Hmm, What's the REAL reason for shooting down spy satellite?

[AnnInLa]

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/02/fishy-rationale.html

snip, snip

"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."

"There has to be another reason behind this," said Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, tells the Washington Post. "In the history of the space age, there has not been a single human being who has been harmed by man-made objects falling from space."

So what could that other reason be?

Our veteran space security specialist believes there are several. To him, the satellite shot is a chance for the military to try out its missile defense capabilities; a way to keep secret material out of the wrong hands; and a warning to the Chinese, after they destroyed a satellite about a year ago. He shared some educated guesses:

My first thought is that MDA is always looking for ways to pimp their systems and provide further justification that they work. The upcoming change in Administration is almost guaranteed to result in missile defense losing the top-level advocacy that it has enjoyed for the last several years. Any additional missions and justifications that the missile defense community can provide would increase the likelihood of their systems (and budgetary power) surviving.

An additional reason could be that destroying the satellite would prevent any chance of another nation getting access to any of the potentially sensitive technology on board. However, I have heard from other sources that supposedly the NRO is actually against the "shootdown" (and I hate that term - the satellite is not flying and is coming down regardless of whether or not it gets hit by a missile). Their absence at the press briefing could lend some weight to this rumor, although it could also be explained by the nature of the satellite and its still classified link to the NRO.

My real concern is that this is simply a knee-jerk reaction made by the Administration in response to the purported threat by the Chinese. Since the April 2007 ASAT test, there have been rumors and whispers going around that the Administration and like-minded individuals are looking for more sticks (instead of carrots) to use against China. While this "shoot down" is not a direct action against China, it would be a clear signal that the US can possess an active ASAT capability at any time if it so desires. That is a serious development as the previous US ASAT system using F-15s was mothballed in the 1980's.

More at link above....really interesting

[BadgerLaw2010]

1. We don't want it to land in China or Russia.

[Blue-Jay]

11. That makes too much sense. Say something crazy.

[Lex]

29. They projected for awhile that it will land in North America anyway.

Without it being blown up, it had the greatest chance of coming down in North America.


"As it looks like it might re-enter into the North American area," then the U.S. military along with the Homeland Security Department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency will either have to deal with the impact or assist Canadian or Mexican authorities.
link: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h7aoM2ii3QVBCAV8m2HtJSuPxPNwD8UFVHR80

[spanone]

42. it's not going to 'land' anywhere

[lapfog_1]

2. It's not a demonstration of star wars technology

There is about a 1% chance of hitting a populated area.

Despite the NRO objection, some military types might think it best to destroy it before it "falls" into the wrong hands.

And the third reason given, a demonstration to the Chinese that we, too, have ASAT capability, is not all that far fetched.

Hitting an orbiting satellite is not nearly as difficult as hitting an ICBM or even a Scud, never mind intercepting a cruise missile or similar.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. Astronomers have posted photos of the satellite.

Those photos are notable because there are no solar arrays deployed. The astronomer speculated that they failed to deploy and that is why it's busted.

The alternative explanation is that the satellite uses some other form of power... i.e. nuclear. Enough power to say, drive a very high-power laser.

Tachyon pulse generator, disruptor array... you know, whatever. ;)

When typing that, I refrained from doing the little air quotes Dr Evil style.

[BadgerLaw2010]

4. Um, no. No sat can carry a nuclear reactor.

[Tesha]

8. The Russians must not have heard that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmos_954

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3182124&mesg_id=3182693

[lovuian]

25. Yes some spy satelites are running on nuclear power

yep

[americanstranger]

20. A commenter at Kevin Drum's site has an interesting theory....

This is from Doc At The Radar Station:

"Perhaps the bus-sized spacecraft was carrying a salvo of "Rods from God"?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/700oklkt.asp

"HOW DO THE RODS WORK? The system would likely be comprised of tandem satellites, one serving as a communications platform, the other carrying an indeterminate number of tungsten rods, each up to 20 feet in length and 1 foot in diameter. These rods, which could be dropped on a target with as little as 15 minutes notice, would enter the Earth's atmosphere at a speed of 36,000 feet per second--about as fast as a meteor. Upon impact, the rod would be capable of producing all the effects of an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon, without any of the radioactive fallout. This type of weapon relies on kinetic energy, rather than high-explosives, to generate destructive force (as do smart spears, another weapon system which would rely on tungsten rods, though not space-based)."

Perhaps they really have to knock this thing out because if it re-enters the atmosphere the rods get launched any old fucking place! Might send one into downtown Manhattan, who knows...?"

The thread in which this appeared is at

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_02/013141.php

---

- as

[bluerum]

26. solid tungsten rods - 1 foot in diameter and 20 feet long? How heavy a load

is that to haul into orbit?

Again, why would these not burn up upon re-entry? And how accurate a weapon could these things possibly be if the re-entry angle had to be precisely controlled to avoid complete vaporization on re-entry? Free fall from space is not all that precise. If I recall, all those space missions (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo) had landing zones of about a 300 mile radius.

[americanstranger]

28. Gotta be a bear to put into orbit.

The article linked has the breakdown of how these rods would ostensibly work - with one satellite to hold the rods and another to steer them (if it were a controlled drop).

The fact that they could be free-falling my be the impetus for trying to blow the thing apart. One rod of that size could probably take out a block or two in a major metropolitan area...

Isn't tungsten extremely heat-resistant? Weren't incandescent light bulb filaments made out of tungsten?

(On edit: A little info about tungsten - "Tungsten, symbol W (from the earlier name, wolfram), metallic element that has the highest melting point of any metal. Tungsten is one of the transition elements of the periodic table...The principal uses of tungsten are as filaments in incandescent lamps, as wires in electric furnaces, and in the production of hard, tenacious alloys of steel. It is used also in the manufacture of spark plugs, electrical contact points, and cutting tools, and as a target in X-ray tubes.")

I'm not arguing with you here. The post caught my eye and i found it intriguing.

- as

[bluerum]

30. Still gets pretty hot re-entering atmosphere at those speeds. If they control

the angle and the speed then maybe it makes it in without vaporizing. The next problem is navigating it to a target. Since it is a solid block of metal with no moving parts, I am not sure how they planned on doing that.

Yes, interesting idea. Probably not all that practical as a weapon.

[americanstranger]

31. Nobody ever accused these guys of being practical!

Cheney probably dreamed it up one night - one of his 'happy dreams.' :)

- as

[americanstranger]

32. More fun tungsten facts!

Tungsten melts at about 3422°C (6192°F) and boils at about 5555°C (10,031°F). It has a specific gravity of 19.3, nearly twice that of lead.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552735/tungsten.html

So even if tungsten rods of that size did burn up, then we'd only have to deal with molten metal that weighs twice as much as lead. Sweet dreams!

- as

[Tesha]

40. Yes, tungsten is very heat resistant; it's also VERY dense.

Yes, tungsten is very heat resistant; it's also VERY dense.
We'd use it in place of Depleted Uranium in munitions except
that it's much more expensive and we have all this DU laying
around anyway (from our nuclear weapons and nuclear power
programs).

Tungsten is also just about as poisonous as DU.

Still, this "rods from god" stuff sounds like a paranoid
delusion. They can't deliver more kinetic energy to the
target than was invested in hoisting them up into orbit
so we're certainly not talking about "nuclear weapon"
sized booms, although they'd certainly make effective
ground penetrators.

Tesha

[lovuian]

27. we definitely aren't being told everything

that the Military is handling this tells you its a DEFENSE ISSUE

I think he has a good theory

[bbinacan]

5. Hydrazine sure looks like nasty stuff.

Hydrazine is highly toxic and dangerously unstable, especially in the anhydrous form. Symptoms of acute exposure to high levels of hydrazine in humans may include irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, dizziness, headache, nausea, pulmonary edema, seizures, coma, and it can also damage the liver, kidneys, and central nervous system. The liquid is corrosive and may produce dermatitis from skin contact in humans and animals. Effects to the lungs, liver, spleen, and thyroid have been reported in animals chronically exposed to hydrazine via inhalation. Increased incidences of lung, nasal cavity, and liver tumors have been observed in rodents exposed to hydrazine.<16>

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine"

[bluerum]

13. will evaproate harmlessly upon re-entry,,, as will the bulk of this POS

Shooting at it is an exercise in chest puffing knuckle dragging misdirection. If they hit it I will be surprised. More likely a self destruct device on board.

