backtop


Print 140 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Feb 25 at 10:42 AM


The heavily modified SM-3 missile launched off the deck of the U.S.S. Lake Erie at approximately 10:26 PM EST.  (Source: U.S. Navy via the AP)

Images of the missile streaking towards its target, on the way to a successful impact.  (Source: Department of Defense)
The U.S. has proven its mettle as a super power in the space arms race, while safeguarding people worldwide from a serious threat

When the U.S. Navy announced yesterday its plans to shoot down satellite US 193, some had their doubts.  The dead satellite was the size of a school bus and completely cold, masking it from traditional missile tracking technologies.  Furthermore, the planned impact would have a combined velocity of around 22,000 mph, calling for utmost precision.

The target was a mere 4-6 ft patch on the massive satellite -- the fuel tank containing the toxic Hydrazine.  The mission was a true test of the U.S. progress in missile defense against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and other space based threats.

The U.S. Navy came through solidly; announcing that the first missile fired made a solid hit on the plummeting satellite.  The modified Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) launched at just before 10:26 pm EST from the deck of the U.S.S. Lake Erie, an Aegis-equipped cruiser.  The missile hurtled upwards out of the atmosphere at a speed of 5,000 mph.  At a height of 247 kilometers above the earth, it slammed into the satellite, scoring a clear hit.  The missile carried no payload so it relied on sheer kinetic energy to provide its stopping power.

The only downside is that the Department of Defense was unable to determine whether the missile hit its intended target on the satellite.  Several officials did state to the Associated Press that they believe the fuel tank was hit.  The status of the tank will be known for certain in 24 hours, when the satellite's debris begins to rain into the atmosphere.  The Department of Defense stated, "Debris will begin to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere immediately.  Nearly all of the debris will burn up on re-entry within 24-48 hours and the remaining debris should re-enter within 40 days."

The Pentagon says that any hit, whether on the fuel tank or elsewhere is better than doing nothing, as it lessens the risk of the fuel tank surviving the fall and releasing a toxic chlorine-like cloud in a populated area.  Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff voiced this sentiment to reporters in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, saying, "Any kind of hit provides a much better outcome than doing nothing at all."

The Navy stated earlier in the day that the launch might be postponed due to concerns about weather.  However, they pulled off the launch without delays.  The space shuttle Atlantis also landed safely in the morning, another requirement before an attempt could occur.  The Navy only had a 10 second window to strike at the satellite.  A miss would mean that they wouldn't get another shot at the satellite till the next day.

The launch carried a large price tag -- around $60M USD, almost $10M USD for the missile alone.  However, the armed forces say that the costs fall far short of the cost if people suffered from exposure to satellite's fuel.  The satellite carried almost a ton of frozen Hydrazine, which could have created a toxic cloud almost two football fields wide.  While less toxic than some biological and nuclear agents, Hydrazine in gaseous form poses a significant threat.  The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention previously stated that Hydrazine exposure in the short term produces coughing irritated throat and lungs, convulsions, tremors or seizures.  In the long term it can cause liver, kidney and reproductive organ damage.  Its effects are similar to severe ammonia or chlorine exposure.

One group is not very happy about the launch -- the Chinese.  The Chinese took an accusative tone, inferring that the U.S. was simply trying to flex its muscles in a space arms race.  Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said, "China is continuing to closely follow the possible harm caused by the U.S. action to outer space security and relevant countries.  China further requests that the United States ... promptly provide to the international community the necessary information ... so that relevant countries can take precautions."

China's remarks come as somewhat curious considering it carried out a highly controversial destruction of an aging weather satellite in January of last year.  The Chinese kill was far sloppier than the U.S. effort, as the Chinese hit took place at a higher altitude.  This meant that the debris from the impact remain in orbit and now compose a high percentage of the space junk, endangering shuttles and orbiting satellites.

The U.S. carefully planned the launch, according to Christina Rocca, a U.S. diplomat and expert on disarmament, so that the debris would tumble into the atmosphere and burn up.  She included comments on these plans in the monthly report for the United Nation's Conference on Disarmament.  Further, she said any damage from falling debris would be dealt with graciously.  She said the United States is, "prepared to offer assistance to governments to mitigate the consequences of any satellite debris impacts on their territory."

As a whole the launch is perhaps most interesting as evidence that the U.S. is making large gains in being able to counter nuclear ICBMs, the ultimate goal of SDI.  For an interesting read on the SDI program and its current progress in more depth, please read DailyTech's coverage on the topic



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

China
By clovell on 2/21/2008 10:32:32 AM , Rating: 3
These always have to gripe about anything we do, and it's wearing on my nerves. Spielberg, the arrest of their spies in New Orleans, and now this. Nothing but a bunch of punks if you ask me.




RE: China
By helios220 on 2/21/2008 11:11:52 AM , Rating: 4
Russia, Europe, hell pretty much anyone else has at least some valid right to be accusatory when dealing with the United States on this issue. While it is highly unlikely that this was all some giant US conspiracy, it is asinine to dismiss the fact that this did not provide the United States with an opportunity to test its capabilities.

However, after the completely unnecessary and much more sloppy Chinese test not too long ago, they have a lot of effing nerve trying to play the innocent victim card. I hate to be so close-minded as the Chinese people have a long and proud history, but man, f-ck the Chinese government. The US Government is far from perfect and far from innocent, but the sh!t that they pull is unreal.


RE: China
By natebsi on 2/21/2008 12:06:36 PM , Rating: 4
Yea, I agree. Reminds me of that incident where the US spyplane and the Chinese fighter jet collided, and the Chinese somehow managed to blame it on the US. I think they clipped wings or something. Ridiculous. Everything they say has so much spin, they make our government almost look good!


RE: China
By PrinceGaz on 2/21/2008 8:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm, spyplane and fighter-jet (interceptor). I wonder which was closest to invading another country's airspace, which is no doubt why they came into such close proximity in the first place.

If the US insist on playing games by sending spyplanes along the border to Chinese airspace, accidents can and will happen.

Maybe they should just live peacefully together. China doesn't need to fight the US; it has already won the economic battle and that is what will shape the world in the 21st century. That is probably what the US are afraid of, no longer having the unchallenged no.1 superpower position they've held since the collapse of the Soviet Union.


RE: China
By RedStar on 2/21/2008 8:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
"... wonder which was closest to invading another country's airspace..."

As you correctly point out, the US plane was NOT in Chinese air space.


RE: China
By audiomaniaca on 2/21/2008 11:55:05 PM , Rating: 2
It was not. It was just a few meters from it, but not inside. Just very close.


RE: China
By Buspar on 2/22/2008 5:52:55 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the airspace in question was (and still is) under dispute. The US says it's international, China says it's theirs. So from their point of view, we DID violate Chinese airspace. We had the bad sense to send a plane in there, knowing the rights were under dispute, just because we could.


RE: China
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/22/2008 8:29:09 AM , Rating: 2
Next time it will be an F-22 crusing the border, if they can see it and manage to intercept it, it's likely going to be armed.


