The United States is planning to intercept a dying reconnaissance satellite with a missile launched from a Navy ship. The administration justifies the intercept on the basis of public safety. That is a long stretch, indeed, and thus far in the news coverage that I have seen there is virtually no mention of the political consequences of the United States' conducting its first anti-satellite test in over two decades.
The United States, along with China, Russia, and other space-faring nations, should be working to ban anti-satellite weapons. Such a ban would work strongly in the best interests of the United States because we depend more, by far, than any other nation on access to space for our economy and security. Any measure that reduces the threats to satellites will enhance American security. The proposed test is a potential public relations bonanza, showing the public how a defensive missile can protect us from a-largely imaginary-danger from above. What follows is a simple analysis of what some of these dangers might be and a description of what might happen. These are questions that should have been asked of the administration.
In December 2006, the United States launched a 5000 pound spy satellite from the military space center at Vandenberg, California. Virtually everything about these satellites is highly classified. The government has declined to even say who manufactured it, much less give details about what it does. Most accounts seem to assume it is a photoreconnaissance satellite. It is designated as US193.
The satellite was successfully placed into a 220 mile high orbit but radio communication with the satellite was soon lost. At 220 miles, the Earth's atmosphere, while tenuous, still exerts some drag on a satellite the size of a small school bus that is pushing through it at 17,000 miles per hour. Reconnaissance satellites are normally placed in low orbits; they are just big cameras after all and you get better resolution in the pictures if the camera is closer to the thing it is photographing. Reconnaissance satellites usually carry some propellant and small thrusting rockets, for three reasons. First, if there is a particular place on the Earth that the spy satellite needs to photograph, the orbit of the satellite will-eventually-naturally bring the satellite right overhead but the intelligence analysts, the military, or the president might not be able to wait. So the satellite can use its propellant and rockets to nudge it a little one way or the other to shift its orbit enough to bring it over the desired spot on the Earth sooner rather than later. Second, because the satellite is in such a low orbit, it will lose energy to air resistance and slowly come closer to the Earth. The rockets can be used as a booster to occasionally nudge the satellite a little higher to keep it in orbit. Third, when the propellant is almost gone and the satellite is doomed to reenter the atmosphere, the last bit of propellant can be used to intentionally slow the satellite and force it down, usually aiming for the Pacific Ocean where debris will fall harmlessly.
The propellant is hydrazine, a compound of hydrogen and nitrogen. It is not the most efficient propellant but it is extremely simple to use. It is a monopropellant, which means it can be used just by itself, there is no need for separate oxidizer and fuel. Just squirt some onto a catalyst in a reaction chamber and it decomposes, forming hot hydrogen and nitrogen gas that rush out a rocket nozzle, creating thrust. The problem with US193 is that radio control has been lost, the propellant is not being used up, the satellite is about to reenter the atmosphere, and the propellant tank is still filled with a thousand pounds of hydrazine. There is some chance that the tank will not burn up on reentry, some chance it could land on a populated area, and some chance the hydrazine could injure someone. Hence the plan to intercept the satellite.
You Can't "Shoot Down" a Satellite.
Almost all press reports include some statement about how the Navy is going to "shoot down" the satellite. The image suggests a hunter with a shotgun shooting down a duck. Bang! The duck gets hit, its wings fold, and it falls to Earth. Not the way it works with a satellite. This is a satellite; it is in orbit. It stays in orbit because of its momentum and the balance between the centrifugal force and the Earth's gravity. It is not being "held up" the way an airplane's wings hold it up in the air.
When the interceptor hits the satellite, it is not like a bullet hitting a car, punching a hole in the side and coming out the other side. The interceptor will hit the satellite at about 18,000 miles per hour and the energy of the interceptor is far more than needed to melt and even vaporize the material of the interceptor. This happens so quickly it is as though it were an explosion. Shock waves will travel through the structure of the satellite and break it into pieces, some large, some as small as dust. The hope is, apparently, that the interceptor will break open the hydrazine tank so it will leak out before the tank reaches the ground.
