tetroxide in another is going to explode when it his the atmosphere under any conditions. That combination is a very reliable hypergolic fuel that do not reqiure an ingniter to commence reacting.

BTW - a detonation setup can be made with a battery powered reciever and explosive detonator sensitive to a specific command and can be completely separate from the operating computer. That part is not "rocket science" but simple paranoia.

Do you actually think that the up/down link communications systems on these things are simple recievers/transmitters that any fool with access to a dish and a TWT can talk to ? No; systems like this are highly encrypted and that means microprocessers/computers to embed/decode commands etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top