RE: China
By masher2 (blog) on 2/22/2008 11:15:09 AM , Rating: 2
The critical point here is that a lumbering, prop-driven recon plane does *not* collide with a fighter jet...not unless the fighter wants it to.

As for the location, according to UN treaty, its international airspace. China can "claim" Alaska and lower Manhattan if it wants, but it won't change the legality of the situation.


RE: China
By Buspar on 2/22/2008 5:49:36 AM , Rating: 2
The spy plane incident was actually an outgrowth over an argument over who owned the airspace of that particular region. There was no good reason for the spy plane to be there, since the intelligence being gathered by the plane was just as accessible via satellite or other, more current, spy planes in the area.

China had every right to send a plane of their own to monitor our spy plane, the same way the US would have the right to send an interceptor if a Chinese spy plane came close to our airspace. After all, look at how concerned we were when a Russian spy plane did the exact same thing to one of our carriers by flying over it!

The problem occurred because the spy plane was relatively slow flying compared to the interceptor: the interceptor had to slow down to keep pace to the point where the engine stalled. The Americans were the lucky ones - they survived the collision. The pilot of the jet, Wang Wei, died. Pointless posturing on America's part cost a man (married with kids, no less) his life. The US was very clearly in the wrong on that issue - it wasn't a good day for our foreign policy record.

quote:
Maybe they should just live peacefully together. China doesn't need to fight the US; it has already won the economic battle and that is what will shape the world in the 21st century. That is probably what the US are afraid of, no longer having the unchallenged no.1 superpower position they've held since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Well said! The US and China should work together, not find ways to tick each other off. The problem (and you can see it on this very message board) is that bigotry and fear towards the Chinese people will always interfere in attempts to cooperate.


RE: China
By 91TTZ on 2/23/2008 1:00:57 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The problem occurred because the spy plane was relatively slow flying compared to the interceptor: the interceptor had to slow down to keep pace to the point where the engine stalled.


It sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about. The engine stalled because the aircraft went too slow? <mora>You've got to be kidding me. </mora>


RE: China
By masher2 (blog) on 2/23/2008 1:08:41 PM , Rating: 1
Slow airspeeds won't cause the engine itself to stall, but it will cause the aircraft to do so.


RE: China
By 91TTZ on 2/24/2008 4:56:10 PM , Rating: 2
Nobody said anything about the aircraft losing lift. He clearly stated that the engine stalled because it went too slow.


RE: China
By 91TTZ on 2/23/2008 12:58:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
China doesn't need to fight the US; it has already won the economic battle and that is what will shape the world in the 21st century. That is probably what the US are afraid of, no longer having the unchallenged no.1 superpower position they've held since the collapse of the Soviet Union.


China already won the economic battle? The US's economy is many times larger than China's. Our GDP is 13.2 trillion compared to their 2.7 trillion.

The rise of their upper class comes at the expense of their immense lower class which lives in poverty. They're also polluting their own country.

As soon as the general populace begins asking for their slice of the pie and they get some environmental controls in place, you'll see their growth get limited.

How can you say that they already won?


RE: China
By masher2 (blog) on 2/23/2008 1:06:13 PM , Rating: 2
> "The US's economy is many times larger than China's. Our GDP is 13.2 trillion compared to their 2.7 trillion"

Eh? No, China's GDP is more like $10 trillion -- just slightly smaller than the US's...and growing at a much faster pace.


RE: China
By leed40 on 2/23/2008 5:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
You're thinking GDP PPP (Purchasing Power Parity), where China sits at about 7 to 10 trillion depending on who's calculating. It's ACTUAL official exchange-rate GDP is less than $3 trillion (and that's assuming you buy their figures, which most economists don't). Still, not bad considering where they were a decade ago.


RE: China
By masher2 (blog) on 2/23/2008 5:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
True, but remember that the yuan isn't a floating currency -- China is holding the "official" value artificially low to boost exports.

Furthermore, in terms of military production -- which for China at least, is supported more by domestic than foreign resources, a PPP-adjusted GDP is probably as accurate if not more so metric than nominal GDP.


RE: China
By 91TTZ on 2/24/2008 4:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
You are relying on a communist country's claims. You should know better. The true, uncensored information may never be known.


RE: China
By RedStar on 2/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: China
By Urkis on 2/21/2008 1:57:41 PM , Rating: 4
It's just silly tit for tat. We complained loudly about their test last year so now they are complaining about ours.


RE: China
By fuser197 on 2/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: China
By psychmike on 2/21/2008 8:36:12 PM , Rating: 5
Careful a**hole, China isn't a democracy and any gripe you have with the Communist Party shouldn't extend to the population which has no say on these issues.

It's the kind of simplistic, over-generalized statements that make all Americans look like idiots.

Mike


RE: China
By Buspar on 2/22/2008 6:00:15 AM , Rating: 3
Agreed! Chinese are similar to Americans in pretty much every respect. As a society they have plenty of corrupt politicians and dishonest businessmen. But, like us, the people themselves are well spoken, open minded, and care about their families.

Unfortunately, there will always be people who want to paint the Chinese as the "villains" and there will always be those who want to believe that due to their own bigotry.


RE: China
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: China
By psychmike on 2/22/2008 11:32:50 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see your point in trying to inflame the issue. You are in fact asking if someone's recognition of others' humanity surpasses their patriotism for their own country. It is precisely that one cannot that answer easily that demonstrates one's moral maturity. You might say "My country, right or wrong" but how would you then differentiate yourself from many others who have been judged by history to have been complicit in crimes against humanity?

I am not a moral relativist but only a fool would argue that those who choose to start wars often hold others' lives more cheaply than their own. There are significant and heroic exceptions to this, of course. Generally war means setting aside moral discomfort, painting the issues as black and white, characterizing the other as bad and the self as good, in order to remove all the ambiguity out of the situation making it easier to kill others.

If my country was at war with another, I would try to best understand the issues involved. If I decided the war was not morally justifiable, I would consider making the hard decision to avoid service based on moral grounds and even to seek political asylum in another country if required. No doubt some would say this is cowardly. I, on the other hand, would want to make damn sure that I could justify to myself for the rest of my life that I had taken others' lives. Just because someone else tells me to do it, it doesn't remove my moral responsibility for my own actions.

I think there is a difference for professionals military folks who have taken a noble oath to follow their orders without question. I think those oaths reflect a moral conviction that service is required for the safety of a society and can't simply be simplistically characterized as naive. I think there is a world of difference between choosing to take that oath and being forced to.

I think there is a moral tension between these two positions - one of individual responsibility, one of dedication to the needs of the country - and we have to resolve these issues for ourselves.

I'm sure we would all prefer a simpler time of clear rights and clear wrongs but as a culture and as a society, we've moved beyond deferring to government as some type of perfect parent and have been welcomed to the difficult world of being adults. I don't believe government is wrong or evil or even conspiratorial. I simply think issues are often very complicated and I don't trust others who have their own interests and biases to interpret things for me.

