Posted: February 21, 2008 1:07 pm
before yesterday the pieces were the size of a bus....citcat wrote:They said something about pieces falling to Earth will be no larger than a football.
I hope the pieces land in the ocean.
Page 2 of 2
Posted: February 21, 2008 1:09 pm
That'd hurt !SchoolGirlHeart wrote:before yesterday the pieces were the size of a bus....citcat wrote:They said something about pieces falling to Earth will be no larger than a football.
I hope the pieces land in the ocean.
Posted: February 21, 2008 1:33 pm
They didn't even bother to sit down and talk out their differences first? 
Posted: February 21, 2008 1:59 pm
Well . . . let's put it this way . . . to the rest of the world, we blew up something that was going to fall on us. Without using an explosive warhead.flyboy55 wrote:For a number of technical reasons, I don't think this mission serves as a very strong endorsement of either the old SDI (or 'Star Wars') or the currently under development missile defense program.ConchRepublican wrote:We shot that satellite out of the sky first shot, excellent.![[smilie=coolup.gif]](./images/smilies/coolup.gif "coolup")
Congrats to the men and women of the US Navy and all those who have suported the "Star Wars" missile defense system through the years. Aside from dealing with this issue, I think this also sends a message to the rest of the world about how advanced we really are when it comes to our missile defense system.
The broken satellite was in a well-defined low earth orbit (the proverbial 'fish in a barrel') and while it certainly was an accomplishment to use an antimissile missile to destroy a satellite, it doesn't translate that the antimissile missile system can successfully intercept an incoming missile. Intercepting incoming missiles is a much more difficult proposition, as the Department of Defense has discovered over the years.
The satellite wasn't 'shot down'. The debris from any resulting missile strike is still in orbit and will likely reenter the atmosphere slightly ahead of schedule, still presenting about as much of a hazard as it would have without the missile intercept. The government was probably more worried that classified equipment onboard the satellite might survive reentry and fall into the wrong hands than they were about the hydrazine fuel tank.
I think what was really accomplished yesterday was a test of the Navy's ability to use antimissile missiles to destroy satellites (surveillance, communications, weather, TV, etc) in orbit, something you would certainly want to do if you were going to fight a war with one of the other space capable nations on this planet.
Some might argue that pursuing these types of objectives will only involve us in another arms race - not a happy prospect.
The fact we can means we can probably do much more.
The fact we can do it so easily has to make others think we have the capability for much more.
The fact it was not an explosive warhead and was a direct hit, would make one think that, a ballistic missile, not capable of evasive action and following a specific trajectory, could also, easily, be taken out by an explosive warhead that would only need to detonate within a certain range of it, not needing a direct hit, thereby increasing it's effectiveness.
As for the debris, better something(s) no bigger than a football than a bus filled with toxic fuel/gas.
One can also make the arguement that since it was taken down early, over the Pacific, we increased the probability that any other debris would fall harmelessly into the ocean, as opposed to wondering where the bus would fall.
Finally, I'm glad our tech did not fall into enemy hands. Even if that is the only good thing that came out of the impressive display of American military and scientific capability.
And . . . there will always be an arms race until one person wins. That's just life. History has proven "we CAN'T all get along"
Jeez . . .
Posted: February 21, 2008 2:18 pm
Glad to see the test went well. Great job, Navy!
Been reading on other sites that the U.S. filed a protest when China did this same thing last year. It sounds like this was a failing satellite, China's was described as "old" but still orbiting...more like a test (assuming both governments are telling the truth ) Splitting hairs, perhaps...it will be interesting to see China's reaction.
Been reading on other sites that the U.S. filed a protest when China did this same thing last year. It sounds like this was a failing satellite, China's was described as "old" but still orbiting...more like a test (assuming both governments are telling the truth
) Splitting hairs, perhaps...it will be interesting to see China's reaction.Posted: February 21, 2008 6:08 pm
According to the Official Rationale, The National Missile Defense (NMD) program is being developed to counter the threat of one or two ballistic missiles launched from rogue nations, based on the idea that the normal deterrence of a massive nuclear retaliation won't work. The NMD program won't work against adversaries who are able to launch lots of warheads (like Russia for example). The White House AND the Department of Defense have admitted as much.
But the rationale is faulty because there are far easier and more anonymous ways for a 'rogue nation' to deliver a nuclear bomb to the U.S. mainland than using a ballistic missile. Just put it in the cargo hold of a ship and drop anchor in the harbor of any large coastal city.
The NMD system has had limited success against the types of threats it is supposed to counter ie incoming ballistic missiles. Taking out a dead satellite in a well-known orbit was a relative piece of cake, but that's not what the system is for . . . or is it?
What is upsetting to other nations around the world is that yesterday's launch seems to confirm their worst fears ie that the NMD program's REAL purpose is satellite killing and THAT is what will destabilize international relations and encourage the Russians and Chinese (folks who really can hurt us) to pursue the further militarization of space.
Trust me - it had nothing to do with removing the threat of a de-orbiting hydrazine fuel tank.
