1  2  Next

<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=30274" target="_blank">U.S. to shoot down spy satellite</a> (click to view)

<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/3-tech" target="_blank">Tech</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=Hyack" target="_blank">Hyack</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2008-02-14 10:07:38

   

   

Be thankfull their taking it out.

imp.

   

The fallout from this if it goes plotz should be fascinating. It's gonna look awful for continental missile defence if it turns into another Patriot vs Scud schmozz.

   

Thanos

If it works fine. If it doesn't then the Aegis/Standard missle combo will receive the necessary upgrade.
The current Patriot system is vastly superior to that deployed in Gulf1.
Operation deployment is always the best test.
This is an excellant opportunity to perform such a test with little consequence for a failure. Better a dead satellite than a live nuke.

   

The only difference I could find between these two satelites is that the US satilite is 100 km in orbit meaning all of the debree will decay into orbit and not threaten anything. The Chinese satilite was 400 km in orbit and effected other things (like the ISS).

   

That's a pretty big difference. Space is getting seriously trashed, and it's incredibly irresponsible to take a large, but trackable, satellite and turn it into thousands of tiny but untrackable pieces. Creating debris that will quickly decay and burn up is not unreasonable, especially given the risks of the toxic substances onboard reaching the ground otherwise.

   

That is a huge difference. 100KM orbit means without help, the drag from the earths atmosphere will bring a sat down in a matter of months. They need occasional 'boost' of added propulsion to stay in orbit.

400KM means it will remain in orbit for hundreds of years before the orbit decays. The difference in speed between those obits also means they are far more dangerous projectiles. Anything that goes that high will be in danger of being randomly destroyed (and creating more debris) for hundreds of years.

   

I love America! China and India, and such want to demilitarize space, and the USA is "NO",

   

   

Several years ago the US military tested a Pegasus missile on a dead US military satellite. It worked but instead of 1 dead satellite to track, they had over 200 pieces in orbit. If any of them hit a European or other satellite, it would destroy that satellite. That left the world seriously pissed off! Following that the US developed a megawatt infrared laser that could blind the optics of satellites without blowing them up.

Now we have the International Space Station. What risk is this destruction going to pose to astronauts on the ISS? Why do they want to shoot it? If it were to re-enter the atmosphere, the hydrazine tank will just boil-off, it won't pose a danger to anyone. This is just a knee-jerk reaction: "If we don't control it, blow it up!" Said with all the intelligence of a slime mould.

   

It's less of a risk because most spy satellites orbit at a much lower altitude than commercial satellites.

   

Yes there is a vast difference here. The projected interception in principle will occur in EARLY re-entry. Most debris will burn up within hours and not minutes---IF the interception is successfull.
Odds are that it will work---Should be an interesting light show----will we call it the Houstonian meteor storm? Maybe something with a naval bent.....

   

Are you Mr. Canada? Because your avatar certainly looks like you are.

   

Yeah it's him. He's here under condition that he doesn't act like a twat.

   

1  2  Next