Although I really do suspect that there is some super whiz bang spy technology in some kind of protective enclosure that they want make sure is damaged beyond recognition before coming back to earth.

[bbinacan]

14. If the hydrazine is

enclosed in titanium, it could likely make it to the ground. Not a good scenario.

[bluerum]

22. Why would the titanium not evaporate as well?

[bbinacan]

43. With a melting point of

3000 F. It may not. I don't know how hot it will get on reentry.

[dbonds]

6. Why can't the space shuttle pick it up.

The shuttle is already in orbit, so it wouldn't require a special launch. The crew might not be trained for that mission, but they could get instructions. Is it too big to fit in the cargo hold?

[tridim]

7. I'm guessing that the orbits don't match.

Space is huge.

[stevedeshazer]

21. Impossible

The orbits are many thousands of miles apart.

[ileus]

9. Testing R&D...

[B Calm]

10. It's an excuse to waste billions more of our tax dollars on Raygun's dream

and enriching the military industrial profiteers who donate heavily to the republican party!

[Donnachaidh]

12. those 5 million emails are uploaded into the hard drive

that -- and Mark Foley's collection of *Boy Scouts at the Pool* videotapes.

They cannot risk either to survive the landing. :evilgrin:

[AnnInLa]

15. oh, bingo!

lol

[Beetwasher]

16. Here are all the options as to "why"

1. They are telling the truth (unlikely)
2. It's a cover story;
A. For a test of new tech or a demonstration/warning
B. They are shooting down something else or shooting down the sattelite for other reasons such as covering up evidence of something the sattelite was doing.

[dysfunctional press]

17. 2.c.- they are doing it because the chinese did it last year...

and they want to demonstrate a similar capability.
but- it took the chinese 3 tries, and they left the rest of the space-faring world pretty pissed, because of the huge amount of spacedebris they created in the process.

[Beetwasher]

19. I Covered That W/ My 2.A

Demonstration/warning. But yeah, it's a possibility.

[americanstranger]

18. I figured it out! Here's what's really happening....

The US will fire a missile at the satellite and miss. They will then fire five more missiles, which will also miss.

But they won't escape the atmosphere, and by some bizarre bit of luck they'll all land on Iranian nuclear sites.

Condi's got her quote all ready to go, and it starts a little something like 'No one could have imagined...'

The White House's response? 'Hmph. Sorry, Iran. the missiles just happened to land on your nuclear sites. Go figure.'

---

- as

[orleans]

23. incredibly--that's what i thought. n/t

[americanstranger]

24. Can't put anything past these bastards, eh?

I would not be the least bit surprised. It's amazing how cynical Bush has made us all.

- as

[orleans]

33. it's really a sad thing--but it's true--more cynical than ever

i've lost my innocence

[americanstranger]

34. I've always been a cynic, to a degree.

Bush and his administration have honed my skills to the point where I hate them sometimes.

How nice will it be when there are people running the country whose words you'll actually be able to take at face value?

- as

[orleans]

37. i don't know. i try to listen to dems, try to believe, and then...

something ... i want to believe, but retain a level of skepticism --
there is a level of distrust (although must less distrust).
but it's still there.

the republika congress for the past million years
the fuckhead for this past lifetime

i'll never be the same again.

i suspect none of us will.

[pleah]

35. I guess because they can.

:crazy:

[Fire Walk With Me]

36. A showcase for weapons sales, just like the first Gulf "war".

[Hekate]

38. Practice. It's a demo to the world of our military prowess. ...

At least that's what I believe.

Hekate

[screembloodymurder]

39. Itchy trigger finger?

Cheney's hunting big game.

[FlowerPowerToday]

41. I was thinking the same thing!