Mike


RE: China
By lexluthermiester on 2/22/2008 2:32:43 PM , Rating: 5
Master Kenobi, I think you missed the point. I've been to China and for the most part they really are like us, living life the best they can with what they have. Most try to do so with honor and integrity. They love their families and friends just as we do. Funny thing, I've been New York City, Hong Kong, Beijing, Mexico City, and Dohuk[Northern Iraq] and the friendliest place was, ironically, New York City. But people were friendly to me everywhere but Mexico City. Personally I'm more concerned with the Mexican population than with China's population.

But to answer your question, if we were ever at war with China and they ever attempted an invasion, I'd kill every last Chinese soldier that came my way. If the battle ever happened in China itself, I'd be very careful not to harm any non-military personal. The thing is most of the people in China are honest folk. Perfect example is that while I was in Beijing, I had dropped my money clip. In it was a mix of chinese and U.S. money. A boy came and grabbed me, pulled me back into his fathers shop where his mother handed me back the clip with all of the money still in it. I offered them a reward for the honesty and they refused. Their english was about as good as my chinese, but they made it clear to me that for them, honesty was it's own reward. I was kind of surprised by this. In many ways the Chinese people admire us and after that experience, I've learned more about their history. I've come to admire them as well.

The Chinese government may be complete dolts, but the chinese people are good folks, worthy of our respect.


RE: China
By Urkis on 2/22/2008 4:09:30 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I think their work ethic and their aspirations for the future are very compatible with ours. In this century, I believe we will much more likely go to Mars with them as friends than to fight a war as enemies.


RE: China
By jbartabas on 2/22/2008 4:20:27 PM , Rating: 2
What about fighting a war on Mars ... just an idea :-P


RE: China
By xNIBx on 2/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: China
By WayneG on 2/21/2008 6:30:35 PM , Rating: 5
Oh dear... I'm British and I can safely say that I am proud that the US is protecting it's people and interests by not only testing new technology but stopping a couple of tons of crap falling to the earth. China's complaint is completely dumbfound, at least US didn't leave a ton of space junk.... :S
Some people....


RE: China
By hcahwk19 on 2/21/2008 6:59:14 PM , Rating: 5
The reason we, and others, complained, is that the Chinese carried out their missile launch unannounced, on a working weather satellite. The Chinese satellite was old (as they claimed), but was fully functional. Not only that, but they blew up the satellite much higher in orbit, so basically all of the pieces of it are still up there jeopardizing everyone's satellites, the space station, our shuttles, etc.
On the other hand, we fully announced our plans to take out a dead, non-functional, non-responsive satellite in order to keep a fuel tank full of toxic fuel from falling to the ground, and people still b*tch about it. Our satellite was basically obliterated into thousands of small (football sized) pieces that will burn up in re-entry to the atmosphere. From the looks of it all, ours was a much better, and safer, mission


RE: China
By Globemaster on 2/22/2008 12:41:40 AM , Rating: 3
Blind hatred is sometimes just that. To dispute your post:

1. If we in fact were doing this as a weapons test, we successfully proved that we can destroy another country's satellite so long as it is de-orbiting and has begun to re-enter the atmosphere--i.e. when it's days away from disintegrating on its own.

2. As far as having anything to do with BMD testing, hitting a 40 foot satellite doesn't have anything to do with hitting a 3 foot RV.

3. China blew up a satellite in orbit creating a massive amount of orbital debris that will remain up there for tens of years creating risk to all space-faring nations.

Amazingly, not every single thing the US does is a massive conspiracy with 73 underlying layers designed to make life on earth more miserable for you. Sometimes your satellite just fails and you want to blow it up before you end up with 1000 lbs of hydrazine in Times Square.


RE: China
By masher2 (blog) on 2/22/2008 11:23:00 AM , Rating: 1
> " we successfully proved that we can destroy another country's satellite so long as it is de-orbiting and has begun to re-enter the atmosphere"

Err, there are two components to interception a satellite. The first is simply having enough dV (velocity) to reach it; the second is the actual tracking/interception of the object itself (the hard part).

Up until atmospheric drag takes over, orbital velocity increases as a satellite's orbit decays, meaning its actually more difficult to intercept a satellite at these lower altitudes.


RE: China
By DRMichael on 2/22/2008 11:41:43 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
dV (velocity)


I know it's been a while since my college physics days, but isn't dV (or delta V) the change in velocity. Or simplified: dV = acceleration?



RE: China
By masher2 (blog) on 2/22/2008 11:45:03 AM , Rating: 1
Delta V is change in velocity (not acceleration, which is the *rate* of change). But when you're starting from rest (as a ground-launched missile is), the final velocity equates to dV.


RE: China
By DRMichael on 2/22/2008 12:51:35 PM , Rating: 4
Your right
I guess when I saw dv I immediately thought of the equation a(t) = dv/dt.

But I still don't understand your statement "enough dV". The final velocity of the missile 'could' be 0 and still hit the satellite. I presume you mean it has to have enough fuel to reach that altitude?


RE: China
By rcc on 2/22/2008 2:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
When dealing with orbital (or open space) dynamics it's common to refer to delta V in regards to a vehicle's ability to intercept or rendezvous with another object. Obviously it takes less fuel/energy to intercept (if you don't care what happens afterwards) then it does to match orbits since you don't have to adjust your course/speed a second time.

From the ground it's more difficult since air resistance effectively bleeds off some of your delta V capability.

But, as you noted, the bottom line is that the interceptor needs enough fuel/energy to get where you want it, going fast enough to do what you need it to do, and to make course corrections up to the time of impact.


RE: China
By masher2 (blog) on 2/22/2008 2:10:38 PM , Rating: 2
> "The final velocity of the missile 'could' be 0 and still hit the satellite. "

True in theory, though in practice an interception timed to coincide with a zero-velocity apogeee is impossible. A non-moving missile can't maneuver, which means the intercept would have to be purely ballistic, and require perfect timing, as well as perfect knowledge of both the satellite orbital parameters, missile thrust, and even atmospheric conditions.

The easiest interception would be by matching the orbital parameters of the satellite but in retrograde, so the missile is simply backtracing the same path. That's also the most wasteful of fuel. The missile used wasn't powerful enough for that strategy.

The method used was therefore probably just a parabolic path, with a tiny piece at the top roughly approximating the free orbit path. The missile probably had a forward velocity of some 1/3 to 1/2 the actual orbital velocity needed for that height...just enough to allow it a reasonably large "window" in which to manuever to complete the intercept.


RE: China
By Globemaster on 2/23/2008 1:05:47 AM , Rating: 2
I understand your technical point on the tracking/interception of an object with a higher velocity being more difficult, although admittedly I hadn't thought enough about it since I was so annoyed at the initial post.

What I was getting at was I don't believe a SM-3 is likely to have the ability to get the interceptor to the altitudes required to take satellites out in orbit since it was designed to take out RVs which never actually get into orbit. Also, it was size constrained by the existing Naval launch architecture, designed for SAMs and cruise missiles. Maybe it could take out some really LEO sats (such as photo recon), but that hasn't been demonstrated to my knowledge.

Combine that with the fact that we took out a satellite in orbit in the 1980s with a missile launched from an F-15, I don't see how this proved anything. I 100% believe this was done to take out this satellite before it potentially hurt someone. I'm not naive enough to think it purely altruistic, but I don't think it had anything to do with a technology demo or flexing our muscles.


