Talk:USA-193

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

decay[edit]

Supposedly 328 satellites have decayed in 5 years - this seems rather high. Could he instead mean 328 objects of any type? i.e. rocket boosters, space debris, etc? Evercat (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the numbers and there is no way that 328 satellites have decayed in five years so yes I think he means random space trash .e. rocket boosters, space debrisSkeletor 0 (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A "satellite" can be any object in space orbiting a larger object. The moon is a satellite of the earth, but an empty coke can orbiting the earth is as well. (even earth itself is a satellite, of the sun) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.112 (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True but that's a very technical meaning. I changed the wording to "objects". Evercat (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed[edit]

Link to n2yo.com removed since their page now contains Wikipedia info, which makes it hard to tell what we got from them and distinguish it from what they got from us. Evercat (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where will it land?[edit]

Is there any information about where this is expected to fall? The U.S. military is going to try to shoot it down from the North Pacific, so I assume it's is expected to crash somewhere nearby - also, is it headed east or west? Theshibboleth (talk) 03:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the reason they are firing the missile is that they don't know where it will land, and want to avoid the hydrazine tank dispersing itself over a populated area. I'm only guessing here, but the reason they are firing planning to fire the missile from the North Pacific is that that will be where the satellite is at its lowest in its orbit. Evil Monkey - Hello 05:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The orbit is nearly circular at this time. The tracking assets in the area and the vastness of the ocean are more likely the reasons for the choice of this locale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.244.236 (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect if the hydrazine survives re-entry (which I have strong doubts about) the impact of the incoming fuel tank and associated debris will be a much greater worry for anyone on the ground than the hydrazine itself... Toby Douglass (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the actual debieris will not land it will burn up. they were worried about the hydrazine being spread not the debreisSkeletor 0 (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny... one official was asked where the debris will fall; the response was "In the Atlantic and Pacific oceans". Apparently the debris will know we don't want it to hit land! 71.125.141.180 (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really an ASAT[edit]

I suggest we avoid use of the term ASAT - the altitude at which USA 193 will be attacked is much lower than a regular satellite orbit, and the missile they're using probably isn't capable of a real ASAT role. Evercat (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is still being used as such. IMO, it is an ASAT. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 15:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an ASAT, it most likely couldn't take down any functioning satellite. You could say its being modified for a type of ASAT role I suppose. 70.253.128.221 (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is shooting down a satellite. While it is an ABM by design, it has the capability of taking out a satellite, which surely makes it an ASAT. Anything else would be speculative. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 17:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is silly. One could shoot a satellite sitting on the launch pad using a cruise missile, but that doesn't make the cruise missile an ASAT weapon. When one says a weapon is an ASAT weapon, that generally means that the weapon can shoot down a satellite functioning in its normal capacity. If you can only shoot down satellites as they reenter the atmosphere, you don't have an ASAT weapon, you have something more like an ABM weapon. Yes, the satellite was in orbit at the time -- a decaying orbit -- but if you want to call the modified SM3 missile an ASAT weapon, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it can operate in an ASAT role. Ketone16 (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't normally have such capability though - it's only because USA 193 is decaying and at a lower altitude. Evercat (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is still in orbit, though. Do you have a source that it couldn't do this normally? --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I suppose it's conceivable that an SM-3 might have the capability to go even higher. Sources give it's ceiling as "> 160 km" [1]. Evercat (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nightly news said that the Navy ask the contractor to modify the missile's system, computer, and sensors to reach higher altitudes and satellite proximity. This is to be a one-time modification for this special event. LanceBarber (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the Union of Concerned Scientists page on US ASAT programs: The Aegis-LEAP systems (aka Sea Based Mid Course Defence) "The system that may be fielded in the next few years is called Aegis-LEAP (previously, it was called Navy Theater-Wide Block I), and is intended to intercept missiles with ranges up to 1,000 to 2,000 kilometers. The interceptor consists of a modified version of the anti-aircraft missile used on Aegis cruisers, called the Standard Missile, topped with a Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile (LEAP) kill vehicle. " [2] That makes this sound a lot like a target of opportunity for an ASAT test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.179.200 (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I really mind any more, but the CNN report at [3] argues that this isn't really a good demonstration of an ASAT. Evercat (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media leaks[edit]

