soc.women

In article <@>, yodasbud@
says...
> In article <13rufm7oee97j38@>,
> werewolfking@ says...
> > The news release about the Navy's destruction of the NASA satellite
> > mentioned that the missle hit the satellite at "22000 mph at an altitude of
> > 130 miles producing a fireball".
> >
> > However, I have trouble with this scenario. First of all, there is no
> > signifcant oxygen above Earth at this altitude which would support a
> > "fireball" from a hydrazine explosion.
>
> The satellite would also have had oxygen tanks. What else would be
> used as an oxydizer for the fuel if not oxygen? Don't forget, a jet can
> carry just fuel because air is let in and compressed so the fuel will
> burn, but on a rocket you have to carry your own oxydizer aboard. I'm
> sure if the video had been faked, other countries analysts would know.

If you would check a bit further, you would find that hydrazine is
a monopropellant. It requires no oxidizer. It is catalytically
decomposed to yield the gases that produce the thruse.
>
> > Then, although there is a small
> > amount of N2O4 oxidizer on board, which would not explode the hyrazine,
> > where is the igniter? The missle contained a kinetic-energy warhead, not an
> > explosive, so what provided the trigger for the so-called fireball?
> >
>
> You can't possibly believe that a kinetic energy kill vehicle
> striking an object at 22,000 mph would not produce enough heat - even if
> it struck no metal - to ignite hydrazine, can you?

You don't ignite it in the classical sense---you provide enough
energy to trigger the decomposition.
>
> > Was the photo doctored to mislead the public as the Navy either missed or
> > the satelllite plopped into the ocean? Or did the missle hit a much lower
> > altitude resulting in the fireball? Or, did the hydrazine tank vent due to
> > the hit, and just released a vapor cloud?
> >
> > Your thoughts please!
> >
> > I'm a retired chemist who worked many years for a NASA contractor.
> >
> >
>
> Well then, you ougtta know.
>


Mark Borgerson