If the pentagon shoots down satellites it sends a signal that the surveillance, intelligence and communication satellites of other nations are vulnerable. This could potentially lead to an arms race of space weaponry.

Pretty lights in sky make Georgey dance and giggle!

IIRC, the Chinese would be liable for any damage caused by debris left over from their missile strike. I don't see any reason why the U.S. wouldn't be liable under similar obligations -- somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

The risk of the satellite coming down over populated areas and causing any damage is infinitesimal. Keep in mind that the shuttle Columbia broke up almost entirely over Texas and no significant damage was done, recall that Skylab came down with incident,* and many other satellites have burned up no problemo.

This is just a thinly veiled tit-for-tat because the Chinese missile demonstration pissed us off. It's foolhardy, unwise dickwaving that only leads toward the further militarization of space, places US satellites at risk, and exposes us to liability should the debris hit anybody else's assets up there. Hell, if the Chinese were really crafty, they'd steer one of their unwanted satellites into our debris and cause a minor international incident.

What a horrible, stupid idea. Although I will agree with the first poster that it does sound pretty cool.

-Mike

*Okay, Skylab is rumored to have killed a jackrabbit in Australia when it came down, but I can't find any confirmation.

Yes it is a minor problem because the satellite weighs 3 -4 tons. There is a worry that part of it might get through the atmosphere and hit a populated area (1% chance of that, 25% chance of it hitting land). The other issue is, from a gov't perspective it is a spy satellite and I don't think they want pieces falling on someone elses territory.

I think the idea is to shoot it into smaller pieces right before it enters the atmosphere.

@8, yes, everyone did raise a stink when the chinese showed they could kill satellites, which has now created a new space arms race. This case gives the US a good excuse to show what we can do as well.

The whole thing has been a debacle, since this particular satellite was our newest and most expensive spy satellite to date and it never worked and is falling to Earth because it never reached optimal orbit. Blowing it to pieces also means there won't be any pieces for interested parties to examine and copy.

Well, I suppose that's true if by "no significant damage" you mean "except for one space shuttle and the seven crew members aboard".

Yeah, you'd have to hit a burning satellite in Earth's atmosphere and all, but couldn't the Airborne Laser be given the nod for this task?

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/

I do not know if somehow the test will attempt to deorbit the Sat by either 1)transferring enough retrograde momentum to the remains so that it accelerates its reentry or 2) blasting it into pieces with a higher aggregate drag, so that the reentry is accelerated.

What happens if the darn thing fragments into different vectors, some of which enter dispersed, elliptical orbits? Suddenly the problem is less manageable.

Unless there is info I'm not aware of, the idea is not good technically, and too expensive politically.

If the satellite is on a path to break up over the US and Canada as you suggest, then I think we needn't be so worried about the prospect of sensitive debris winding up in the wrong hands.

@11 - Thanks for the catch; that is what I meant. The Columbia accident was a tragedy and a pretty egregious fuck-up on NASA's part. The shuttle is much larger than this satellite, which I would expect means a more incomplete break-up/burn-up. The shuttle also carries hydrazine propellant, which is supposedly one of the dangerous fuels on the satellite that the people in charge are worried about. Nobody on the ground was injured by hydrazine propellant or falling debris.

@15: You're absolutely right. The satellite is going to break into countless pieces, many of which are going to stay in space for a long, long time.

The only problem that a missile strike solves is the remote possibility that classified hardware will be revealed to the wrong party. This scenario presumes that (a) classified hardware survives re-entry, (b) the surviving hardware comes down on land and not sea, where it will presumably sink and be lost forever, (c) if it comes down on land, it is found, (d) the person who finds it is compelled to share the crash-landed hardware with the "bad guys," and (e) he also knows how to do so without getting busted.

I'll take my chances of getting hit on the head by an errant chunk of spy satellite rather than escalating an arms race, thanks.

Last night further news on the satellite reveals it is full of tons of frozen benzene based fuel which is incredibly toxic. Supposedly blowing it up while still in space will keep the stuff from falling in chunks into the atmosphere.