Missile Hits Dying US Spy Satellite

What's the big deal over this, it's not the first time and sure won't be the last time.

The only interesting thing about it is that this is probably the satellite the US denied ever existed, so it's awfully embarrassing for them to have to shoot it down because it's faulty revealing it to the whole world, not that the idiots ever really managed to hide it.

edit,

And such things don't always burn up on entry to our atmosphere, ask the Canadians.
 
Last edited:
icyrus said:
How can you assure me? What basis do you have for this position?
Click to expand...

Well now,

Why would NASA go to great lenghts to put those little tiles on the spacecraft if they did not need them?

Decoration?

I think not!

For all you know i might be an aeronautical engineer.
But i am not.

I am also not a fool.

I do not believe everything someone tells me.

I am unfortunately blessed with logical thinking.

I love analysing things.

You however, have the right to differ from me,that, after all ,makes us unique.
 
Browser said:
What's the big deal over this, it's not the first time and sure won't be the last time.

The only interesting thing about it is that this is probably the satellite the US denied ever existed, so it's awfully embarrassing for them to have to shoot it down because it's faulty revealing it to the whole world, not that the idiots ever really managed to hide it.

edit,

And such things don't always burn up on entry to our atmosphere, ask the Canadians.
Click to expand...
No, i agree it would not burn up completely.

It will melt and the fuel will ignite.

So somebody is lying.
 
Piepalook said:
Well now,

Why would NASA go to great lenghts to put those little tiles on the spacecraft if they did not need them?

Decoration?

I think not!

For all you know i might be an aeronautical engineer.
But i am not.

I am also not a fool.

I do not believe everything someone tells me.

I am unfortunately blessed with logical thinking.

I love analysing things.

You however, have the right to differ from me,that, after all ,makes us unique.
Click to expand...

They put the insulation tiles on the shuttle so that the human inside of it will survive. Space debris is know to crash down to earth. Like Browser said: ask the Canadians.

As for the fuel tank, if it is in the middle of the satellite there surely a chance that it could survive reentry.

And like I said before - you have no idea how this sat. was made or what materials were used.

You say you are blessed with "logical thinking" and you love analyzing things but you somehow think that it is more likely that the satellite is an orbiting ebola delivery system than that some classified parts of it, or its fuel tank, will survive reentry?

The mind doth boggle...
 
icyrus said:
They put the insulation tiles on the shuttle so that the human inside of it will survive. Space debris is know to crash down to earth. Like Browser said: ask the Canadians.

As for the fuel tank, if it is in the middle of the satellite there surely a chance that it could survive reentry.

And like I said before - you have no idea how this sat. was made or what materials were used.

You say you are blessed with "logical thinking" and you love analyzing things but you somehow think that it is more likely that the satellite is an orbiting ebola delivery system than that some classified parts of it, or its fuel tank, will survive reentry?

The mind doth boggle...
Click to expand...

The Americans have been doing research into weapons of mass destruction for years.(chemical, biological and nuclear)

They had to destroy this at all cost. Why?

The fuel would have ignited upon re-entry.
So it was not the fuel they had to destroy.

You are entitled to what you believe,so am i.
Can we agree to disagree on this one?
 
Amazing how accurate they were with this line: "Another option might be the use of an Standard SM-3 interceptor fired from a US Navy Aegis warship."
 
icyrus said:
But of-course you can't trust anything the American's say, so its safe to assume that this missile can not only reach satellites in regular orbits but could also shoot down the Voyager 1 if they wanted it to :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Damn right you can't trust what the Americans are saying. Unless I was there and could ID the missile myself or had an independent source there
I wouldn't trust any government including my own. Are you naive in believing militaries go around revealing their secrets. What they fired is only a matter of speculation even if a Rear-Admiral went in a press briefing
and showed a missile. Point is (and I agree here) they showed Russia, China and Iran what they are capable of. While America has the most assets up there in the sky and would want to be the most protective about them,
letting your potential enemies know that you can do various advanced
things is most advantageous.