It seems clear enough to me that the initial leak must have been because they expected later to announce something like this (why else would they stoke up so much media interest in an event that's apparently so common?) but I don't have any source I can quote arguing this, alas. Anyone? Evercat (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, [4]. Of course it's fairly obvious you don't just shoot down a satellite, you need some time to decide if it's feasible. Is the date at which preparations began noteworthy? Evercat (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Feb 21 03:30 UTC[edit]

Expect the attempt to occur at the time above: [5]. Evercat (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De-orbiting explanation necessary[edit]

The article needs an explanation of the de-orbiting tactic. Why is the de-orbiting more safe after the satellite explodes? The matter coming back down to earth is the same matter. Why would the satellite come down quicker after an explosion? 12.49.208.69 (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added a quote to explain why. Does this help? -Susanlesch (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does, thank you. 216.4.147.69 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any other possible alternatives to shoot down ?[edit]

I think there needs to be a section about other practical alternatives. I can see two other options: (1) do nothing and hope it crashes into the ocean (2) Rendevous with it (other than with a kinetic weapon) and either attach a small booster to nudge it into the atmosphere, or else put it in the shuttle bay.

The space shuttle has retrieved objects before. The largest was SolarMax. Was there some obstacle why the space shuttle could not have picked up this object? Perhaps, its orbit was too low, etc. I am curious to know because the "KW" warhead is a crude method compare to a rendevous and retrieval. Picking it up directly would have avoided the large debris field and eliminated unknowns about when pieces will re-enter the atmosphere. Also, is there a possibility that some debris is catapulted into higher stable orbits considering the kinetic energy involved. If this is possible, then these objects could be potentially hazardous in the future, just at harzardous as pieces of the Chinese weather satellite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.39.30 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The latter option you mention of docking with the object is completely unworkable. USA 193 was in a decaying, very low earth orbit. Your suggestion of using the space shuttle shows that you completely fail to understand the massive planning and complexity, let alone the short time frames involved. In addition, this satellites orbital altitude at the time of intercept was ~ 133 miles above the earth's surface. The chinese test placed debris in an orbit some three to four hundred miles higher presenting entirely different problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.176.133 (talk) 17:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that satelite will crash into ocean waters, there will be most ecological catastrophe in the world. The water will be poisoned and humans will die from not drinking water or drinking poisoned water. (is fact, in that satelite was really much poisonous substances) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.211.144 (talk) 07:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

Do we have any evidence that Image:Delta II 7920 launch with NROL-21.jpg shows the launch of USA 193? Superm401 - Talk 06:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't so many launches that this is in any doubt. Numerous sources have confirmed the launch date of the target in question. --Dhartung | Talk 09:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


"Satellite Destroyed"[edit]

I don't know where to go or who to tell, but the headline on the Wikipedia main page which says "Satellite Destroyed" on 21st Feb is not reasonable or accurate. US sources could only confirm that it was HIT. That could be very different to "destroyed", especially if the target fuel tanks are not destroyed.

IceDragon64 (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right, though at [6] it shows a fireball and a big vapor cloud that (the army guy claims) couldn't have been created by the fuel that was within the missile; therefore it was, he claims, the hydrazine. The main page headline ought to be disclaimed, I agree. 12.49.208.69 (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bring this up at Template talk:In the news. "Destroyed" may be overselling it, but there doesn't seem to have been any doubt that there was a hit that basically killed the satellite. Most experienced observers give the fuel tank explanation little credence anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 18:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Introduction to the article includes a statement that the satellite was destroyed by a $75-billion SM-3. The per unit cost of this missile is $9.5 million. At the very least, the reference to $75 billion is very misleading and needs correction.Rocket Laser Man (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

North America risk[edit]

is it true that US said they would destroy the 193 becuase it might hit North America? Doesn't that imply that they would not bother to destroy their deadly satellite if it were only a risk to the rest of the world?

