Dude, just use the gun in the space station.

Well I bet that special bullet would cost a billion dollars under the US cost figures.

I have heard they buy special bolts for 1 million dollars from a buddy contractor.

The real reason(?) was given that this unit is far more advanced that anyone else has. That if the wrong people go a hold of the wreckage it would give up secrets.

Option two seems to me that they want to show China et al, that we too can shoot down whatever.

C'mon-China did it, so we gotta show them our dick is just as big as theirs.

Besides, it's fun to blow shit up.

Target practice - it is necessary to ensure you can hit the enemy in warfare. This why our troops go to the range in advance of going to war. We must see if our systems work prior to a real situation such as Iran (they are planning to launch their own spy satellite), China, the old/new upcoming Russian threat, etc.) One must expend some to gain experience. These systems are extremely complex and if they cannot handle a 'real world' situation, this is the time to identify it and make whatever fixes we must.

I'm sure many of you have that good ol' leftist feeling that we should decimate, or do away with our military to spend more on social programs, but it is not the nice world out there. It is better to be prepared than to be caught with one's pants down.

why not just have the chinese to do it for us, everyone already knows they can...

I realize this is an extreme long shot; but has anyone asked NASA to send up the space shuttle and try to capture the satellite and return it safely to earth? Then NASA would have justification to extend the retirement date for the shuttle. And NASA would be able to bill the DoD for the entire operation. The last time I checked that would be in the 500-600 million dollar range.

It is better to be prepared than to be caught with one's pants down.

Somebody should have told the Republicans that. Kuwait and 9-11 were both no surprises to anyone other than the Commander-in-Chief of the time.

And some lefties would rather have seen that trillion dollars spent on the homeland than pissed away creating a shia theocracy in Iraqistan.

RLR-

Just out of curiosity, what's your beef with Wired?

And you do know they're not talking about Cassini, right? The propellant in question is about 400 gallons of hydrazine, not plutonium.

RLR-
Just out of curiosity, what's your beef with Wired?
And you do know they're not talking about Cassini, right? The propellant in question is about 400 gallons of hydrazine, not plutonium.
Posted by argh at 2008-02-16 11:50 PM

I could probably answer both questions more clearly if the story were posted in the thread.

Is it too long, or just asking too much?

Actually, explaining why you won't click on a link to Wired has nothing to do with the article.

Actually, explaining why you won't click on a link to Wired has nothing to do with the article.
Posted by argh at 2008-02-17 03:23 AM

So.. you just won't post the article?

RLR

It's hard to get this article with the "updated" added to it because every website just prints a portion of the article and then links to 'Wired."

RLR
It's hard to get this article with the "updated" added to it because every website just prints a portion of the article and then links to 'Wired."
btw - How did you know about this article was from "Wired" unless you linked on to it in the first place? And what's wrong with "Wired"????
Here is the same article only without "Updated" in the title and it's the only one I could find that printed the entire article without linking to "Wired" -- here you go.
www.411.com
Posted by CalifChris at 2008-02-17 04:00 AM

Thanks for the link. Don't take it personally, but I need to be esoteric and sarcastic for this - if it isn't apparent the insult that is "Wired" isn't relevant to you.

How about this, how many sites do you read from that use ads such as "guess your own age"?

Beyond that, I always prefer the short articles posted at least within the thread, if not the blog entry. Style aside, it's a matter of convenience in many instances.

btw - How did you know about this article was from "Wired" unless you linked on to it in the first place? And what's wrong with "Wired"????
Posted by CalifChris at 2008-02-17 04:00 AM

I accidentally did click on the link since the blog is posted by rcade, but that mistake won't ever happen again. It was closed rather quickly, I didn't even get a chance to see the page. Reflexes.

Regarding your 411 link:

UPDATE: Regardless of the central rationale for the anticipated intercept of a dying satellite, the action almost certainly would offer the Pentagon useful data on conducting antisatellite missions, our own Jeffrey Lewis tells Global Security Newswire.

The dead U.S. satellite is to be struck at a significantly lower altitude than other space assets. However, that could prove even more of a challenge to the Navy than any future antisatellite operation because spacecraft on lower orbits typically travel at higher speeds, Lewis said.

The upcoming shot -- using a sea-based Standard Missile 3 developed for regional and tactical missile defense -- could thus prove to be a useful test for less demanding intercepts that might someday follow, he said.

"The higher a satellite is [in space], the slower it moves, more or less," Lewis said. "This is a perfectly good ASAT test."

...Asked if it would be fair for other nations to regard the Standard Missile 3 as an antisatellite-capable weapon if the upcoming mission is successful, Cartwright said it was "a fair question and a good question."

