Slashdot Mirror
US Claims Satellite Shoot-Down Success
Readers of Slashdot last valentines day will remember discussing US Plans to Shoot down a damaged spy satellite. An anonymous reader noted that the US is
reporting success last night, thus saving us from hydrazine exposure. Of course this makes me wonder- if it's this easy, wouldn't an international super power war pretty much immediately mean the downing of every satellite in orbit?
Its been pretty much confirmed by everyone, the hazards of the fuel where nil. This was all a dickwaving scheme by the military who not too long ago was up in arms over China doing the EXACT same thing but being upfront about it being a test and not using a falling sat as a scheme to show off.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
The US has previously said it would do this.
The US government has now tested it's anti satellite missiles without looking like complete hypocrites for criticizing China for the exact same thing.
I took a look at the sky late last night, and it seems they took a chunk out of the Moon as well.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
A video ... A great success! Huzzah!
Silly commies! Just go to MOREINFOABOUTSHOOTINGDOWNSPYSATELLITES.US.GOV
Of course this makes me wonder- if it's this easy, wouldn't an international super power war pretty much immediately mean the downing of every satellite in orbit?
The downing of every non-US allied satellite, you mean.
the BBC talking heads (on the BBS world news this morning) were being generous when they said that there is "some discussion" about the United States' motives for the missile strike
three possibilities were given:
I'm going to choose all of the above! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!
It ain't what they call you. It's what you answer to. http://mylyceum.us/
I pretty much always assumed this was possible and that satellites were not safe in orbit from attack by advanced world governments.
That being said you can also cut the Internet wires under the water, or simply nuke cities. Nothing is safe from disruption, we must simply hope for peace.
Dmitry
http://blog.lyalin.com/
I went to the NASA site yesterday to see the times for the full lunar eclipse and I noticed that the Hawaii time zone page was down. Coincidence?
Because frankly given a choice between China running over the world or the US I would much prefer the latter. The way the world bends over backward for China; forced abortions, daily Taiwan threat, incredible number of deaths in mines, world leader in executions; makes me wonder just what the hell is everyone so bent out of shape about the US doing this?
At least the US didn't dump hundreds of objects into space because of some idiocy guided test as did China. Hell you could claim the threat is about nil for any space object falling from the sky, the problem is that nil becomes a really big number when it lands in your backyard.
Go and keep waving that dick, it just lets the loonies of the world know that they really aren't in a position to ignore the US or Europe (because I count Europe in a lot of these things - don't for a momnet believe they didn't want it to work). Dick waving is a helluva lot better than throwing actual bombs with little Mr. Mushrooms around
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
All of our weapons, bombs in particular, are guided primarily by inertial guidance systems. They rely on GPS simply to increase accuracy, though the GPS updates take a significant amount of time relative to the distance the bomb has dropped. The weapon relies on the inertial guidance for most of it's trip, using the GPS to correct for errors that occure over time because of physical constraints inherent in the inertial guidance systems. With or without GPS they will still be deadly accurate.
I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure
Has anyone else noticed that an alarming number of our fighter jets are simply 'falling from the sky' these days? I also note the Chinese sub that surfaced well within attack range of one of our carrier groups, which had previously been undetected. Oh, and then there was that whole 'no you cannot harbor here' thing that happened a couple of times. This smells like a new Cold War to me...
The only question I have is, why keep it secret from the people? Isn't FEAR one of the government's favorite tools? They're trying to get us to fear shoe-bombers from Iran an awful lot. Why not Chinese super-weapons?
Probably because then we'd stop buying from WalMart and the economy would completely tank.
I don't trust them, I'm keeping the paper bag on my head until it's truly safe.
..that all the money spent on the Star Wars project didn't go to waste ;-)
So good cop USA can shoot down malfunctioning satellites
and bad cop USA actually does it? Not the lesson I draw.
It seems to my simple mind here that the problem is NOT shooting down the satellite. It is George Bush's approval in 2005 of the militarisation of space. Let us just hope that the front runners in the election understand that, as Churchill said, jaw-jaw is better than war-war, and try a bit of negotiation. At least none of the current front runners appear to need to hide their inadequacies by swinging their dicks, so provided we get through 2008 OK the future looks somewhat brighter.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I mean when looked at from a geeky stand point shooting down a high fast moving object from a ship based platform is rather cool.
Oh, I think that in the event of such a war I'd probably be dwelling more on the hoards of ICBMs that are passing by one another in space. Or at least I'd think about it for the next, and final, few minutes of my life.
Where's the ka-boom? There was supposed to be an earth-shattering ka-boom!
Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
From Wiki on safety of Hydrazine (Its found at the bottom of the page)-
:)
(Hydrazine is highly toxic and dangerously unstable, especially in the anhydrous form. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
Symptoms of acute (short-term) exposure to high levels of hydrazine may include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, dizziness, headache, nausea, pulmonary edema, seizures, coma in humans. Acute exposure can also damage the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system. The liquid is corrosive and may produce dermatitis from skin contact in humans and animals. Effects to the lungs, liver, spleen, and thyroid have been reported in animals chronically exposed to hydrazine via inhalation. Increased incidences of lung, nasal cavity, and liver tumors have been observed in rodents exposed to hydrazine.[17]
Only one human is known to have died from exposure to hydrazine hydrate.[18])
I was curious - Maybe you are
OK, the articles I've seen show some sort of rocket taking off. How about a picture of an explosion at the other end? Surely with such a highly publicized thing as this there were telescopes pointed in that direction, perhaps some photographic satellites as well?
If it was just about the hydrazine exposure risk, why didn't we just outsource the job to China and get it done for bottom dollar? Hell, under certain circumstances they'd probably have done it for free!
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
Taxpayer money to launch failed spy satellite, more taxpayer money to shoot it down, plus toxic cargo to boot. Priceless.
1. The US has shot down satellites before- in the 1980s. We've had this technology for a long time and everyone knows it. While there may be an element of dick-waving in this action, any nation with a developed intelligence infrastructure (or not, as it was in the press) has known for a long time that the US is capable of this.
2. The likelihood of the propellant tank making it to Earth in a populated area while still sufficiently intact to release hydrazine on impact is infinitesimal. The satellite was launched in 12/06, and represents the pinnacle (well, a year ago) of US spy satellite technology. There's plenty of good coverage in The Washington Post that supports both of these points.
Make no mistake about it, this is all about preventing the tech from falling into the wrong hands.
I'm wondering how they must've got the missile into the 2 metre exhaust vent. I can only assume that Bush used to shoot wombats in his T-216 back home in Texas!
Ok I'll officially start a rumor I heard...Supposedly we weren't supposed to hear about this shootdown at all but apparently it got leaked? Yeah I know I'm like a 6th grade girl starting talk like this but who knows...
All US military systems use satellite-provided technology (communications, navigation) as supplementary, not critical. We're set up to do everything as planned just fine without access to any satellites, because satellites are such an easy target.
Video of the intercept and relevant Pentagon briefing at:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=71c_1203596547
Like hitting a bullet with a bullet. Neat engineering feat.
Ander
@=
Back in the 70's and 80's both sides had ASAT weapons available, or were in testing. The Soviet Union had their orbital satellite killer. Fired atop a Proton booster, it would make orbit and line up with it's target, close and detonate it's warhead, turning it into swiss cheese. The USAF had a more flexible ASAT missile that looked alot like a supersized Phoenix air to air missile. It was tested on one target with a spectacular skin-skin kill as a result before the politicals kicked in and put a moratorium in place to keep the peace. One upshot of the ASAT weapon is that it could hit targets on a moment's notice. The USSR killsat you could dodge, as long as you had the fuel to do it. Neither of these could hit the geosynchronous birds, they were tailored to go after recon and commsat snoopers.
USN's Standard SM-3 missiles are their new Black and Decker tools of fleet defense. They pulled a preproduction bird off the table, loaded a ASAT seeker on it and sent it on it's way.
A little bit more on the new theater missile interceptor;
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sm3.htm
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Stop talking the crazy talk, man....America and China are destiny to be allies. . . Didn't you watch Firefly :)
"Of course this makes me wonder- if it's this easy, wouldn't an international super power war pretty much immediately mean the downing of every satellite in orbit? "
You can be real sure that is what they want you to think. Whether or not it is true or not is a different story. More importantly, whether or not it is true is mostly irrelevant. The fear factor alone to an enemy population is more important.
But on the other hand, there is more than one super power. The US just griped about china doing something similar. So in my mind it was not so much a show of 'superiority', as it was a show of 'caught up'.
One thing to keep in mind is that at the level of super power international politics, there are many many things done just for symbolic reasons - we the common people try to read too much into them - the Alaskan pipeline, invasion of Iraq etc. These were all big things done with probably a much different intention than what seems obvious. Some were successful in their symbolic gestures, some were not.
Let me also remind you that this was a highly classified satellite. Forget what you have been told about it. For all we know it was 100% successful in its mission and this was all part of the original plan - I have no idea; I am just saying none of us do.
Inquiring minds want to know. I had trouble deciphering with the cloud cover here.
... this is irrefutable proof that our missile defense system is totally awesome, flawless, and deserving of billions of dollars of tax investment, right?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
The sat was moving ~17,000 MPH and the missile was moving ~5,000 MPH.
I still hate calculus...... (especially calc2!)
Website Hosting
Pictures! or it didn't happen. :)
...of course; the argument holds, though.
Ship that took the shot:
USS Lake Erie
Missle Used:
SM-3 with kinetic interceptor
Tracking was probably provided by the SBX amongst other sensors.
Previous intercept videos of importance:
Japan Defence SM-3 test
Prior shot from USS Lake Erie
The propaganda that I find really funny is the DoD stating that it "nailed" the fuel tank. C'mon, the impact probably released over 100 megajoules of energy. Were they really aiming for the "fuel tank" or just trying to hit the damn thing? With that much energy, who cares?