IceDragon64 (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they only ment that because it could hit North America it could endager people so they wanted to stop it.Skeletor 0 (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the effect of the shooting was to make it fall in North America. Whether this was to prevent the satellite from accidentally falling in some other country and getting reverse engineered there, or to test the ASAT, who knows, but does anybody on Earth believe this jive about a toxic snowball from outer space hitting the ground? 70.15.114.2 (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrazine[edit]

As I understand it, hydrazine is extremely reactive. I find it incredible that a tank of hydrazine could survive the heat of re-entry. Toby Douglass (talk) 10:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC reports "US officials said without an attempt to destroy the fuel tank, and with the satellite's thermal control system gone, the fuel would now be frozen solid, allowing the tank to resist the heat of re-entry." [7]. The freezing point of hydrazine is 2C at atmospheric pressure (the fuel would have been under pressure in the tank). I find it unlikely that 1000lbs of hydrazine (which would have a huge heat capacity) would have frozen in the tank, given the alternate heating/cooling of close Earth orbit... Fig (talk) 11:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, no one I think knows if the satellite is still heating the hydrazine of not, so you could assume for safety that it is not and then act accordingly. However, a freezing point of 2C at 1 bar doesn't tell much when you think about the loss of pressure in high earth atmosphere and the huge frictonal heating that occurs. To be honest, hydrazine is I understand rather reactive - even if frozen solid, I would expect the outer layers to be boiling away on re-entry and I would be amazed if any of it would remain. Toby Douglass (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that hydrazine remains toxic after reacting or so I have heard, very few substances are capable of completly neutralizing itSkeletor 0 (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I don't think this is the problem. The satellite will be doing about Mach 25 on re-entry. The fuel will be dispersed over such a wide area it will not be hazardous. Also consider, de-orbited satellites have included those with nuclear power plants. Their refined plutonium cores were considered safe enough to leave be! Toby Douglass (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah they just don't want to draw attention to the fact that their satelies contain plutonium haha Skeletor 0 (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The cost of the operation"[edit]

What operation?

This section isn't a subsection under the "Destruction" section, but probably should be. CapnZapp (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the name?[edit]

What's "USA 193" mean? Is it the 193rd launch of that year or something? 12.49.208.69 (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More like the 193rd in a series of US government launches with an undetermined start date (I'm sure somebody out there knows when USA 1 was, though). It's not really the name, more like a public code that reveals nothing about the agency or purpose -- deliberately generic. --Dhartung | Talk 18:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
USA-1 was the ninth GPS satellite, launched by an Atlas E rocket on 13 June 1984. USA satellites are not necessarily related, and the designations are not assigned in any particular chronological order. The designation is similar to the Soviet/Russian designation Kosmos --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change first section[edit]

The first section says the satelite was destroyed but that has not been comfrimed yet right? Skeletor 0 (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was confirmed within an hour of the interception. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 18:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full Fuel Tank?[edit]

"It is not yet clear whether the missile hit its precise target -- the satellite's full fuel tank."

