Looks like they were successful in knocking down the busted satellite...
only cost $60M.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/0...own/index.html

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Capt. JG" wrote in news:13rqcojfhk0j070
@corp.supernews.com:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/0...own/index.html

"The fuel tank probably would have survived re-entry if the satellite had
fallen to Earth on its own. That could have dispersed harmful or even
potentially deadly fumes over an area the size of two football fields.
Hydrazine is similar to chlorine or ammonia in that it affects the lungs
and breathing tissue."

Government bureaucrats can sure come up with some whoppers, can't they?

I thought cover stories should be remotely feasable to someone of average
intellegence.

It is a puzzlement, though ostensibly all communication with the satellite
had been lost. But you would think there would be a separate channel for
destruction.

Not exactly shooting fish in a barrel (which Mythbusters has demonstrated
is not so easy to do) but anyone who thinks this demonstration proves a
missile defense system can unerringly bring down enemy missiles is
delusional.


Missles... no but spy sats, com sats...

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote
Looks like they were successful in knocking down the busted satellite...
only cost $60M.

I don't think on SM-3 cost $69M. IIRC the SM-2, an SM-3 without a
booster, cost under $150K.

If I were Kim or an Iraqi I'd wonder what the odds of my hopped up
Silkworms surviving were and, were I a Jap or Israili, I'd breath a sigh
of relief, thanks to Wayne Meyers.



Huh? Did you read the link?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Larry" wrote in message
...
"Capt. JG" wrote in news:13rqcojfhk0j070
@corp.supernews.com:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/0...own/index.html

"The fuel tank probably would have survived re-entry if the satellite had
fallen to Earth on its own. That could have dispersed harmful or even
potentially deadly fumes over an area the size of two football fields.
Hydrazine is similar to chlorine or ammonia in that it affects the lungs
and breathing tissue."

Government bureaucrats can sure come up with some whoppers, can't they?

I thought cover stories should be remotely feasable to someone of average
intellegence.



Don't look up Larry. The sky is falling.... literally.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:15:16 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

Looks like they were successful in knocking down the busted satellite...
only cost $60M.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/0...own/index.html


I find it somewhat hard to believe that the U.S. government would
launch a satellite loaded with top secret hardware without including
an onboard way to blow it up by remote control in case of any
subsequent problems. Seems like that would be SOP.




You'd think...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Gogarty" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...


On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:15:16 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

Looks like they were successful in knocking down the busted satellite...
only cost $60M.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/0...own/index.html


I find it somewhat hard to believe that the U.S. government would
launch a satellite loaded with top secret hardware without including
an onboard way to blow it up by remote control in case of any
subsequent problems. Seems like that would be SOP.

It is a puzzlement, though ostensibly all communication with the satellite
had been lost. But you would think there would be a separate channel for
destruction.

You could have a command destruct mechanism that has a separate battery
supply and an omni antenna on the satellite that would overcome those
difficulties. Self destruct mechanisms could be regarded to violate current
space treaties regarding weapons in space. Once it is in orbit you have a
time bomb with respect to the radiation impinging on the electronic
circuitry, driving it to some undesriable failure mode, and the degradation
of the explosive. If it accidentaly blows up in its orbit track it will take
out dozens of other satellites. On top of that it is easier for NORAD to
track one big piece of space junk rather than thousands of pieces of small
space junk. The satellite is probably a KH-11 or descendant and in the past
these have re-entered and completely burned up. The hydrazine would burn up
with it too, so I'm dubious about the dangers of the fuel, the F-16 carries
hydrazine on board to power the APU.



Not exactly shooting fish in a barrel (which Mythbusters has demonstrated
is not so easy to do) but anyone who thinks this demonstration proves a
missile defense system can unerringly bring down enemy missiles is
delusional.


This demonstrates that the anti missile defense can shoot down low earth
orbit satellites. It was also accomplished ten years ago by a missile
launched from a F-16 and the Chinese just did it too. Satellites are easy
targets, you know where they are, where they are going and have a single
point spectral signature. An enemy missile does not enter orbit, its
spectral signature is a long streak (or several streaks as in the case of
Iraqi Scuds), the path is not stable and flat, the atmospheric density
varies greatly over the flight and the time window for launch is very small.
The airborne laser may be the best bet for now until the bad guys start
building chrome plated missiles. Raytheon (Patriot) did not score a single
hit on the Scuds, they had all broken up in flight and the Raytheon had some
timing issues with the Patriot that rendered it almost useless.

Ron

In article ,
Gogarty wrote:

It is a puzzlement, though ostensibly all communication with the satellite
had been lost. But you would think there would be a separate channel for
destruction.

Not exactly shooting fish in a barrel (which Mythbusters has demonstrated
is not so easy to do) but anyone who thinks this demonstration proves a
missile defense system can unerringly bring down enemy missiles is
delusional.

and can you explain just WHY, anyone would put a Self-Destruct Package,
on a "Secret NRO Asset" that could be Remotely Activated, by "Their
Enemies" and render the Asset nonfunctional???? Hmmmm, Inquiring Minds
would really like to know..... Not a well thought out idea.....

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:05:21 -0500, wrote this crap:

I find it somewhat hard to believe that the U.S. government would
launch a satellite loaded with top secret hardware without including
an onboard way to blow it up by remote control in case of any
subsequent problems. Seems like that would be SOP.


Uh. You're talking about the government doing something sensible?

It's pretty obvious you were never in the military.





I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

"Vito" wrote in message
...
"Larry" wrote
I thought cover stories should be remotely feasable to someone of average
intellegence.

They are, Larry. But you have never really grasp the depths of stupidity
inherent in the average voter. For example, *ALL* senators, including
Hillery and Obama get $thousands if not $millions illegally and launder it
via trusted lobbiests but the press and the people are all worked up that
McCain might have got laid. Did they impeach Clinton over Ruby Ridge or
Waco or Blackhawk Down? No! It was over a BJ! People like that find
anything feasible.



But not VPs like Cheney... oh no....

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com