We all know that they are not telling us something…and I think that we shouldnt know really…a gas tank? They were that worried about a gas tank? I have seen Space Cowboys…we all know that during the cold war (when this bird took flight) we were doing a whole lot of things to protect ourselfs and insure mutual destruction in case of war…
I am not saying that this thing had a nuke on it, but I am more willing to think that they had some miracle camera, something that can read any and all signals, possibly R2D2 on the thing to keep things in good working order…
Now I am all for black projects and for the CIA to keep secrets from us (I think that they Stealth fighters were wonderful secrets)…but what say you all…fuel?
IRRC, from the news…the satellite was launched in summer 2006 and DoD says it was a National Reconnaissance Office satellite (think super high resolution cameras and the like that we don’t want reverse engineered if any of it survives…or allows any indication of how much resolution we can see). And we wanted to show China/India/Iran what we could do.
And we wanted to show China/India/Iran what we could do.
Winner! Winner! Winner!
Particularly in light of the fact that the Chinese blew up one of their own awhile back. (Of course their’s was in a significantly higher orbit, but heh. . .)
yeah but wasnt the China one in static orbit? They sure did spent allot of time telling us how fast this thing was moving…
That’s cuz ICBM’s move about the same speed and they wanted to send a subtle message.
I’m guessing that they merely wanted to test out the technology to show that we could actually shoot down the thing.
I’m also leaning towards the military contractor of the missle talking some military brass into doing it - after all, it did cost $60 million in taxpayer money to do it (the satellite probably cost $500K to build and get orbital). At the end of the line, there is always money and power involved.
**after all, it did cost $60 million in taxpayer money to do it **(the satellite probably cost $500K to build and get orbital). At the end of the line, there is always money and power involved.
Yea, but this was a prototype and we can mass produce those babies for $26 million a pop and fill the skies with them.
That’s what I heard in addition to the fuel, which wasn’t just some 89 octane gasoline. Combine, “We don’t want our hi-tech stuff in the wrong hands” with “We got this neat technology we’d really like to try out” with “We don’t want to be blamed for turning some “eco friendly” area into a toxic waste dump” and you have all the reasons in the world to shoot it down.
There are a lot of levels of tight rope walking on this one I think. First, the U.S. can’t look like it is militarizing space (even if every one else is). Second, there was a top secret imaging system on board by admission. I think that was the larger concern. I have a difficult time in believing the hydrazine tank would have made it intact to the ground on re-entry. But, I suppose propellent tanks might have been recoverd after the Columbia shuttle break up warranting concern.
Lastly, this whole business opens up potential chinks in the armour for the “anti-nuke power plants in space” people to capitalize. I’m not up to date on facts, I can only assume that satellites containing nuclear fueled power plants are placed in much higher orbits such as geo-stationary. The risk is generally on launch if the satellite fails to obtain a high enough orbit, or the launch vehicle fails totally during launch. In any case, if the government decides it is important enough to blow up a chemical fuel supply, what kind of questions does that raise about the nuclear powered spacecraft? And, you know how those greenies are with their silly questions and scenarios.
I’m guessing that they merely wanted to test out the technology to show that we could actually shoot down the thing.
I’m also leaning towards the military contractor of the missle talking some military brass into doing it - after all, it did cost $60 million in taxpayer money to do it (the satellite probably cost $500K to build and get orbital). At the end of the line, there is always money and power involved.
Surely you mean $500m for the satellite, not $500k? You probably couldn’t even fill the fuel tank for $500k…
I agree with you, that’s the first thing I thought. More than a “we need to destroy this thing” was more like “China and Russia, check out what we can do, so don’t even think about having some satellite spying over US space 'cause we are going to shoot it down.”
China and Russia, check out what we can do, so don’t even think about having some satellite spying over US space 'cause we are going to shoot it down."
I think you are more than a few years late with that one. The U.S.S.R./Russia has probably had spy sats up for decades. I don’t think China had launch capabilities until the last few years. OTOH, there are plenty of commercial sats that can get you plenty of up close and personal images. The U.S. certainly can’t go around shooting those down.
Come to think of it, the conclusion of The Hunt for Red October, didn’t Tom Clancy has the sub being moved to a hidden location between sat passes.
I hate to inject some realism into this thread, but here goes:
-The fuel in question is hydrazine, which is extremely toxic and very unstable. While it is unlikely that the entire tank may have made it down, parts of the tank still coated in hydrazine might have, and that alone can cause serious health problems. It is, however, unlikely that it would have landed near anyone…the odds are pretty high that it wouldn’t have.
-The US did not have to prove that it could shoot down a satellite because it has done it before. An F-15 launched an anti-satellite weapon in 1985 and successfully destroyed a satellite with what was known as the ASAT missile. The program was cancelled soon afterwards.
-Destroying this satellite was different from the Chinese test because it was already de-orbiting, and thus the debris will fall to earth soon. The Chinese test destroyed a satellite that was in a stable orbit, and now all of the debris is in orbit as well.
-This was a little different from engaging a ballistic missile in that ICBMs never reach orbit; hence the name, ballistic missile. Probably similar speeds, though…
Yo riddle me this then Spot–on an ICBM why are the warheads’ MIRVs called “MIRVs” If the R stands for “reentry” does that not imply that the package reached orbit/space/exoatmospheric? Don’t know and not trying to be sarcastic. Just a question that came to me as I was reading your response.
PS–always entertaining to read the conspiracy theory folks stuff. As if we were good enough and ran a tight enough ship to actually pull off a tenth of the stuff they alledge.
The warheads do go exoatmospheric, but they don’t reach orbital velocity. Similar to the first US space shot with Alan Sheppard…he never reached orbit, but he did go into space on a ballistic trajectory.
