Pentagon to shoot down its own satellite

[Poi]

LOL @ Tommyball.

 

[mike]

one shot..........

nice shooting

although the tv news says the russians and chinese say the "arms race" has taken a new twist into that of using weapons in space

and looking at the thread in ufos

http://theparacast.com/forums/thats-classified-michael-schratt-video-presentation-t-1672.html

id say the powers that be seem to be getting a handle on planetary defense (as opposed to the old territorial defense structure)
i was particulary fascinated but the piggy back orbital attack craft

very fast response to almost anywhere on the planet, im guessing the russians and chinese are right and these missiles are part of a system designed to shoot down space vehicles

was a great shot none the less, considering the factors

although i have to say the spokesman from the pentagon on the TV did seem to be swallowing a grin, almost like someone had told him the nantucket joke just before he stepped up to the lecturn

 

[Brian Now]

Surely that is more dangerous than fuel that will burn up imediately after reentry!

Not everything burns up in reentry. I don't guess you remember Sky Lab but even parts of it survived reentry. There's always some part that might survive reentry intact, even with some kind of fuel inside.

I don't know if the hydrazine (or a rumored nuclear core) is the only thing on board they were worried about. But on the off chance it exploded on the ground and created a cloud of toxic gas in, like say, China or Russia the political cost would be huge.

 

[Seth]

Surely that is more dangerous than fuel that will burn up imediately after reentry!

Not everything burns up in reentry. I don't guess you remember Sky Lab but even parts of it survived reentry. There's always some part that might survive reentry intact, even with some kind of fuel inside.

I don't know if the hydrazine (or a rumored nuclear core) is the only thing on board they were worried about. But on the off chance it exploded on the ground and created a cloud of toxic gas in, like say, China or Russia the political cost would be huge.

When you took the quote out of context it appears you are correct, but what I said was:

What about an errant missile crashing to earth? Surely that is more dangerous than fuel that will burn up immediately after reentry!

I stand by this comment because I know a little more about hydrazine than thow dost:

Here the information as described by The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (a governmental source no less):
Hydrazines are clear, colorless liquids with an ammonia-like odor. Small amounts of hydrazine occur naturally in plants. Most hydrazines are manufactured for use as rocket propellants and fuels, boiler water treatments, chemical reactants, medicines, and in cancer research. HYDRAZINES ARE HIGHLY REACTIVE AND EASILY CATCH FIRE. (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts100.html)

Also the parts of Skylab that made it to earth were solids in the form of metals and fiberglass like materials. Not rocket fuels. If anything the existance of rocket fuels on board only ensures an explosion and reduction in size of material. As stated by Dr Ruediger Jehn, a space debris analyst at the European Space Agency (ESA), "[Hydrazine] could reduce the risk of it crashing into the Earth. When the velocity of the satellite is reduced during entry into the denser layers of the atmosphere, the satellite will get very, very hot. The hydrazine will probably cause it to explode and it will be broken up into many, many pieces." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7213147.stm)

Make no mistake, the shooting down of this satellite was a power play and as usual the masses eat up the reasons for such action under the justification of patriotism and security. This object would have easily burnt itself up like the hundreds before it. I feel less secure when I go to bed knowing a surface-to-subspace missile is flying overhead than a satellite.




*edit to fix typo

 

[Leeham]

I'm suprised we haven't seen "it was a cover to blow up a UFO!!!"

 

[truthseeker]

Good Job US NAVY!!!

 

[CapnG]

So much for preventing the weaponization of space... way to go exo-politicians!

 

[Lone Gunman]

I am really impressed we got to see it. Granted, who knows what they filtered out for us, but this was a pretty upfront (wait for it) disclosure.

I did get a chuckle when I read off the Wired story that the government wasn't sure about the collateral damage that would be raining down into our atmosphere the next 48 hours as a result. So much for millitary intelligence.

 

[Brian Now]

When you took the quote out of context it appears you are correct, but what I said was:

You're right about one thing, I quoted the wrong post of yours. I meant your first one

The reason given by the idiot anchor on CNN this morning is utterly retarded: They are worried the rocket fuel on board may crash and burn onto the surface somewhere. Hello? Since this thing will be exposed to extreme frictional heat upon reentry the fuel has no chance of making it to the surface in a liquid or gaseous state without combustion. I suggest: they are doing it to make damn sure other countries can't have the goodies on board and to create a power display for all to see---"Look at me I'm king of the world!"

And I stand by what I said about the possibilities. It could have been more than hydrazine on that thing, but I see no reason to look at it as necessarily anything other than what they said it was.

 

[Seth]

And I stand by what I said about the possibilities. It could have been more than hydrazine on that thing, but I see no reason to look at it as necessarily anything other than what they said it was.

I do recognize the logic it the destruction of the satellite for the reasons given, don’t get me wrong. However, many of these things return to earth yearly and have done so for decades (some with substantial hydrazine quantities on board) without alarm.

This scenario just hits a nerve as “insiders” (I understand some are not credible) for decades have suggested the governmental plans to weaponize space and condition the public to accept it.

This scenario seems to fit these claims. Without rehashing the hydrazine component, it appears fishy to shoot down satellites when they have never posed a threat before. Surely you see a paradigm shift here?

 

[Seth]

This is kind of a moot point now, but an interesting synopsis none-the-less.

Phil Plait from www.badastronomy.com:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7lgtPBgQfY