US Satellite in Orbit

Thirteen months ago, China launched a missile into orbit and successfully destroyed a decommissioned satellite. This simple act of mathematical execution drew rascious international condemnation as the amount of tiny debris orbiting our world suddently increased by tens of thousands of fragments, each travelling at 34,000 kph.

The U.S. government was the most vocal opponent of this act, claiming that such careless displays of power posed a threat to American satellites as well as other orbiting devices such as the International Space Station. Considering how much damage a stray nut or bolt can cause when smashing into an ill-equipped machine, you can’t fault anyone for their reaction. So it comes as a bit of a surprise to hear that Duh-byah (George W. Bush) has ordered the Department of Defense to use a naval missile in an attempt to destroy a malfunctioning satellite before it enters the atmosphere.

The disabled spy satellite apparently contains a high quantity of hydrazine which, should it return to Earth, could pose a serious health risk to local residents, human or otherwise. To mitigate this possibility, and to ensure the high-level technology does not fall into the wrong hands, the U.S. wants to do what they do best … blow stuff up.

Trawling for Satellites

I can certainly appreciate the need to protect the inhabitants of this world from poisonous fuels, and it makes perfect sense to destroy something that could later be used against a nation, but is it really necessary to add more debris to our already dangerously littered Low Earth Orbit zone? Space shuttles, Soyuz capsules, the ISS and hundreds of satellites already take a beating with the uncharted debris field surrounding us. Have we learned nothing from our past mistakes?

Guess not.

The United States is home to some of the most brilliant rocket scientists and aerospace engineers in the world. Why aren’t we using their skills to tackle this problem like a rational race of space-faring people?

Time constraints? Budget limitations? Who knows. But it would be a perfect time for someone to say “Hey! We can capture it and take it somewhere else!”

The Blank Check

How much will a ballistic missile capable of destroying an orbiting satellite cost? $10-million? $50-million? Can we redirect an object for the same price tag?

We have the skills to precisely determine flight paths for orbiting objects. We have the skills to successfully rendezvous with orbiting machines. We can capture huge schools of fish in the oceans with well placed nets, too. Why can’t we combine these abilities?

I’d like to see the DoD look into outsourcing this task to NASA, who could then outsource it to a domestic aerospace firm with the desire to make a name for themselves in orbital junk removal. The goal would be to create a very simple space-faring vehicle for minimal cost that could be launched within a days notice and effectively capture an errant or otherwise retired orbital object. From there, the vehicle would need to pull it’s cargo into a higher orbit or, preferrably, set sail for the Sun and incinerate the space junk.

It doesn’t need to be fancy, either. Heck, it could probably be controlled from the ground.

I realize that there is a very short window of opportunity to deal with this problem before it’s too late, but there must be a company out there that has worked on a project like this. Whether it became a reality or was shoved into the back of a closet isn’t really important. What is important is our ability to take something out of the skies without having them plumet through our atmosphere or leaving lots of debris in orbit to wreak havoc on our other sensitive and important equipment.

If the U.S. wants to use this as an opportunity to prove that they can shoot satellites down too, they should really stop worrying so much about their ego. But just think of how much more useful it would be for a government to move an enemy’s working satellite to another location in the event of war. Not only would it disrupt the opponent, but it could give someone a leg-up on their intelligence technologies.

Then again, perhaps I’m falling prey to the idea that we should use technology to solve the problems we introduced with technology. I’m sure Rob Neville said something about that in a previous post … using technology for the sake of using technology is rarely a good thing :???: