Uh Muh Guh!
I received this technical analysis (Forden analysis) by MIT’s Geoffrey E. Forden regarding the US Navy’s proposed shootdown of USA 193. Forden’s attempts at objectivity are laughable, but the commentary that accompanied his e-mail shows the ethical vacuity of his school of thought. Better to let some folks die than sully pristine outer space with the possibility of conflict …
You decide (bold is my emphasis):
From: Geoffrey E. Forden [mailto:forden@MIT.EDU]Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2008 10:18 PM Subject: report on the proposed shoot-down of USA 193Dear Friends and Colleagues:
Attached, please find a preliminary technical analysis of the proposed shoot-down of the errant spy satellite, USA 193. In it, I briefly outline the history of the satellite, as it is known in the open literature, and the technical obstacles to shooting it down together with my scenario of how it might be done. I end with a discussion of the space debris it will create (short lived) as well as the probability of striking the hydrazine tank. While I do briefly discuss the pros and cons of this decision, including an estimate of the number of casualties that might be expected if it is not shot down and the policy implications if it is, this is a primarily a technical analysis.
I have to say, however, that I am both troubled by the high probability of casualties (7%)-as compared with what is allowed in a controlled reentry-and the legitimacy shooting it down would give other ASAT programs, in particular China’s. To sum up my own conclusions as to the advisability of the shoot-down, I have to say that is not a “dumb idea” as many have called it but it is certainly the wrong policy. While it is impossible to calculate the probability of this test leading to an expansion of wars into space using kinetic kill weapons in the same way it is possible to calculate the expected casualties, I believe that chance to exist and to be greater than 7%. And if humanity is denied access to space, which is a definite possibility if the debris from such a war leads to a catastrophic chain reaction of collisins, then there will be considerably more deaths from the lack of benefits that space provides than this satellite can possibly kill when it crashes.
So unfortunately, the lesser of two evils-either letting the satellite fall to Earth or legitimizing kinetic kill ASATs-is to let it fall to Earth. In the future, however, we should work on not allowing this sort of situation to arise. In what was undoubtedly a multi-billion dollar satellite, it is criminal not to have some way of releasing toxic hydrazine in space even if the satellite was essentially dead.
Geoffrey Forden, Ph.D
Research Associate
MIT’s Program on Science, Technology, and Society
URL: http://mit.edu/stgs/