US Navy shoots down satellite over Pacific

[itsrobert]

Source: CNN

Breaking

A missile has hit an errant spy satellite about 140 miles above Earth, a U.S. official says

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/

[Kutjara]

1. I thought the moon was looking a bit dark tonight. n/t

[Bicoastal]

2. Hooray. We shot...something.

[C_U_L8R]

3. Duck.

[jus_the_facts]

4. Is it raining plutonium dioxide across the pacific northwest yet?

:sarcasm:

[LakeSamish706]

5. So they say, but how do we know that they really hit it? n/t

[itsrobert]

7. Whoops, my Directv just went out

They hit the wrong satellite. ;)

[LakeSamish706]

9. lol... My point exactlly... n/t

[onehandle]

6. Star Wars Works!

Hooray Raygun!

[ShockediSay]

13. Sadly, this wasn't star wars

Nobody would trust star wars to hit a cow in the ass w/ a snow shovel,
much less shoot something out of the sky.

No, star wars is one great big multi-million {?billion} boondoggle
for the lobbyists and their clients, that give us nothing but more
national debt.

This was a specifically targeted guided missile, aimed and shot from
a manned station/vessel, very much unlike star wars.

[onehandle]

14. Quiet!

Let Ronnie have his moment.

[margotb822]

17. Maybe he guided the missile from heaven

Of course, he'd have to be up there for that to happen...

[underpants]

15. Thanks for saying that

that does need to be pointed out

[raebrek]

48. I wonder if Spielberg

can sue the government for violating his no doubt protected and trademarked term Star Wars. hmmmmm.....


Raebrek

[juno jones]

50. It's actally George Lucas.

If he was going to do that, he would have done it in the 80's when the term was coined in reference to space weapons. I suspect he could only sue if they used the original logo and artwork.

[raebrek]

74. wiping the egg off of my face.

Thank you.

Raebrek!!!

[physaf]

53. The government ddn't use the phrase "Star Wars" ... they used "SDI"

It was the lamestream press that used the "Star Wars" term ... Spielberg will have have to sue them, but the way they're losing cash, he better hurry or there won't be anything left to claim.

[raebrek]

75. Thank you too. n/t

[gateley]

8. Let's just say that their story is legit - DOA satellite, challenges to take it out, etc.

If they were successful, that IS impressive and reassuring.

[LakeSamish706]

11. Or maybe scary considering who we have in the WH at this time. n/t

[gateley]

12. Yeah - you're so right.

I guess I was just thinking it was nice not to screw something up for a change.

[FogerRox]

66. No its not. the SM-3 missile uses telemetry

from radar, Optical, etc, the Interceptor vehicle, the KW, uses IR guidance in the final run, with telemetry and inertial guidance as back up.

I doubt enemy missiles would be kind enough to broadcast their location like US 193 does.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/sm3.htm

Global security talks about an IR seeker in the KW, though other systems including Inertial guidance, and the ability to use telemetry, which opens up the use of optics, RF locators, radar......

Since many of the Alaska tests (circa '98-'02) used a target with an RF beacon..... I am very interested in seeing tests w/o RF. I have no confirmation that there has been a series of successful tests that did not use an RF beacon.

The comment of "no heat sig" is asinine, since the sun hits US 193 everyday, at its peak, US 193 shone at Mangnitude 4.3.

It should be further noted that sat US 193, IIRC had just gone from daylight to night (transiting the terminator) , when it was targeted, which suggests that US 193 was still quite hot, from an IR standpoint while orbiting in the earths shadow. Making for an optimal IR targeting environment.

http://www.heavens-above.com/satinfo.asp?lat=48.03402&lng=-122.38495&alt=11&loc=Langley%2C+WA&TZ=PST&SatID=296

[cal04]

10. Navy missile hits spy satellite

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080221/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/dead_satellite

A missile launched from a Navy ship successfully struck a dying U.S. spy satellite passing 130 miles over the Pacific on Wednesday, a defense official said. Full details were not immediately available.

It happened just after 10:30 p.m. EST.

Two officials said the missile was launched successfully. One official, who is close to the process, said it hit the target. He said details on the results were not immediately known.

The goal in this first-of-its-kind mission for the Navy was not just to hit the satellite but to obliterate a tank aboard the spacecraft carrying 1,000 pounds of a toxic fuel called hydrazine.

[Cambist]

16. Why Couldn't They Just Send

the sattelite hunting with Cheney?

[margotb822]

18. Because he'd probably hit the DirecTV satellite

And blame it for being in the way!

[Paulie]

19. Yippie

We can do the same thing the Chinese did LAST MONTH. :sarcasm:

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Yeah! Let's Have A Space Weapons Race!!

"GENEVA - The United States clashed with China and Russia during a disarmament debate Tuesday over how to prevent an arms race in outer space, and Washington criticized Beijing for its recent test of an anti-satellite missile.

Russia and China, in turn, condemned the “one state” that refuses to consider a treaty banning space weapons — a reference to the U.S.

The meeting of the 65-nation Conference on Disarmament came a month after China launched a warhead from a ballistic missile to destroy one of its old weather satellites — a test that was widely criticized as a provocative display of the Asian country’s growing military capability."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17129938/

This ought to be good for bidness, seeing as weapons are the only bidness we have left.

[physaf]

54. The Chinese test and the US launch were very different...

The Chinese left hoards of debris in very valuable, unpredictable orbit. The US destroyed this satellite in a way that the debris is intended to plow back out of orbit very quickly. Of course, that is their "intention"... we'll see soon how well that works out.

[napi21]

21. Awe, you people are really bad tonight. The Navy really is good

at what they do. This was a difficult target, but they succeeded! I think they deserve a few cudos instead of all the sarcasm!

[Thor_MN]

24. OK, if you are willing to pick up the $60,000,000.00 tab,

I'm willing to say "Job Well Done, Ladies and Gentlemen, Scratch one failed satellite!!"

I'm thinking a few hundred dollars of Viagra and Cialis could have acheived the same effect for the Defense Department...

[napi21]

25. I believe the risk of a failed satelitte with a full payload of fuel

possibly ceAHING TO EARTH IN AN UNFORSEEN LOCATION IS WORTH THE $60mll. Think about what the cost would have been if it HAD destroyed a city, or worse!I don't know what the real risk was, but when I think of Katrina, I can only say $60 mill wasn't so bad. Plus you have to remember that a lot of this cost has already been spent making the missle in the first place. It was in our arsenal inventory already. YES its a cosr, but not a new one.

[RL3AO]

28. It would have affected the area the size of a football field

not destroy an city.

But I still think it was necessary.

[napi21]

29. That's not the risk I heard, but I agree it was necessary too. N/T

[Warren Stupidity]

36. There was little if any risk.

You have fallen for the 'Be Afraid' nonsense. This was simply a demo of a satellite kill capability for the benefit of the Russians and the Chinese, and a boondoggle for the endless corrupt defense industry.

[FalconsRule]

37. And to prevent

sensitive equipment and technology from falling into foreign hands. That, perhaps, was the prime reason.

[Warren Stupidity]

40. The device was going to burn up on re-entry.

There wasn't going to be any risk of sensitive equipment falling into the wrong hands.

[FalconsRule]

42. Actually it wasn't,

Large parts were expected to survive.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. They were lying.

The whole point of this exercise was to establish a justification for the shoot down.

[FalconsRule]

44. Right...

Just like everything, like Skylab, for example burns up on reentry.

I agree MUCH would have burned up, but large parts were expected to survive.

[CRF450]

47. Very true.

[Xithras]

55. Most of Columbia survived re-entry

Some big chunks were vaporized, and the entire orbiter was torn to pieces, but most of the material onboard rained to the ground over Texas. Heck, even some of the fleshy bits from the astronauts onboard survived (gory thought, but it highlights the unpredicable nature of a re-entry breakup). This same scenario happens pretty regularly with re-entering rocket parts and other space junk.

[Thor_MN]

70. Most of Columbia was still covered with heat protective shielding.

Comparing a satellite to a space shuttle is like comparing a bicycle to a tank. The satellite was never designed to survive one deorbit process, much less multiple trips to orbit and back. If * is willing to spend $60 million dollars to cover the small chance that a piece of a satellite would survive and hit a populated area, why wouldn't he have considered the consequences of Iraq NOT having any WMD?

[Xithras]

72. You're wrong on that.

Columbia broke up fairly high in the re-entry process and the heat shields were no help at that point. The falling pieces didn't fall heat shield first, but simply tumbled and fragmented as they fell to Earth. Heck, once the orbiter broke up, some pretty massive chunks that had no shielding at all because they were designed to be inside the spacecraft survived the fall.

[Thor_MN]

80. And you are ignoring that the satellite had NO shielding.

Regardless of how high Columbia was when it broke up, the heat tiles protected the vast bulk of the orbiter though a portion of the re-entry. The satellite would be exposed to re-entry stresses though the entire re-entry. Simply put, Columbia was purpose designed to survive re-entry - the satellite was not. An attempt to compare the two is ridiculous - apples to cast iron dutch ovens.

[The Croquist]

49. I agree that the fuel was an excuse but

the reasons you give are still good ones. I also think we wanted to show people that we could do it. If the Pentagon was correct (and telling the truth) about most of the debris cloud de orbiting within a few days it was a good move. People are still tracking the debris from the Chinese demonstration.

[daleo]

65. Better to spend the 60 million on New Orleans

It is the never ending focus on military expenditure that displaces money from civilian infrastructure and civilian needs that leads to things like the N.O. disaster.

[Zhade]

69. Good point about the old cost.

Just thought that should be noted.

[LeftyMom]

30. You're right. I'm sure glad they went to all that effort to save us all from a little jet fuel.

Now if they could please get the much larger quantity of jet fuel contamination out of California's groundwater, and the lettuce crop, I'd totally appreciate it. Call me crazy, but I like my water, sandwiches and salads non-toxic. Especially since it's the military and the defense industry's carelessness that put it there, and since it's surely cheaper and easier to dig up toxic soil than to than shoot down a satellite, I'm sure they'll clean up their spills and messes any minute now, right?

[CRF450]

31. Agreed.

Had they let it fall freely, who knows where it could'v landed. For one thing, rocket fuel is a huge hazard if near people in open air. Whats left of it after most of it burns up could possibly damage someones property, or worse, take out a few people. Then the government or Navy would get the blaim from counless numbers of people for not shooting it down sooner.

I feel that many members here need to lay off and actually give the Navy some credit.

[FalconsRule]

39. Indeed

the fact that they DID it, is impressive...whatever the reason they were ordered to do so.

Way to go Trey!

[ChazII]

68. Two thumbs up for your post.

Your common sense is much appreciated.

[daleo]

22. No details

I wonder if that means that they just made a big mess up there, with bits of satellite being blown into higher orbit to become hazardous debris?

[CRF450]

32. Those bits of debris will burn up in the atmosphere.

Most likely nothing will hit the ground.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

35. Some bits will burn up

others would have been accelerated and will be just more space debris, orbiting for years.

[physaf]

56. Fragments that were blown into more eccentric orbits will decay more rapidly.

They won't be "more hazardous". The difference between this and the Chinese "test" is their target was in a high, much more circular and "stable" orbit. Therefore, most of those fragments will be remain in orbit for a far longer time.

[The Croquist]

59. Another difference in the Chinese test was (from memory) that

they used a proximity fuse to blow up the missile when it got near the satellite that was attacked. Imagine a shot gun shell fired at Dick Cheney's friend. When the shotgun is discharged the fragment go out in a cone shape. Most of the pieces miss the target but enough hit to do the job. The problem is that the pieces that miss the target are now space debris along with the broken up pieces of the satellite (or Cheney's friend).

[daleo]

64. Do you know the details of the U.S. missile?

As far as I know, it was meant to kill via kinetic energy. So, even a clean shot is likely to send very energetic particles of debris every which way, much like any high speed collision. You can't control that sort of thing, so plenty of junk will be raised to dangerous orbits, similar to the Chinese tests.

I doubt if there is any real substantial difference between the Chinese and U.S. tests.

[The Croquist]

81. I agree about the debris caused by the hit.

I was talking about the debris caused by the misses. When the Chinese warhead got near the target it exploded sending (I'm guessing) hundreds of chunks of metal into space it all directions. A few of these hit their target but most kept going in all directions.
The Chinese also exploded their warhead at about 500 miles above the earth. We did ours at about 130 miles up. The International Space Station orbits about 184 miles up. That means that the Chinese space debris will eventually pass through the orbit of the space station on its way to oblivion where as our crap was already below it.
I think the reason given for the test was BS but I don't think it was a dangerous thing to do.

[daleo]

63. Another difference: They are them and we are us. n/t

[uppityperson]

23. I guess the weather and waves must've settled down.

[Gman]

26. Does anyone in the civilized world actually believe that this was about

keeping toxic fuel from being spread when it crashed? It was more about shooting down a satellite regardless of the reason.

[soothsayer]

27. or claiming to shoot down an already falling satellite

[DainBramaged]

33. CaN you burn up radiation?

or just make the pieces smaller? They hit it with a non-explosive warhead, and it was the size of a bus. So, did they really want to just target it or knock it off course?


Does anyone believe a single word of this misAdministration?

[Algorem]

34. prove it.

they won't.

[Tracer]

38. Last night, there was a scientist from MIT on the NewsHour...

...who pretty much dismissed the possibility of the Hydrazine tank surviving re-entry into the atmosphere.

Frankly, I believe him -- rather than the administration. (Surprise? Not.)

[Warren Stupidity]

41. No shit.

[Magleetis]

45. Reminds me of the saying

When the only tool you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. We have to shoot something with all those missiles. We will never know if they actually hit it or the reason they shot it. Our government lies.

[FalconsRule]

46. Both the Russians and the Chinese

know if we hit it or not. If we missed, they'll make sure everyone knows.

[Magleetis]

51. Can't believe them either n/t

[FalconsRule]

52. Can't believe anyone...

[Magleetis]

57. You can have my Kool Aid

I'm trying to quit.

[FalconsRule]

58. Too late

Fatal OD

[Magleetis]

60. You believe them

I am skeptical. Maybe we can just leave it at that.

[winter999]

61. How do you know there was even a satellite or a shoot-down.

The whole thing was made-up just like the moon landings.

You said it yourself, our government lies. Who doesn't?

[hack89]

67. It was visible to the naked eye

I saw it from my back yard two nights ago. If it was there two nights ago and now it is missing, it is hard to argue that it was made-up.


http://heavens-above.com/usa193.aspx?lat=0&lng=0&loc=Unspecified&alt=0&tz=CET

[mhatrw]

73. Did you see it blow up real good, hack89?

Please, we are all waiting for an eyewitness report of this amazing boondoggle!

[hack89]

76. No - I just saw the satellite and now I can't

are you saying that it is still intact? Do you realize how easy it is for average people with basic equipment to spot and track satellites?

Is the 911 truth movement going to expand it's area of "scientific" inquiry? Are we going to see reports of holographic satellites?

[mhatrw]

77. I'm saying that you are simply taking the government's word for it, again.

In this case, I think you are correct. But believing the government shouldn't be a knee jerk response with a regime known for lying as much as this one.

[hack89]

78. Knees jerk in more then one direction it would seem. nt

[mhatrw]

79. Correct. My default is that our current regime is guilty until proven innocent.

In this case, the test was in fact successful, and my initial reaction of doubt was wrong. That doesn't mean that I approve of this boondoggle demonstration of US space war capability, only that the missile did in fact hit the satellite in question, and I was wrong to question the sketchy initial reports for reasons you made clear.

However, in general, BushCo has well-earned our suspicion. As long as their default remains lying, my default will remain skepticism.

[dysfunctional press]

62. could this have been a set-up to test/demonstrate the asat capabilities from the very start?

why couldn't they have launched it as a target satellite from the get-go, using the cover story of a spy satellite deployment gone bad...?

[ChazII]

71. That thought had crossed my mind.

Then I thought it was too much like a Clancy novel. I don't know. If gov't were honest with us I'd be less confused and more trusting. The Navy did a good job though of not missing the target.

[The Croquist]

82. I've heard people say that it was never a satellite but

I don't buy it. Things sometimes don't work. It's happened before and it will happen again. Over 50% of the probes we've tried to send to Mars (18 of 37) have failed. It probably costs almost as much to launce the satellite as it would to build it so why not launch a real one? You can always wait until a satellite has used up 90% of the fuel and then have it "break".