But the interceptor is not "shooting down" the satellite. The satellite weights 5000 pounds and the interceptor weights 20 pounds. Even if the satellite breaks up into pieces those pieces are going to be moving in roughly the same direction as the satellite was moving, that is, in the same orbit. Some smaller pieces will encounter proportionately more air resistance and will come down sooner than the satellite would have. But if the propellant tank breaks free, the density of the propellant tank is higher than the average density of the satellite so the propellant tank by itself might actually stay up longer than the satellite by itself would have, had it remained whole.
The satellite is not being controlled but this intercept is going to trade one big uncontrolled satellite for several uncontrolled pieces of a satellite. If that helped it burn up in the atmosphere, that might be useful but the first thing that happens when a large satellite enters the atmosphere is that the structure fails and it breaks into pieces anyway. Recall the sad photos of the Columbia reentering the atmosphere: it was not a single hot streak across the sky but several huge pieces moving together; and that was a vehicle that was specifically designed to survive reentry.
The Pentagon tells us that the hydrazine tank will survive reentry. I remain unconvinced. Deorbiting something is not easy. The tank may not burn up entirely from the heat of reentry but the heat should be enough to vaporize the hydrazine, creating a high pressure in the tank that would rupture the tank, spilling the hydrazine harmlessly at very high altitude. Also keep in mind that this is not a sealed tank, there will be pipes going in and out and these will absolutely be sheered off by the reentry, allowing the hydrazine to vent. Finally, intercepting the satellite will not necessarily destroy the tank. Most likely the interceptor will break the satellite into pieces, one of which will be the hydrazine tank, which will reenter the atmosphere independently but keep in mind that the satellite would have broken up quickly upon reentry anyway.
And if the tank makes it to the surface? Well, we are told it might cover an area the size of two football fields with hydrazine and if someone remained in the area they could get a fatal dose. (If I were outside and a large tank of strange material fell from outer space, I confess, it would never occur to me to leave the area.) Well, if "two football fields" is as large at 100 meters by 100 meters, that is 10,000 square meters or just less than one ten billionth of the surface of the Earth. That makes winning the lottery seem like very good odds, indeed. To put this in perspective, the United States produces 36 million pounds of hydrazine every year, the world produces 130 million pounds of it. (It is used in, among other things, the production of plastic.) Most of this is transported around the industrial world by trucks and rail. At any given time, vastly more hydrazine is in transit around the world than is in this satellite. If the government were interested in public safety it would be better to take the $3 million cost of the Standard-3 missile and pay for a traffic light at a bad intersection or pay for children's vaccinations.
So what is going on? When control of the satellite was first lost, the risk from the satellite was dismissed as trivial, not worth any real concern. Now we need to "shoot it down." I cannot attribute motives without being able to read minds but a normally skeptical person could be forgiven for at least suspecting that this satellite is offering a chance for the Navy to test its missiles in an anti-satellite mode for the first time since the end of the Cold War. I have seen virtually no discussion of the arms control implications of this. Are we fueling an anti-satellite arms race? Who knows, but I don't think anyone in this administration cares.
Two other good articles, here and here.
In the news:
Associated Press - U.S. to try to shoot down spy satellite
Reuters - ANALYSIS - U.S. satellite shooting to raise space weapons worry
USA Today - U.S. to shoot down failing spy satellite
Newsday - U.S. to shoot down satellite
Navy Times - Navy tasked with destroying satellite
Detroit Free Press - Missile will be shot at satellite
The Federation of American Scientists is a progressive, non-partisan, policy institute providing decision-makers and the public with analyses and research in international security, learning and housing technologies. Sixty-seven Nobel Laureates serve on our board of sponsors. For more information, see www.fas.org.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 18
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/
The gist of it is, after looking at the risks to land based humans, and the three in the international space station, from the debris, the politics of the effort will make any future posturing on anti-satellite weapons that much harder to handle. China shot theirs down. We will "shoot" ours down. Russia will have no compunction to step up to bat with their own effort. Any discussions about where to go from there will be that much more difficult to achieve having no good position to argue from. All in all, a very bad idea... not at all surprisng from the cowboys in charge.
