Re: Don't ya hate when...

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 14:49:55 -0700, "Bob Myers"
<nospamplease@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fpi65c01drp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It's supposed to be low enough that all the bits will come down fairly
quickly.

Some of which have at least a fair chance of
surviving re-entry, which is the problem.

Not very likely, actually, You may recall that the space shuttle is
designed to re-enter intact, and look what happened when it was only
slightly out of shape:

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=74855&rendTypeId=4

Why would you expect a disabled satellite to perform any better than
that on re-entry?


You would THINK that first on the list of specifications
for such a thing would be a safe de-orbit capability, but
I guess that got missed...somehow...imagine that...

What part of "failed, lost communication" are you having trouble with?

None. Consider the following: you're designing a satellite
which (a) contains a rather large amount of very nasty stuff

If everything else remained intact (an infinitesimal probability) I'd
still expect the hydrazine to go under the conditions of re-entry.

and (b) also contains at least a fair amount of classified bits.

The classified bits are at least as vulnerable as any other bits.

<snip>

Al Moore
DoD 734
.