But the rationale is faulty because there are far easier and more anonymous ways for a 'rogue nation' to deliver a nuclear bomb to the U.S. mainland than using a ballistic missile. Just put it in the cargo hold of a ship and drop anchor in the harbor of any large coastal city.
The NMD system has had limited success against the types of threats it is supposed to counter ie incoming ballistic missiles. Taking out a dead satellite in a well-known orbit was a relative piece of cake, but that's not what the system is for . . . or is it?
What is upsetting to other nations around the world is that yesterday's launch seems to confirm their worst fears ie that the NMD program's REAL purpose is satellite killing and THAT is what will destabilize international relations and encourage the Russians and Chinese (folks who really can hurt us) to pursue the further militarization of space.
Trust me - it had nothing to do with removing the threat of a de-orbiting hydrazine fuel tank.
Posted: February 21, 2008 6:32 pm
trust me, football size falling from 130+ miles would toocitcat wrote:That'd hurt !SchoolGirlHeart wrote:before yesterday the pieces were the size of a bus....citcat wrote:They said something about pieces falling to Earth will be no larger than a football.
I hope the pieces land in the ocean.
Posted: February 21, 2008 6:42 pm
Because our tinfoil hats will protect us from hydrazine....flyboy55 wrote:Trust me - it had nothing to do with removing the threat of a de-orbiting hydrazine fuel tank.
Posted: February 21, 2008 7:11 pm
I rarely take mine off, and as your science consultant, I advise you to do the same.SharkOnLand wrote:Because our tinfoil hats will protect us from hydrazine....flyboy55 wrote:Trust me - it had nothing to do with removing the threat of a de-orbiting hydrazine fuel tank.
Posted: February 21, 2008 7:12 pm
Do you wear the shiny side in, or out?flyboy55 wrote:I rarely take mine off, and as your science consultant, I advise you to do the same.SharkOnLand wrote:Because our tinfoil hats will protect us from hydrazine....flyboy55 wrote:Trust me - it had nothing to do with removing the threat of a de-orbiting hydrazine fuel tank.
Posted: February 21, 2008 7:14 pm
Shiny side in - just the same as when I'm cooking a turkey . . .SchoolGirlHeart wrote:Do you wear the shiny side in, or out?flyboy55 wrote:I rarely take mine off, and as your science consultant, I advise you to do the same.SharkOnLand wrote:Because our tinfoil hats will protect us from hydrazine....flyboy55 wrote:Trust me - it had nothing to do with removing the threat of a de-orbiting hydrazine fuel tank.
Posted: February 21, 2008 7:18 pm
Oh, good. I was afraid my hat was backwards.... I do wish "they" would turn off the mind readers every now and then so I could take off the hat.... I hate hat hair....flyboy55 wrote:Shiny side in - just the same as when I'm cooking a turkey . . .SchoolGirlHeart wrote:Do you wear the shiny side in, or out?flyboy55 wrote:I rarely take mine off, and as your science consultant, I advise you to do the same.SharkOnLand wrote:Because our tinfoil hats will protect us from hydrazine....flyboy55 wrote:Trust me - it had nothing to do with removing the threat of a de-orbiting hydrazine fuel tank.
Posted: February 21, 2008 8:14 pm
Agree with flyboy55 completely. This had absolutely nothing to do with toxic fuel on board. We did it to show the world we COULD do it. Just the same---way to go NAVY. (USN 1974-1978 myself)
Posted: February 21, 2008 8:35 pm
I didn't read the article, but I tought I heard someone on the news mention that the satellite was zipping around the planet at a rate of 17,000 mph. Is that true...? If it is, how can you not be impressed with actually hitting it? Also, was this "hit" recorded on video anywhere that the average joe might be able to see it? 
Posted: February 21, 2008 8:49 pm
http://www.youtube.com/v/PGGsGqO8dssst.somewhere wrote:I didn't read the article, but I tought I heard someone on the news mention that the satellite was zipping around the planet at a rate of 17,000 mph. Is that true...? If it is, how can you not be impressed with actually hitting it? Also, was this "hit" recorded on video anywhere that the average joe might be able to see it?
Posted: February 22, 2008 9:32 am
I'll toss out another factor...don't forget that China shot down a satellite about a year ago. I bet this is a more a statement to China than anything else.rumdrinks wrote:Agree with flyboy55 completely. This had absolutely nothing to do with toxic fuel on board. We did it to show the world we COULD do it. Just the same---way to go NAVY. (USN 1974-1978 myself)
Posted: February 22, 2008 3:08 pm
Regardless of the reason, I think it's freaking awesome that the darned thing was hit!
Way to go!
Way to go!
Posted: February 22, 2008 3:26 pm
You know, it's just a real shame bin laden wasn't hiding aboard the satellite! 
Posted: February 22, 2008 3:38 pm
moniter squeegee. plzAllen B. wrote:You know, it's just a real shame bin laden wasn't hiding aboard the satellite!