It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Defunct Spy Satellite Falling From Orbit

page: 7
29
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
it seems late Feb, early March is the timeline for re-entry. I doubt if they can really give any kind of accurate estimate of the location of crash sites until closer to the actual date.




posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 


Okay, but what has powered it for the last 12 years that it has been in its' degrading orbit? If they lost control with this thing shortly after putting it up there, then why did they not attempt to fix the problem for 12 years? Your telling me that they neglected to do anything, to try and save millions of dollars worth of hardware? Why make the investment and then not have a care in the world when it put into its' operational phase?

IMO, the next generation (its' replacement) is here and waiting to replace this now so old piece of hardware. It was operational in terms of what it was put up there to do in the first place, but instead of being able to continue to perform its duties it was known that its' "life expectancy" had been reduced from initial plans to only 12 years. If it wasn't functioning at all during this time, they would have fixed it, so it was functioning at least at some level. So yeah, something else has provided power to this thing during that time and it wasn't its' solar panels, as we agree they never opened. So what does that leave, RTG. Raining down anywhere, it is not a good thing.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
I find it very interesting that FEMA and Homeland Security are also involved in this upcoming crash of a Spy satellite.


six

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by percievedreality
 



12 years???? It was launched in Dec 2006....Nothing has powered it since the launch except the onboard batteries that are there to get everything started.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 04:25 PM
link   
thanks guys, I figured if it had changed we would be one of the first ones to talk about it.

Being that the story is MSM now, you have every soccer mom, cashier, postal worker making small talk about it and of course it changes each time.


six

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by worldwatcher
 


On the NASA forums they were commenting on how AP just picked up the story and ran with it without fact checking. It is amazing just how inflated the figures for this sat blew up from 3 tons and 3 meters across to 20 tons and the size of a small bus...Laughable really except the fact it scared the bejesus outta some people.



[edit on 30-1-2008 by six]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by worldwatcher
 


Yup distorted. Prepare for a disinfo storm of epic proportions. If it hits Canada? I think it could. It'll be biz as usual. Can anyone say at least if this puppy is cylindrical? It likely would be, correct? Not a cube like the Boeings.

Hazmats are beryllium, hydrazine, maybe some other hypergolics, could be more. And I don't believe what NASA is pushing about solar panels at all until I see a pic of the satellite. Radar needs a power source... powerful radar needs lots of power. X-Ray radar needs an active radiative source. It could be solar it could also be RTG. Maybe both.

If it were solar would the announcement even have happened? This is a warning? How weird is that? How would the insurance happen or not? What about liability? I'm sure they have a slimey-lawyer trick or two to whip out.

Why might NASA have a public-board? Hmmm. Good PR? One word. 2007TU24. Bam. Where was NASA on that? LOL.

The power of persuasion. I expect some NASA post-by-proxies could even frequent ATS. Good. I like that. We need data.

Cheers,

Vic


[edit on 30-1-2008 by V Kaminski]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by observe50
 


Yeah, AP is reporting that the Air Force is confirming the reports that it's US 193, and that the real concern is that it will come down over the U.S.



Renuart [commander, U.S. Northern Command] added that, "As it looks like it might re-enter into the North American area," then the U.S. military along with the Homeland Security Department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency will either have to deal with the impact or assist Canadian or Mexican authorities.


AF General: Spy Satellite Could Hit US


six

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by V Kaminski
 


Not cylindrical like the Boeing's. Its a Lockheed product. They do have pictures up on their forum. Hand camera with a telescope nothing fancy but they have several pictures of it. For it to be a nuclear battery, it doesnt fit the US style of launching such payloads. I think the announcement would have happened anyways. You have to remember that AP initially thought it was a 20 ton bus sized vehicle. Not everyday something that size falls outta the sky.


[edit on 30-1-2008 by six]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:00 PM
link   
does anybody have a picture of this comming down?

Strangely enough, nothing on google images



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Yea i herd on the news today that the satelite is supposedly the size of a bus and that it could hit land insted of the water and also they are keeping things quiet...but why?



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by six
 


Ok. Your the NASA expert. Boeing's are batwing cubes, look it up. It was a test ace. You failed. Enjoy this thread. I got an invitation only astronomy site to visit for a bit.

Ciao,

Vic


six

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by UK Alien Buff
 


Look in this forum here. Somebody has taken several pictures of it. It is very informative
forum.nasaspaceflight.com...


six

posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by V Kaminski
 

Never claimed to be the expert. Just going off what I read. The funny thing is that we were in agreement until you developed the attitude. Have fun with the astronomy peeps

Edit to add...Actually we were both wrong...It is a Northrop Grumman vehicle, not a Boeing or Lockheed. So as for the shape you could be right.


[edit on 30-1-2008 by six]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Reminds me of that movie Space Cowboys with Eastwood and the clique



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by themaster1
Reminds me of that movie Space Cowboys with Eastwood and the clique



Yeah it does!

My bet is that it will re-enter the earth but it would be ironic if the thing landed on the launch pad it came from!



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by themaster1
 


Hey themaster1, you and I are in tune on the thought check out page 2 of this thread, it was my first impression of this sat.
gwhint



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
That object in that image can be anything, how can you prove it's the alleged satellite? For all we know it can be anything even an alien object (you can use your imagination here) that the US is claiming theirs just to reassure people and make sure it falls in their hands.



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I saw this on Fox 6 News this morning in Milwaukee. The news anchor said the same thing as the OP pretty much, but also said ''Don't worry though, it won't land on your house... most of the Earth is made up of water''. lol

[edit on 30-1-2008 by And1balla2829]



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I've been following this thread for a little while now to see if anything interesting would

pop up. Not suprising that there isn't much in the way of facts regarding the satellite

"NROL 21". The satellite is after all a "classified military satellite".

What we do know is that the satellite belongs to the United States.
We also know that the operator is the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO).
We also know that the contractor was Lockheed Martin.
We also know that the orbit was designated at 353 km x 380 km, 58.5°.
We also know that the launch site was Vandenberg (Va SLC-2W).
We also know that the launcher was Delta-7920-10C on 14.12.2006
We also know that the satellite was reported at 10 S/T (Standard Ton or US Simple Ton[that always cracks me up US Simple Ton]). About the size of a small bus.
We also know that the satellite is reported to contain Hydrazine (rocket fuel), which stands to reason as satellites have maneuvering thrusters.
We also know that in August 2007 the satellite was declared a complete loss and allowed (not by choice) to decay from orbit.
We also know that the "official" designation placed on the satellite is "Experimental Radar".

Other than the ^above^ "knowns" all else is pretty much speculation. The fact is that even the name NROL 21(USA193) would be a cover name. The Military is not in the habit of telling people all about their "classified" projects so why would they start now. The only thing that makes this satellite stand out is the fact that they can't follow the standard controlled oceanic recovery protocol for all classified military atmospheric re-entry projects.

My best guess as to what will happen when it comes down is this:

1. The satellite will make a favorable ocean splash down and the debris will be collected as per usual.
2. The satellite will make a favorable US continental crash landing in a non-populated area and the debris will be collected as per usual.
3. The satellite will vector unfavorably and be blown to tiny bits by an interception type missile..."Did you hear a loud bang? Must have been the neighbours cat again..."

One thing is for certain, the satellite will disappear in the usual manner in which the Military is so well practiced.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join