Missile Test postponed

[Flatlander]

CALGARY, Alberta (Reuters) - The United States has postponed the launch of a missile that would have forced the shutdown of production at the huge Hibernia oil project off Canada's Atlantic coast, Canadian officials said on Thursday.

Defense Minister Bill Graham told reporters in Ottawa the U.S. Department of Defense had agreed to delay the launch of the Titan IV rocket, which had been set to drop a 10-tonne booster in an area near the offshore Newfoundland project on Monday.

As unsettling as this is, I'm compelled to pose a couple of questions. First, where would a rocket fired from Cape Canaveral need to explode in order to rain down debris anywhere near the Grand Banks of Newfoundland?

Secondly, I find it really bizarre that this isn't an exercise that could take place over US waters. Why can it not?

 

[Tgace]

I believe Titans carry satellites. Probably military/surveillance/commo. type things. They may have to take certain trajectories to get thm into their proper orbits.

I dont think it was a "test" as much as it was a "launch".

 

[michaeledward]

I think it might be more of an issue of 'What Goes Up, Must Come Down'.

While at Cape Canaveral back in the 80's, I watched a movie that showed the launch of the Space Shuttle from a perspective of inside the Shuttle. In about 90 seconds, the movie showed that the Eastern Seaboard of the United States looks just like what we see on our maps; the entire Florida Penninsula, the outer banks of the Carolina's, Chesapeake Bay, Long Island, Cape Cod. The Shuttle traveled over these visible landmarks, quite quickly. (I remember the grief I felt when I realized I was going to spend at least 24 hours driving that same distance).

Anyhow, I think that same launch trajectory would continue up to Newfoundland, wouldn't it? Of course, the Launch Trajectory is based upon where they (NASA) want to put object they are launching. By the time the booster is dropped from the launch vehicle, it is probably travelling at pretty high rates of speed. Some mathematics should be able to determine the arc of gravity on the object.

As to why it can't take place in American waters ... I don't think International Boundaries are that big ... are they? Good Question. Are US territorial waters 2 miles out from the coast .. or 30 miles out from the coast ... or something different (Those are the two numbers I seem to remember). Anyhow, a rocket travelling a escape velocity speeds would be through that area very quickly.

Mike

 

[CaffeineKing]

I'm not sure about international waters. I'm even less sure about airspace. Can anyone let me know how high up you have to be before you're not invading somebody else's airspace - whether rocket or spyplane or drone or whatever?

Maybe this rocket will be winging it's way over Canada way up in the stratosphere - but may come back down and crash onto Canada if things go wrong on launch?? :-(

 

[ginshun]

I don't know much about the Titan IV, but the story says there are stages that fall off and back down to earth. I guessing it is like others ahve said, that the specific trajectory that the rocket needs to be on to get it in the right place in orbit, takes it over a specific place in Canada at the time when a stage falls off and crashes back down. At the speed that thing is probably taveling,and the hieght that it would be above ground, they could have the moment the stage falls off down to the fraction of a second, and still only be able to estimate where it falls to within a few hundred miles. There are so many variables in figuring that out it is rediculous.

Thats my guess anyway.

 

[raedyn]

The issue for Newfoundlanders was that the US only gave us less than 1 weeks notice, and the booster was slated to be dropped 15 miles from Hibernia. A 10-tonne rocket dropping 15 miles from a major oil platform is a major environmental hazard. 15 miles is a tiny tiny margin for error, so they had to shut down production and evacuate the platform because it posed a safety risk to the employees.

Newfoundland's premier raised the alarm over what a disaster that would be for his province. This oil platform alone produces 200,000 barrels of oil per day. That's massive for one facility - 10% of our entire country's oil production (source). That oil platform is hugely important to Newfoundland's economy - the total effects of Hibernia represent 5.7% of the province's GDP (source). So perhaps you can understand why Newfoundland's premier got so upset when he heard that NASA was willing to put the platform at risk, and shut down production for the weekend. That was going to be costly, and dangerous.

 

[Rich Parsons]

As unsettling as this is, I'm compelled to pose a couple of questions. First, where would a rocket fired from Cape Canaveral need to explode in order to rain down debris anywhere near the Grand Banks of Newfoundland?

Secondly, I find it really bizarre that this isn't an exercise that could take place over US waters. Why can it not?

That is why they call it "Rocket Science" .

Actually, the projectile aka rocket does not go straight up into space, it takes a curved path one could say to approach the path around the earth at a much closer angle to avoid ahving to make a right turn somewhere in space.

This is why a rocket launched in South Florida will travel north and as the stage booster drops, it oculd cause problems if it is too close to something going on in the Ocean.

Peace.

 

[raedyn]

It could cause problems if it is too close to something going on in the Ocean.

Which is the whole reason Canadians were concerned.

 

[Tgace]

Well. It was canceled so it sounds like there was consideration for everybodys concerns....

 

[raedyn]

Well. It was canceled so it sounds like there was consideration for everybodys concerns....

This a case of American authorities (here, NASA) being responsive to international diplomacy requesting them to change their plans. That's good. I'm glad.

I believe flatlander's question was - why did it take Canadian pressure? Why didn't they consider that in the first place?

Well that's my question, anyway.

(sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, flat)

 

[Deuce]

From what I understand there is a bulletin published that gives approximate sites of missile debris or booster landings in the waters. This bulletin is primarliy used for ships, which are in a much better position to get out of the area quicker. As with off-shore oil project platforms, it takes considerable time and a significant loss in productivity to have to temporarily move the whole thing.

IMO this situation may have been the result of a lack of communication. Did they think the operation would be moved in time? Did they even know about it before launch preparations? Were off-shore oil platforms even taken into consideration in the planning? I think the department of defense will have more thorough investions with regards to such projects in the future.

 

[raedyn]

It turns out NASA did not postpone the launch because of concerns about the dangers of the booster landing near these installations, but due to a fuel loading problem. The launch is now planned to go ahead on Wednesday with no change in the planned trajectory. So much for taking the concerns into account, I guess.

So now Petro-Canada (the oil company that runs Hibernia) is back to evacuating workers, and according to Newfoundland's Premier Danny Williams, it will take 2 weeks to get the platform back onto schedule at a cost of approximately $250 million.