FARK.com: (3415663) Other countries questioning Pentagon's motive for shooting down satellite. Pentagon too busy looking for tissues to wipe itself off to comment

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Other countries questioning Pentagon's motive for shooting down satellite. Pentagon too busy looking for tissues to wipe itself off to comment (npr.org)		235
		More: Followup

• • •

10746 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Feb 2008 at 1:08 PM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/3415663

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

235 Comments (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

tekscot		2008-02-21 02:18:35 PM

My guess is that this prompted the shoot-down. You know, some kind of not-so-subtle signal to both the Chinese and the Russians.

dittybopper		2008-02-21 02:18:51 PM

SherKhan:
I was more impressed when we did it in 1893 in a pleated skirt with a .22 caliber rifle.

I'd hit it.

Actually, almost certainly, it would hit me first. Backwards. Using a mirror.

The Southern Dandy		2008-02-21 02:21:29 PM

I wonder if the French rubbed one out after they blew away a cardboard cutout of a German thank they propped up in front of the Maginot line.

Viola!! We have spent a bagillion francs on zees system and it works perfectly!!

The Southern Dandy		2008-02-21 02:22:10 PM

~~thank~~ Tank.

DaShredda		2008-02-21 02:25:55 PM

ctobio:
Did he serve aboard the "The Ship in the Cornfield" (new window)

/I could tell you more, but I'd have to kill you.

I went their in the 12th grade for my AP Physics class field trip.

/went to high school at Rancocas

FarkingUpTheWrongTree		2008-02-21 02:26:01 PM

The Bestest: My personal opinion is the primary reason is to keep data out of the hands of rivals,

I don't really buy that part... It's one thing for a reinforced steel tank of liquid to survive reentry, it's another thing entirely for sensitive electronics equipment to make it down in one piece (and not one piece of hot slag).

Spongebob Plaid Pants		2008-02-21 02:26:59 PM

Did you see in the video, when the missile hit the satellite, it went back and to the left? Back and to the left!!!11!

Mishno		2008-02-21 02:28:25 PM

Shostie: Mishno: A cruiser with the Aegis system is not an Aegis cruiser? Isn't calling it an Aegis cruiser a simple way of distinguishing it from any other cruiser, no matter the class, that doesn't have an Aegis system?

No and no . (new window)

/the more you know...

Hey, quit beating on me already. I already acknowledged that my reading comprehension is sub-par.

frostus		2008-02-21 02:32:08 PM

chaddsfarkprefect: Will President Bush come up with a dance just for this?

Yes he will. (pops)

Guysmiley		2008-02-21 02:33:00 PM

ReisFlynn: The Bestest: TheNewJesus: WOW! WHAT A WEAPON! As long as, you know, the god damn weather cooperates...

Hey guys, rough seas and cloudy skies! Time to nuke the US!

You do realize we still have the jet-mounted option, right?

Also that, given that nothing in particular relied on this launch, they could wait for an ideal launch condition. Nothing says they can't launch in bad weather. Just that they prefer not to.

The ail-launched ASM-135 program was shelved in '86/'87, there are no missiles in the inventory. Only 15 were built initially anyway. Any that would be left would have solid rocket motors that would have exceeded their shelf life 10 years ago.

But yeah, they can launch in rough seas/cloudy weather. But when you don't have to, why would you?

PortWineBoy		2008-02-21 02:33:51 PM

lhinds: ctobio

Not sure about the Cornfield, but he spent alot of time in the Marshall Islands - he is a retired USAF Colonel

I'd guess Kwaj. They did a lot of Aegis work out there.

I used to live in Moorestown, so I've seen that ship in the cornfield many times. It fascinated me when I was a little kid.

kawaikunai		2008-02-21 02:35:17 PM

FarkingUpTheWrongTree: The Bestest: My personal opinion is the primary reason is to keep data out of the hands of rivals,

I don't really buy that part... It's one thing for a reinforced steel tank of liquid to survive reentry, it's another thing entirely for sensitive electronics equipment to make it down in one piece (and not one piece of hot slag).

This. I don't understand the whole "OMGWTFBBQ!!1! MUST NOT LET CHINAMEN GET DATA!" argument. The satellite malfunctioned within hours of launching. How much "data" do people think it was able to collect?

PortWineBoy		2008-02-21 02:36:00 PM

Shostie: Mishno: A cruiser with the Aegis system is not an Aegis cruiser? Isn't calling it an Aegis cruiser a simple way of distinguishing it from any other cruiser, no matter the class, that doesn't have an Aegis system?

No and no . (new window)

/the more you know...

Yes, they are often referred to as Aegis cruisers. To say "aegis class" would be incorrect, but the other reference is correct. Your link to the wiki on Aegis even refers to them as Aegis cruisers in one of the photo captions.

ghostgoat		2008-02-21 02:36:12 PM

The US Gov knows were everything orbiting this planet is as well as were it's going to land when it breaks out of orbit. They just didn't want anyone else to see their sweet spy gear.

Headcheese		2008-02-21 02:36:23 PM

I'm confused. Was the thing in orbit? Was it in a decaying orbit? Had it entered the atmosphere? I've heard so many different stories.

BooRabideau		2008-02-21 02:38:10 PM

F42: BooRabideau: they were more concerned about the treatment of detained enemy combatants (found in the middle of battle)

Arrested because they drove past an embassy, or because they had drawn a funny cartoon a few years back, or kidnapped off the street and offered in exchange for a ransom by warlords.

I'm not kidding, go find some real info instead of suckling at the teat of the pentagon's propaganda.

i'll go with the direct intel i got . . . i'll leave assumptions for those that are not first-hand for you . . . i'll leave you with the lot of them that refuse to acknowledge other, often more severe, crimes to go unchecked as you continue to ignore them and divert attention, instead, to the already highly covered issues

you illustrated my point, well enough for me, thanks

Guysmiley		2008-02-21 02:39:49 PM

mongbiohazard: Sarcasm Incarnate: OK, maybe I am blind but aside from the sentence

"But some think the Pentagon had an ulterior motive in shooting down the satellite."

I find nothing in this article about who is questioning the motives, or what they think they alterior motives were.

And is it really a big deal if our 'motive' was 'because it was a spy satellite and we didn't want anybody else to get a hold of it'?

QFT.

This story is unearthing an epic amount of stupid in people. Why are so many people assuming there's only one reason? I imagine that there's four, in order of importance:
1. To make sure the tech in that satellite doesn't end up reverse engineered by another country
2. To make a domestic political point that it is physically possible (because strangely enough, some people really are stupid enough to believe the "it'll never work" BS around missle defense/surface-based space interceptors)
3. To let folks know internationally that we're still staying ahead of the game even if we aren't being all that obvious about it
4. To minimize the already very slim danger to anyone on the ground from the satellite's fall

Seems easily like a good enough set of reasons to me...

#2 and #3 are moot, we've already tested both land and sea based ABM systems many times. Hell, the government even put up a bunch of videos of tests online.

There's even one video of the same ship as this intercept (USS Lake Erie) intercepting two targets coming in on different trajectories. The first successful intercept with an SM-3 was back in 2002.

burndtdan		2008-02-21 02:45:15 PM

frostus: chaddsfarkprefect: Will President Bush come up with a dance just for this?

Yes he will. (pops)

too farking funny.

unyon		2008-02-21 02:47:00 PM

dothemath: I call BS on this whole deal. Reminds me of the Sputnik launch. We were happy to let the USSR launch first and set the precedent for orbital overflights so we could accelerate our programs and go even further without looking like the asshole. Same thing here. China does it, we protest a little then do the exact same thing less than a year later. From a ship, no less. These satellites mainly fall into the sea if they dont burn up entirely. Another massive lie from a bunch of practiced experts.

yeah. The US LET the Soviets be the first into space. That's the way I remember it too. Wouldn't want to appear the assholes.

frostus		2008-02-21 02:49:23 PM

kawaikunai: The satellite malfunctioned within hours of launching. How much "data" do people think it was able to collect?

No data, but a bunch of really nice technology they didn't want anyone else out there to see.
As FarkingUpTheWrongTree said it probably wouldn't have made it to the ground in any recognizable form, but why take that chance?

The Southern Dandy		2008-02-21 02:50:38 PM

Headcheese: I'm confused. Was the thing in orbit? Was it in a decaying orbit? Had it entered the atmosphere? I've heard so many different stories.

It was in orbit.
Every orbit is a decaying orbit. That's one reason why satellites have fuel.
It was in Very Low Earth Orbit. In the atmosphere? Sort of yes, mostly no.

From what I understand, something had failed on the sat that prevented them from communicating or controlling it. Therefore since it's motors couldn't be controlled to maintain it's altitude it was going to fall to earth sooner or later. They just made it happen sooner....and in many more parts.

ThrobblefootSpectre		2008-02-21 02:53:35 PM

darcsun: . China didn't anounce their plans to destroy their sat, which violated treaty.

