Hydrazine. Riii-ght.

The news is abuzz with the story of the Navy's successful shoot-down of a US spy satellite with a load of "toxic gas". Just as if the Navy were more concerned with saving the world from a small amount of gas than, say, proving to the Chinese that we have a satellite take-down capability too. How dangerous was that satellite? From the Danger Room blog at Wired:

Even if the hydrazine were released, he noted, the effects would likely be mild -- akin to chlorine gas poisoning, which can cause burning in the lungs, and elsewhere. The area affected would be "roughly the size of two football fields [where you might] incur something that would make you go to the doctor."

And that doesn't sound like much of a risk at all.

Especially when you consider that several other hydrazine-filled object have come crashing down to Earth. Not only did the space shuttle Columbia have a similar tank, which survived re-entry, with no toxic gas cloud. Several other hydrazine-laced objects have also crashed into the atmosphere, with no ill effects. Space researcher Ed Kyle notes that there were 42 major reentry objects for 2007, including 9 satellites -- at least one of which contained a form of hydrazine, UMDH (unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine).

In addition, roughly 8-12 upper stages that originally contained UDMH reentered during 2007. Some of these could very well have contained some residual propellant. [One particular] upper stage probably contained several hundred [kilgograms] of residual propellant, for example.

Which leads one military satellite observer to tell DANGER ROOM, "Everything they said made sense except for the reason for doing the intercept in the first place."

I don't know how I feel about the issue of the Pentagon developing this military capability, but I know I'd prefer they go about doing it honestly, and not try to slip it by the public with this story about saving us from toxic gas. It feels like I live in the Soviet Union, where the government does what it wants, and dresses it up with pretty sounding stories that make no sense.

I also know how I feel about the number of reporters I've heard covering this story by essentially repeating the briefing they got from someone at the Pentagon, instead of talking to some outside experts as well. You'd think they'd be more skeptical by now. At least the guys at Wired are. There's more to read there.