Big Dick waiving, yes. Technical success, yes. Political success, TBD.
On a side note, I was reading a story written by a guy who was stationed at Thule AFB in Greenland where one of the first BMEWS (Ballistic Missle Early Warning System) Radars was deployed back in the late 50's early 60's. From a tech standpoint, it is quite fascinating what we could do back then with such limited technology and how it was accomplished. Read the intro through the epilog, I enjoyed it, so I'm passing it along...
From the tone of some of the doomsdayers I think the next satellite they shoot down should be chock full of Thorazine to calm some folks the f*** down. It was a bus sized satellite that didn't work. Shit happens. A large percentage of people can't build a paper football and launch it through someone's upright fingers for chrissake! A lot of you are WAY too cynical and always looking to criticize. I'm with the wonder of it all. Shooting down an object in space from a boat is some cool-ass shit. Give the Navy some props first before you start bashing the CIA and NASA. Then go apply for a job at either and watch them laugh at you and your resume.
So if it costs $10,000 per pound to put something into space, why don't we gather these dying satellites and dock them to the ISS for spare parts rather than blowing them up? They could also be sent to the moon for parts in future missions. Perhaps this is technically infesible or the cost of doing so would be more than the parts are worth in space?
It could be worse:
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Yes, and the debris might take out any satellites that hadn't been deliberately destroyed, forming even more debris in a chain reaction... The resulting cloud of shrapnel could damage or destroy any *new* satellites launched into orbit within hours, leaving us planet-bound for thousands of years.
Ladies and gentlemen, a solution to the Fermi Paradox ("If extraterrestrial life is common, why hasn't it come to visit?"): The little green men had themselves a little space war, and now they're stuck on their planet.
(This horror story isn't my idea, I read it in a sci-fi novel somewhere. If someone can remember the source, I'd appreciate a posted reply.)
Sorry if this was already posted. Here is actual footage of the shoot down.
/Not a rick roll I swear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfk2m60z9EI
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
what China did was demonstrate a limited ability to destroy satellites. It was likely a misdirection intended to trick us into thinking that is their highest advancement of this technology. More likely, they have a rail gun that they used to cripple our spy satellite. Since we just destroyed all evidence of their weapon. It probably will take a few more dead spy satellites before we catch on.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
> wouldn't an international super power war pretty much immediately mean the downing of every satellite in orbit?
Not every one. There's too many. And many others are in too high an orbit. The sat USA 193 they just shot down was 130 miles up. Higher sat would be easier to hit because they orbit slower, but it's much harder to get the altitude.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
First, it is not "exact same thing" — the Chinese targeted a functional (hence flying much higher) satellite with a specially-designed weapon. We hit a falling one with a fairly standard missile.
Second — and most important — even if it were "exactly the same thing", there is nothing hypocritical about responding in kind to something, you'd rather nobody did in the first place.
"Offering the other cheek" to be slapped is a fine principle, but I'd hate it, if my country's defense relied on it...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Actually it's like hitting a satellite with a missile. Every satellite can be downed very quickly and reltively inexpensively which is worrysome. I'm pretty sure Russia can't even be bothered to try because it's so easy and a waste of resources. IMO The reason for the US doing this is threefold: 1) They wanted to show China they can do it easily and from ships. All they did is reprogram 3 missiles the already had (scary scary). First one hit so they have 2 anti satellite missiles just waiting for a target... 2) They didn't want their technology to crash land somewhere and end up in the wrong hands. 3) (this is the only one I'm not sure of) They didn't want their toxic fuel landing on the planet in one big load.
Estepona Apartments
leaving their launch sites more vulnerable.
If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well it were done quickly... MacBeth
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon/
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
It seems strange to me that they don't have a self-destruct function on board a spy satellite. Wouldn't that be fairly easy to implement, since it's full of hydrazine? Wouldn't that be an easy and possibly important feature for a spy satellite to have?
If Bush is so concerned about exposing people to toxic chemicals like hydrazine, maybe he could get the Navy to blow all those formaldehyde laced FEMA trailers and the remaining bits will burn up on reentry into the atmosphere. Of course they'd have to launch those trailers into orbit first.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
What did the joke sound like as it sailed over your head?
Hydrazine is one of those substances where if you can smell it, you're already dead.
Utter bullshit. It's about as toxic as anhydrous ammonia. If you breathe concentrated amounts of it, it can kill you, but just simply being able to smell it will do nothing except maybe irritate your sinuses a little.
We used to use hydrazine for cleaning copper and brass metal parts before soldering them together. That is, before it became politically prohibitive to purchase it. A 1-gallon container of it would last us two years of production in a small shop that manufactured electronic laboratory test equipment and weather station gear.
I was playing a very realistic Stealth Fighter game on my Commodore 128 prior to the Gulf War. Once it was declassified, they updated the game for the PC. The original plane was really, really close to how the declassified version looked.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I'd also point out just as a followup to myself, that the assumption "when it was destroyed, pieces flew in all directions" is probably not a good one to make, either.
The way most anti-satellite and anti-ballistic-missile weapons work isn't by blowing up the target, it's basically by just positioning itself in front of the target, and letting physics do the rest. The satellite has a huge velocity in one direction, the missile a huge velocity in the other, they slam into each other -- wham -- target destroyed.
Imagining the satellite just blowing up, with pieces flying everywhere, isn't a good model for the interaction. Although it's not impossible for some pieces to end up with a greater forward velocity than the satellite originally had, conservation of momentum tells us that most of the combined mass is going to end up with a velocity substantially less than what the satellite had to begin with.
(Car analogy: A racecar is going around a track at some incredible speed, say 200MPH. You decide to kill it by taking another car, and driving it in the opposite direction, intercepting the racecar head-on. Without getting too deeply into the mechanics of the collision, the result when the two cars smash into each other is that most of the pieces are probably going to be going less than 200 MPH in the racecar's original direction. Assuming the car's fuel tank doesn't detonate and add a lot of energy to the system.)
So overall, I don't think there's much of a risk with a kinetic ASW that you're going to blast pieces into a substantially higher orbit than where the satellite was originally. If the satellite is already in a high stable orbit, you may have a big cloud of junk in space for a long time though.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
We have just witnessed the worlds most expensive pinata. With no candy. Next time they need to just pay a few bucks at the mercado, invite a few kids, and do it right.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
I've seen the term "dick waving" quite enough for one day.
Leave it to the Protocols of the Elders of Slashdot to put a negative spin on even this story.
OK, you want conspiracy?
Well, what *I* heard from my brother in law who knows a guy who reads the web site called thegovernmentislyingtoyou.org is that they are shooting down the spy satellite as a warning to the Space Station. It's basically NASA saying "We brought you into this world, and we can take you out of it."
The astronauts will be taken from the Atlantis and flown directly to the Vatican (the *real* Vatican hidden under the Antarctic ice pack) where they must restate their loyalty oaths to the New World Order, or face prolonged sentences in pain amplification devices at Gitmo. Those patches on the spacesuits are actually agonizers.
Seems those guys up there, especially when there's Russians on board, have been having whispered conversations (picked up by secret microphones placed on the ISS by the NSA, the DEA, the NRO, the Department of the Interior and the National Endowment for the Arts) involving phrases like "independent colony" and "breakaway republic in orbit" and similar subversive things.
Oh, and according to enterprisemission.com, smokingscalarweapon.com and the Facebook page of a former alien abductee, the window for shooting down USA 193 is defined by the eclipsed moon passing through the seventh house of Jupiter, and the alignment of Mars with a portion of the sky identified in ancient Vedic texts describing a nuclear war in India in 14,000 B.C.
Shooting down satellites is a trivial exercise for any country with access to scud-level technology and/or decent sounding rockets. Just load the rocket with a few hundred pounds of ballbearings and a minor bursting charge and satellites will start going to pieces left and right. This is such a cheap thing that you can repeat it until you have swept the sky clean. Whats not such a trivial exercise is shooting down specific satellites and avoiding damage to your own.
Now the world has gone to bed, Darkness won't engulf my head, I can see by infra-red, How I hate the night.
Thank you for the correction. GP/me also meant "same", not safe. Duh.
Just exhaust lots soot and smoke like the Batmobile.
It may not be this easy. This particular satellite was in a decaying orbit that placed it as low as it can go before re-entry. Most other satellites in stable orbits are rather higher up. Some can dodge, or employ other counter-measures. I wouldn't yet say that this make every satellite vulnerable to this particular system yet.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The 22-year Star Wars project is the second costliest US military project in modern times. Some of staged tests have been rather dubious and debated in Slashot before.
I am disappointed in the pretext used to stage this test.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this story seems contrary to this post. http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/destruction-of-spy-satellite-may-be-delayed/2008/02/21/1203467222165.html
The US government/military (same thing, really) has used up all trust with me. I don't believe ANYTHING they say. I'm not drawing any conclusions whatsoever, just taking all official and unofficial propaganda in with a grain of salt. There are plenty of possibilities, everything is so far gone into wag the dog mode we'll probably never know the truth.
Congratulations on your perceived success, go ahead and cheer, but after all that has gone before, especially recently, the cheerleaders simply look like jingoistic idiots to me.
You would need to demonstrate that the total loss of energy (after any removed from the equation by the insulation on the tank) would be enough to:
1) Melt all the Hydrazine
2) Heat it to boiling point
3) Boil it enough to produce sufficient pressure to rupture the tank
More than likely you would get some vaporization in the tank, but I would think it would be survivable because the heat from that would be absorbed by the remaining hydrazine and this would cause it to condense.
Noting that some iron meteors end up with cold cores when they impact, I suspect that the tanks would have likely survived.
Of course it is more complicated than this-- you still have issues like stresses from travelling through the air at a rapid speed, but I don;t think that one can say that the tanks were sure to rupture.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The fact that the missile used shot down a satellite does not mean that the purpose here was to see if we could shoot down a satellite. Look here...
The Chinese took out one of their telecomm birds last year. It was 500 miles up and in steady orbit. That was a sat-kill test.
The US spy satellite was a) 150 miles up, b) in unstable orbit and c) a spy sat.
Destroying the super-secret spy technology on the satellite was a bonus.
The shoot down was a test of whether US anti-ICBM systems worked as intended. THIS was the whole point. We've done contrived tests of the missile defense technology before, but here was an opportunity to shoot down a real, faster moving, unpredictably moving target.
Shooting down satellites in stable orbit isn't hard. The challenge is getting a missile up there, and the US has this technology locked. Shooting down a very fast moving object that is coming at you in a more or less unpredictable way is tough. The success of this test makes China and Russia nervous not about their satellites but about their ability to lob missiles.
As for all-our space-war, the challenge would be to be selective. The EMP from a small number of well placed nukes would fry the electronics of nearly every communication and weather satellite in space, not to mention taking the GPS system out of commission. Only a low-tech rogue nation with nuclear weapons, like N. Korea or Iran would in any way benefit from such tactics.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Ok, we'll pretend it's the hydrazine for the sake of the media. But what if it isn't (hypothetically speaking). What if it's something else? The computer, sensors, or optics? Wouldn't survive re-entry. Suppose ..... It's the Autonomous Self-destruct Mechanism built into the nuclear power source. Designed to initiate a reactor overload in the event the satellite ever becomes "compromised", it is not controllable once the craft leaves the launch pad. Since the possibility of an uncontrolled re-entry was never foreseen, it is unknown what conditions may occur during such an event which will cause the ASM to activate. If the satellite comes down on land, the tungsten-lead-titanium cased reactor will surely survive, but of course that will lead to embarrassment and many questions being asked of agencies and people who prefer to remain out of the spotlit. In addition, the ASM just may initiate, causing a debacle with heavy political and economic consequences, along with some civilian numbers. Hypothetically.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
most of Columbia's hydrazine wasn't vaporized during reentry, it was consumed on orbit by the Orbital Maneuvering System.
"it would still undergo structural failure at some point due to the terrific pressure hydrazine would generate at those temperatures"
Can you provide a link that proves this conclusively?
It just seems fair that if you're going to ask others to support their argument you should attempt to support yours as well.
Screw China, I'm a US taxpayer and I need to be reminded that the insane amounts of money being spent away by the military are at least useful for SOMETHING.
As a matter of fact, I expect to see some damned fine shooting stars in the next few days, or I'll be asking for my money back.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
The ceiling for the missile used is 160 miles. This satellite was de-orbiting and approaching the earth. The impact happened at 130 miles.
Functioning satellites orbit at much higher altitudes, where the missile cannot reach.
This would rule out the possibility that USA is using this to demonstrate their powers to shoot down ANY satellite. That's false.
"In theory, theory and practice are the same,
In practice, nobody implements theory properly."
In my experience most of the problems with people trying to design from theory is that they either get the wrong theories or implement them badly. Take 5NF for example. 5NF is a great idea, and ideally all databases should normalize to it.
THe problem is-- determining data dependencies to the point that 5NF is provable tends to be something people have a hard time doing. Hence a lot of attempts to do this end up with screwed up database designs. THis is not because of issues with 5NF but rather because of DBA's who don't understand the math or don't understand the data.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
How can I tell? Neither Sco, the RIAA, or Windows Vista are involved in the plot. And every plot on slashdot has to involve one of the three.
Poor little people are scared of hazardous fallout.
As far as I am concerned, we should poison their dogs and cats (which of course will kill the people that eat them) and spray the sh*thole over with lead paint.
If anyone should be on alert it is us. They have enough H1Bs to kill us.
Russia and China were concerned because it was very likely to rain down on them, though nobody was certain. In the end, this HAD to be taken down. Was this situation created? Perhaps, but that is a different matter all together. As to comparisons of China and USA's firing, there is NO similarity. China shot down their own sat but it was in such a high orbit that it created a nightmare for all sats and space stations for over a century. In addition, China's intention was to test their ability to do this. In fact, they made at least 6 attempts at it before getting it right (iow, all the major powers knew that something was up). CHina SHOULD have used a dummy target that would not create this mess.
USA, waited until it was very low before doing so. Once it was low enough, then gravity could handle the rest. The only real issue was that the tank needed to be destroyed.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If you're implying that he has "rushed" into conflicts, then you would be absurdly wrong. note the emphasis (mine) on preceeding resolutions? Have you no memory of the YEARS of events leading up to the second gulf war? The numerous surface-to-air firings at UN-mandated overflights, the delays and turnaways offered to the UN weapons inspectors, the state-of-the-art French interdiction jet aircraft disassembled and buried in the sand (which was traded to france in exchange for cheap oil), the oil-for-food bribery case involving corrupt UN officials, etc??
Basically, the US was enforcing, finally, the last of an exceedingly long line of UNITED NATIONS demands and the surrender terms from the first Gulf War, which Iraq never fully complied with.