The news coverage has been very disappointing to me. Much of it has been highly sensational, if just shy of hysterical still a bit on the scary side. One network TV news story this morning featured the "deadly satellite." And reported how the government had sent out warnings to FEMA on how to deal with hydrazine contamination. I also found this astonishing article from the New York Times from 1991 about how the first Bush Administration cut back on safety inspections of railroads because of complaints from the rail operators, just before a derailment led to the spill of 440 gallons of hydrazine, almost four times more than is in this satellite. It closed a highway for a week and killed the fish in a stream. A bad thing? Yes, but it was not the end of the world. If the Bush Administration were really concerned about chemical spills, they would invest this money in better rail and road safety and more inspections.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D0CE7D81039F934A2575BC0A967958260
DUH ! ! ! ! this shouldn't be an epiphany for anyone.
I have seen virtually no discussion of the arms control implications of this
Find a wider source for information-- ARMS RACE IN SPACE
The Pentagon tells us that the hydrazine tank will survive reentry.
It does ???
The aim is not just to hit the bus-sized satellite — which would burn up upon re-entering the atmosphere anyway —but to obliterate a tank onboard that is carrying 1,000 pounds of hydrazine, a toxic fuel. The fuel, unused because the satellite died shortly after reaching orbit in December 2006 — could be hazardous if it landed in a populated area.
Ensuring America's Space Security
In August 2004, an FAS panel reviewed eight threats to US space assets and examined alternatives to weaponization and recommended future policies in a highly-praised report
http://fas.org/pubs/_pages/space_report.html
Spy Satellite Shootdown
Mission May Be Delayed
Who's Blogging» Links to this discussion
Ivan Oelrich
Vice President, Strategic Security Programs, Federation of American Scientists
Wednesday, February 20, 2008; 2:00 PM
High seas in the north Pacific may force the Navy to wait another day before launching a heat-seeking missile on a mission to shoot down a wayward U.S. spy satellite, the Pentagon said Wednesday.
This Story
Satellite Fuel's Risks Are Disputed
Transcript: Spy Satellite ShootdownThis Story
Effort to Shoot Down Satellite Could Inform Military Strategy
Transcript: Spy Satellite Shootdown
The attempted shootdown was approved by President Bush last week out of concern that toxic fuel on board the satellite could crash to earth and potentially harm humans, the Defense Department has said.
Ivan Oelrich, vice president of Strategic Security Systems at the Federation of American Scientists, will be online Wednesday, Feb. 20, at 2 p.m. ET to take questions about the procedure, the launch window period and the danger, if any, to Earth.
Full Story ( AP, Feb. 20)
A transcript follows.
____________________
Ivan Oelrich: Hello. This is Ivan Oelrich. I am the Vice President for Strategic Security Programs at the Federation of American Scientists. It is a real honor to be here. I am here today to talk about the intercept of the dying satellite.
_______________________
Eastern Montana: Much has been made about the onboard hydrazine as being the What To Worry About ... making me wonder -- is there a radioisotope package on the satellite generating electricity?
Such a generator would be heavily shielded and so would be much more likely to survive reentry.
Hydrazine seems more like a red herring here ... your thoughts?
Ivan Oelrich: We and the Russians used to put radioisotope generators on satellites in Earth orbit. In fact, many years ago one reentered the atmosphere over Canada and scattered radiatation. Now we only use radioisotope generators in deep space probes, for example, to other planets, not in orbit around Earth. There is no radioisotope generator on this satellite.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: If the Navy is unable to shoot down the satellite, will its reentry pose any threat to airplanes?
Ivan Oelrich: Of course, there is some tiny danger. But the Earth is a big place; any given spot has a tiny chance (I am estimating about one chance in a billion, but don't hold me to that exactly) of being hit, and an airplane would have about the same chance.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Why won't this administration tell us WHERE they expect the satellite to impact? We know that they know; why won't they tell us?
Ivan Oelrich:"Why" requires I read minds and I am not good at that. In fact, it is hard to predict where. When a satellite is in high orbit, we can predict very accurately years in advance where it will be, but when it gets into the uppermost reaches of the atmosphere, it gets trickier. And remember, this thing is going 18,000 miles an hour. That is 300 miles a minute. If I am wrong about WHEN it reenters by only a minute, that translates into being wrong about WHERE it reenters by 300 miles.
_______________________
Philadelphia, Pa.: How many roundhouse kicks would it take Chuck Norris to destroy the satellite?
Ivan Oelrich: Satellites are very delicate, so approximately 17 kicks. The problem is that in space, for ever action there is a reaction and after the first kick, Norris would fly off in the opposite direction.
