unyon: 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.

I didnt say the US held back and purposely allowed the USSR to launch the first satellite but it wasnt as earth-shattering as portrayed at the time and it did give us a political advantage. We "won" the space race mainly because we got the most talented of the German scientist defectors after WWII, including Werner Von Braun who invented the V2 rocket.

Wenchmaster
The US has just demonstrated that every satellite in Low-Earth Orbit is vulnerable to US Navy warships.

Seems like satellite attack and orbital denial weapons are much more of a threat to us than our potential adversaries though, no? "We'll take out all your satellites" doesn't mean shiat when we say it to Beijing, but when they say it to us...

/a death star is inferior

Wenchmaster: Headcheese: I'm confused.

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

Awesome. I have some complaints to lodge, and some suggestions for a better democracy. I hope they're good at taking notes.

Karma Curmudgeon: Meh. An undefensed projectile at a predictable orbit, it's not rocket science surgery.

FTFY

This would have been a hundred times cooler if we'd used the big laser on the 747 instead.

browser_snake: This would have been a hundred times cooler if we'd used the big laser on the 747 instead.

the 747 doesn't fly so well in space though

johnny_vegas: browser_snake: This would have been a hundred times cooler if we'd used the big laser on the 747 instead.

the 747 doesn't fly so well in space though

This just in: Lasers are a ranged weapon, not a nickname for the nose of a 747.

Although I'm not sure that system is really operational yet, I thought it was still in development.

ReisFlynn: johnny_vegas: browser_snake: This would have been a hundred times cooler if we'd used the big laser on the 747 instead.

the 747 doesn't fly so well in space though

This just in: Lasers are a ranged weapon, not a nickname for the nose of a 747.

Although I'm not sure that system is really operational yet, I thought it was still in development.

Also, the ABL 747 is intended to intercept ballistic missiles in the boost phase (as in, the rocket motor is still burning, still in the atmosphere). The plan is to burn through the solid motor or liquid fuel tanks of the missile causing all sorts of fireworks and raining down debris on the launch area. Not for use against targets already in space.

Supposedly the plan is for an airborne lethality test in 2009. We'll see.

ReisFlynn: johnny_vegas: browser_snake: This would have been a hundred times cooler if we'd used the big laser on the 747 instead.

the 747 doesn't fly so well in space though

This just in: Lasers are a ranged weapon, not a nickname for the nose of a 747.

Although I'm not sure that system is really operational yet, I thought it was still in development.

Guysmiley: ReisFlynn: johnny_vegas: browser_snake: This would have been a hundred times cooler if we'd used the big laser on the 747 instead.

the 747 doesn't fly so well in space though

This just in: Lasers are a ranged weapon, not a nickname for the nose of a 747.

Although I'm not sure that system is really operational yet, I thought it was still in development.

Also, the ABL 747 is intended to intercept ballistic missiles in the boost phase (as in, the rocket motor is still burning, still in the atmosphere). The plan is to burn through the solid motor or liquid fuel tanks of the missile causing all sorts of fireworks and raining down debris on the launch area. Not for use against targets already in space.

Supposedly the plan is for an airborne lethality test in 2009. We'll see.



Yes well, point was that unless the 747 can fly upsaide down, it would have to be in space to allow it's laser (that points down) to shoot the satellite....

mrexcess: Seems like satellite attack and orbital denial weapons are much more of a threat to us than our potential adversaries though, no? "We'll take out all your satellites" doesn't mean shiat when we say it to Beijing, but when they say it to us...

The US does have more birds in orbit than anyone else, but everyone uses LEO for their communications over continental distances. Ditto for spy satellites.

Did you read that conspiracy thread the other day about the underwater cable cutting? Deep water cables are vulnerable to intrusion or assault by a technologically-proficient enemy. The most useful work-arounds for cable interruptions are encrypted satellite communications.

The Chinese destruction of a satellite was a message from China to the rest of the world that they can threaten our eyes and ears from ground launch stations. In addition to the proof-of-concept demonstration, this little stunt just showed everyone that roughly half of our current surface combatant ships can do the same thing.

Aegis equipped ships can be classified as Theater Air Defense platforms. Everything that flies is now vulnerable to US Navy weapons- at least up to Low Earth Orbit.

