On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:46:34 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"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.

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.

Did you win anything? :)

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:46:34 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"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.

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.

Did you win anything? :)

How could I lose?

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:46:34 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"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.

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.

Did you win anything? :)

How could I lose?

Eisboch


Simply by typing.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:46:34 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

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.

You can always count on the "cabin fever" crowd to come through.

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

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.

Probably not, but knocking out a satellite in a stable orbit is
relatively easy, no more complex than docking with the ISS.

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:46:34 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

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.

You can always count on the "cabin fever" crowd to come through.



Interesting response to something you will discover is true, probably within
a week or two after the satellite is destroyed by the missile.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:37:13 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


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

I believe the stated reason, but I'm a little surprised they announced
it. Failure, and it is experimental, could be a bit embarrassing. It
seems to me, they should have just done it.