_______________________
Harrisburg, Pa.: What are the approximate odds that this satellite will be shot down, and how embarrassing would it be if we shoot and miss?
Ivan Oelrich: The odds that the satellite will be intecepted are high. Although it is traveling fast, the satellite is in a fairly predictable orbit even at this late stage. So the interceptor will know when it is coming. BUT, you can't "shoot down" a satellite. It is not like a hunter with a gun shooting down a duck. BANG! It falls to the ground. The satellite is in orbit and following a trajectory and when the 40 pound interceptor hits the 5000 pound satellite, it will break the satellite into pieces but those pieces will travel, on average in pretty much the same orbit. Some will come down sooner than the satellite would have and some later. The "shooting down" image is in all the news reports but this is nothing like shooting down an airplane.
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.: Wouldn't it be more practical to launch a satellite that would match orbits with the spy satellite and then destroy it at point blank range with little if any relative motion between them?
Ivan Oelrich: This is precisely how the old Soviet anti-satellite systems worked. So the answer is yes. These are called co-orbital systems. There is some fear that hostile countries might put tiny satellites into near orbits and we would not even know. Then they could be used as anti-satellite weapons in some sort of surprise attack.
_______________________
Artlington, Va.: ABC says that the satellite is going 22,000 miles per hour (366 miles per minute). I think it is pretty impressive to hit something that is moving that fast. I'd like to be on the Navy ship west of Hawaii when that missile gets launched!
Ivan Oelrich: I think this intercept is a mistake and unneeded but there is no question that the technology is cool. And if the debris reenters the atmosphere where it is night, it will make a spectacular light show, like a slow motion meteor shower.
_______________________
Reston, Va.: Doesn't the satellite have thrusters it could use to shoot itself out into space?
Ivan Oelrich: Yes, normally. That is precisely the problem. Many similar satellites have been launched and a small amount of thruster fuel is saved for the end and then the thrusters are used to bring the satellite down in the Pacific. The satellite was launched in December 2006 and we lost radio contact almost immediately, so we have not been able to send the signals that would fire the thrusters. Hence the current pickle.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: How big is the estimated debris field?
Ivan Oelrich: For a satellite this large, piece might land over an area a hundred miles across and almost a thousand miles long. The debris will actually be spread over a larger area if the intercept is successful (but of course, there won't be any MORE debris, just the same stuff will be spread out more).
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.: NASA has given assurances previously that the satellite was not a danger. What changed?
Were they wrong? Or is this simply a thinly veiled weapons test?
Do you really believe that scattering space debris across a wide expanse of space in thousands of different directions into unknowable orbits that may present a threat to satellites and manned missions long into the future, is better than letting a lone satellite fall out of the sky?
Sky lab was bigger, no?
Ivan Oelrich: This is a question that not enough people are asking. We lost radio contact almost immediately. At that point the satellite was doomed. But we were told that the danger was minimal. Now, a few weeks ago, the government tells us that they are going to save us from this danger that we didn't even know existed. I believe the public safety argument is hollow. It does not stand up to any sort of cost/benefit analysis. Perhaps that is why the announcement of the intercept attempt was delayed to the last minute. SUPERFICIALLY this looks quite reasonable, a great idea, but it doesn't stand up to analysis. But analysis takes time.
I can't read minds so I don't know motivations but I suspect that one motivation is that this is a great political boost to the missile defense system. People don't make much distinction between missile defense and anti-satellite intercepts. So here is this "grave" danger from space, we fire a rocket at it and, poof, the danger is gone. Aren't you glad we spent the billions of dollars on that missile defense system?
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: Who exactly owns the satellite?
Ivan Oelrich: It is the property of the US Government.
_______________________
Hiding Under My Desk: But if the intercept is successful, won't the new smaller (in theory) debris mostly burn up in reentry leaving a smaller actual debris field?
Ivan Oelrich: Depends on how you measure "small." More will burn up in the atmosphere (but not that much more, when the satellite hits the thicker air, it will break up anyway) but even if the smaller debris is spread over a larger area, then the debris field would be larger. It really isn't very important. The important point is the statistical probability that any one big piece will hit anything important on Earth and the size of the debris field doesn't much change that probability.
