kntgsp: There's a limit to how many decoys you can pack into an ICBM

Decoys are nothing more than mylar balloons, so you can pack in quite a few.

The ABM crap also does nothing about cruise missiles or smuggled in nukes, two far more likely ways that a group would use to attack us.

No nation on Earth will ever shoot a nuke at us with a ballistic missile as that would be suicide. We'd know within minutes exactly from where that missile came and we'd respond in kind.

kntgsp: dozen hundred

-If its really a spy satellite....

wouldn't it be more 'secret' if you didn't tell everybody that it was a SPY SATELLITE?


/Oohh China,WE have secrets...
//Oohh America, WE already know them...

kntgsp: Either way, with the defense budget what it is, putting a couple dozen hundred intercept missiles at every station is easily within the realm of possibility.

We could call it 'The Maginot Line Shield'.

RE "What's wrong with wanting to protect our country from missile attacks? Absolutely nothing. The other nuclear powers are just pissy because it neuters their ICMB capability against us."

I'm no rocket scientist (hey! I'll be here all day, folks!) but shooting down a satellite is way different from shooting down multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, which (my understanding) is what mostnooclear weapons are today.

This shoot down of whatever the hell it was likely didn't "neuter" anybody. We proved we can destroy our own satellites (a single satellite moving in a predicatble pattern) with a rocket. Big deal. That's a long way off from missile defense.

Befuddled: Decoys are nothing more than mylar balloons, so you can pack in quite a few.

The ABM crap also does nothing about cruise missiles or smuggled in nukes, two far more likely ways that a group would use to attack us.

No nation on Earth will ever shoot a nuke at us with a ballistic missile as that would be suicide. We'd know within minutes exactly from where that missile came and we'd respond in kind.

Mylar decoy balloons are not party balloons. They take up quite a bit more space, particularly for the inflation cartridge assembly.

And the max range for a cruise missile is around 1000km. Putting a warhead in just ups the weight and lowers your range. They'd have to be decently close.

theoriginalslash: I'm no rocket scientist (hey! I'll be here all day, folks!) but shooting down a satellite is way different from shooting down multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, which (my understanding) is what mostnooclear weapons are today.

This shoot down of whatever the hell it was likely didn't "neuter" anybody. We proved we can destroy our own satellites (a single satellite moving in a predicatble pattern) with a rocket. Big deal. That's a long way off from missile defense.

Obviously a single rocket won't take down multiple re-entry vehicles. You launch multiple rockets. and once they hit re-entry, their path is predictable. They don't zig zag and do loop-de-loops.

TommyymmoT:

/by the way, it's aluminum.
//tin does nothing to stop the rays that cause masturbation.
///or the voices.


So thats what is wrong with mine! Note to self, buy aluminum foil. Thanks!


All the foil-hat folks know the hydrazine story is bogus, so the question is, what are they really hiding?

Dont' tell anybody but it really contained a beacon to tell the Vogon demolition crew which planet to demolish

I wonder if the satellite they supposedly shot down is one of the ones they spy on our enemies with, or one of the ones they spy on us with?

theoriginalslash: RE "What's wrong with wanting to protect our country from missile attacks? Absolutely nothing. The other nuclear powers are just pissy because it neuters their ICMB capability against us."

I'm no rocket scientist (hey! I'll be here all day, folks!) but shooting down a satellite is way different from shooting down multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, which (my understanding) is what mostnooclear weapons are today.

This shoot down of whatever the hell it was likely didn't "neuter" anybody. We proved we can destroy our own satellites (a single satellite moving in a predicatble pattern) with a rocket. Big deal. That's a long way off from missile defense.

But getting closer than the slingshot and rock, eh?

/it's not perfect
//give up

Shostie: garumph: so the question is, what are they really hiding?

Proprietary technology. I fail to see why this is so hard for people to understand.

I think most of us understand that. If the government came out and said it instead of hiding behind the safety threat it would calm a lot of imaginations.

When the government starts covering up with stupid stories, more people start imagining wild scenarios. They need to establish some credibility.

RE kntgsp 2008-02-22 03:44:56 PM
"Obviously a single rocket won't take down multiple re-entry vehicles. You launch multiple rockets. and once they hit re-entry, their path is predictable. They don't zig zag and do loop-de-loops."

So what military contractor do you work for? Seriously. Not snarking.

You know, the reason they did that was because it was said to have classified technology on it. It was said right up front, when this whole thing was first announced.

What I don't get is why no one has said it since. It's not exactly (ahem) rocket science to figure out the motive. (Although the "we got one too" point is well-taken.)

rocinante721: ... and only an elderly Sterno drinker & a colicky baby will survive!