This statement is interesting for a number of reasons. Should it be assumed that the accuracy of the missile was to within a couple of metres at a range of 13 miles above the earth? I thought this operation was unprecedented and thus untested, But does it matter if is was not, as long as it hit and denonated? Although it may be purely academic by now why, after such a long time, should the tank still be full anyway? And how can NRO know? - presumably the early failure after deployment did not include the downlink of fuel staus information? Or does the US DoD just wish to make its systems appear as accurate as possible, regardless of the technical realities. Just as the NRO has wished to appear as concerned as possible for "public safety". It is hard to believe that such a public and expensive operation as this does not more carry more weight politically than technically. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tank would be full. It was probably expected to provide a couple of years' worth of navigation (and yes, they do move spy satellites around a bit), but was practically unused. Once control was lost there was no reason for the navigation system to operate on its own. As to the rest, obviously there are degrees of public relations going on here. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mission is certainly not unprecedented for the US. The USAF hit a satellite in 1985 with the ASM-135. Also, the SM-3 has been tested against ballistic missile warheads, (see the SM-3 article. As for the fuel, the hydrazine is used for maneuvering, including periodic reboosting of its orbit (noticeably absent in this case). Amateur photographs taken of USA-193 indicate that its solar panels never deployed [8]. Without the solar panels, the spacecraft would have less than an hour of life left as its batteries drained. Once the batteries were gone the spacecraft was dead. It simply never had a chance to use any fuel. --Scottmsg (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems wholly reasonable, Dhartung and Scottsmg. The fact that the hydrazine wasn't being burned is the reason the satellite was slowly falling out of the sky. Evenso, I tend to agree with Toby Douglass above, who suggests re-entry heat would probably ingnite it. Any missile scientist care to comment on the flamabilty of hydrazine at 13 miles high? At least it wasn't Chineese (or even Japaneese) hydrazine - probably much more toxic. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a scientist, I an engineering student, and I'd just like to put my 2 cents in, to say that the tank was probably full, as that fuel was obviously not used to correct the satellite's orbit, and hydrazine is a very very very nasty substance, with even small exposures causing irreparable damage to people's bodies. I do not believe that hydrazine would easily ignite in the upper atmosphere, as that would require oxygen (or another oxidizing substance) entering the tank, or fuel leaking out, and it is likely that at least parts of the tank would remain intact, thereby preventing combustion. In my opinion the destruction was justified, especially when you take into account the damage caused by Cosmos 954's nuclear materials, and its effect on my home country, Canada. If you want to learn more about hydrazine, refer to the relevant article on Wikipedia, or you can go and download a lecture available on MIT open courseware, the course is something related to the Space Shuttle's design, (it's an engineering class.)70.70.219.147 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the analogy to Cosmos 954 is inapt. The damage caused by Cosmos 954 was due to the wide dispersal of radioactive materials during as the satellite broke up during its reentry. If, as you say, the hydrazine tank came down intact, the contamination would be limited to a very small area. If the hydrazine had been dispersed, it likely would have reacted in the atmosphere or otherwise been greatly reduced in concentration by the time it reached the ground. U-235 has a half life of 700 million years. Hyrdazine does not persist for nearly as long. Ketone16 (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the phrase, "precise target", this could be taken metaphorically; the precise "goal" was to destroy the fuel tank. As regards the need for oxygen to create an explosion, "Hydrazine decomposes energetically to nitrogen and hydrogen, making it a fairly good monopropellant." (The video makes it clear the satellite as a whole "decomposed energetically" after the impact.) One might surmise the DoD is fairly certain the impact ruptured the tank precisely because the observed energy of the explosion was consistent with rapid chemical decomposition of the hydrazine in the tank. BTW, as regards the article itself, I support restoring the term "explosion" to the image caption. It clearly didn't just "break up" after the impact. (sdsds - talk) 15:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA 193 video[edit]

[Copied from Image talk:USA 193 after interception by SM-3 missile.jpg]

Isn't this image a work of the United States government and therefore public domain?

Thank you for asking. This one, the first copy I saw after the itsy bitsy one on defenselink.mil, came from dodvclips.mil, where for me to download the video I had to agree to the Intel EULA (as I read it). The Pentagon TV site had another copy and I couldn't find any reference to copyright for Intel in Google for that address. But better yet, a Navy video of their daily television news was at navy.mil, and that screen shot is 100% free and clear as you say. If it turns out that I read this wrong, maybe somebody will upload the whole video. I will copy this note to the USA 193 talk page and to yours, and ask for speedy delete of this orphan. Thank you again! -Susanlesch (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello again. The copy of "Missle Intercept" at pentagonchannel.mil, part of their daily television news, looks free. It is Window Media though, WMV. Maybe someone here has easy access to software than can edit and produce ogg files. Or maybe there is yet another source. Best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

GPS satellite
File:U.S. NROL-21 satellite-retouch-20080222-1.jpg
"NRO L-21"
File:U.S. NROL-21 illustration-20080222.jpg
"NRO L-21" (Actually the Hubble Space Telescope)