The reason that China didn't announce their shoot is that, if it failed, they don't want anyone to know. The fact is, that could have been the 35th rocket they shot at that old weather satellite before they finally hit it. Then announced to the world - we just shot a satellite down.

Announcing it ahead of time - like the U.S. - not only gives everyone safety advanced notice, but also means everyone is watching the FIRST time.

KarmicDisaster		2008-02-21 02:53:59 PM

Headcheese: I'm confused. Was the thing in orbit? Was it in a decaying orbit? Had it entered the atmosphere? I've heard so many different stories.

Well, anything can be an "orbit", when you jump in the air you describe a short arc of a very long orbit around the center of the Earth. All orbits are "decaying", it is just a matter of how long it will take. Something a hundred miles up might only make it around a couple times. Something 25000 miles up can circle pretty much forever. The Earth's atmosphere does not just "end" it falls off exponentially, plus there is some funny business at the outer edges due to the effects of the Sun, solar wind, gravitation from the Moon and Sun, etc. that cause variation.

Generally it is referred to as being "in orbit" if whatever it is can make it around once. For example, Alan Shepard's first flight was "suborbital", he didn't make it around. John Glen's first fight was "orbital", although he was so low that his capsule would have re-entered due to drag in a few weeks if they had not landed anyway.

Generally, an orbit is referred to as "decaying" if the object is going to come down "soon". For example, the Explorer 1 satellite is still in orbit, and it will not decay for about 400 years. Is that orbit "decaying"? All low orbit stuff needs a boost up now and then; that is what the big tank of fuel on the spysat was for. The ISS gets a boost from the docked Russian spaceships every few months for example, or it would not be able to stay in orbit, so I guess you could say it is in a "decaying" orbit too.

Phaid		2008-02-21 02:54:39 PM

kawaikunai > I don't understand the whole "OMGWTFBBQ!!1! MUST NOT LET CHINAMEN GET DATA!" argument. The satellite malfunctioned within hours of launching. How much "data" do people think it was able to collect?

It's not data, it's the construction and design of the satellite itself, and the systems it carries. If the satellite comes down in one piece, enough of its internals might survive to reveal something about it that we don't want known.

SomeCapn		2008-02-21 02:54:47 PM

Unyon - yep. We did. There was a great NOVA documentary about it.

Ike was worried about the free skies rights, especially with all the U2 (not the band, read a book) fly overs they were conducting over the USSR.

If the Soviets did it first, then it would prevent them from crying foul.

Baby Diego		2008-02-21 03:00:17 PM

mongbiohazard

because strangely enough, some people really are stupid enough to believe the "it'll never work" BS around missle defense/surface-based space interceptors

Having fun with that straw man?

A naysayer won't tell you that ballistic missile defense is strictly impossible but that anything less than a perfect system will result in unacceptable losses.

And 'perfect' is increasingly difficult when arms races quickly find ways of offsetting the benefits of ABM technology. See: SLBMs & MIRVs.

I will admit that this interception is a real accomplishment. Most space-based programs take months to prepare and execute. In comparison this is a very fast reaction and deployment.

It's also 30 million dollars to shoot down a large satellite with a large radar and thermal footprint on a known path with weeks notice.

The real world scenario is a MIRV delivery system that may have already released multiple warheads. If you aren't able to intercept before the ascent phase is over then the game is already over. Individual warheads are extremely difficult to track and intercept, especially when the system deploys countermeasures.

lhinds		2008-02-21 03:00:19 PM

SomeCapn
Unyon - yep. We did. There was a great NOVA documentary about it.
Ike was worried about the free skies rights, especially with all the U2 (not the band, read a book) fly overs they were conducting over the USSR.

If the Soviets did it first, then it would prevent them from crying foul.

Good Cold War knowledge +10

squat		2008-02-21 03:01:31 PM

A Navy cruiser in the Pacific Ocean will launch a heat-seeking anti-defense missile into orbit as early as Wednesday night in an effort to destroy the fuel tank.

wtf does anti-defense mean? Shouldn't it be offense instead? Or if it really is a defensive missile then just say defense.

FarkingUpTheWrongTree		2008-02-21 03:06:58 PM

The Southern Dandy: I wonder if the French rubbed one out after they blew away a cardboard cutout of a German thank they propped up in front of the Maginot line.

Viola!! We have spent a bagillion francs on zees system and it works perfectly!!

Heh, THIS

mongbiohazard: This story is unearthing an epic amount of stupid in people. Why are so many people assuming there's only one reason? I imagine that there's four, in order of importance:
1. To make sure the tech in that satellite doesn't end up reverse engineered by another country
2. To make a domestic political point that it is physically possible (because strangely enough, some people really are stupid enough to believe the "it'll never work" BS around missle defense/surface-based space interceptors)
3. To let folks know internationally that we're still staying ahead of the game even if we aren't being all that obvious about it
4. To minimize the already very slim danger to anyone on the ground from the satellite's fall

This too, though I'm still curious as to whether they could've used up that fuel...

IWood		2008-02-21 03:09:52 PM

WaltzingMathilda: You win the patriotism award for the day. Congratulations.

And you get to take home the Uninformed Snark award. Congratulations.

id10ts		2008-02-21 03:10:23 PM

When it absolutely, positively has to be destroyed in orbit overnight.
tourtheloop.com

mongbiohazard		2008-02-21 03:11:54 PM

Guysmiley: #2 and #3 are moot, we've already tested both land and sea based ABM systems many times. Hell, the government even put up a bunch of videos of tests online.

With mixed results in the past, and usually under pretty controlled conditions. This is with a weapons system that's actually fielded and is apparently operational, and in a scenario that is a type of real-world application... and it worked flawlessly... there's a difference between testing and "Hey, we WANT to blow that thing up, so let's just go ahead and pencil that in for Wednesday with something out in the field".

Also, peruse a thread on anything that has to do with tech like this and you will still find people who doubt that the tech will be able to be made to work.... Even notice some of the comments in THIS thread where we KNOW it worked... For example: Next time we've got weeks to calculate and predict the trajectory of an enemy missile, WE'LL BE READY!

There's even one video of the same ship as this intercept (USS Lake Erie) intercepting two targets coming in on different trajectories. The first successful intercept with an SM-3 was back in 2002.

That's cool stuff... I'm a big supporter of missle defense. I just can't fathom intentionally NOT developing capabilities that we know we can develop - and that would protect the lives of our citizens. I've heard the arguments against it, and they fall completely flat IMO.

FarkingUpTheWrongTree		2008-02-21 03:12:56 PM

kawaikunai: The satellite malfunctioned within hours of launching. How much "data" do people think it was able to collect?

I was not aware of that. D'oh.
Of course they don't want our spiffy camera/sensor technology to get into anyone elses' hands either, but again, it's going to hit the atmosphere just as hard as anything in orbit. Did they build this thing out of solid Unobtainium or something?

mcicchi		2008-02-21 03:13:39 PM

partisan222: ArcadianRefugee: GaryPDX: I be proud..nice shootin, boys. First shot too. Pretty sweet.

I agree. For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country.

I was more proud of things like expansion of the voting franchise, civil rights movement, relief efforts to stop genocides, and the embracing of the internet than I was proud of blowing up inanimate objects but to each their own, I guess...

Palm. Apply directly to the forehead.

Galen_Rasputin		2008-02-21 03:15:32 PM

Baby Diego: mongbiohazard

because strangely enough, some people really are stupid enough to believe the "it'll never work" BS around missle defense/surface-based space interceptors

Having fun with that straw man?

A naysayer won't tell you that ballistic missile defense is strictly impossible but that anything less than a perfect system will result in unacceptable losses.

And 'perfect' is increasingly difficult when arms races quickly find ways of offsetting the benefits of ABM technology. See: SLBMs & MIRVs.

I will admit that this interception is a real accomplishment. Most space-based programs take months to prepare and execute. In comparison this is a very fast reaction and deployment.

It's also 30 million dollars to shoot down a large satellite with a large radar and thermal footprint on a known path with weeks notice.

The real world scenario is a MIRV delivery system that may have already released multiple warheads. If you aren't able to intercept before the ascent phase is over then the game is already over. Individual warheads are extremely difficult to track and intercept, especially when the system deploys countermeasures.

Well the nay sayers generally go with the we can't do it, to which the counter is "Yes we can!".

The truth is that the ABM system is not good enough to stop a large scale attack against the US or it's allies. It might be good enough to stop a couple of rogue missles from North Korea, Iran, Pakistan etc... Places that don't have the resource to develop hundreds of missiles or to improve their missiles to the point that they can beat our ABMs, but could launch dozens of missiles.

We, The United States, is not really worried about China, Russia, or even France getting their panties in a bunch and launching hundreds of nukes at us. It is those folks who like to spout off about crushing the western infidel, zionist pig dog, or capitlist agressor and have nukes or might have nukes that worry us.

seal614		2008-02-21 03:17:22 PM

HeyHi: GoDawgs!: harryasaboy: I was more impressed when China did it. Last year.

I was more impressed when the US did it- in 1985 with an ASM-135 ASAT

I was more impressed when we did it in 1963 with a nuke.

Win.

FarkingUpTheWrongTree		2008-02-21 03:18:54 PM

The Southern Dandy: From what I understand, something had failed on the sat that prevented them from communicating or controlling it. Therefore since it's motors couldn't be controlled to maintain it's altitude it was going to fall to earth sooner or later. They just made it happen sooner....and in many more parts.

See, that's what I was wondering about. Didn't see anything about that in TFAs though. Grr.
That'd explain why it had so darn much UDMH or whatever sort of hydrazine they're using on board.

SiON42X		2008-02-21 03:20:13 PM

Not impressed.

img221.imageshack.us

Not worried.

id10ts		2008-02-21 03:22:00 PM

Galen_Rasputin - Well the nay sayers generally go with the we can't do it, to which the counter is "Yes we can!"

There's American'ts
and there's Americans.

We know which group is right.

evilboyevil		2008-02-21 03:23:40 PM

Yay, the US can destroy things better than anyone else! Lazer beamz p3w p3w

Baby Diego		2008-02-21 03:27:28 PM

Galen_Rasputin

The truth is that the ABM system is not good enough to stop a large scale attack against the US or it's allies. It might be good enough to stop a couple of rogue missles from North Korea, Iran, Pakistan etc... Places that don't have the resource to develop hundreds of missiles or to improve their missiles to the point that they can beat our ABMs, but could launch dozens of missiles.

Consider where the US is in relation to these rogue nations: Other side of the planet.

Consider when the ICBM with MIRV delivery system ideally should be intercepted: Ascent phase. There's a problem here.

Yes, this makes the cruiser based interception system all the more useful but still...

/hehe, rouge nations anyone?
//self-rotsky'd for fun

Headcheese		2008-02-21 03:27:51 PM

The Southern Dandy:
and
KarmicDisaster:

Thanks, ya'll. I guess what I was really asking was is this a valid test for shooting down a satellite. From your replies it sounds like the answer would be yes. Maybe this satellite was broken, but the test parameters would have been the same for a working satellite in it's normal orbit.

Headcheese		2008-02-21 03:28:43 PM

it's = its. :-(

Wenchmaster		2008-02-21 03:29:57 PM

Headcheese: I'm confused.

We know. Don't worry about it. Some nice men from the Government will be visiting you soon to help.

Was the thing in orbit?

Yes.

Was it in a decaying orbit?

Yes.

Had it entered the atmosphere?

Depends on one's definition of "atmosphere". The satellite was only up around 230 klicks, which is low enough to produce significant atmospheric drag. You couldn't breathe up that high, and most people consider that altitude to be "outer space", but it was technically within Earth's atmospheric envelope.

I've heard so many different stories.

So have we. What was up with the weed-eater, the live chicken, and the peach preserves?

/This is Fark, so that can't be obscure.

FarkingUpTheWrongTree		2008-02-21 03:30:09 PM

IMMA FIRIN MAH LAZER!
img139.imageshack.us

SHOOP DA WOOP!

/obvious
Where is that from btw?

Wenchmaster		2008-02-21 03:34:46 PM

FarkingUpTheWrongTree: Where is that from btw?

Big Trouble in Little China.

/You must see this movie.
//Now. We'll wait.

Sapper_Topo		2008-02-21 03:35:21 PM

wgb423: ArcadianRefugee

I agree. For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country.

Not everyfark follows politics, Michelle. Your effort was worth a point though.

+1

Agreed +1

SiON42X		2008-02-21 03:35:26 PM

FarkingUpTheWrongTree: Where is that from btw?

From my post about 7 up. Oh, and Big Trouble in Little China.

LOPAN FTW

FarkingUpTheWrongTree		2008-02-21 03:37:14 PM

Wenchmaster: /You must see this movie.
//Now. We'll wait.

*Wikiing*
Dude. Awesome.
Netflix time!

jshine		2008-02-21 03:38:52 PM

Drizzle

/Now witness the power of this fully armed and operational battlestation.

Earth's gravitational binding energy: 2.24e32 J
Megaton (metric) of TNT: 4.184e15 J

Megatons of TNT needed to "blow up" the Earth: 53,537,284,894,837,500 (million tons)

Alternatively, rest-mass converted to energy: 2,488,888,888,888,890
(kg) -- that's a lot of antimatter

...so no, I don't think we'll be blowing up a planet any time soon...

/if the math's wrong -- ooops -- I didn't check it too thoroughly

Displayed 50 of 235 comments