20-year-old Military Weather Satellite Apparently Exploded in Orbit

a reply to: JonStone

The US is by far the most advanced in this technology and has a wide range of technology's though which are actually deployed I do not know.

Area's in which the US lead's development are:-
Directed Energy, this includes Lasers and the US trialled an aircraft born SDI based technology based on LASER to successfully shoot down both Dummy Rocket, Aircraft and later old Satellite at a test of feasibility, they also lead on other Spectrum based technology's including Radio and remember if they knew what the Russkies were doing then it is a fair guess they also developed it and probably to a far higher degree of completion though most Directed energy weapon's in the US arsenal are actually anti personnel and include both EM and radio frequency weapon systems designed to debilitate and make a target or group of target (as some are area effect and most classed as non lethal) ill and so incapacitated.
Also they have a wide array of Anti satellite missile and anti missile missiles which the US has possessed for a very long time now.
Microwave weapon systems were also developed though you will find a blatant lie in which is claimed they were a dead donkey so to speak, they were highly effective and as energy sources have increased in power and decreased in size have become more and more viable, they are primarily anti personnel and early models could be regarded as assassination weapons as in theory at least they could be aimed at a target several kilometres away and the effect when an autopsy would be made of the subject who was unfortunate enough to have been killed with them was to appear simply as a brain haemorrhage, the downside with early models was once again size and energy and as such they were usually vehicle based but by the late 60's man portable versions had been conceptually at least drawn up, they are more effective when combined from more than one location and of course can be narrow beam so very hard to detect as well as optically invisible with no flash though unlike a bullet they take several second's to have an effect, still you are unlikely to see these thing's deployed as there only real use would be for assassination however as technology move's forward they are a distinct possibility for the future of person portable weapon systems and are far more likely to become a reality than a ray gun (though in truth that is what they are, a microwave ray gun).

And lest we forget the US also has Rail Gun Technology, this is a magnetic acceleration projector that fire's a projectile or plasma at a fraction of the speed of light and can thus with no explosive cause a meteor like explosive impact when hitting a target, remember the famous space shuttle images were something light's the cloud in the upper atmosphere and shoots up into space as a possible UFO takes evasive action, well that could only realistically have been fired by a Rail Gun, the potential downside of a Rail gun though is that it is based and that position can in theory like any projective be easily identified making the gun then a viable target and this is slightly harder with non optical energy based weapon systems as well as the possibility that they can be made smaller and more deployable.

a reply to: LABTECH767

... they could be aimed at a target several kilometres away and the effect when an autopsy would be made of the subject who was unfortunate enough to have been killed with them was to appear simply as a brain haemorrhage ...

Not the way it work. They just need a very high power impulse of microwave capable of reaching a specific threshold of dV/dt to produce muscular contraction, and these pulse are to be sent synchronously at a very specific "place" after the QRS complex, the autopsy will show cardiac arrest!

A rather simple thing like a short-circuit in the electronics could cause a battery to suddenly heat up, and then explode. It happens in laptops a lot more than manufacturers would like to admit. LiPo batteries, used as power sources for hobby aircraft and cars, are extremely sensitive to short circuits, and cause many fires if not stored properly and left disconnected from their loads. This is one of the reasons that they are banned from U.S. forested parks.

a reply to: Bedlam
Maybe someone built a really big one of these www.a-new-way.com

a reply to: Zaphod58

1.The DMSP series weather satellites used hydrazine in the on-board maneuvering rockets. Hydrazine may be mixed with another chemical, like methanol to produce thrust (and a lot of heat) or may be run past an iridium catalyst to be broken down into nitrogen and ammonia, also producing a lot of heat

2.These satellites were designed for a 48 months life span.

3.It is likely that after 20 years, some hydrazine may have leaked; an uncontrolled leak would quickly result in a lot of heat, causing a larger leak and....BOOM!

a reply to: M5xaz

It came apart in two separate events. The initial event left five pieces of debris. Sometime later there was another event and more debris was seen.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: M5xaz

It came apart in two separate events. The initial event left five pieces of debris. Sometime later there was another event and more debris was seen.

So, it got lasered into chunks, and later they lasered it to smithereenies.

a reply to: Bedlam

That's what it sounds like.

a reply to: Zaphod58

"It came apart in two separate events"
Yes, and....?

There are multiple small tanks on those satellites.

Probable that one tank leaked, exploded damaging the rest of the other tanks which then also leaked generating an even bigger explosion (43 pieces after the second explosion).

Hydrazine leak fits the story.

Hydrazine is notorious in the aerospace field for causing explosions. It was used in WW2 in the ME 163, an aircraft infamous for killing its own pilots because of such explosions - Google it.

a reply to: M5xaz

I'm well aware of it. I had to occasionally deal with it. I just don't see it going as long as it appears to have gone between events. This would also be one of the first hydrazine tank failures that I remember off the top of my head in a satellite. I've heard of quite a few satellite failures, but not ones that just explode like this without done help.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hydrazine accidents are relatively common.

You may recall the infamous Titan 2 accident or the loss of the Mars Observer.

Lasers alone don't cause explosions, they merely heat/cut.

a reply to: M5xaz

I know they don't. But it explains a sudden heat spike. And I haven't said the laser alone caused it. But the evidence does fit an ASAT test. I would expect a hydrazine event to occur before it was in orbit and worked perfectly for twenty years. The coincidence of it suddenly having a hydrazine explosion after its useful life ended abs or was placed into a backup role is amazing.

a reply to: Zaphod58

"But it explains a sudden heat spike"

So would a hydrazine leak.

If it was an ASAT test, a separate spacecraft would have showed up on radar, STRATCOM would have picked it up, would not be a mystery to the US AIr Force.

originally posted by: M5xaz

Lasers alone don't cause explosions, they merely heat/cut.

You can deflagrate propellants in tanks with one. And you can punch holes/bang dents into targets with one, if you do it right. Like taking a mallet to it. Think of it as a small explosion.

a reply to: M5xaz

Not if it was a ground based laser. The Soviet Union had a good ground based laser system back in the 70s. China has been developing one of their own, and has tested it several times in recent years.

It's a stretch that this satellite worked perfectly for 20 years and suddenly after its not in use anymore a hydrazine tank fails.

a reply to: M5xaz

I don't think that just because the Air Force says "we don't know", means nobody in the Air Force actually knows.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
It's a stretch that this satellite worked perfectly for 20 years and suddenly after its not in use anymore a hydrazine tank fails.

Stranger things have happened. But it's the "part II" thing that seems odd. I'd have expected more of a unibang.

a reply to: Bedlam

Yeah they have, but it's still an amazing coincidence. And I agree about the explosion too. It would have made a lot more sense for one big explosion. Not one, then one later.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Bedlam

Yeah they have, but it's still an amazing coincidence. And I agree about the explosion too. It would have made a lot more sense for one big explosion. Not one, then one later.

Not just ONE later, but scattered multiples if you're turning five or six separate chunks into gravel.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: M5xaz

I'm well aware of it. I had to occasionally deal with it. I just don't see it going as long as it appears to have gone between events. This would also be one of the first hydrazine tank failures that I remember off the top of my head in a satellite. I've heard of quite a few satellite failures, but not ones that just explode like this without done help.

I had meant to ask you a question when this thread was first posted.Just how often do our satellites blow up in space?I don't recall reading of any.But then you may have heard of exploding satellites from your field.