However, if you're implying that he merely insists on fighting a conflict with a well-armed military, then I think we can agree. However, is that a problem? Is not the goal of armed conflict to win, and the best way to accomplish that is through application of overwhelming force. In short, I don't see the problem here.
So whichever way, either you're ill informed and/or unable to connect the dots of historical events or you don't understand the purpose of having a military.
http://celestrak.com/events/Xichang-ASAT4.wmv
Good model of the debris field caused by the China ASAT test. As you mention, "stuff" doesn't just fly everywhere.
"Suddenly, we have late breaking news that the lunar eclipse was shot down by executive order".
(Shamelessly stolen from friend, J. Boyd)
Best panning-tracking by Armed Service Member - Ever.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23272304#23272304
How:
http://www.livescience.com/space/news/080219-satellite-shootdown.html
~hylas
Does anyone really believe that the US military just grabbed a stock missile, did some quick adjustments to it, and magically managed to kill a sat on the first shot?
Come on. These are the same guys who couldn't reliably shoot down SCUDS during Gulf War 1. With a huge, expensive system specifically designed to shoot down SCUDS, years of effort and research, etc etc. But now, magically, they one-shot an exponentially harder target, with something they "just threw together"?
If you believe that, I have a bridge and some nice land in Florida to sell you...
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Yogi Berra was an IT guy???
Self awareness - try it!
At least, not according to this physicist: http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/01/inside-the-chin.html
133 miles was the maximum range of the standard 3 missile. China has 350 mile range. Russia & India R also more capable. More notable than the fact that they hit is was the consequences if they missed. Usually they just outsource it instead of taking risks like that.
To those who keep citing "The Military" as if it's some kind of autonomous monstrosity...
In case you've forgotten...we work for you. Our boss is a civilian, and our chain of command all the way down the line is filled with civilians. Your neighbors, relatives, friends, acquaintances, etc.. And before you get the picture in your head of some rogue general on a power trip ala Hollywood, take a look at news footage of these guys talking to Congress. Ask a military member you know who works under a civilian. It's a far cry from, "Kill em all, and sort it out later." In fact, it's much more like, "Mother, may I please go in next door and get my ball back?" We do what we're told by you through your representatives. If you don't like it, fire them.
And, when it comes down to it, the members of the big, bad "The Military" are also your neigbors, relatives, friends, acquaintances, etc.. Yeah, we have a few nutjobs in our employ. But no more than any other corporation. And like you, we realize they're nutjobs and try to give them the harmless jobs as much as we can.
Now, if you want to point the finger at Bush...I can't talk about that in a public forum. But I can say that I find it easier to agree with arguments and evidence that point to conspiring individuals than an amorphous, unfeeling "Military".
If it ain't made of shiny plastic building bricks, I'm only partially interested.
Of course. But would also pretty much immediately mean the ballistic nuking of both superpowers and possibly all their allies.
These days, disputes between superpowers are resolved with diplomacy and economic sanctions. If things ever progress to another total war, it will probably be the end of the world.
why it hasn't happened, yet. I'll explain it with one quote from West Wing: "trade stops war". Superpower are not shooting each others' satelites out of orbit because they need to exchange goods and information. Long live greed -- the only way to asure cooperation between individuals and nations.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
I think we remotely cut the engines on some obsolete satellite to give ourselves an excuse to show off some of our own military muscle and to get some practice with what would obviously be mission-critical weapon systems in the unlikely event of another superpower war. Russia will most likely try next but it will probably be a while before they're ready.
Also, if anyone thinks our military cant take out a working satellite, I want some of what that person is smoking. Our military has stuff most of us wont hear about publicly for another 10-20 years.
It is known that the velocity of the missile will taper off as it gains altitude due to gravity and because it's a kinetic kill vehicle that means it's effectiveness is a function of the closing velocity between the warhead and the target.
Remember - orbital speeds are fantastic. If we could simply lob a brick in front of the orbital path a satellite - the closing velocity would still be massive.
Most of the kinetic heave-ho that will kill the satellite is probably coming from the satellite itself.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
... is why, over 22 years ago in the Navy, we constantly drilled on alternate means of communication. Knowing full well that satellite communications would be one of (if not *the*) first communications methods taken out.
The tanks are shielded because the temperature when it ignites(when you would be using it) is very high.
The shuttle tank was ruptured from pieces of the shuttle coming apart. There are a lot less pieces to come apart from the satellite. Had the tanks in the shuttle not been hit by the debris they would have survived reentry.
You remember how they were telling people to stay away from Shuttle debris? this is why.
I am sure you have some other grand conspiracy reason for that, moron.
God, please try to think past your paranoid delusions.
Yes, I do know what I am talking about. It was my part of my job at when I was at Space Command.
And yes, when the AF adopted 'Space Command' I did have a nerdgazim.
Retired Major, U.S.A.F
At 8 something this morning (CST) the parent post was modded 5, Insightful.
Now it is a mere 3, informative. I suspect it is not lower because the mods had maxed out.
Fucking college leftists morons woke up and started their normal vendetta against commons sense
If a real nuclear war was started, do you think our enemies would be kind enough to wait until the weather allowed the sun to heat the missile so that our infrared guidance system could better track it? LOL
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
to increase the surface area and ensure that it burns up upon reentry. They didn't want any big chunks falling down.
Willy
In response to our former and current communist neighbors who question this move, we ask.. Why not? It's fun to shoot stuff. :)
Bonus: My captcha was 'commando'
If a nuclear war started, much of America would be destroyed. However, ALL of our enemy's country(s) would be destroyed, for they have no missile defense. We have multiple types of defense. Launch phase, re-entry phase, you name it.
There is nothing valid about the Kos, point. The Navy had time to do it they way they chose, and they did. It worked, Liberals the world over are bummed out. Nothing new, but still stupid.
"Of course this makes me wonder- if it's this easy, wouldn't an international super power war pretty much immediately mean the downing of every satellite in orbit?"
Speaking as someone involved in doing exactly what we are talking about (shooting down a satellite), it isn't that "easy". Shooting a bullet with another bullet is childsplay compared to what the Navy did. We've had hydrazine tanks survive re-entry before (they are actually designed to to have a good chance to do that), and hydrazine is unbelievably nasty, so there was every reason, and it was our responsibility to make sure it didnt land on a bus full of orphans (G).
That being said, Of course it was a demo to the world of just how sexy an SM3 missile can be, and how studly the US Navy is for being able to hit an out of control satellite from a moving ship in rough seas. It is also clear message that Uncle Sam doesnt need a rocket base full of gear to smote the living hell out of anything within a couple hundred miles of a navy task force (including straight up). The US Governments projected casual attitude about the whole matter "Oh yeah we're probably gonna shoot it down, just in case" is also a big part of the message. If the US can do this, spur of the moment, with an anti-aircraft missile, what can they really do with something designed to take out space weapons systems, if they get pissed off enough.
and oh yeah, in an "international super power war", the satellites are history. Did anybody ever doubt that? Of course, in a "international super power war", the satellites are way down on the list of things we need to worry about...
So what lies were told?
Was there a sat in orbit? - Confirmed something in orbit by outside observers
Was this a billion dollar spy sat or just left over junk planned for target practice?
Was this a known bad launch vehicle just tossed up as a target?
Was this an old sat intentionally moved to this lower orbit to use as a target?
Was it hit by the missile or was this all theater?
Did the sat have a self destruct and the missile mis it by a mile like one of the former tests?
Was this some show to cover some stranger event such as launching to orbit from sea?
They made a show of this for a reason!!!
[tin foil hat = off]
3.07 km/s times two. Just over 20,000 fps. A couple hundred thousand 1g bearings in a slowly expanding cluster. I always liked the shotgun in Quake, but this is better.
http://homepages.solis.co.uk/~autogun/highvel.htm It is probable that conventional chemistry has pushed muzzle velocities about as far as they can go; the rate of expansion of propellant gasses places a practical ceiling on muzzle velocity of around 6,000 fps. The military are now examining other technologies such as electromagnetic rail guns, which have on test fired 300 gm projectiles at over 13,000 fps, with projectiles of a few grams being accelerated to over 30,000 fps. If you figure 300 satellites in that orbit, average value $500m, that adds up to $150b worth of clay pigeons nicely aligned in single file, that come around again every 12 hours for another pass through the killer beebee swarm.
You can bet there are some people out there who lose sleep over this.
This was a spy satellite with sensitive equipment that we do not want any other country examining. Though the probability of this thing coming down in any usable condition is low the gov't doesn't want to take the chance. Bottom line, it wasn't to save anyone from harm, but should provide a nice light show.
That's a pretty iffy assumption. To suggest that anyone that lobs something into space doesn't even consider what would happen if it comes back is quite a stretch.
I'm waiting for the anti-(anti-missile missile) missile
Decoys are the best devices against an anti-missile missile. And the cheapest too.
A high degree of confidence they "got the tank" is not the same as saying "nailed" it. Regardless, they claimed they were after the tank thus they had to comment on the status of the tank.
Not that you have to rely on CNN, you can go to http://dodvclips.mil/ and see the actual briefing. That said, the CNN quote is accurate, yours is not.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
...China doing the EXACT same thing... Nonsense.According to MIT space security expert Geoffrey Forden, "China's debris will be in orbit for thousands of years (and I mean that literally). ... [The US shoot-down] would create a debris field but no where near the sort of debris catastrophe that China created last year."
The two shoot-downs are not equivalent, which of course doesn't prevent overheated, agenda-driven comparisons...
Here's a thought. Perhaps the satellite was launched with a detonator on board? The US gets to launch a missile and then hits the detonate button at the right time. This makes it look like missile defense works and they get another excuse to spend another half trillion on bottle rockets and DC prostitutes.
Cow Cube
If a nuclear war started, much of America would be destroyed. However, ALL of our enemy's country(s) would be destroyed, for they have no missile defense.
