N2H4 Hydrazine Space Fuel, Destruction of a Satellite

[Arthur_64]

Hydrazine is a pretext, it would have volatilized and transformed into other elements without danger during re-entry into the atmosphere.

The argument of "confidentiality" does not hold, because when the satellite re-entered the atmosphere, it would very quickly be reduced to tiny elements, unusable in this sense.

There remain two hypotheses:

- Demonstration of strength on the part of the pentagon

- Presence of radioactive elements which would disperse over a fairly limited area in the event of a natural atmospheric reentry. The density of these elements would then be dangerous in said area.
Artificial destruction by a missile, at the altitude where it took place, would greatly disperse these materials which would take a long time to fall, and the doses involved would not be detectable.

The presence of radioactive elements can have two uses:

- Energy source (replacing solar panels). Unlikely for a satellite, it is rather used for distant missions (Cassini / Huygens, ...).
- Presence of weapons of fusion or fission in deposit of the international rules.

[Christophe]

+1 with Arthur!

"Hydrazine is highly lethal" heard in the news ... they really take us for cons ... zon forgot to say "high dose" as confirmed by wikipedia http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine

At high doses everything is deadly ... even oxygen ...

[delnoram]

There remain two hypotheses:

- Demonstration of strength on the part of the pentagon

Heard on France Info, it could be because the Chinese did it on one of their satelite some time ago

[Christophe]

Ah I see that I am my dear Delnoram

+1 for the pretext and I add: the American-American pride because the Chinese had already done it 13 months ago (persisted almost unnoticed at the time obviously) ...

[elephant]

Remundo said:

But I hate their ruling elite. She spends her time taking the rest of the world for less than nothing (this is sometimes the case, I put myself in the lot with France), but especially for imbeciles (not always the case ...).

in fact, it is their general mentality: "after us, the flies" which irritates them.

In fact hydrazine is quite common. The F16 have a small tank to allow them "to avoid a disaster at the last end" in the event of engine failure.

Totally agree with your analysis. That said, it may not be such a bad thing that we know they are equipped to do so. I remember a cosmos satellite equipped with a small nuclear reactor that crashed in Canada a few (tens?) Years ago.

That said, it's still not the ideal technique. Well, you break a satellite into 1000 pieces and these pieces end up burning in the atmosphere. But in the meantime, they clutter the stratosphere and can cause damage to manned spacecraft.
And if it is a plutonium nucleus, in my opinion, it is better that we do not find vaporized traces of it in the atmosphere, as for its nucleus, it would surprise me that it is completely vaporized.

I will rather see a soft technique where the machine would be caught in the net and dragged into a very distant orbit to go eternally to wander in the intergalactic abysses.

[Arthur_64]

It's true elephant, we could send them to get lost far, but it requires more fuel than to brake and make an atmospheric reentry.

You can save fuel and use the gravitational sling effect.
But either it is an end-of-life satellite and it will not have enough fuel left (or it would have been necessary to plan this, so more fuel from the start, etc.).
Either it is an uncontrollable satellite, so you have to involve another actor (like your net) but it is similar to rodeo (already that it is not easy to recover a tool or a bolt lost during maintenance).

It remains to find an efficient space fuel and not too dangerous. Volunteers ???

As for a plutonium nucleus, it can be vaporized (a priori) in a sufficiently fine manner and on a fairly large surface (with the missile, for example) so as not to make us risk much (traces undetectable, etc. With uncertainties ...

In the case of a classic return to school, this is different, it is about a dispersion in sl over a few tens of km² and said zone would be uninhabitable for a (very) long time This will remind the fallout fans of fallout

[Christophe]

As for a plutonium nucleus, it can be vaporized (a priori) in a sufficiently fine manner and on a fairly large surface (with the missile, for example) so as not to make us risk much (traces undetectable, etc. With uncertainties ...

HM hm ? I didn't know that the radioactivity was "dispersible" in this way, especially with plutonium ...

Do I understand that it was an additional nuclear satellite then?

[elephant]

Arthur said:

As for a plutonium nucleus, it can be vaporized (a priori) in a sufficiently fine manner and on a fairly large surface (with the missile, for example) so as not to make us risk much (traces undetectable, etc. With uncertainties ...

you will allow me to doubt it: an iron or olivine meteorite reaches the ground well. We shouldn't have too many of these things falling on us.

Wikipedia link on this kind of gadgets:

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%A9n%C ... dioisotope

[Arthur_64]

Christophe: Radioactivity is a function of the amount of plutonium, so yes it is dispersible.

And even the granite is radioactive, but not much ... There are sufficiently low levels not to be dangerous (fortunately for me who was born near Sidobre).

Elephant: But not all iron or olivine meteorites! It depends on the initial size, the angle of arrival, a lot of factors.

Precisely, it is because of these large numbers of factors that often the unpredictable happens!

[elephant]

Precisely, it is because of these large numbers of factors that often the unpredictable happens!

I don't make you say it!