RE: China
By jbartabas on 2/23/2008 10:26:46 AM , Rating: 2
Your comment was just right.

It might be not totally crazy to extrapolate from the current 'demonstration' that a satellite orbiting at a higher altitude may be hittable, as Masher did, it may even be reasonable to consider this possibility, but the fact remains that this possibility has simply not be proved yet.


RE: China
By masher2 (blog) on 2/23/2008 1:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
According to the Navy, the missile struck at a velocity of some 2.2 km/s. Assuming it could carry out an intercept with a minimum forward velocity of 1 km/s, a simple calculation shows it capable of reaching an orbit 73km higher than the 250 km it was struck at. 320 km is pretty much the meaty range of NEO spy satellites....and that assumes the SM-3 was out of fuel when it struck, which it probably wasn't.

Furthermore, you're still missing the main point. The intercept is the hard part. The US proved it could build missiles capable of reaching much higher than 320 km over half a century ago.

Regarding the 1980s test of an F-15 launched antisat missile, you're mistaken. There was no interception. The misile passed within a few miles of the satellite -- close enough to prove that, had it carried a nuclear warhead, it could have disabled it. But otherwise, the satellite was wholly unscathed.


RE: China
By Orihara on 2/25/2008 1:10:21 AM , Rating: 2
You're mistaken about the ASM-135 test not destroying a satellite. It hit and destroyed P78-1, a solar observatory, on 13 Sep 1985.


RE: China
By masher2 (blog) on 2/25/2008 10:42:08 AM , Rating: 2
You're right! My apologies; I apparently confused this with an earlier test of the Bold Orion ASAT system.


Good Job
By eye smite on 2/21/2008 10:25:07 AM , Rating: 5
Glad to see our tax payer dollars didn't have to go for a second or third attempt. :-)




RE: Good Job
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/21/2008 10:27:08 AM , Rating: 3
True that. Had some naysayers yesterday saying we would miss. It's a good solid public display of exactly what your missile defense is capable of. This will send all the enemy scientists back to the drawing boards on how to evade or beat a kinetic kill vehicle.


RE: Good Job
By PAPutzback on 2/21/2008 10:43:17 AM , Rating: 4
I prefer to see a test like this than a dummy missile launched out in the ocean. This was unplanned and therefor I think it justifies the expense better than a test does.


RE: Good Job
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/21/2008 10:55:46 AM , Rating: 3
There was no way were going to miss. We couldn't miss. Could you imagine the fallout/laughing stock that would result?

Not even this current John McCain scandal would overshadow it on the news circuits.


RE: Good Job
By natebsi on 2/21/2008 12:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There was no way were going to miss. We couldn't miss. Could you imagine the fallout/laughing stock that would result?


Assuming we actually hit it. ;)


RE: Good Job
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/21/2008 12:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Good Job
By natebsi on 2/21/2008 12:09:01 PM , Rating: 2
Come on, look at that video! I could do that on my pc! :) j/k


RE: Good Job
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/21/2008 12:10:01 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, but can your PC run Crysis? :)


RE: Good Job
By dflynchimp on 2/22/2008 12:23:48 PM , Rating: 1
Brandon FTW

You really can't make this shit up without leaving paw prints all over it; not with the entire world's governments plus their own security agencies looking on.


RE: Good Job
By clovell on 2/22/2008 2:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
I think there was a double meaning buried in there that more referred to the recent 'scandal' than the article.


RE: Good Job
By arazok on 2/21/2008 7:29:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Not even this current John McCain scandal would overshadow it on the news circuits.


Did you see the press conference McCain held with his wife? I had no idea he was married to a lesbian.


RE: Good Job
By ziggo on 2/21/2008 10:59:33 AM , Rating: 2
I like this test because it really stressed how sensitive the tracking equipment on the kill vehicle is. These things are designed to track (very hot) ballistic missiles and being able to strike this satellite is a pretty big stretch.

Thats what I think the Chinese are mad about, this thing would probably be able to pick a missile out of a cloud of flares. Kind of tips our hand more than I would like, but maybe that was the intention.


RE: Good Job
By exdeath on 2/22/2008 12:04:32 PM , Rating: 2
More than you would like? You don't like having the advantage? You must not live in the USA or you were born XY but without testicles.


RE: Good Job
By Josett on 2/21/2008 12:30:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This will send all the enemy scientists back to the drawing boards


Humm?!


Proof read...
By DEVGRU on 2/21/2008 10:19:07 AM , Rating: 3
Common guys, double sentences?

What kind of economics do you use that 60M USD gets converted to approx. 10M USD?

I think you guys need an edit button as much as we do. :)




RE: Proof read...
By rdeegvainl on 2/21/2008 10:23:31 AM , Rating: 5
You know how unstable the market is, from one sentence to the next it is always changing.


RE: Proof read...
By hcahwk19 on 2/21/2008 11:24:40 AM , Rating: 4
It clearly says the total cost of the launch was around $60M USD, with the cost of the missile alone being $10M USD. For those of you in Rio Linda, that is $10M just for the missile, and $60M total for the entire event.


RE: Proof read...
By mdogs444 on 2/21/2008 11:36:14 AM , Rating: 2
Thats because it has since been changed since we noticed the original mistakes.


RE: Proof read...
By hcahwk19 on 2/21/2008 11:50:20 AM , Rating: 2
Gotcha. The story I read at 6:30 this morning looked just like this one (same pics and such) and it had the correct figures in the story ($60M and $10), so I just assumed this one was a copy of the other one. And we all know what happens when we assume :)


RE: Proof read...
By hcahwk19 on 2/21/2008 11:53:44 AM , Rating: 2
Edit: The original story I read says the Pentagon estimates the total cost at around $30M USD, with the missile still comprising $10M by itself. Not sure which one is the correct figure (30 or 60), but the story I read can be accessed here:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UUMHJO1&...


RE: Proof read...
By Shawn5961 on 2/21/2008 1:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
Without reading any other articles, and just relying on mathematics, they said the cost was $30M, plus $10M for the missiles. There were three missiles ready if I remember correctly. 30 + (10 * 3) = $60M USD.


RE: Proof read...
By Oregonian2 on 2/21/2008 3:30:02 PM , Rating: 4
I've always wondered about these cost estimates. Cost for the missile itself seems straightforward, but the others I'm not so sure about. If for instance a lot of people were involved and a ship was used for launch (etc) are they counting the costs of all that even though that money would have been spent anyway (I assume they weren't contractors hired for this one job -- but were employees that would have been paid their costs anyway had they just been puttering around waiting for whenever the next launch was coming up). Also assume they didn't just rent out the launch ship for this one time use and that it's expenses would have had to been paid "anyway". I wonder if the $10 million for the fired missile itself may have been the only substantial additional cost over and above what would have been government spent anyway (add another few million for officials flying around and perhaps some contractor work for software mods, -- or were the software modifications something that costed $50 Million). Like I said, hard to interpret.


