|
Post by frankcor on Feb 17, 2008 14:24:28 GMT -5
Absolutely, Clipper. Though the stated main target is the fuel tanks, it will break things up a bit. I believe some larger engine and structural parts are still likely to reach the surface.
Remember, this was a spy satellite that lost power immediately after launch. I'm sure there's some concerned some technology may survive the trip back to the surface.
I recently read about Air Force proposals back in the '60s to "Encapsulate and Capture Enemy Spy Satellites." Parts of our cold-war space efforts are still classified today.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Feb 17, 2008 14:39:17 GMT -5
I recently read about Air Force proposals back in the '60s to "Encapsulate and Capture Enemy Spy Satellites." Parts of our cold-war space efforts are still classified today. So 007's You Only Live Twice wasn't as far fetched as critics believed? I mean in terms of encapsulating and capturing enemy spacecraft.
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Feb 17, 2008 14:55:08 GMT -5
You just reminded me. On a recent Nova program on PBS, the show opened with a story about a long-locked room in the original NASA command center at Cape Canaveral. Today it is a museum. When they unlocked the room, they found a blue trunk containing two space suits dating back to the '60s. They were similar to but unlike the suits worn by the Mercury or Gemini astronauts we all watched on TV. The two suits were numbered 007 and 008.
By researching the names sewn onto the chests of the suits, the author was able to track down the story of our secret space spy program which ended prior to an actual launch. The Soviets did launch several missions to their manned spy station but both nations soon learned that technology had advanced to the point where automated spy satellites were more cost effective.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Feb 17, 2008 14:57:49 GMT -5
From www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330778,00.html "Left alone, the satellite would be expected to hit Earth during the first week of March. About half of the 5,000-pound spacecraft would be expected to survive its blazing descent through the atmosphere and would scatter debris over several hundred miles. If the missile shot is successful, officials said, much of the debris would burn up as it fell. They said they could not estimate how much would make it through the atmosphere. Military and administration officials said the satellite is carrying fuel called hydrazine that could injure or even kill people who are near it (if) it hits the ground."
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Feb 17, 2008 15:57:14 GMT -5
From what I can tell, the tanks must be the largest structures on the spy bird. Otherwise, it would seem to me the fuel would be all burned up long before it hits the ground.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Feb 17, 2008 16:16:48 GMT -5
from: blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/fishy-rationale.html"....one military satellite observer to tell DANGER ROOM, "Everything they said made sense except for the reason for doing the intercept in the first place." "The hydrazine tank is a 1-meter sphere containing about 400 liters of hydrazine. The stated hazard area is about 2 hectares, something like 1/10,000,000,000 of the area under the orbit," he adds. The potential for actual harm in unbelievably small. Which means the hydrazine rationale just doesn't hold up, literally not within orders of magnitude." "The cynic in me says that the idea that this is being done to protect the lives of humans is simply a feel-good cover story tossed to the media," another veteran space security specialist adds. "It is true that hydrazine is very toxic and could result injury or death, but the odds of this happening are minuscule. The average person in American is many thousands of times more likely to be killed in a car accident than by any falling debris. In fact, no one has ever been killed by space debris (I have heard of one or two being struck but only minor injuries). So pretty much everything else you can think of (including getting hit by an asteroid/comet) is many times more likely than dying from this. Having the US government spend millions of dollars to destroy a billion-dollar failure to save zero lives is comedic gold."
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Feb 17, 2008 16:26:15 GMT -5
It's like Judge Judy always says: "If it doesn't make sense, it's probably not true."
|
|
|
Post by rrogers40 on Feb 17, 2008 16:39:51 GMT -5
The thing I love about this is that everyone knows it doesn't make sense- and the government knows that everyone knows that it doesn't make sense. Yet they still feed us this stuff about it being for "safety reasons".
I just find it really hilarious- and I think the government does to- but its just a fun story.
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Feb 18, 2008 0:37:08 GMT -5
Well, they have to make at least a half-assed attempt to not show their true reason for the exercise. Otherwise it would give the rest of the countries a reason to be more aggressive.
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Feb 18, 2008 8:16:57 GMT -5
I think it used to be called diplomacy.
|
|
|
Post by frankcor on Feb 18, 2008 8:23:22 GMT -5
Heh, the game is as old as the Cold War's beginning. The Russians buzzed our carrier (Kitty Hawk?) last week at 2000 feet with a strategic bomber. Just a little training exercise in international waters, doncha know?
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Feb 18, 2008 8:48:10 GMT -5
I fall into the school of thought that the Cold War is still very real and very active. Some of the players have changed roles, but the secrecy and "training exercises" or "testing exercises for human safety reasons" have stayed the same. Remember when that Russian sub sank?
|
|
|
Post by concerned on Feb 18, 2008 11:53:09 GMT -5
I hope the feds don't decide to play start wars on the night of the eclipse cause it will screw everything up.
On the otherhand I wish NASA could do a feed on the blast to save our planet from doom from this satelite. It would be really something nice to see. I have often thought that with our technology it would be so much easier to wage war from outerspace than having to use tanks, etc on the ground to do our deeds. Now if I was President............hehehe
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Feb 18, 2008 12:12:05 GMT -5
Why do you think there is such a push to have the International Space Station?
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Feb 18, 2008 15:21:50 GMT -5
When the Russians in 1957 continually failed to produce a nosecone that would withstand the heat of re-entry and deliver a nuclear warhead "safely," they allowed the faction wanting to put up a sattellite to launch Sputnik, the scenario of course not about bringing anything back down. But ICBM's were the only real goal for both the US and Russia. I'm sure the military aspects still rule.
|
|