Satellite Busters
 

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:25:54 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Old technology. We've been able to bring down satellites since the
mid-80s.


Are you sure about that?
How?

Eisboch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT

Satellite Busters
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:25:54 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:48:04 -0500, BAR wrote:


The article stated that they have a "modified" missile they are going
to
launch from a naval ship in the Pacific. The questions I have is what
altitude will the missile intercept the satellite and how long have we
been working on this "modified" missile?

I can't see us coming up with a "modified" missile, launched from a
surface vessel, in just a couple of months that is capable of
intercepting an object in space.

I believe this is an opportunity to flex our muscles.

Old technology. We've been able to bring down satellites since the
mid-80s.

Are you sure about that?
How?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...or_.28ERINT.29


I don't think any of those "Star Wars" concepts were sufficiently developed
in the mid-80s to hit a satellite in a re-entry mode from earth orbit. Most
were anti-missile systems (not orbital).

Eisboch

Satellite Busters
 

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:47:38 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:25:54 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:48:04 -0500, BAR wrote:


The article stated that they have a "modified" missile they are going
to
launch from a naval ship in the Pacific. The questions I have is what
altitude will the missile intercept the satellite and how long have we
been working on this "modified" missile?

I can't see us coming up with a "modified" missile, launched from a
surface vessel, in just a couple of months that is capable of
intercepting an object in space.

I believe this is an opportunity to flex our muscles.

Old technology. We've been able to bring down satellites since the
mid-80s.

Are you sure about that?
How?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...or_.28ERINT.29

I don't think any of those "Star Wars" concepts were sufficiently developed
in the mid-80s to hit a satellite in a re-entry mode from earth orbit. Most
were anti-missile systems (not orbital).

Good point, but it's genesis was in the 80's.

Satellite Busters
 

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:47:38 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:25:54 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:48:04 -0500, BAR wrote:


The article stated that they have a "modified" missile they are going
to
launch from a naval ship in the Pacific. The questions I have is what
altitude will the missile intercept the satellite and how long have we
been working on this "modified" missile?

I can't see us coming up with a "modified" missile, launched from a
surface vessel, in just a couple of months that is capable of
intercepting an object in space.

I believe this is an opportunity to flex our muscles.

Old technology. We've been able to bring down satellites since the
mid-80s.

Are you sure about that?
How?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...or_.28ERINT.29


I don't think any of those "Star Wars" concepts were sufficiently developed
in the mid-80s to hit a satellite in a re-entry mode from earth orbit. Most
were anti-missile systems (not orbital).

This is the missile they will be using.

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-161.html

Satellite Busters
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:25:54 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Old technology. We've been able to bring down satellites since the
mid-80s.


Are you sure about that?
How?

Eisboch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASM-135_ASAT

Never knew about that. Thanks.

Eisboch

Satellite Busters
 

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:25:54 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Are you sure about that?
How?

Eisboch

Apparently, this intercept will be with a modified SM 3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_missile

Satellite Busters
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:16:38 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

This should be interesting.

The US has decided to shoot down a failed satellite that is expected to
drop
out of orbit in early March.
There is concern that half of the 5,000 lb satellite may remain intact
and
hit the earth in a yet unknown area.



To what purpose? Unless they can blow it to pieces or change its
trajectory to their liking what will it accomplish except perhaps test
a "star wars" device.
Should be interesting watching this develop.

--Vic

The concern is that the tanks containing the rocket fuel "hydrazine" are
the components most likely to survive re-entry through the atmosphere.
Hydrazine poses a danger to people if inhaled. By blowing them up, the
fuel will be burned up during re-entry.

Of course, our all our resident NG cynics will now chime in with the
"real" reason.

Eisboch


Later today, I'm going to go to the post office for TWO REASONS. Sometimes
there's more than one reason for doing something.

Satellite Busters
 

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:16:38 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

This should be interesting.

The US has decided to shoot down a failed satellite that is expected to
drop
out of orbit in early March.
There is concern that half of the 5,000 lb satellite may remain intact
and
hit the earth in a yet unknown area.

To what purpose? Unless they can blow it to pieces or change its
trajectory to their liking what will it accomplish except perhaps test
a "star wars" device.
Should be interesting watching this develop.

--Vic
The concern is that the tanks containing the rocket fuel "hydrazine" are
the components most likely to survive re-entry through the atmosphere.
Hydrazine poses a danger to people if inhaled. By blowing them up, the
fuel will be burned up during re-entry.

Of course, our all our resident NG cynics will now chime in with the
"real" reason.

Eisboch


Later today, I'm going to go to the post office for TWO REASONS. Sometimes
there's more than one reason for doing something.




Multitasking again, eh?

Satellite Busters
 

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

The concern is that the tanks containing the rocket fuel "hydrazine" are
the components most likely to survive re-entry through the atmosphere.
Hydrazine poses a danger to people if inhaled. By blowing them up, the
fuel will be burned up during re-entry.

Of course, our all our resident NG cynics will now chime in with the
"real" reason.

Eisboch



Later today, I'm going to go to the post office for TWO REASONS. Sometimes
there's more than one reason for doing something.

I had a bet with myself that you would be the first.

Eisboch

Satellite Busters
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

The concern is that the tanks containing the rocket fuel "hydrazine" are
the components most likely to survive re-entry through the atmosphere.
Hydrazine poses a danger to people if inhaled. By blowing them up, the
fuel will be burned up during re-entry.

Of course, our all our resident NG cynics will now chime in with the
"real" reason.

Eisboch



Later today, I'm going to go to the post office for TWO REASONS.
Sometimes there's more than one reason for doing something.

I had a bet with myself that you would be the first.

Eisboch


I guess you're right. The only reason to shoot down the satellite is the
issue with its dangerous fuel. Nobody else in government or industry finds
the event useful, important or interesting for any reason whatsoever.
Period.

Once upon a time there were four little rabbits, and their names were
Flopsy, Mopsy, Cotton-tail and Peter.