US Navy shoots down Satellite!

Posted February 20th, 2008 at 11:34 PM by Gregg
in

I just read this on MSNBC www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23265613/  I would think the thing would just burn up on re-entry, including the toxic fuel.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
On February 21st, 2008 at 06:38 AM, Fred Burfel (not verified) said:

Of course the satellite would have burned up on re-entry. But the American public can no longer assume the Bush administration is telling the truth, so the natural reaction is to assume they are lying to us.

Shooting it down was a show for the world, complete with 20 press releases and the symbolism of the decision being made by Gates himself.

Why not just say "Lookie what we can do!"

The likelihood of something [Hydrazine tank] that would affect an area the size of two football fields landing randomly on Earth and there being any human in that small of an area is infinitesimally small.

It wasn't a waste of money, we would spend that on a training exercise if we didn't spend it on this, but calling it to the world's attention was fairly transparent. Why lie to us? Because lying comes naturally for this administration.

This is the Secretary of Defense who fell "on the ice" coming home from "dinner" and broke his arm, but didn't see a doctor until the next morning. This guy must be always in the company of a team of aides and security personnel, yet he breaks his arm and decides not to be seen by a military doctor until the next day? Was he worried about the co-pay or the ETOH?

redstatewannabe's picture
On February 21st, 2008 at 10:20 AM, redstatewannabe said:

as I said yesterday, there is always controversy.

who cares if the risk was "infinitesimally small".  It was a great opportunity to test the technology, and show the world we have it, and it also prevents folks from saying 'why didn't we do something' just in case.

On February 21st, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Run4cvrlib said:

I think the Russian are a little more upset then just a little bit.

On February 21st, 2008 at 11:33 AM, ractivist said:

Practice shots like this are far and few between, it was not a chip shot either.  There are a lot of folks slapn high fives on this one.  I for one, gotta give the guys an atta boy.  Our technology is our advantage, too bad were letting it get away.  Yet we had all the time in the world to prepare, it shows the ability in time, the question then becomes readiness as far as a shoot down weapon system on short notice, measured in minutes verses weeks.  One step at a time!

The bear that was, that wasn't , that was again, that bear?  Yah, you can bet there will be a very visual response, soon.  Putin has too much ego for anthing less.  China, on the other hand has more restraint and works more methodically, yet there will be a response, in time.

On February 21st, 2008 at 11:37 AM, John F. Bramfeld (not verified) said:

I tend to agree with "Burfel" , who remains anonymous because Bush would no doubt like to hunt him down and kill him.  But I don't agree with his bitterness.  I don't believe that the hydrazine tank was designed so strongly that it would survive reentry.  The satellite is being shot down for other reasons.  Perhaps a demonstration as suggested by Red, or perhaps there are sensitive parts that might survive reentry.  Either way, it's better than the fourth of July.

I think the administration is literally telling the truth.  They are concerned that someone might be hurt.  I assume they also realize that it is not very likely.  I am not sure they have explicitly denied there are other reasons to shoot it down.  I favor an administration that doesn't blurt out everything it thinks, ala Burfel.

On the other hand, Burfel's story about Rumsfeld hurting his arm is pretty compelling. 

John

On February 21st, 2008 at 03:58 PM, prairie biker (not verified) said:

You guys are all kidding right?

 

You know that THIS is the real reason we did it, don't you?

On February 21st, 2008 at 07:35 PM, Narc said:

 

Of course the satellite would have burned up on re-entry.

 

There's no "of course" about it. Large objects can and do survive reentry intact. NASA has a gallery of such objects (scroll down). The first one is a 500 lb. fuel tank from a Delta rocket. The risk from impact/hydrazine is quite small, but non-zero. But this was also a rare opportunity to test a technology.  I suspect there was no single reason for shooting down this satellite, but it was a combination of all the speculated reasons. Frankly, I don't have a problem with that. I hope we won't, but we may someday need the capability of shooting down satellites, so it's best to test out that capability.

On February 21st, 2008 at 09:25 PM, JRR said:

Let me remind everyone that when the space shuttle Columbia burned on re-entry in February 2003, there were plenty of pieces large and small scattered across three states.

On February 22nd, 2008 at 12:42 AM, one who hopes t... said:

the teen-aged son was disappointed this wasn't shown on T.V.  He feels it would have been "awesome!!".