Shooting down meteors
By Pauli on 2/21/2008 1:36:01 PM , Rating: 2
It may not happen in our lifetimes, but this sounds like a promising start to allow us (humans) to intercept a large meteor headed for impact with Earth. Presumably, the missile would need to make impact much, much further out in space, but this gives me some encouragement that we (humans) can actually do something about one of these major catastrophic events. Of course, this all assumes that we can survive living with each other without killing ourselves first -- not a lock, by any means.




RE: Shooting down meteors
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/21/2008 2:25:54 PM , Rating: 2
True enough. By using a larger booster and an explosive warhead we should be able to take out meteorites and asteroids. The best bet would be to base some missiles on the moon at a "Moon Base" and fire from there.


RE: Shooting down meteors
By hcahwk19 on 2/21/2008 3:00:02 PM , Rating: 3
Using a moon base will not likely be an option, as we are a party to the Outer Space Treaty. This prohibits military weapons, especially "offensive weapons" in space. It declares that space is to be for "peaceful purposes" as well as for the "benefit of all mankind." The treaty does not cover weapons fired from Earth up into space, but will not allow us to set up shop on the moon with missiles. It will be difficult for any country that is a party to establish any military capability in space that could be seen as "offensive". I know it seems stupid, but our government ratified it.
Oh, and the assurance from the administration that the US would pay for any damages from the falling satellite was just for the media. Under the treaty, any party country is internationally liable for damages its objects cause either to other countries' objects in space, or to anything on Earth. There could come a time in our future where some kind of "joint" venture to shoot down a meteor threat would arise, and could possibly be seen as a "defensive" measure, so it might be okay, but could face issues. That is why we had every right to shoot this satellite down, regardless of what Russia or China wanted. We gave proper notice of our intentions, and we were using a weapon that was intended for a defensive purpose, fired from Earth.

So, while it would be cool to have a base on the moon with missiles, it is not likely to ever happen with current treaties in place.


RE: Shooting down meteors
By Ringold on 2/21/2008 5:56:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Using a moon base will not likely be an option, as we are a party to the Outer Space Treaty.


I love it when people quote treaties. Nations agree to treaties that benefit them at the time and then routinely leave when it no longer does so. Some just keep up appearances but violate treaties anyway. Some never uphold them at all. Other treaties are useful from the perspective of having the moral high ground, but we haven't fought a foe that treated US POW's properly since WW2 (Germany treated some decently, emphasis on some). I find it amusing anyway that our military satellites already up there qualify as "peaceful."

The day it becomes useful for the United States to place a bona fide weapon system beyond Earth's atmosphere, and assuming the groundwork has been laid such that a bunch of allies don't complain, then that'll be the day when the Outer Space Treaty is sent to a meusem and a ship takes off bound for the moon with a payload of nukes -- or lasers, whatever.

We most recently left the ABMT, long before we even had an operational missile defense capability. Seeing these as anything other than gentle "suggestions" is giving their staying-power too much respect. In other words, I agree with you, we'll never have military bases in space with the current treaties in place. They just wont be in place.


RE: Shooting down meteors
By hcahwk19 on 2/21/2008 6:49:25 PM , Rating: 2
As soon as we are able to remove the strings of the OST then the path will be open for us to put weapons in space. The satellites that are there now, whether military-based or not, are not offensive weapons, and are basically focused on surveillance, and are therefore not prohibited. If there was a way for us to put some kind of weapon up there (not saying we haven't already) and pass it off as a weapon that is defensive in its nature (whether to protect just the U.S., its property in space, etc), then we can do it. Do I like the treaty? No, not really, especially after spending a semester in law school studying it as it applies to international energy and natural resources (which was a very interesting course by the way). My professor literally wrote the book on the legal aspects of the treaty for present and future resource exploration.
I hope that we back out of this treaty, as we have others. That way, we can take proper measures to ensure not only our safety, but also advance our military technologies and capabilities, which, as you know, will trickle down to our everyday use (computers, cell phones, etc). I don't want some stupid treaty to hold us back (which is the only goal of any and all of those kinds of treaties), but we have those in power in our government and those seeking to be president who would be and are willing to give everything away and concede to our enemies.

And the reason why our POW's were treated the way they were is because they were US military. You know the rules that apply to our treatment of other countries' soldiers do not apply when they have our troops. We appear to be held to a higher standard than those two-bit dictator countries (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc). We go far out of our way to accomodate even the most vile/wicked enemies we have, that if given even the slightest chance would give their lives to try to kill us all.


RE: Shooting down meteors
By Ringold on 2/21/2008 11:54:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, not really, especially after spending a semester in law school studying it as it applies to international energy and natural resources (which was a very interesting course by the way). My professor literally wrote the book on the legal aspects of the treaty for present and future resource exploration.


That would be interesting an interesting class.. I'm jealous. With Russia planting its flag under the polar ice cap and all the wrangling thats gone on since, thats a useful bit of information to know. Of course, that's just one tiny part of the globe. It's a global race to find and secure access to resources (and China is winning).

Anyway, we're in agreement on all points I think, from POWs to military technology and defense.


RE: Shooting down meteors
By hcahwk19 on 2/22/2008 11:05:35 AM , Rating: 2
I believe we are. On that issue of Russia and the polar caps, we covered that as well in the class. Basically, with regard to the Arctic region, there are 5 "Artic" claimant countries, the US, Russia, Canada, Denmark (through Greenland) and Norway (mainly through its control of the Svalbard archipelago). There are three main views on how to handle claims in the area, from interpretations of the a 1926 Decree, 1958 High Seas and the 1964 Continental Shelf Conventions.

Russia is mainly trying to use one called the sector principle based under a 1926 Decree, and Canada is the only other one to push it. Russia wants to take the eastern most point of its territory and the western most point, and drawn lines from each side all the way up to the north pole, basically in a pie shape. Canada also pushes the sector theory, but in an entirely different manner than Russia (and with more legal backing). They both claim under a 1926 Decree of the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee (where that name comes from, I have no clue), which applies only to land and islands within the sector created by the nation's boundaries.It says nothing about waters and airspace. But there is great dispute as to whether this Decree is considered international customary law anymore.

Russia also is trying to claim a "historic waters" approach, whereby it claims that several seas are all historic waters of Russia and therefore not under the regime of the High Seas Convention. The big obstacle to that theory is that not only does Russia have to be capable of fully demonstrating long dominion over the area of concern, it must be coupled with acquiescence by other nations.

A third theory put forth by the Russians is over an interest in shipping. This is the most limited because it serves the purpose of securing greater control over foreign navigation in the area. The area referred to is the 12-mile territorial sea under the Contintental Shelf Convention. But, the '58 Law of the Sea Convention did not create a 12-mile territorial sea. For the 12-mile zone theory to work, it has to be backed by a very narrow interpretation of the concept of "innocent passage" in the conventions. For passage to be innocent it must not threaten the peace, good order, and security of the coastal state. It is not enough that passage simply be within 12 miles of the coastline. The peace, good order and security of the coastal state must be jeopardized.