I'm not anti-American BTW but they're not going to reveal their classifed info or specs to the world, even though various foreign intelligent agencies
probably know what was fired - its still a great psychological advantage
to show that YOU CAN DO IT SUCCESSFULLY.
 
icyrus said:
How can you assure me? What basis do you have for this position?
Click to expand...

I think you might find this interesting reading:

http://www.aero.org/capabilities/cords/reentry-overview.html

Here you can find info on the actual size,what would be left of the satellite
after re-entry,and also info on the actual risk to humans:

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/02/15/hydrazine-the-toxic-fuel-in-that-busted-spy-satellite/

It sould also be of interest to note that the speed the satellite was travelling at was between 18 000 and 20 000 miles per hour.

The weight and shape of the object and speed it was travelling would have meant a relative skin heat of the object of higher than 2500 degrees farenheit.

The flashpoint of hydrazine is 113 degrees celcius.

Hydrazine is a combination of hydrogen and nitrogen.

Also of interest is that the ruptured tanks of Skylab can be seen, on display, at NASA's Huntsville facility.

Both skylab and this satellite used the same fuel Hydrazine.

The Americans, however, saw no need to fire a missile at Skylab even though Skylab was much bigger than the satellite.

The American's had the technology to fire a missile from a plane at that point in time.

Skylab's tanks ruptured upon re-entry as the hydrazine reached flash point and exploded.

So, the Americans are lying.
Why?
 
Robin Hood said:
Just to HIT something traveling at that speed is flippen good.
Click to expand...

True.

Watch the skies a week from now.
The Hyrazine was frozen on the satellite.
Chunks of it will be coming down and explode.Fireworks.
I hope we will see it here.
 
Robin Hood said:
Just to HIT something traveling at that speed is flippen good.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with American technology.
To determine the exact point of impact from a missile traveling at more than twice the speed of sound, hitting an object travelling at 20 000 miles per hour,simply is amazing.
 
Piepalook said:
Nothing wrong with American technology.
To determine the exact point of impact from a missile traveling at more than twice the speed of sound, hitting an object travelling at 20 000 miles per hour,simply is amazing.
Click to expand...
* YAWN * It is actually spectacularly easy (in celestial guidance terms) to hit a satellite sitting in a known orbit. The satellite wasn't performing any sort of evasive maneuvering. Every point of its orbit was precisely calculated. Both the USSR and the USA performed similar anti-satellite demonstrations back in the 80's. Simply shooting down a dead satellite proves nothing.

Trying to hit ten of the latest generation incoming Russian MIRVs, five of which might contain warheads and five being dummies, all of which are able to perform evasive maneuvering and being able to release countermeasures like chaff is a whole different ballgame. IMHO there is no practical way of implementing an ABM system that will ever be effective against a genuine latest generation ICBM.
 
StrongTurd said:
* YAWN * It is actually spectacularly easy (in celestial guidance terms) to hit a satellite sitting in a known orbit. The satellite wasn't performing any sort of evasive maneuvering. Every point of its orbit was precisely calculated. Both the USSR and the USA performed similar anti-satellite demonstrations back in the 80's. Simply shooting down a dead satellite proves nothing.

Trying to hit ten of the latest generation incoming Russian MIRVs, five of which might contain warheads and five being dummies, all of which are able to perform evasive maneuvering and being able to release countermeasures like chaff is a whole different ballgame. IMHO there is no practical way of implementing an ABM system that will ever be effective against a genuine latest generation ICBM.
Click to expand...

What are your chances of survival in the target zone?(Ground zero)
What i am asking is how widely is the dispersal with an incoming ICBM with multiple warheads?
Do you know?
I would like to know how far away you must be from ground zero to survive?
That is assuming you want to live in this world afterward.
 
Piepalook said:
Yes, i think so.
This time though i do not think it will be the Russians and the U.S.
My bet is on the Chinese and Americans.
Click to expand...

Russia is still to play a major role - they have a lot of nukes :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X