Now consider an Ohio-class submarine. This boat can already launch ICBMs from any ocean and strike just about anywhere on the surface of the planet. Adapt one of those to launch ASAT missiles instead. Use surface ships, aircraft, and/or ground stations to track and designate targets. Anything in LEO could then be taken out without warning. This would not necessarily cripple another country's military commo, but would very likely give the US a significant military advantage.

This was a political stunt, a scientific proof-of-concept test, and a neat way to deal with a rogue satellite. Any one of these would be adequate reasons for shooting down the satellite. BZ to the Navy for doing all three at once.

To all of those who are going "meh" at shooting this thing down, it's no piece of cake.

One problem, for example, is hitting a satellite traveling at 4-5 miles per SECOND (around mach 25ishiathink) with a missile that has a top speed of something like mach 5.

It would be much more fair to say that we launched a missile into the path of the satellite, than to say that the missile intercepted the satellite.

Fubini: It would be much more fair to say that we launched a missile into the path of the satellite, than to say that the missile intercepted the satellite.

I don't think so, why do you say that?

jcooli09: I don't know that I understand why we didn't just come out and say it.
This satalite is a danger, and gives us an excellent opportunity to try our toy.
Anybody?

I've got no problem saying it. I couldn't help but laugh when I heard news reports about people accusing the US of wanting to shoot down the satellite for target practice. I just think, "Yeah, so? As long as the satellite needs to be destroyed anyway and shooting it down doesn't cause unnecessary harm, what's wrong with saving the cost of setting up a target?"


FormlessOne: If by "trebuchet" you mean "railgun," the idea's the same - fling an unpowered projectile at high velocity from a stationary, ground-based delivery system into a trajectory that will intersect an orbial vehicle. Entirely plausible, currently under research.

METAL GEAR?!

ReisFlynn: Sure, assign whatever motives you want to the launch, be it a dick-measuring contest with China or whatever... but the "OMG it had sekrit data!!! Consphirathy!" folks are a bit daft. It probably did. So. Fricking. What?

So what? You said it right there, the whole reason that we had to shoot it down. We don't go around telling the whole world what our military capabilities are, because they give us a distinct advantage on the battlefield. Its not a conspiracy, thats how we do business and how we have done business since the beginning of the cold war. Protection of assets and all.

snochick:
nobozo: Karma Curmudgeon: Meh. An undefensed projectile at a predictable orbit, it's not rocket science.
(me) Well, actually ....
Missile science?

Lol, yep -- they both got up there somehow.

johnny_vegas: Yes well, point was that unless the 747 can fly upsaide down, it would have to be in space to allow it's laser (that points down) to shoot the satellite....

No, it does not only point down. The nose of the ABL aircraft is a turreted telescope that can both pivot and swivel. The pivot is past 90 degrees and the swivel is 150 degrees either (300 degree arc).

Guysmiley: johnny_vegas: Yes well, point was that unless the 747 can fly upsaide down, it would have to be in space to allow it's laser (that points down) to shoot the satellite....

No, it does not only point down. The nose of the ABL aircraft is a turreted telescope that can both pivot and swivel. The pivot is past 90 degrees and the swivel is 150 degrees either (300 degree arc).

you are right, thanks!

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

I was more impressed when the USAF did it in 1985.

BigMattyC: FormlessOne:

Assuming $13K per pound, you could've put more than two and a half tons into orbit for what we just spent to shoot down one aging satellite in a decayed orbit. Launch vehicles are getting even cheaper, too, as the article points out - we could be looking at $1K/pound in the next decade or so, thanks to multiple-nation and private sector competition. It's not an issue to get it up or down - just how expensive the payload was to manufacture.


Ummm, iirc, the satellite itself had a mass of 2200 kg. Which is 5000 lbs. Which is two and a half tons for all you math geeks out there.

So I'd call it a wash.

Not only that, it wasn't an "aging satellite in a decaying orbit".

It was a recent launch that went wrong before the satellite was placed into orbit, and then the damn thing wouldn't listen to ground commands to put itself where it needed to be, so it's orbit couldn't be corrected/stabilized/whatever...

Maybe if they'd have spent 14K per pound instead of 13K per pound things would've worked out better.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Striking a satellite from a ship at sea. Impressive. Who knows maybe this missile shield is not that far fetched?

Well, it's a lot easier to hit something where you have days rather than minutes to map its trajectory (and with MIRV, all of a sudden you'll have a lot of trajectories). And as earlier mentioned, whether the missile is fired form land or sea is irrelevant, once it's airborn guidance systems will lead it to the target.

gund Quote 2008-02-21 01:27:21 PM
The Stealth Hippopotamus: Striking a satellite from a ship at sea. Impressive. Who knows maybe this missile shield is not that far fetched?
There's no difference from ship or land. This is a missile not a rocket, it can change it's trajectory you know?



YOU have no idea what you are talking about!

The target was the size of a bus.
It was moving at 17,000 M.P.H.
It was 133 miles straight up.


/I have been inside Blossom Point.
//I know what rocket science is.

I shoot missiles out of submarines and I cannot even fathom the bullshiat fire control data that went into hitting that thing right in the gas tank.

nice shot.....targets

simpsonsfan

they should have a destruct mechanism on these things just in case.

My tinfoil theory is that they did have a self-destruct on the satellite and it was launched as a target from the get-go. Launch the missile, blow the satellite and it looks like a hit. Then they can say, "Hey look, it works," and they can go back to throwing billions at the whole missile defense boondoggle.

the chinese have been warned...

james_bong: ReisFlynn: Sure, assign whatever motives you want to the launch, be it a dick-measuring contest with China or whatever... but the "OMG it had sekrit data!!! Consphirathy!" folks are a bit daft. It probably did. So. Fricking. What?

So what? You said it right there, the whole reason that we had to shoot it down. We don't go around telling the whole world what our military capabilities are, because they give us a distinct advantage on the battlefield. Its not a conspiracy, thats how we do business and how we have done business since the beginning of the cold war. Protection of assets and all.

That's kinda what I'm getting at, actually.

johnny_vegas: ReisFlynn: johnny_vegas: browser_snake: This would have been a hundred times cooler if we'd used the big laser on the 747 instead.

the 747 doesn't fly so well in space though

This just in: Lasers are a ranged weapon, not a nickname for the nose of a 747.

Although I'm not sure that system is really operational yet, I thought it was still in development.

Guysmiley: ReisFlynn: johnny_vegas: browser_snake: This would have been a hundred times cooler if we'd used the big laser on the 747 instead.

the 747 doesn't fly so well in space though

This just in: Lasers are a ranged weapon, not a nickname for the nose of a 747.

Although I'm not sure that system is really operational yet, I thought it was still in development.

Also, the ABL 747 is intended to intercept ballistic missiles in the boost phase (as in, the rocket motor is still burning, still in the atmosphere). The plan is to burn through the solid motor or liquid fuel tanks of the missile causing all sorts of fireworks and raining down debris on the launch area. Not for use against targets already in space.

Supposedly the plan is for an airborne lethality test in 2009. We'll see.



Yes well, point was that unless the 747 can fly upsaide down, it would have to be in space to allow it's laser (that points down) to shoot the satellite....

Well, the 707 could do it... ;)

KarmicDisaster
For example, the Explorer 1 satellite is still in orbit,

Uh, I think you mean Vanguard I.

http://code8200.nrl.navy.mil/vanguard.html

Explorer I came down in 1970.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explorer_1

and it will not decay for about 400 years.

It's now estimated to be significantly shorter than that (240 yrs or so), although still very impressive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard_1

Also, 50th anniversary of its launch coming up on March 17.

Steve Zodiac: I know most of the kill crowd here doesn't care, but we have more to lose than any other nation, and it's not that hard to knock down satellites whose orbits are known. And most satellites orbits are known.

or thats just what they WANT you to think....

Listen up... polar orbit spy satellites fly in formations... you must remove one to replace it.

Remove to replace.

They all go through a window at both poles in their orbit... you can't sneak another one into the pattern and have coverage remain reliably intact.

The replacement satellite will go right back up in the "crater" the last one occupied.

I just wanted to point out that the Vought ASM-135 ASAT missile was cancelled by the democrat controlled congress because of their opposition to weapons in space. The wikipedia page doesn't state that fact. I remember Pat Schroeder was on the Arms Services Committee and opposed it.

The First: Wouldn't it be something if that Satellite had some evidence that Bush admin did have illegal jail camps in other countries, or pictures of exactly where OBL is (now and before)?

How much did we spend on that satellite that our only option is to blow it up?

that is a stupid idea worthy of one of those t.v. shows like CSI or 24 (even though they're fun to watch); Totally illogical. Why would it have any sort of data like that?

TheGreyPiper:

Armies have ALWAYS been about deterence.

"Always?"

That is demonstrably false.

Armies have as often been about offensive capability, invasion, and conquest as they have been for simple deterrence.