Canada is also trying to use the 12-mile territorial sea approach. The effect of that would be to give Canada jurisdiction over the entrance to the Northwest Passage which, paired with an extremely narrow and restrictive interpretation of innocent passage, would allow Canada to close off any Arctic route the US might utilize in transport any Alaska north slope(north continental shelf) oil by sea to consumers along the Atlantic coast (long way to ship, but more economically feasible). Canada's main interest in the 12-mile zone is the threat the treacherous Artic waters pose to tankers.

The US, Denmark and Norway all use the '58 High Seas convention, and are entirely different from those of Russia and Canada. Under this, coastal states have control over the territorial seas (3-miles under this convention) and the continental shelf alone. The control over the shelf would extend seaward to a point where the waters above the shelf are 200 meters in depth, or further to the point where the shelf is still exploitable. This is used because nearly all of the Arctic area continental shelves sharply drop off to the deep seabed at 200 meters.The exploitation depth part is important to Denmark, because Greenland's shelf extends to 300 Meters before dropping off to the deep seabed. Norway also uses this theory for not only its mainland shelf, but for its Svalbard archipelago shelf claim as well.

Basically, for the claims of any of these countries to be valid, it must be applied under what is considered customary international law, whether in a convention/treaty or not (some things are not in treaties but are considered customary law). Today, the 1958 Convention is considered customary international law. It was revised in 1982, but several countries, including the US, have not ratified it based on issues they have with certain parts. Only parts of the 1982 Convention have become customary international law, but basically all of the '58 one is. So, Russia appears to have the least "legal" backing in its theories. Next, is Canada. Since the 1958 Convention is considered customary internation law, the US, Norway and Denmark appear to have the most legal backing for their claims in the Arctic.

I know this is very long and very off topic from the original satellite article, but you brought it up, so I thought I would take the time to explain the issues to you, and where it might be headed.
It will be very interesting to see how all of this plays out in the real world and not just by looking at the relevant legal factors. It will be very interesting indeed.
There are a lot of resources there (oil, gas, metals, diamonds, etc.) that will make people a lot of money in the future.


RE: Shooting down meteors
By masher2 (blog) on 2/22/2008 11:43:22 AM , Rating: 2
You've forgotten the fourth and, from a historical perspective, most compelling theory of all: might makes right.

If Russia claims the Arctic region - and is willing to back up that claim with use of force -- I seriously doubt the US or Canada has the will to dispute it at present, not given the current political climate at least.


RE: Shooting down meteors
By JustTom on 2/22/2008 2:55:14 AM , Rating: 2
Blowing up large asteroids is generally considered a bad thing; it is unlikely to create pieces small enough to burn up in the atmosphere while at the same time creating a wider spread of debris making it more likely to have to have an Earth impact. Deflecting an Earth bound asteroid would be a much better if less spectacular solution.


EU, Russia and China are simply envious
By TerranMagistrate on 2/21/2008 2:53:09 PM , Rating: 2
Because they cannot hope to match the U.S. aerospace dominance.

Now all I have to do is pray that I get that summer internship at NASA and become a part of this greatness.




RE: EU, Russia and China are simply envious
By jbartabas on 2/21/2008 3:14:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now all I have to do is pray that I get that summer internship at NASA and become a part of this greatness.


The irony about that is that if you'd get your internship, you'd then realize then that a large part of the job done nowadays at NASA is done by Chinese, Russians and to a lesser extent by Europeans ... LOL

(although we should actually be talking about the military here, which is probably a slightly different matter)


RE: EU, Russia and China are simply envious
By Ringold on 2/21/2008 5:59:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
job done nowadays at NASA is done by Chinese, Russians and to a lesser extent by Europeans


Are you talking about ethnic Chinese, Russians, etc, or actual ESA stooges at NASA facilities across the nation?


RE: EU, Russia and China are simply envious
By jbartabas on 2/21/2008 6:57:18 PM , Rating: 2
What do you mean exactly by 'ethnic' Chinese, Russians, etc?


RE: EU, Russia and China are simply envious
By Farfignewton on 2/21/2008 9:43:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What do you mean exactly by 'ethnic' Chinese, Russians, etc?


I believe he was referring to citizens of the U.S. who are ethnically Chinese or Russian, but not citizens of those countries.


By jbartabas on 2/22/2008 11:22:08 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, just wanted to make sure that's what he meant ;-)

Then I would specify: by Chinese, Russian ... nationals (not US citizens, at least not during the first years of their stay, not even on a green card!). Of course there are many other nationalities well represented (Koreans, Indians...), but I focussed on TerranMagistrate examples.

Seems that the scientific career does not attract many young Americans anymore :-( or at least not the fields related to aerospace. Don't know if it's a money or image issue, probably both.


Does anyone proof read this stuff?
By UppityMatt on 2/21/2008 10:26:04 AM , Rating: 1
The Pentagon says that any hit, whether on the fuel tank or elsewhere is better than doing nothing, as it lessens the risk of the fuel tank surviving the fall and releasing a toxic chlorine-like crowd in a populated area.

I think you ment cloud. I only made it that far before i found a double sentence and this mistake. Come on guys.




RE: Does anyone proof read this stuff?
By zornundo on 2/21/2008 12:30:37 PM , Rating: 1
Come on, like we're gonna believe that the reason we shot down that satellite was for the stoopid fuel.

The entire reason was just to put on a show for the Chinese. I can't believe that anybody and any news outlet would accept the official version as for why we blew this satellite up. I bet it was a perfectly functioning satellite that was launched just for the purpose of blowing it up. When it comes to anything secret, don't listen to anything that comes out of the government's mouth.


RE: Does anyone proof read this stuff?
By pauluskc on 2/21/2008 2:48:18 PM , Rating: 2
i agree that it was not just about the hydrazine, but why would we decide to shoot down a "perfectly functioning satellite"? Let alone a "perfectly functioning satellite" that was an expensive "spy satellite". Yeah. That makes even more sense.

Perhaps it was just a bs satellite though. Just an outer shell. That'd make the most sense. It was dead right from the beginning. Hmm...

I'd feel better if it was just a non-satellite. Less actual $$ involved. Plus, if it wasn't a real spy satellite, and they said it was, that'd be a great cover story for testing our firepower.

If you look at the film of the shoot-down, it does a pretty nice explosion - perhaps they rigged it like those F-150s.


By hcahwk19 on 2/21/2008 7:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
It wasn't a perfectly functioning satellite. It never even activated itself to start functioning once we put it in space. It was falling from orbit, and would have fallen to the ground. Most of the satellite would have burned in re-entry, but the fuel would not have.
I agree that it was not just hydrazine (which is toxic), but probably about keeping any and all technology that could possibly fall to earth out of others' hands. Supposedly, the satellite had new imaging technology and software on board. So, we had both a health hazard and military secrets up there that had to be dealt with.

I, for one, am very glad we did this, and not just to show military capabilities. I sure as hell would not want to be sitting in my apartment and have a satellite fall into my living room, especially when there was an opportunity to take it out beforehand.


By stromgald on 2/24/2008 3:59:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Perhaps it was just a bs satellite though. Just an outer shell. That'd make the most sense. It was dead right from the beginning. Hmm...

