StrongTurd
Expert Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,490
- Reaction score
- 1
Yes, it is coming down. Point is it would have done so anyways without being hit by a missile. It is in a decaying orbit.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Missile Hits Dying US Spy Satellite
- Thread starter Robin Hood
- Start date
Skeptik
Banned
And when the Chinese did it, this was the response:
So if the US do it, then it's OK, anyone else is a NO NO. A bit like the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The situations are not the same.
DragonLogos
Expert Member
there's no fuel like an old fuel
Skeptik
Banned
How so?
Skeptik
Banned
Did you read about the "fireball in space" as the rocket hit its target - this morning in the Cape Times?
LOL
LOL
Or maybe they wanted everyone else to know they could?
Skeptik
Banned
The Russians should have shot down the satellite themselves. I predict more ailing satellites with noxious substances on board requiring a missile shootdown. After all, the US is a wonderful rolemodel.
The US satellite was in a decaying orbit and coming back down to earth sooner rather than later.
Due to its decaying orbit the destruction of it will not result in a deadly, permanent debris cloud in a useful satellite orbit position like China's did.
The missile used to destroy it is an anti-missile missile and would be useless against satellites that are not in a decayed orbit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_missile_3
Everyone knew that they could before and like I said above, this missile isn't capable of destroying a fully functional satellite.
That would have been an act of war.
The problem is that it's Wikipedia you're quoting. The US can purposefully state that that missile take is incapable of hitting objects in orbit OR
they can and probably have falsified the various parameters of the
missile as known in the public domain. They're not going to outright reveal
classified info. ALSO it doesn't mean they don't have other missile types
easily capable of hitting objects in orbit.
No-one said they didn't have other missiles. My point was simple: the missile used in this test was an anti-missile missile and therefore would be useless against satellites that are not in a decayed orbit so its not really a great demonstration of their anti-satellite capabilities.
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
Maybe it was fully loaded with Ebola or some other chemical and had to be destroyed outside in space?
My reasoning is this:
A satellite is designed to go one direction only, and that is up.
It's not designed to re-enter the atmosphere.
Should something go wrong with it's orbit, the rockets fire up and increases and rectify the orbit.
Should something go wrong with the rockets, it would continue to fall towards earth.
Upon re-entry any object heats up and melts.
Fuel would immediately ignite.
Any fuel.
If there was any chance of this object surviving it's re-entry,it was designed to do so.
There was an urgent need to destroy this "satellite "
This "satellite" carried something that was dangerous and had to be destroyed before it re-entered.
It was not the fuel that had to be destroyed......
Last edited:
firstthen
ps - satellite
Thx
What is the relevance of this?
What do you base any of this on? Do you have any idea of how big this satellite was or how it was designed with regards to its fuel tank? Or any other part of it? Or what materials it was made out of? Or what insulation it may or may not have had?
No.
I have no idea of the size of the object.
I do know that fuel (any fuel for that matter, including Hydrogen) ignites when it reaches it's flash point.
I also know that in order for spacecraft to survive re-entry it has to be isolated against the heat generated.(have you ever noticed the tiles stuck to the sides of spacecraft?)
That is to keep it isolated.
Did you know that the material they make the tiles from comes from South Africa?
Have you not wondered why the fuel tank would be isolated, if this object was not designed for re-entry?
What would be the reason for isolating it in the first place?
Payload in any spacecraft is important.
The idea is to keep it as light as possible.(easier to lift off)
It would have been far cheaper to let it burn out upon re-entry.
I can assure you it would have burnt out.Whatever did not burn would melt.
Completely.
How can you assure me? What basis do you have for this position?