The image used in the infobox (Image:U.S. NROL-21 satellite-retouch-20080222-1.jpg) is not of USA-193. It is a stock image of a GPS satellite, which the Pentagon news channel were obviously using as a filler to represent a generic satellite, seeing as 193 was classified. The image is, infact, available on Commons (uncropped and in higher resolution) as Image:GPS Satellite NASA art-iif.jpg. I have posted both images for comparison (right). The video from which the image was sourced later used pictures of the Hubble Space Telescope to represent the satellite. I would recommend switching back to the launch photo. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen the image until just now, but I agree, it's a GPS satellite. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The image of the HST (above left) has appeared in the "design" section. That needs to go too. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 22:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you kindly for the correction. Entirely my fault. They looked too good to be true. -Susanlesch (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E-305 and 080128-fia-vick talk about USA 193 and its suspected radar capabilities. On 11/11/2007, the NYT published Vick's drawings of what the spacecraft may have looked like, USA 193 was supposedly the radar sat on the right. This was another of the drawings of what the spacecraft looked like. They are copyrighted, so they can't be used here, but it gives us an idea of what it may have looked like. As for the Hubble image, KH-11, KH-12 and KH13 were suspected to resemble the Hubble telescope, that might be why the video used a similar drawing. Since this was suspected to be a radar satellite, it wouldn't be very comparable to Hubble. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best practice would be to stick with the photo of the launch. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 00:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not suggesting otherwise. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Video (1:08) of the SM-3 missile launch and interception, followed by USA 193 exploding
Is this the right satellite? Only kidding. Maybe someone will beat me to the opening still (it might be the preview option). Thanks to the Commons converting video help for the pointer to ffmpeg2theora. It worked on the first try. -Susanlesch (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that video, it looks like it was filmed from an aircraft. Does any of the articles say what aircraft were involved in the operation? DoD said, land, sea, air and space based systems, but no specifics. I was wondering if it came from a RC-135S Cobra Ball or something like that. Whatever it was, it was at 26k ft altitude traveling 263 kts. Probably too slow for an RC-135, maybe a P-3 Orion. Maybe someone here has seen an article that mentions it. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a video of a video on a projection screen but I don't really know. The source is here (begins about 0:01:00). -Susanlesch (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Space Race[edit]

At the end of the introduction, a reference is made that the shoot-down is seen as part of "...a Space Race..." Clicking on this link takes the user to an article on The Space Race, which states that it lasted until roughly 1975. Unless the reference in this article is, as the indefinite article would lead me to presume, just some metonym, that's fine, but then the capitalization (and thus the link) should be removed. Otherwise, this is kind of like having a reference to military action in Iraq "being seen as a Vietnam War". Perhaps, "reminiscent of the Space Race"?, or "a new chapter in the Space Race"...eh, just something less anachronistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.13.191 (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I removed the link, and modified the claim. You know, you can be bold and edit such things yourself. Tempshill (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

recomending new name for article:"2008 USA anti-satellite missile test"[edit]

Just like : 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test 71.99.88.215 (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a test of ASAT technology, it was a use of ABM technology. A decaying orbit shortly before reentry is more like a ballistic missile, than the higher stable orbits of potential satellite targets. That does not address if the U.S. really did this for safety, or secrecy, but it is not the same as shooting down a satellite in stable orbit. —MJBurrage(T•C) 15:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orbit data[edit]

What coordinate system is being used in the "orbit data" section in the article (e.g., "349 km × 365 km × 58.48°")? - dcljr (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perigee, apogee, inclination -- Scottmsg (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an article one could link to that explains this? - dcljr (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orbit has a section describing these. Orbital elements is solely about this topic. (sdsds - talk) 01:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those articles help at all if you don't already know which quantity each of the numbers (e.g., 349 km × 365 km × 58.48°) are supposed to represent. I've added a note to that section of the article. - dcljr (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing Wording?[edit]

The part about Gates' comment: "though in the same statement it was confirmed that the weapons and systems used for this mission will not retain their ASAT capability, and will be reconfigured back to their original purpose as tactical missile.[35]" seems misleading to me. The weapons will not retain ASAT capability, but their original capability is ABM, correct? So using the word "though" seems out of place. It almost seems as though the wording paints it as nothing more than a cruise missile when it is, in fact, a state-of-the-art missile defense system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.165.236 (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references ![edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "NYTimes" :
    • [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/21satellite.html?ex=1361336400&en=ea5702ff269483cc&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss NY Times: Missile Strikes a Spy Satellite Falling From Its Orbit]
    • {{cite web|author=Philip Taubman |title=In Death of Spy Satellite Program, Lofty Plans and Unrealistic Bids |url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/washington/11satellite.html?pagewanted=1| publisher=The New York Times}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reentry[edit]

Neither this article nor Operation Burnt Frost state if the pieces of USA-193 have re-entered the atmosphere and if so, when and where. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on USA-193. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on USA-193. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on USA-193. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:USA-193&oldid=1216506776"