Well, they'd have to spend $100 mil just on the launch, so I doubt it'd be an acceptable cost for just showing off. The US military knows what it's capable of and so does the Chinese.

It wasn't about the hydrazine either IMO. Most of the hydrazine would've burned up. Satiellite fuel tanks are fairly weak and really dependent on internal pressures for support, one puncture + external pressure = tank collapse. Usually the only tanks to survive falls from space are pressurant tanks filled with Helium.

Launch vehicles have burned on the pad with hydrazine fueled satellites and nobody is really concerned about the cleanup because there's not much hydrazine left. The NSS8 launch failure is a recent example.

There was only one reason to do this and that was to keep whatever technology on there from falling into someone else's hands. Specifically, the Russians and Chinese.


The Real Story: Geopolitics
By brheault on 2/21/2008 1:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
All of these comments seems to fall within the narrow spectrum that Pentagon and the media framed the whole event in. Were they heroes for removing this hydrazine threat, or were they REALLY trying to keep secrets out of the hands of foreign intelligence agencies? And then on the extreme you have people who suspect it's really the Pentagon responding to the Chinese...

Well, the strategic analysts have something radically different to say about it. This is Stratfor: "[This] single act will usher in a new age in U.S. space dominance: the overt (rather than unspoken and unacknowledged) offensive reign of the U.S. military over outer space.... This marks the first operational validation of the new generation of U.S. BMD technologies — both as a BMD system and as an anti-satellite weapon... But this is just the sort of generational leap that creates the unassailable military dominance that the Pentagon loves to establish."

If you look back, China's anti-satellite test came after the US repeated ignored the entire world's pleas not to start another arms race in space; they saw BMD as first-strike weapon, not a defensive weapon. The reason is simple: BMD would be totally overwhelmed in by somebody else's first-strike, but might be able withstand a retaliatory strike from a US first-strike. But in this case we're talking about the use of nuclear weapons, the use of which no sane person can even contemplate...




RE: The Real Story: Geopolitics
By Ringold on 2/21/2008 6:08:42 PM , Rating: 3
That would make sense.. if we hadn't shot down a satellite decades ago, not with an expensive ground based system but from a fighter aloft.

I also don't follow the first-strike part. There are a lot of assumptions baked in to that; such as a potential US target not launching everything as soon as they detect our own attack. I suppose conventional forces could be used to thin out a targets nuclear abilities, but the countries vulnerable to that also don't have a lot of ICBMs.

I'm sure the Pentagon is indeed proud to be able to say they can still take out satellites, sure. I think that Stratfor is maybe being a little.. too proud?


RE: The Real Story: Geopolitics
By brheault on 2/22/2008 11:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
From what I've read, the strategic analysts don't have many illusions about what this meant for. You're right, there are a lot of assumptions baked into that. But then again, they're the assumptions of the experts. There's a lot of literature out there about this.


I LOL'd
By EODetroit on 2/21/2008 10:38:13 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The U.S. has proven its mettle as a super power in the space arms race, while safeguarding people worldwide from a serious threat


I actually laughed out loud when I read that.




RE: I LOL'd
By Shawn5961 on 2/21/2008 1:42:25 PM , Rating: 3
Sounds like the cheesy ending to a Saturday morning animation show if you ask me.

Come on, think Captain Planet rap.


300 points!
By pauluskc on 2/21/2008 10:15:41 AM , Rating: 5
Congratulations PFC Thomas - you move on to the next skill level -- cometary defense!!




Cost?
By brundall on 2/21/2008 5:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
Could someone explain to me how this mission could cost $60 million? $10m was for the missile itself (with no payload). What was the other $50m for?




RE: Cost?
By Farfignewton on 2/21/2008 10:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Could someone explain to me how this mission could cost $60 million? $10m was for the missile itself (with no payload). What was the other $50m for?


I think think they had to build 3 missiles (10 million each), jockey some pretty big ships around, and generally had thousands of people working on the project for a few weeks. On the other hand, all the co-ordination required may have caused a lot of those involved to exceed their monthly minutes.. ;)


Great!
By Optimizer on 2/22/2008 3:23:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The U.S. has proven its mettle as a super power in the space arms race, while safeguarding people worldwide from a serious threat


Just don't forget who created it and put it up there in the first place...




RE: Great!
By jbartabas on 2/22/2008 3:42:28 PM , Rating: 2
This has already been ardently debated ;-) I've even been severely down-rated during the 'fight' :_( ...


Unfinished sentence?
By mdogs444 on 2/21/2008 10:19:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The launch carried a large price tag -- around $60M USD, almost $10M USD.

Is this unfinished? It is supposed to say "almost $10M USD more than anticipated" or something similar?




wow
By UBB on 2/21/2008 1:38:05 PM , Rating: 2
they made this look easy, but I know it's not.




Ah, yes.. Missile defense...
By kilkennycat on 2/21/2008 1:41:06 PM , Rating: 2
Time for me to fire up my PC and play another round of DEFCON (www.everybody-dies.com)............ :-) :-)




Impressive...?
By JosefTor on 2/21/2008 3:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
One question I have is if this is a really impressive accomplishment or not. I mean... we shot a satellite out of the sky like a decade ago and China just recently did as well.

I was wondering if anyone knew if we did anything more or less impressive then those other two cases? Thanks.




Deep Thoughts by Machinegear
By Machinegear on 2/21/2008 3:45:57 PM , Rating: 2
Why didn't we sell the satellite to Iran for internet access?




Headline typo
By ghostryder on 2/21/2008 7:26:23 PM , Rating: 2
Think that headline should read: "U.S. Missile Ends Satellite Threat, CONVENIENTLY Provides Test of Missile Shield Progress."




china, usa?
By Marty007 on 2/22/2008 2:05:51 AM , Rating: 2
its kinda giving me a double feeling here,
who launched the sattelite in the first place.. i bet it was either of these 2 countries...
and now their all cool and so tough cuz sdi works, and they cleaned up the threat/mess for us..
well good job.. but who fired the sattelite in there in the first place..

its like throwing a kitten in the water, and then jumping after it to save it from drowning.. does that make me a hero?

other thing is .. nice to see sdi is actually effective, but aside of that i cant really say im happy with this situation as a whole... the fact the sattelite is gone is good ofc but its just one of those political strenght games, and were all falling for it, now china and usa start pointing fingers again. whats new..




I'm glad
By Spivonious on 2/21/2008 11:24:12 AM , Rating: 1
I'm glad that they destroyed the secrets it was carr...er...I mean the fuel tank.




Thank you for saving me!
By MoonRocket on 2/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: Thank you for saving me!
By mdogs444 on 2/21/2008 10:24:20 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
A threat that it created, what heroes.


Wow, you really are out there. Perhaps you say the same thing to the automobile manufacturer who first created air-bags....blaming them because they also create the car that people get in accidents with.


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By MoonRocket on 2/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: Thank you for saving me!
By PAPutzback on 2/21/2008 10:39:38 AM , Rating: 3
There are a lot more satellites up there than just he U.S. I like the analogy. New tech will always have potential risks. Ever heard of an exploding laptop battery.