Mmmmm. Sterno!

Dr. Venture: It wasn't even a satellite. It was a spaceship coming to warn us about the lizard people and Bush is one of the lizard people.

Golf clap.

And it goes without saying that rocinante721 won the thread before any of us got here.

Smeggy Smurf: Dont' tell anybody but it really contained a beacon to tell the Vogon demolition crew which planet to demolish

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Dashiki: TheWizard: I_C_Weener: Top men? Who are these top men?

Top. Men.

Bureaucratic fools.




Well, in the new Indiana Jones flick, Indy actually goes here and does some crazy stuff.

Can't wait.

This is probably the type of stuff Dick Cheney keeps inside his man-sized safe.

I need a new keyboard...


These comments always get me. If your keyboard is ruined, how did you just type that your keyboard is ruined?

/I know, it's sarcasm. But still.
//What if there were no hypothetical questions?

inkling79 Quote 2008-02-22 03:28:20 PM
rocinante721 ... and only an elderly Sterno drinker & a colicky baby will survive!

I came for the Andromeda Strain references and got one on the Boobies. Thank you.



Wasn't it a Greek hernia?

theoriginalslash I wonder if the satellite they supposedly shot down is one of the ones they spy on our enemies with, or one of the ones they spy on us with?

It's one of the ones they've been sending up and using on both for at least 30 years now.

Spy satellites are almost invariably nuclear powered. If you think the hydrazine or whatever was the reason they shot it down, you are mistaken. They didn't want the plutonium falling in the wrong place, and they didn't want the instrumentation falling in the wrong place.

We've seen what happens when a nuclear satellite crashes before.

kntgsp: theoriginalslash: I'm no rocket scientist (hey! I'll be here all day, folks!) but shooting down a satellite is way different from shooting down multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, which (my understanding) is what mostnooclear weapons are today.

This shoot down of whatever the hell it was likely didn't "neuter" anybody. We proved we can destroy our own satellites (a single satellite moving in a predicatble pattern) with a rocket. Big deal. That's a long way off from missile defense.

Obviously a single rocket won't take down multiple re-entry vehicles. You launch multiple rockets. and once they hit re-entry, their path is predictable. They don't zig zag and do loop-de-loops.


Right, but your still trying to hit something falling at 25 times the speed of sound, with what, a 3 minute window? Good Luck.

This A-Sat launch proved only that we can hit a 130 mile high, bus sized object traveling at a known speed, in a known path, given weeks to calculate the intercept.

Now try hitting a traffic cone doing mach 25 on an unknown path with little to no warning.

rocinante721: ... and only an elderly Sterno drinker & a colicky baby will survive!


That might be the first and most obscure Andromeda Strain reference ever.

Well done!

/The book was the scariest thing I ever read as a kid. I had nightmares for weeks.

You guys do realize that jet fuel is highly toxic? I'd want Hazmat taking care of it.

Of course, I just grew up on an Air-Force-Superfund-Site where the drinking water was contaminated with jet fuel, so what do I know?

Spongebob Plaid Pants: These comments always get me. If your keyboard is ruined, how did you just type that your keyboard is ruined?
/I know, it's sarcasm. But still.
Here is your answer

Nuclear fuel. Not weapons.

Take a look at this:
CBS.com (pops)

There's a photo there of the missile (pops) but check out the numbers... The latitude and longitude puts the observer 1600 miles from the nearest path of the missile and according to the compass, the observer is facing southwest (123 degrees counterclockwise from 12o'clock, if you will).

I don't know; doesn't look like a photo of the actual event to me.

/my tinfoil hat is 2-ply

Is it just me or is Operation Burnt Frost the greatest operation name ever. I'll name my child that, regardless of gender.

/kids

rocinante721: ... and only an elderly Sterno drinker & a colicky baby will survive!

I win

What's amazing about this story is that the press keeps printing the line about hazardous fuel, even though it's obviously bogus. Any liquid, upon re-entry, would either burn up, never get out of the upper atmosphere, or both.

Is it a Plutonium-based battery? Who knows. But the liquid that supposedly was in the "fuel tank" definitely wasn't the problem.

Reverend J: Are people really still buying that hydrazine story? I guess no one ever bothered to read the MSDS on that. Plus they said the tank was ruptured, so it's not like any of it would survive re-entry.

It doesn't matter whether "that hydrazine story" is true or not. This was a classified satellite, and do we really want this to land in, say, China? Either one of these reasons is a perfectly good one to destroy the satellite.