That'll teach em!
China already has MRVs.
No problem, China can just annex and ethnically cleanse North America. Why not? The Europeans got away with doing exactly the same thing, so why can't China?
It's hardly a Cool-aid conspiracy theory, but neither was it anything malicious. It amazes me that people can only see pure evil or angelic heroism in this.
The official stated reason for the test is of course to reduce the risk of unburned hydrazine from reaching the ground. This is a real (albeit very small) concern. The tank is 3 feet in diameter and filled with 1000 pounds of frozen fuel. Some of it would be lost in re-entry as the spacecraft disintegrated and tank fittings failed, but probably not all of it. I don't know for sure, but you can look up the heat of fusion and vaporization of hydrazine and figure it out yourself.
However, it's not the only reason. As others have said, this is a great test of the Aegis missile defense system against a different type of target. The Navy jumped at that opportunity. As far as I know, this motive has never even been formally denied, although whenever anyone asks, they reply with the hydrazine bit again. Avoid the question and stick with most PR-favorable answer.
They have denied it's a response to the Chinese test, and this is true. The conditions are very much different. The SM-3 doesn't even have the energy to reach the altitude of the Chinese test, much less steer itself into a target at that altitude. The Air Force version that is still under development, however, does. If we really wanted to send a strong message, we'd use that system. All other things equal, we would still be doing this had the Chinese not launched their test last year.
And even if I happened to be wrong about that, so what? Is it wrong to show a potential adversary that a certain advantage he might think he has over us is (partially) illusary?
Anybody concerned about this causing a debris hazard like the Chinese test is ignorant, although really, that's for the most part forgivable because orbital-mechanics is non-intuitive.
Anybody who thinks the entire satellite launch and failure were a conspiracy to set-up for this in response to the Chinese test is foolishly ignorant. It takes all of two minutes with google to learn that the satellite was launched and failed almost a month before the Chinese test took place. It was being built years before then, and there's no reason for the NRO to sacrifice an estimated $400 million satellite when they can dump a "broken" communications satellite for way cheaper. And even if this were a long-term conspiracy (independent of China's actions, as discussed), again, so what?
DOD was going to have to deal with this satellite coming back, whether or not the hydrazine tank was a danger. Shooting it down as a "better safe than sorry" basis was justified in and of itself. The fact that the Navy got in some target practice was just an added bonus. They have to train in any case, so why not shoot it down?
I think some people are just too addicted to conspiracy theories.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I don't think you can say it's the "exact same thing"; the person/company/country/whatever who performs an action provides a context that can and *does* often even dramatically affect the morality/ethics of that action, even if the action appears identical if viewed without context. There are numerous examples of this, e.g. a cop shooting someone in self-defence IS NOT even nearly morally equivalent to, say, a rapist/murderer shooting his victim for fun, even if the "act of shooting someone" is identical (taken out of context). The very act of procuring a weapon is another great example - the act is identical no matter who procures the weapon, but the intent may be very very different (e.g. one person for self-defence, another for shooting up a school).
Likewise a country's intentions make or break the moral validity of identical apparent actions. E.g. 'what do they want to use such technology for'. China is known for its unapologetic ongoing human rights violations (much worse than the US) and has known imperialist dreams.
If you believe actions should always be judged outside of context under the assumption that all acting agents are equal, I'm not sure how you manage to get by from day to day, because this general principle guides us in hundreds of everyday decisions.
Is there room on here for a non-rhetorical question? Not that one, that was rhetorical, here goes...Does anyone have a link explaining where they expect the pieces to come down and when? Im going stargazing and souvenier hunting.
You are Indian, right?
'memba reagan being ridiculed by the media? "the USS Lake Erie was able to fire an SM-3 missile 150 miles into space and score a direct hit on a target that was traveling at 17,000 miles per hour. A fireball and vapor cloud testified to success. " ...Damn!
Ok let's just say the hydrazine wasn't an issue. (But the discussion on this and orbits has been GREAT!)
Boy and girls, the idea of the tech falling into the wrong hands is more than enough reason to take out the sat. Period. End of story. Everything else is just icing on the cake.
EK
Yeah, we shot this down to destroy a few pounds of solid rocket booster waste, that can damage your kidneys ...after 10 years.... riiiiight,
There are two reasons why this was really done:
One is that is contained a plutonium based propulsion system, and should that fall into the hands of terrorists.. well you get the picture.. Since when has the US government cared about a little danger to its citizens? Note the nuclear test in the four corners area of the states. Spy satellites are put in orbit to last years and years - this can (and has been) accomplished using a nuclear power source. Google it and see just how many nuke powered orbiters we have.
The other is that China recently conducted such an operation by destroying one of its own satellites from Earth (2007) to test a space missile system. However, that move created a cloud of fragments and other satellites had to be manoeuvred into new orbits to avoid being hit by the debris. We would definately want to show them we could do the same (or better) - as any future world wars would have everyone shooting down everyones satellites...etc