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By MoonRocket on 2/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: Thank you for saving me!
By InsaneGain on 2/21/2008 3:23:25 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
My post was triggered by the absurd first paragraph of the article.

I don't think the first paragraph implied anything about heroes. It simply stated what actually took place: The action proved the U.S. is capable of performing this difficult operation and the action prevented hydrazine from possibly harming people. I think you are reading more into it than what is really there, likely due to a heavily anti-U.S. bias.


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By zornundo on 2/21/2008 12:35:47 PM , Rating: 1
So you realllllly believe that we shot it down because it posed a threat???

It's just a danged pony show for the Chinese. A message saying, "hey look! we can shoot down satellites, too!"


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By bpurkapi on 2/21/2008 1:14:55 PM , Rating: 1
Agree completely. Take that China we still have the edge! This was a classic example of two birds with one stone. Kill a malfunctioning satellite and show the Chinese we can do what they can do.


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By Buspar on 2/22/2008 6:05:16 AM , Rating: 2
Except that while China has been one of the countries pushing for keeping space free of armaments through international treaties, the US has actively opposed such measures.

While we may be superior in technical abilities, China still has a better overall perspective on the issue than we do.


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By Shoal07 on 2/21/2008 1:19:46 PM , Rating: 5
Except we were the first to shoot down a sat. in the 80s (89 I believe) with a missle from a fighter jet at 80,000ft. But, it's ok, everyone else believes the Chinese did it first too.


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By mdogs444 on 2/21/2008 1:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have seen SUVs get hit by a small car and the small car driver was fine but the SUV was toast because of rollover.

Yup...everyone BUT the Chinese :-)


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By mdogs444 on 2/21/2008 1:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
Whoops, my clipboard still had a quote from the other DT article....dumba$$


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By napalmjack on 2/21/2008 2:22:12 PM , Rating: 3
Although it somehow makes sense...

...kinda like the Chewbacca Defense.


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By hcahwk19 on 2/21/2008 4:19:24 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. We have done this before, back in the late 1980s. Only that time we launched a missile from a high-altitude fighter jet. Do any of you actually think that another country comes close to our abilities with regard to space??

We are still the only country to land on the moon. Forty years later, Japan and China send a probe "around" the moon and take a few high-res and people think they are a challenge??

The only reason China can get a rocket into space is because Clinton sold the guidance technology to them for campaign contributions. Until then, their rockets would either explode on the launchpad or fall out of their trajectory shortly after launch.


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By tticknor on 2/21/2008 5:34:07 PM , Rating: 3
I for one welcome back our old US Gov't overloards...


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By retrospooty on 2/21/2008 10:39:37 AM , Rating: 2
I for one think its great... This is the future of our defense... High tech. We have the ability to way outdo any competitor, and do it without a single American casualty.


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By MoonRocket on 2/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: Thank you for saving me!
By Shawn5961 on 2/21/2008 1:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
At least we'll be ready for when the man-eating robots arrive.


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By retrospooty on 2/21/2008 2:31:25 PM , Rating: 3
Hey now, if we don't fight the satellites up there, we'll have to fight them down here. =)


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By glenn8 on 2/21/2008 10:46:53 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think that's a good analogy. Not having airbags is not a malfunction. People bought the cars knowing it didn't have airbags.
Here's a better analogy involving cars. If a car company finds that a recent model has defects that are a safety hazards, would the same company be a "hero" if it does a recall to fix this problem?


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By MoonRocket on 2/21/08, Rating: 0
RE: Thank you for saving me!
By Digimonkey on 2/22/2008 9:30:24 AM , Rating: 2
No, but they would be doing the right thing by possibly saving people's lives/health? Oh wait, that's what the article stated.


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By eye smite on 2/21/2008 10:26:47 AM , Rating: 5
I think you should look at it as us being environmentally conscious and cleaning up our own messes. lol


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By sweetsauce on 2/21/2008 10:33:12 AM , Rating: 5
They didn't create the threat idiot. They saved people from the threat of a malfuntioning satelite landing on their head. You're probably pissed that they actually managed to shoot the thing down. I bet you had a post ready to go in notepad pending the announcement that the evil US was unsuccesful in destroying the satelite, therefore endangering all the innocent people of earth.


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By MoonRocket on 2/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: Thank you for saving me!
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/21/2008 10:45:34 AM , Rating: 3
It wasn't a "blatant" physical threat at first. It just happens so that it malfunctioned on its way into orbit which caused the "threat".

They destroyed the thing, it's no longer a danger -- so I say move on, nothing to see here.


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By xti on 2/21/2008 11:00:47 AM , Rating: 2
ummm...I could have sworn that guy at NASA said 'man i hope this crashes on those bullies that picked on me in Elementary...i'll just cut this red wire real quick'


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/21/2008 11:04:50 AM , Rating: 2
Funny, but did NASA even have anything to do with this mission at all?


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/21/2008 11:08:35 AM , Rating: 3
Not too much...
About the only thing NASA did was get their butts out of the way by landing the Shuttle Atlantis.

Otherwise, I suppose there probably were a couple of NASA experts involved in the AEGIS/Missile modifications.

Yea and besides that its pretty much all DoD:
1. Military satellite is launched
2. Military satellite dies
3. Military announces plans to shoot down satellite
4. Military shoots down satellite.


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 2/21/2008 12:19:47 PM , Rating: 5
NASA cannot act that fast. If they were in charge, a this point they would be holding meetings to discuss the schedule for meetings to decide when to discuss how to form subcommittees.


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By bldckstark on 2/21/2008 12:35:11 PM , Rating: 2
I am not sure how fast the reaction was. The missile was heavily modified. The satellite was DOA upon launch in 2006 IIRC. If that time frame is correct, then it took two years to get this job done.


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By hcahwk19 on 2/21/2008 7:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
If we had shot it down when it failed to activate in 2006, it would have been too high in orbit. Our project would have turned out just like the Chinese one did, with a ton of debris and space junk just floating around in space threatening everything else up there, from satellites to the space shuttle to the space station. We waited until the satellite was low enough in orbit to allow any fragments/pieces to continue their descent into the atmosphere and incinerate upon re-entry.


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By xti on 2/21/2008 2:18:50 PM , Rating: 2
oops, yeah i meant lockheed


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By zpsyx9 on 2/21/2008 11:03:03 AM , Rating: 3
Because no other country has satellites that could fall to earth and threaten people...

Yeah, this is clearly the work of 'the evil US'.

/tinfoil


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By Emryse on 2/21/2008 3:34:22 PM , Rating: 5
MoonRocket,

I'm beginnning to think you are a threat.

Quite frankly, satellites - especially NRO sats - are vital assets to your protection (whether in the US, or wherever you are in the world). We stand for freedom and democracy; we enforce these principles by keeping the upper hand, whether it be information or warfare capability.

Yes, they ARE heroes. No, they did NOT create a threat.

If, by some intensly random chance, a piece of fallen debris makes contact with you personally, that might not be such a bad outcome - based on your previous comments.


RE: Thank you for saving me!
By jbartabas on 2/21/08, Rating: 0
“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki