| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/20/2008 06:01:28 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
Originally posted by karmat:
just thinkin' out loud -- what if they miss? |
David Letterman's show showed that scenario the other night, it appears the missle destroys the moon... |
As long as it's not before tonight's eclipse!
Seriously, Jason, I know nothing about China's doing the same thing, so I can't comment on it. If you're right, and the situations are identical, then yes, we'd be hypocritical. But I'd still rather be hypocritical and do the right thing than intellectually honest and not do it.
Besides, look at it this way: let's say there's a 1/100000 chance it'd do any damage. If it takes out your house, and you find out there was a zero-risk opportunity to avoid it, wouldn't you want your gov't to have taken that opportunity?
I mean, so what if it's also an opportunity to test a new system? And so what if they're also afraid someone might learn something from intact pieces? |
A) Space debris is a big problem for other sattelites. One big objection with the Chinese doing this was that there was the possibility of increased space junk which would damage other satellites or just make things more cluttered in space.
B) Just google China shoots down satellite or something and you can read all about it and how the rest of the world was angry with them (including us).
C) The safety issue is ridiculous. There is a point where the chance of doing harm is so low that the risk of shooting it down is actually greater. Are we there? I don't know, but I wouldn't doubt it since in the history of orbitting satellites there has neither been loss of life nor property damage from a falling satellite.
D) Finally, what is the risk of further damaging our position and reputation in the global community? Bush has, of course, basically said "F*ck you" to the rest of the world and done whatever he wants during his tenure. Sooner or later we are going to pay the piper for this disregard for our allies. Basically I'm pretty annoyed this year is a leap year because it's one more day that idiot is in office. (that's getting off topic though)
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 06:05:49 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by karmat:
just thinkin' out loud -- what if they miss? |
They've got the option for several shots. One within minutes of the first one. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 06:18:12 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You missed us condemning the Chinese for doing the exact same thing in January of 2007. "The US believes China's development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said yesterday. "We and other countries have expressed our concern regarding this action to the Chinese." |
Not exactly the same thing Jason. The Chinese operation was actually a killer sat in orbit if what I read is correct. If we're not being lied to the Navy shot will be a Standard missile from a Navy missile Frigate. The sat is already close to re-entry and a shot *may* cause it to enter at once. BTW the shot looks like it's NW of the Big Island, about where the Japanese fleet launched their surprise attack.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The fact that we are doing it under the guise of "safety" is complete bollocks. Really we are doing it to prove to the Chinese that we can do exactly what they can do. |
Unfortunately I agree with you on this part. CDC and other national medical officials are very suspicious of the motive of this shoot down. They don't think the danger of the hydrazine is anywhere near severe enough to warrant this effort. This article seems to point to very little danger from space debris.
So I agree with you Jason. I think this is either an excuse to try out some new technology, or just a little saber rattling to scare the Chinese, or both. But I'm far from ashamed of my country.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 06:20:35 PM · #29 |
The Chinese shot down a satellite that was still in orbit. We're shooting down a satellite that will fall to earth within the next few weeks.
Hypocritical???
Perhaps mildly so ... but I'd rather have them shoot it down than have it land somewhere disastrous... then what fools would we look like?!?
Take the shot! And educate the ones that think it's hypocritical so they understand what's happening.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 06:30:33 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
but I'd rather have them shoot it down than have it land somewhere disastrous... then what fools would we look like?!?
Take the shot! |
It's a dice roll. I don't really think it will make much difference either way. Looking at the orbit, it appears to be ascending towards the North Pole after the shot and may be in a sun synchronous polar orbit. If so it will descend south within 20 to 30 minutes and probably cross over Western Canada and United States. Remember to duck. LOL. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 06:36:54 PM · #31 |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 06:42:42 PM · #32 |
Yet another situation where it's all Bush's fault.
It has 1000 lbs of toxic fuel. If it falls to earth and damages/poisons property/land/people - it's Bush's fault that it failed so miserably.
If we shoot it into a million pieces and further clutter up space - that's Bush's fault, too.
Why can't Obama be president already so none of this has to happen and we can all live Halcyon lives?
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 06:42:49 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
The Chinese shot down a satellite that was still in orbit. We're shooting down a satellite that will fall to earth within the next few weeks.
Hypocritical???
Perhaps mildly so ... but I'd rather have them shoot it down than have it land somewhere disastrous... then what fools would we look like?!?
Take the shot! And educate the ones that think it's hypocritical so they understand what's happening. |
Do you have any idea of the odds we are talking about? I'd assume that information was cogent to your opinion. And the answer "any risk is unacceptable" is silly. There is risk to everything including shooting the satellite down and even me sitting at my desk.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 06:47:36 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
The Chinese shot down a satellite that was still in orbit. We're shooting down a satellite that will fall to earth within the next few weeks.
Hypocritical???
Perhaps mildly so ... but I'd rather have them shoot it down than have it land somewhere disastrous... then what fools would we look like?!?
Take the shot! And educate the ones that think it's hypocritical so they understand what's happening. |
No matter the education given it is still hypocritical. Telling one country that they are just using it as a guise for testing weapons in space and then going ahead and doing the same.. that is hypocritical - no matter if the circumstances are different and your spin doctors put it in nice terms. The US is shooting down a satellite with space weaponry systems - end of situation analysis when calling someone a hypocrite... |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 06:52:05 PM · #35 |
I'm not so completely cynical that I won't post a link to a comment by James Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies which is somewhat reasoned and thought out. Link here I'm not sure I totally buy it, but it's reasonable enough.
One question that begs to be asked is if a 1000-pound tank of hydrazine is such a risk on re-entry that we must shoot it down, why are we accepting the risk of launching it in the first place? If something goes wrong on launch I'd assume that would represent just as "uncontrolled" an entry as what we are looking at.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 06:54:13 PM · #36 |
I think this is the image of the shot planned for 0330 UTC
21 Feb. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 07:07:39 PM · #37 |
| Isn't hydrazine flammable? Wouldn't its re-entry into the atmosphere cause it to burn up? |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 07:08:12 PM · #38 |
Three missiles, none of them with active warheads.
+
One already strategically placed super laser with sights on a satellite and three moving objects.
+
Three apparent explosions.
________________________________
Successful sabre rattling event to show China we can knock anything they send our way out of the sky with the new tier of space weaponry.
...pardon me while I go fix my tin foil hat.
Message edited by author 2008-02-20 19:09:42. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 07:08:26 PM · #39 |
It'll probably land on us down here. The last one did!
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 07:10:27 PM · #40 |
From what I understand, here are the answers to a few of the questions:
1) Why shoot it down where it can create space junk?
I think they're deliberately not shooting it down until it's sure to come down, specifically to avoid creating space junk that can endanger other satellites
2) Why send up hazardous materials in the first place? What if they come down?
Didja ever notice how they launch rockets out over the ocean? I doubt that's an accident. I also assume there's no such thing as powering a rocket on sugar water, and pretty much everything else can do harm if ingested.
3) No such thing as "no risk." Really? Do you hold your kids' hands when crossing the street? Do you drive more carefully when it snows? Do you take normal doses of medicines or do you figure "how risky can it be to take more?" I mean, yes, there's always some risk. But why not minimize it?
As for saber rattling riling up everyone else, well, yep. It's Bush. Then again, I think our international reputation is so deep into the toilet that everyone's probably just holding their breath until November. Anyway, what's our hit rate on anti-missile missiles? Something considerably under 100%, I think (admittedly, I'm reaching waaaaay into my memory banks re: Patriots vs. scuds in Gulf War I). Seems to me we have as much chance of embarrassing ourselves as scaring people.
And after November, then we can all blame Obama. :)
Message edited by author 2008-02-20 19:12:19.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 07:49:36 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Anyway, what's our hit rate on anti-missile missiles? Something considerably under 100%, I think (admittedly, I'm reaching waaaaay into my memory banks re: Patriots vs. scuds in Gulf War I). Seems to me we have as much chance of embarrassing ourselves as scaring people. |
With this missle I think they are 11 of 13 if my memory is right.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 08:03:15 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One question that begs to be asked is if a 1000-pound tank of hydrazine is such a risk on re-entry that we must shoot it down, why are we accepting the risk of launching it in the first place? If something goes wrong on launch I'd assume that would represent just as "uncontrolled" an entry as what we are looking at. |
I believe the hydrazine is what was suppose to power the sat for it's life time and allow for re-positioning as needed. thus, it's kind of needed.
Launch sites are protected and remote, like Sea Launch. If something goes wrong, no one gets hurt. Plus the rocket fuel sitting in the rocket under the sat at launch is worlds more dangerous.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 08:04:22 PM · #43 |
I'm proud of my country [USA] even though I don't understand some of the things we do.
The decision to shoot down the failing SAT at a cost of $30 to $40 million dollars to do the software upgrade for this one-time event is more of national security than the threat to life. Reports say that this SAT, that was just launched in Dec. 2006, began to fail shortly after it reached orbit. This SAT is one of the most costly, secretively, and intelligent spy SAT ever deployed. Estimates have put in the range of 10 time more advanced than any know spy SAT - from any other country.
I believe the decision to shoot down the SAT is to keep from any major pieces entering earths atmosphere and possibly recovered by other countries. Yes I do believe there is a possibility that the fuel aboard poses a slight, but minuscule, threat. Thats why I believe it is the intelligence [TOP SECRET] SAT it's self that has made the US and President Bush to order its destruction.
Just my 2cents ...
SDW
Message edited by author 2008-02-20 20:08:37. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 08:07:19 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by LoudDog:
...the rocket fuel sitting in the rocket under the sat at launch is worlds more dangerous. |
Ain't that the truth.
FWIW, hydrazine is nothing. some deep space probes, like Cassini, are powered by heat generated by radioactive decay. You don't want *that* being dispersed widely, so it's contained incredibly well. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 08:36:12 PM · #45 |
sooooo...
why not ask China to knock it down for you ??
they've already proved they could ..
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 08:41:34 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by ralph:
sooooo...
why not ask China to knock it down for you ??
they've already proved they could .. |
Lead based paint come to mind for some reason.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 09:03:40 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by jjstager2:
Yet another situation where it's all Bush's fault.
It has 1000 lbs of toxic fuel. If it falls to earth and damages/poisons property/land/people - it's Bush's fault that it failed so miserably.
If we shoot it into a million pieces and further clutter up space - that's Bush's fault, too.
Why can't Obama be president already so none of this has to happen and we can all live Halcyon lives? |
Jeff, I agree with you on this one. W is not at fault here. But let's be real - he's not the brightest bulb in the lamp |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 09:05:08 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:
Originally posted by ralph:
sooooo...
why not ask China to knock it down for you ??
they've already proved they could .. |
Lead based paint come to mind for some reason. |
that's what I was thinking...that and they're too busy putting metal in your candy. Personally, with their record right now, I don't trust the Chinese government to do ANYTHING above my head. |
|
|
|
02/20/2008 09:13:55 PM · #49 |
.
Message edited by author 2008-02-20 23:20:56.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2008 11:05:22 PM · #50 |
It's apparently been done and was a direct hit!
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 03:52:57 PM EDT.
