Pentagon Unveils Rogue Spy Sat Shoot-Down Plan

Sometime in the next 11 days, a Navy cruiser is going to aim a missile just above the atmosphere, and try to take out a malfunctioning spy satellite before it crashes to Earth -- and maybe releases a toxic gas in the process.

Defense Department officials detailed the shootdown operation, in a briefing with reporters Thursday afternoon.

The 5,000-pound National Reconnaissance Office surveillance satellite was pronounced dead just a few hours after it was inserted into orbit, on Dec. 14, 2006. This January, the U.S. military realized that the satellite was beginning its descent down into the atmosphere, Deputy National Security Advisor James Jeffrey noted. Ordinarily, this wouldn't be much cause for concern; objects of this size plummet into the Earth's atmosphere all the time. But this satellite contains a full tank -- over 1,000 pounds' worth -- of the rocket propellant hydrazine. And there's a small but real risk that the tank could rupture, releasing a "toxic gas" over a "populated area," causing a "risk to human life."

The chances of "hitting land or a person as a hunk" are low, added Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Gen. James Cartwright. "What's different here is the hydrazine."

The plan is to fire a modified SM-3 interceptor at the satellite, "just prior to it hitting the Earth's atmosphere," Cartwright said. If the missile connects at that height, the collision would reduce the amount of debris that would be released into space; most of the satellite chunks would likely burn up in the air, within the first 10-15 hours, he noted. And a hit then would likely "slow the satellite down" so we can "put it in the ocean," Gen. Cartwright added. Some space security experts say that idea is "very feasible."  Others are extremely skeptical.

Shooting down the satellite earlier might risk other objects in orbit, Gen. Cartwright said. And "once it hits the atmosphere, it breaks apart and becomes very difficult to engage."

The SM-3 missile that's supposed to do the job is at the heart of the most successful component of the American missile-defense program; unlike other, less reliable interceptors, the SM-3 has hit its targets in 11 of its last 13 tests. Two other Aegis cruisers, armed with similar weapons, will be on standby, in case the initial SM-3 fails to fire, or misses its target.

The takedown attempt could come as early as three or four days from now. After that, there will be a window of seven to eight days in which a shot will be possible.

As the AP notes, Cartwright said this will be an unprecedented effort; he would not say exactly what are the odds of success.

"This is the first time we've used a tactical missile to engage a spacecraft," Cartwright said.

After extensive study and analysis, U.S. officials came to the conclusion that, "we're better off taking the attempt than not," Cartwright said...

Software associated with the Standard Missile 3 has been modified to enhance the chances of the missile's sensors recognizing that the satellite is its target; he noted that the missile's designed mission is to shoot down ballistic missiles, not satellites. Other officials said the missile's maximum range, while a classified figure, is not great enough to hit a satellite operating in normal orbits.

"It's a one-time deal," Cartwright said when asked whether the modified Standard Missile 3 should be considered a new U.S. anti-satellite weapon technology.

 Gen. Cartwright cast the threat from the satellite in much less dire terms than Jeffrey did. The space shuttle Columbia had a "similar tank" of hydrazine, Gen. Cartwright noted -- one that "survived re-entry." Even if the hydrazine were released, he added, the effects would likely be mild -- akin to chlorine gas poisoning, which can cause burning in the lungs, and elsewhere. The area affected would be "roughly the size of two football fields [where you might] incur something that would make you go to the doctor."

Nevertheless, Gen. Cartwright added, there was enough of a risk to attempt the shot. "The regret factor of not acting clearly outweighed the regret factor of acting," he said.