Satellite Shoot-Down any day now

The Navy will be shooting down a spy satellite any day now. It is a fascinating technological effort. It involves a malfunctioning spy satellite the size of a school bus that is orbiting the earth at 22,000 miles per hour (more than 300 miles per second). To hit this target, the Navy will use a specially modified missile that was originally developed for use against incoming ballistic missiles. It is anticipated that there are ten-second windows of opportunity over the next ten days, and then the opportunity will be lost, because the satellite will be in the atmosphere by then. The order to fire is not being made by a military commander on the ground (or at sea), but is being made by the Secretary of Defense himself, who will presumably weigh factors like weather and even the international political climate at the time. The Secretary of Defense is flying to Hawaii today, and the official explanation is that this was a previously-scheduled trip that just happens to coincide with the shoot-down decision (Sure, I believe that...)

The expressed reason for shooting down the satellite is that a dangerous chemical, hydrazine, is on board, and could be hazardous to people should the satellite crash in a populated area. I'm sorry, but this explanation just does not wash. More hazardous chemicals like chlorine are transported in trucks and trains every day in the United States.

The real reason for the shootdown appears to be as follows: (1) to prevent spy technology from possibly falling into the wrong hands, (2) to test anti-ballistic missile systems against a realistic target, and (3) to send a subtle message to China and Russia that we can shoot down their satellites if we want to.

The U.S. government should just be up-front about its reasons for shooting down the satellite. No one is buying the explanation that it is to prevent damage to life and property caused by the on-board supply of hydrazine. It is this kind of obfuscation by the government that give rise to conspiracy theories.

A good discussion of these issues by Richard Fernandez can be found here. I must note again, that while I am employed by the DoD, all the information found in this post are from public sources, and nothing I say represents the views of the DoD or the agency I work for.