The sky is falling... the sky is falling!!!!!

[ESokoloff]

Well not really unless it falls on you.

[Bullett]

Hi Eric. I see that you are bored, too.

[steve.foote]

Don't worry, Eric. Soon, they'll get it out of their systems then we can get back to the things which really matter and which are within our control.

[ESokoloff]

Hi Eric. I see that you are bored, too.

 

So it would appear based on the interest this generated

 

I suppose I should just go on a long ride.....

[flyingreg]

Hi Eric. I see that you are bored, too.

 

So it would appear based on the interest this generated

 

I suppose I should just go on a long ride.....

 

The ride would get my vote. +1

[Bullett]

I'll just close my eyes and imagine that I'm going for a long ride, too.

[Bud]

Not falling here. But other parts of my anatomy are as gravity always wins.

[Firefight911]

{hijack}

I heard about shooting stars .

[Godfather]

From the title of this thread, I thought it was another FD thread.

[Twisties]

{hijack}

I heard about shooting stars .

 

TMI

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Assuming that they are worried about the hydrazine, as they say they are, and haven't used any, there are 124 gallons of the stuff in the maneuvering rocket's fuel tank. Hydrazine is pretty toxic stuff but, it is also unstable and will quickly break down when exposed to the atmosphere. Might kill a few plants and stuff on the way but it ain't wiping out a city or anything. If the heat of reentry ruptures the tank we could see a pretty neat mid-air explosion. Depending on how high off the ground it is when it goes boomy, it could do some damage (Google fuel/air bomb).

 

Methinks there is another agenda.

[Twisties]

Assuming that they are worried about the hydrazine, as they say they are, and haven't used any, there are 124 gallons of the stuff in the maneuvering rocket's fuel tank. Hydrazine is pretty toxic stuff but, it is also unstable and will quickly break down when exposed to the atmosphere. Might kill a few plants and stuff on the way but it ain't wiping out a city or anything. If the heat of reentry ruptures the tank we could see a pretty neat mid-air explosion. Depending on how high off the ground it is when it goes boomy, it could do some damage (Google fuel/air bomb).

 

Methinks there is another agenda.

 

I've been watching that story for at least a month. My first thought when it was "undisclosed hazardous material" was that they had a Radioisotope Thermal Generator , then they came out with hydrazine. I agree, my next thought was so what. That stuff isn't going to be around after reentry. I agree, that's not why they are shooting it down, no way.

[Boffin]

Perhaps the Russians are right, it is a convenient target to test an anti-satellite defence system.

 

Andy

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Assuming that they are worried about the hydrazine, as they say they are, and haven't used any, there are 124 gallons of the stuff in the maneuvering rocket's fuel tank. Hydrazine is pretty toxic stuff but, it is also unstable and will quickly break down when exposed to the atmosphere. Might kill a few plants and stuff on the way but it ain't wiping out a city or anything. If the heat of reentry ruptures the tank we could see a pretty neat mid-air explosion. Depending on how high off the ground it is when it goes boomy, it could do some damage (Google fuel/air bomb).

 

Methinks there is another agenda.

 

Supposedly it's two things:

 

1. the hydrazine - which they believe to be frozen solid due to the total inactivity of the satellite for quite some time - will provide enough structural reinforcement to possible allow it and its tank to survive reentry and impact in a largely intact form, causing a significant hazard if it lands in or near a populated area, and

 

2. classified spy satellite hardware, which they really, really don't want to fall into the hands of foreign governments.

[steve.foote]

Supposedly it's two things:

 

1. the hydrazine - which they believe to be frozen solid due to the total inactivity of the satellite for quite some time - will provide enough structural reinforcement to possible allow it and its tank to survive reentry and impact in a largely intact form, causing a significant hazard if it lands in or near a populated area, and

 

2. classified spy satellite hardware, which they really, really don't want to fall into the hands of foreign governments.

 

Monty, I'll take what's behind door number two.

[ShovelStrokeEd]

I agree, but, I wonder about the tank's ability to survive the missile strike. Supposedly, it is a sphere and probably a pretty robust one at that. Valving is also likely to be strong and strongly attached. It would surprise me if they went for a direct hit anyway, more likely a proximity type explosion. Spheres are really strong shapes. Components get scattered all hell and gone anyway if the shot is at anything like normal altitude and certainly they will go for one that doesn't drop stuff on New York or Orlando, for pity's sake.

 

I'll go with destroying the secret squirrel stuff but, I'm also betting on the "show 'em we can pop satellites too" scenario. What better excuse to test the technology in the name of the public good?

[Bud]

If they miss with the first shot, they have two more in reserve. If they miss with all three then there will be some red faces in the Pentagon.

[ESokoloff]

The deed is done.

Nothing remains thats larger then a football.

[smiller]

I agree, but, I wonder about the tank's ability to survive the missile strike.

The missle warhead will strike the satellite at a relative speed of approx. 22,000 mph... nothing's gonna survive that. And it won't be a proximity explosion, in fact the warhead is just an inert 'kinetic weapon' and depends on impact energy alone to do the damage.

 

Monty, I'll take what's behind door number two.

Ya. The government didn't spend $30-$40 million (the estimated cost of the shoot-down operation) to protect against the infinitesimal chance of human injury, although that is a nice collateral benefit. We got a chance to test an anti-satellite weapon (and demonstrate it's effectiveness, and prevent the satellite's imaging technolgy from possibly getting into the wrong hands) while being relatively immune from world condemnation because we had at least a plausible excuse. To good a deal to pass up...

[ESokoloff]

 

Ya. The government didn't spend $30-$40 million (the estimated cost of the shoot-down operation) to protect against the infinitesimal chance of human injury, although that is a nice collateral benefit. We got a chance to test an anti-satellite weapon (and demonstrate it's effectiveness, and prevent the satellite's imaging technolgy from possibly getting into the wrong hands) while being relatively immune from world condemnation because we had at least a plausible excuse. To good a deal to pass up...

 

I don't think you can call this a conspiracy tho.

After all it was performed under a full moon..... Oh WAIT!!!!!!!

[Matts_12GS]

I don't think you can call this a conspiracy tho.

After all it was performed under a full moon..... Oh WAIT!!!!!!!

 

[Ken H.]

All just an act of military propaganda, nothing more. We (the USA) just did what we had condemned China for doing a year ago. Further cementing our position as the world's largest hypocrite.

[steve.foote]

All just an act of military propaganda, nothing more. We (the USA) just did what we had condemned China for doing a year ago. Further cementing our position as the world's largest hypocrite.

 

You sure about that, Ken? You might want to review the specifics of each case to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

[NoHeat]

The hydrazine tank was just an excuse to test some weapons.

 

Hydrazine isn't THAT bad. After reading this, I'm convinced that if the tank landed in your back yard, you could only get killed by it if you really tried:

 

Gen. James Cartwright of the Marines, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

“It affects your tissues and your lungs. You know — it has a burning sensation. If you stay very close to it and inhale a lot of it, it could in fact be deadly.”

 

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4145

[Matts_12GS]

The hydrazine tank was just an excuse to test some weapons.

 

Amongst this bunch of engineers, propeller heads, geeks and tinkerers (and I mean that will all affection and respect, honestly) isn't that reason enough? I mean, we got to blow Sh!t up in space! The fact that it had some danger potential is even better.

 

Why are so many so quick to paint these events as a negative? Not enough hugs as children or something more deep seated?

[Twisties]

Why are so many so quick to paint these events as a negative?

 

1. The attitude you observe reflects a deep seated mis-trust of our government. What are the unsaid, real, reasons?

2. The action may spark a new kind of arms race, or be perceived as part of an arms race.

3. As usual, it paints us as hypocrites, since we were all over China for their satellite shoot. One more international public relations disaster.

4. To date, governments have treated the peace of space as inviolable, and some may not wish to see that end.

5. We are all dependent on satellites. There is no comfort in knowing that they are so vulnerable. I strongly recommend that our first responders have back-up systems that are non-satellite dependent.

6. More debris in space.

7. Why didn't they design it to burn up properly in the first place? Since we're on that subject, how many billions were wasted on this satellite that never worked to begin with. People are complaining about the few million to shoot it down. Might give a thought to what it cost to build it and put it up. This is a story of waste.

8. Don't you just love having your tax money go to "black" programs that then turn out to endanger us.

9. Some may wonder what the thing was supposed to do in the first place.

 

You see something good in it? A nice entertaining moment in our history? What?

 

Jan

[Ken H.]

We now have 1000s and 1000s of pieces of debris from blowing it up spreading over a much larger area, but yet the Pentagon itself yesterday said the odds of any one of them ever hitting anything was 1,000,000,000:1

 

Satellites, in one piece, burn up all the time upon reentry. There is no way they can not. They're not constructed like the space shuttle you know. (And even one of those burned up. RIP.) This one would have too. The whole tank of fuel song & dance is baloney too. Valves, connecting points for sensors other parts on a tank can't survive reentry temperatures, the tank would have vented during the reentry just like every fallen one before it did. And even if it didn't, what was going to happen, it was going to land in someones back yard and they were going go over to it, dig it out of its crater, hot and chard, lean over and put their mouth on a valve (presuming knowing how to open it) and suck in a lung full of Hydrazine to see if they could get a buzz? Unbeknown to the NASA, military, the press and half the rest of the country that would have been tracking it BTW. The publicity about this thing coming down has been going on for months.

 

"Secrets getting in hands of the enemy" is also a complete line of BS. Again, satellites burn up when they hit the atmosphere. China, Russia was going some how find the chard wreckage miles deep in a vast ocean, raise it and the next day know how to conquerer the USA? The computer boards, hard drives, lenses, etc that make up a spy satellite would survive enough to be useful to some one? Give me a break.

 

The US American people buying into the charade, this was to "protecting us", is just yet another reflection on the poor state of education in the USA that even basic science principles are no longer understood.

 

This whole thing was nothing more that the current administration once more trying to be (and by extension we) the thugs of the world by playing with one of their $40M toys. "Looky looky what we did! Wasn't that fun!" A doomed strategy as the world increasingly laughs at us instead.

[steve.foote]

Why are so many so quick to paint these events as a negative?

 

1. The attitude you observe reflects a deep seated mis-trust of our government. What are the unsaid, real, reasons?

2. The action may spark a new kind of arms race, or be perceived as part of an arms race.

3. As usual, it paints us as hypocrites, since we were all over China for their satellite shoot. One more international public relations disaster.

4. To date, governments have treated the peace of space as inviolable, and some may not wish to see that end.

5. We are all dependent on satellites. There is no comfort in knowing that they are so vulnerable. I strongly recommend that our first responders have back-up systems that are non-satellite dependent.

6. More debris in space.

7. Why didn't they design it to burn up properly in the first place? Since we're on that subject, how many billions were wasted on this satellite that never worked to begin with. People are complaining about the few million to shoot it down. Might give a thought to what it cost to build it and put it up. This is a story of waste.

8. Don't you just love having your tax money go to "black" programs that then turn out to endanger us.

9. Some may wonder what the thing was supposed to do in the first place.

 

You see something good in it? A nice entertaining moment in our history? What?

 

Jan

 

Alright, let's go down the list:

 

1. I'll grant you this one.

2. ANYTHING we do could spark an arms race in the minds of some. Heck, just breathing is justification for an arms race to certain people around the globe.

3. I don't think so. The US notified the world weeks before this was going to happen. The Chinese didn't.

4. Yeah, that's right, they all believe space to be nonmilitarized. [maximum sarcasm]

5. A truth we all ought understand.

6. Just plain false. This satellite was allowed to decend to a point where all of the debris would fall to earth within a couple months. The satellite the Chinese destroyed was in a much higher orbit resulting in the nightmare senerio you were trying to paint here.

7. Maybe you can do a better job when you design and launch the replacement.

8. See point 7.

9. Some actually do know.

[steve.foote]

This whole thing was nothing more that the current administration once more trying to be (and by extension we) the thugs of the world by playing with one of their $40M toys. "Looky looky what we did! Wasn't that fun!" A doomed strategy as the world increasingly laughs at us instead.

 

Mmmm,mmmm mmmm mmm mmmmm mm mmmm mmmmmmm mmm m m mmmmm mmmmm [trying to respond while gagged]

[hANNAbONE]

I agree, but, I wonder about the tank's ability to survive the missile strike.

The missle warhead will strike the satellite at a relative speed of approx. 22,000 mph... nothing's gonna survive that. And it won't be a proximity explosion, in fact the warhead is just an inert 'kinetic weapon' and depends on impact energy alone to do the damage.

 

Monty, I'll take what's behind door number two.

Ya. The government didn't spend $30-$40 million (the estimated cost of the shoot-down operation) to protect against the infinitesimal chance of human injury, although that is a nice collateral benefit. We got a chance to test an anti-satellite weapon (and demonstrate it's effectiveness, and prevent the satellite's imaging technolgy from possibly getting into the wrong hands) while being relatively immune from world condemnation because we had at least a plausible excuse. To good a deal to pass up...

 

...uH - i heard $60 million...!! That's one expensive bullet.!

[smiller]

Mmmm,mmmm mmmm mmm mmmmm mm mmmm mmmmmmm mmm m m mmmmm mmmmm [trying to respond while gagged]

Your restraint is admirable...