No, you can't have state secrets. Not yours.

Something about US spy satellites. They all contain plutonium as a power source. Now it is not a nuclear reactor, the heat generated by the decay of the plutonium is converted to electricity, but there is plutonium on board.

/and knowledge is power.

dittybopper: Erm, no. Solar panels are cheaper for things that only orbit the Earth, unless you absolutely need *GOBS* of power, and then RTG's aren't much better than solar panels anyway. In that case you need a real, honest-to-goodness reactor.

RTG's are basically only good for missions to the outer planets. Otherwise, they mostly aren't worth the trouble.

You might use RTGs or reactors on spy satellites that use radar, because they have to orbit low (the return power decreases as the fourth power of the distance) and solar panels would add lots of drag. Cosmos 954 used a reactor for this reason.

Yes, satelites usually burn up upon re-entry into the atmosphere. However, the hydrazine fuel was 50 degrees below freezing! The tank it was in was built to be inpenetrable. The satelites short amount of time in the atmosphere wouldn't have done the job this time. Also, this lame satelite never used hardly any of its fuel...leaving it 1,000 gallons full. 1,000 gallons of extremely hazardous fuel:

"Hydrazine is a dangerous, although non-cumulative poison, is corrosive to eyes, skin, and mucuous membranes, and is a probable human carcinogen. Its reducing effects make it extremely destructive to tissues, and it has a variety of adverse systemic effects. Monomethyl hydrazine has a half-life of 2 days in the environment, and does not bioaccumulate.

Caustic burns to the skin are the immediate result of contact with the liquid. Hydrazine dissolves hair, and causes caustic-like burns on skin.

The vapour is extremely irritating to the eyes and temporary blindness can result, and eye contact with the liquid causes burns and possibly permanent damage. Flushing with large quantities of water for 15 minutes is the recommended treatment.

Vapours cause irritation to the nose, throat, and respiratory tract. High concentrations cause spasm, inflammation, chemical pneumonitis, and pulmonary edema, and coma in humans, being fatal to half of rats exposed for four hours at 570 ppm and half of mice at 252 ppm. Other symptoms of exposure may include a burning sensation, coughing, wheezing, laryngitis, shortness of breath, headache, nausea, and vomiting. Symptoms from chronic, nonacute exposure include lethargy, vomiting, itching and burning sensations, tremors, conjunctivitis, and contact dermititis.

Readily absorbed through the skin, it can inhibit certain enzyme systems causing reduced body metabolism. Other systemic effects may include damage to liver, kidneys, nervous system, and red blood cells."

And yeah, Chances are it would of crashed somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean. Why take the chance? Say it lands in New York City? Oops. Or Beijing. uh, accident? Yeah right. Taking that chance is beyond stupid ESPECIALLY if you have the technology.

I prefer an Ice Station Zebra reference here, and am upset to not find any pics from that movie here yet.

Two points:

First off, its 1000 *pounds* of hydrazine.
Hydrazine has a density around 1.01 (very close to water). If my math is correct, 1000lbs of hydrazine is roughly equal to 112 gallons. Thats a medium sized fish tank. Further, its boiling point is 114°C, and its melting point is 1°C. If they did rupture the fuel tank, the odds of any of the (relatively) tiny quantity of fuel on the satellite making it to the earth's surface without evaporating is pretty slim.

Second. Anti-ICBM weapons attack the missile before it lets any warheads go. A MIRV equipped ICBM sheds its nosecone prior to re-entry. It then uses maneuvering thrusters to orient itself towards it first target, then releases a warhead. IT repeats that process for each weapon. The goal is not to shoot down warheads, the goal is to shoot down the MIRV bus in its mid-course ballistic transit phase (or the missile itself during its boost phase, if you're close enough).

That is all.

Even though I hate what this does for the "star wars" proponents I am glad we did hit the thing.
Of course this is only a "little" better than the usual test (bus size and all) so it SHOULD have hit the damn thing.

I really would like them to do it with the countermeasures that would be available, THEN we know what needs to be further "tweaked"

Hydrazine ? Bull***tzine ~ its the plutonium pellets or whatever else is on it they didn't want doing a soft landing somewhere salvageable or its a chance to show off their Satellite bashing skills. they just went public with their intent so the Ruskies and Chinese wouldnt chuck a tantrum at this potentially inflammatory action.

rocinante721: ... and only an elderly Sterno drinker & a colicky baby will survive!

thats a bit strained

surprising the low inventory of SM 3 prior to this shot...

given Link (new window) thats what, 8 shots/ship?

... and how long did it take them to mod the three weapons they modded to make the shot?