_______________________
NYC: Why can't the Shuttle crews go up to the satellite and try fixing it (have they done this)?
Ivan Oelrich: They might have at first but now the satellite is in FAR to low an orbit for the Shuttle to safely operate. And the Shuttle has fixed satellites before, most famously the Hubble Space Telescope.
Remember, each shuttle launch cost close to a billion dollars (as I recall) so it is probably cheaper just to launch another satellite.
_______________________
Hartford, Conn.: How big is the satellite?
Ivan Oelrich: Everything about the satellite is highly classified and the government is giving few details. But they say it weighs 5000 pounds. I have heard it described as the size of a Chevy Suburban or a small school bus.
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.: Dear Mr. Oelrich,
With all due respect, safety has nothing to do with why this event is occurring. The general consensus is that the real reason for this shoot-down stunt is to show the Russians and the Chinese that we can destroy their satellites whenever we choose to do so. It has been proven numerous times that the Bush administration will lie in order to achieve political advantage. Why should anyone believe that Bush is telling the truth this time?
Ivan Oelrich: I believe that a reasonably skeptical person can be forgiven that there is more going on here than the administration claims. I too believe that there are primarily political and military motives at work and the claims of concern for public safety are just a cover.
To put this in some perspective, the US produces 36,000,000 pounds of hydrazine every year. The world 130,000,000 pounds. This is transported around the country in trucks and on trains. At any given moment FAR more hydrazine is being shipped on the country's highways, through towns and cities and inhabited areas, than the amount on this satellite. (And far more dangerous materials, like chlorine.) So I do not buy the public safety argument. If the administration were concerned about public safety, they would take the millions of dollars spent on this intercept and spend it on traffic lights at a dangerous intersection or on vaccines for children.
_______________________
Bethesda, Md.: From the story, it seems that the plan to shoot down the satellite came about only weeks ago ("hurry-up program to adapt the missile for this anti-satellite mission was completed in a matter of weeks"). If this satellite was non-functional and falling why did the decision to shoot it down happen so recently?
Ivan Oelrich: I don't know. But my personal suspicion is that this is superficially a good idea that does not stand up to analysis so don't give people time to think too much about it.
_______________________
Fairfax, Va.: If I were on a beach in Maui looking up at the night sky (I wish!) would I be able to see the explosion/impact?
Ivan Oelrich: During the day, I doubt it, but at night, you might be able to. If the pieces reentered the atmosphere over you at night, you would definitely be able to see the trail of debris.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: So just how much has this whole satelite escapade cost the taxpayer - to build it, send it up, and now shoot it down since it isn't working?
Ivan Oelrich: This is a good question but the biggest cost is the cost of the satellite and that is completely secret. We here at the Federation of American Scientists have a Government Secrecy Project, headed by Steve Aftergood, that has been trying for years to get the intelligence budget published. And recently the government has agreed to publish the entire budget but things like individual satellites are still classified. The interceptor costs $3M. Getting the ship there will cost millions more.
_______________________
Shoot down like a duck: The duck does not drop straight down. If follows a trajectory, albeit an interrupted and shorter trajectory. I know this from personal experience.
Ivan Oelrich: Your right, but you get my point. In the air, the duck stops flying and falls down, although it does continue forward a bit. A satellite isn't "flying" so the debris will keep going, certainly further than a duck!
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: It seems to me that this mission is really about either making sure that no one gets their hands on our satellite technology, or testing our capability to do this offensively in the future, or both.
Ivan Oelrich: That was an early theory. The Pentagon has specifically said that is NOT the reason. We have been launching these things for decades and certainly someone has thought that this might happen. Maybe the satellite is specifically designed burn up the super-secret parts. I don't know but maybe.
_______________________
San Antonio, Tex.:
The news that the shot may be delayed by weather seems strange to me. Looking at current wave height maps, it doesn't seem to be all that bad in the closure area. And the SM-3 missile is an operational military system that, presumably, isn't expected to wait for fair weather before the ship can launch it.
Comments?
Ivan Oelrich: I just heard this report this morning and it does seem strange. And a little worrying. Does it mean that this system, as an anti-missile system, can be relied on only if the North Koreans fire missiles during nice weather?
_______________________
Saginaw, Mich.: More on the "toxic fuel," please, commenting on its hazard, survivability, & changes made in powering satellites for both safety & reliability issues.
Ivan Oelrich: The "fuel" or propellant is hydrazine. Chemically it is H2N2H2, somewhat similar to ammonia chemically. Definitely not good to breath but not extremely dangerous. We produce millions of pounds chemical that are more toxic, for example, cyanide, phosgene, chlorine, and others, that are shipped around the country on trucks and trains.
Hydrazine does not provide electrical power to the satellite but powers the thrusters that control the satellite.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: China was able to hit a satellite in space several months ago. Will the U.S. use a similar method to reach this satellite?
Ivan Oelrich: The technology the Chinese and Americans use is basically similar. The American system is almost certainly more sophisticated and smaller.
_______________________
Hartford, Conn.: So what exactly is the "interceptor"?
Ivan Oelrich: The interceptor is a small camera basically, with some jet thrusters. The launch rocket gets it into the right area but not with enough accuracy to actually hit the satellite. The interceptor picks up the satellite and on-board computers calculate the pushes need from the thrusters to put the interceptor right in the satellite's path. When it hits, the kinetic energy is enough to shatter the satellite.
_______________________
San Diego, Cal.: What are the security ramifications involved in anti-satellite weapons? Is there any way to prevent the loss of our satellites if a hostile country wishes to destroy them?
Ivan Oelrich: It is extremely difficult to protect satellites from attack. That is why I believe that we and the Russians and Chinese and other space-faring nations should work on a ban on anti-satellite weapons.
_______________________
Blacksburg, S.C: If they miss this object, could it potentially kill anyone on Earth?
Ivan Oelrich: The interceptor is small and they can launch it from a position such that, if it misses, it will fall back into the ocean. That is one advantage of firing the missile from a ship: the ship can move around and get into an optimal firing position.
_______________________
Annandale, Va.: If we can successfully shoot down this satellite, will we be able to destroy larger meteors (don't want to risk sending a shuttle to set explosives)?
Why don't we ask the Russians or anyone else that has the technology to take a shot at it?
Ivan Oelrich: here is an interesting thought experiment: If we were really only interested in the public safety issue, why don't we invite the Chinese to destroy the satellite for us? I bet if you suggested that to anyone in the government, they would just laugh.
_______________________
23112: Individually, each reason doesn't seem like a big enough one to warrant a launch, but collectively, you've got a decent sized satellite with a toxic chemical and sensitive technology on board, in a low and decaying orbit that may or may not present a risk to a populated area, and you've got a missile system that the Navy wants to get a practical test launch out of and maybe flash a little techno-muscle. Put it all together, and there's the rationale for the launch. The Pentagon is just being a little obtuse about the why, but I bet FAS is just as curious as a lot of us about what'll happen if that SM-3 hits the bullseye.
Ivan Oelrich: My suspicion is that the public safety is being used at the excuse to do something they want to do for military and political reasons. But I agree, I am a scientist by training and I love this stuff from a technical point of view. The technology is really impressive. I just wish the administration worried more about the international political implications. We should be working toward a treaty to ban anti-satellite tests, not looking for dodgy reasons to conduct them.
_______________________
Missoula, Mont.: Clarifying an earlier question from Arlington: will this "test" be expandable in to higher orbits? In other words, is the Navy ABM system able to shoot down low-earth orbiting satellites? And is this the same altitude it is expected to hit potential warheads? I gather this satellite is exceptionally low (about to re-enter) and therefore not a true anti-satellite test.
Ivan Oelrich: I have to get going so this will be my last question.
The SAM-3 is limited in how far it can loft the satellite. But intercepting the satellite will be pretty much the same in low orbit or slightly higher. We would need to put the interceptor on a slightly larger rocket but that would be easy.
_______________________
Ivan Oelrich: It turns out that I have an actual job so I have to get going. This has been fun. A lot of interesting questions. I wrote a piece on the FAS blog, you can see it by going to fas.org and clicking on Strategic Security Blog. I think I am still the first article you will see. It is a great blog!!! Thanks for all the great questions.
_______________________
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.
Reading the article, it came to my mind that we might have intentionally placed up a non-functioning satellite solely for this purpose.
I'd like to think that if we play this right, we might actually be able to start forming somewhat of a friendship with China. Yeah, right... with our current president? I think not.