However, he said, the Navy has implemented for this action a "one-time" modification to the three ships and missiles, which "would not be transferable to a fleet configuration."

For their part, "the Chinese are going to use this to excuse their otherwise inexcusable test," Lewis said. "And those other countries who we count on to create a norm against debris-creating ASATs will be less willing to help us" in that effort, he said.

That said, Lewis added, "maybe they'll buy the hydrazine story."

If this is one and done by the US fine....

If you go into the story link and look, you see that China's ASAT techn. was very advanced. The 2 satellites that hit head-on were going 18,000 MPH. China has the capability to take out our satellites, GPS, Spy camera, or early warning. But they can't take them all out. The US has so many satellites up there, and so many commercial (private) one's to use for bandwidth, they have many options to keep up the information link with are security needs.

The link provided has an excellent write up of China's ability to challenge the US. The MIT author suggests the US counter the threat by using this stance......

The first step the United States should take is a simple declaration that we guarantee the continued flow of information to any country whose satellite is destroyed by an ASAT. We could do this using either our military or civilian-owned satellites. After all, if the space assets of the United States are not vulnerable to attacks because of the inherent redundancy, the same cannot be said of China's other potential regional competitors such as Australia, India, or Japan. Each of these countries has only a handful of satellites that could be quickly destroyed if China chooses to attack them. This declaration would effectively eliminate any military advantage that a country might get from attacking its neighbors limited fleet of satellites. After that, we should adopt the code of conduct that is being developed by the Stimson Center that establishes "rules of the road" for responsible space-faring nations. Finally, we should work toward a treaty banning the future testing of these most dangerous of anti-satellite weapons: the so-called "kinetic kill interceptors" that create such large amounts of debris. It'd be a first step towards containing the worst effects on war in space.

BTW The title suggests their are no threats to our satellites. Read my link, there is a great threat to our satellites...from China

The Russians are correct this is just an attempt to by pass agreements, to avoid offensive missles space. This Administration has infected every part of our Government, none can be believed. They have no CREDIBILITY. This Country is being led by liars so adept that they would make Richard Nixon blush!!!

The russians can suck a dick and so can you monkies that care what they think.
They don't ask us for permission to test new missiles and we wont ask them for permission to test ours.

Where was the mention of fox news and the excessive exclamation points? Too much colt 45 last night?

I realize this is an extreme long shot; but has anyone asked NASA to send up the space shuttle and try to capture the satellite and return it safely to earth?

Most spy satellites are in a polar orbit. (this ensures they cover 100% of the globe). The shuttle cannot be launched into an orbit that excedes 53 degrees North and South.

An object in a polar orbit crosses within that range, but it would be impossible for the shuttle to match velocity with it of course.

It's not the threat to the US, it's showing the world we can do it.

"101CHAIRBORNE"...I realize that you Right Wing Hacks have no use for FACTS, but we have a Treaty that bans Offensive Missles in Space. You Fucks are about LAW AN ORDER, unless it's something you disagree with, You are a dumb FUCK!!!

The only thing sucks worst than Fox News is you old lady, not a bad pieces of ASS but a poor blowjow!!!!!

If we want to shoot our own satellite down then go for it!

WTF? Is the whole world gone mad?

Screw China, Russia and anyone else that protest. It is our satellite.

What are they going to claim airwaves next.

"The shuttle cannot be launched into an orbit that excedes 53 degrees North and South."

Why?

For missions to the International Space Station, the shuttle must reach an azimuth of 51.6 degrees inclination to rendezvous with the station.

Anyone know the answer to this? If the satellite is "blown up" with a missile wouldn't that scatter all over in orbit and pose more of a threat to other satellites? And why don't we launch satellites that can blow themselves up? Maybe we are afraid the Chinese will get the codes?

Justin

If the satellite is "blown up" with a missile wouldn't that scatter all over in orbit and pose more of a threat to other satellites?

Only temporarily. The pieces don't have the "speed" required to stay in orbit. THAT is why the satellite is "falling".

And why don't we launch satellites that can blow themselves up? Maybe we are afraid the Chinese will get the codes?

Now those pieces would be going fast enough to stay in orbit and create a hazard for a LONG LONG time.

Posted by celisary at 2008-02-17 08:30 PM | Reply

Except it's not an offensive space weapon Clyde.

i have a question for farmer - we have a friend, along with some of his friends, who rummaged through some fields in texas after the space shuttle crashed to check out the debris - a year or so later, he and his friends developed boillike bumps all over their bodies - is this the type of malady people could contract from the "hydrazine"?

just curious.

I wouldn't know. I doubt it. Not a year later.