PDA

View Full Version : US Cruiser Strikes Dead Spy Satellite



Fraser
2008-Feb-21, 05:50 AM
Officials have confirmed that the US spy satellite, USA 193, has been hit by an anti-satellite missile fired from USS Lake Erie positioned west of the Hawaiian Islands in the mid-Pacific at 10.30pm (US Eastern Time) Wednesday night. Fears of the propellant hydrazine being released into the atmosphere prompted the military response. Although plans for [...]

More... (http://www.universetoday.com/2008/02/20/us-cruiser-strikes-dead-spy-satellite/)

Noclevername
2008-Feb-23, 06:19 AM
So, no nuclear explosion from secret RTGs. Take that, conspiracists!

Ronald Brak
2008-Feb-23, 07:21 AM
The attempt cost up to $60 million according to some estimates:

http://www.wrightwoodcalif.com/forum/index.php?topic=11007.msg174058

While I certainly agree that the United States should take steps to prevent people being injured by its satellites, I'm afraid that it wasn't a very cost effective way of saving lives. If we assume that it had a one in a thousand chance of killing someone and the cost of shooting it down was only $6 million rather than $60 million, That still comes to an average cost of $6 billion dollars per life saved. There are places on this earth where a $1,000 is plenty to save a life, so the six million dollars could have been used to save 6,000 lives instead. So while I applaud efforts by people to prevent their actions from hurting people, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that more lives certainly could have been saved if the money had been spent differently. Of course, as part of the calculation we should consider the posibility that shooting down the satellite may have replaced a test fireing of the missile that would have been performed anyway.

danscope
2008-Feb-24, 06:34 AM
It's really an acedemic exercise in technology which...exrapolated.....would .could be useful in dealing with a near earth object. Same technology....
bigger missle/impact mass. This is actually a good use of the taxpayer's money....for once.
Well done, Navy.
Best regards, Dan

Ronald Brak
2008-Feb-24, 06:55 AM
I'm not sure it's really good practice for dealing with NEOs. NASA sends larger rockets, with larger payloads, quite accurately, quite regularly. It's that sort of thing that is more likely to help with preventing an asteroid impact.

Trocisp
2008-Feb-24, 07:26 AM
It was all political posturing, really. It's the US proving that they're capable of shooting a satellite out of orbit, that china isn't the only one.

Ronald Brak
2008-Feb-24, 07:28 AM
It was all political posturing, really. It's the US proving that they're capable of shooting a satellite out of orbit, that china isn't the only one.

If anyone thinks the U.S. can't send a rocket to meet an object in low earth orbit, they really haven't been paying attention.

Trocisp
2008-Feb-24, 07:32 AM
If anyone thinks the U.S. can't send a rocket to meet an object in low earth orbit, they really haven't been paying attention.It's not that we can't. It's that we haven't. Until you actually do something, it's only on paper, no matter how probable it is that you can be successful.

I mean, we couldn't even shoot the thing down in cloudy weather. :lol:

Ronald Brak
2008-Feb-24, 08:26 AM
It's not that we can't. It's that we haven't. Until you actually do something, it's only on paper, no matter how probable it is that you can be successful.

I mean, we couldn't even shoot the thing down in cloudy weather.

The U.S. quite regularly has rendezvous in low earth orbit.

korjik
2008-Feb-25, 02:54 AM
If anyone thinks the U.S. can't send a rocket to meet an object in low earth orbit, they really haven't been paying attention.

you are missing the point. NASA can take weeks to get a rocket to the pad and be really obvious when it sends one up, and NASA has strict limits on how many rockets it can send up at once. This intercept showed that with seemingly simple mods to a standard surface to air missile, on a standard air defence ship, we can peg a LEO object.

Seeing as a Ticonderoga-class CG can carry over 100 SM-3, this is saying that the USA is alot closer to an ABM defence than is let on.

This wasnt 'hey we can peg a sat!', this was 'hey we can put 1000 ABM interceptors on the coast!'

Ronald Brak
2008-Feb-25, 03:34 AM
you are missing the point. NASA can take weeks to get a rocket to the pad and be really obvious when it sends one up, and NASA has strict limits on how many rockets it can send up at once. This intercept showed that with seemingly simple mods to a standard surface to air missile, on a standard air defence ship, we can peg a LEO object.

Seeing as a Ticonderoga-class CG can carry over 100 SM-3, this is saying that the USA is alot closer to an ABM defence than is let on.

This wasnt 'hey we can peg a sat!', this was 'hey we can put 1000 ABM interceptors on the coast!'

I see your point. However, we still didn't really doubt the U.S. could do it.

Trocisp
2008-Feb-25, 03:39 AM
I see your point. However, we still didn't really doubt the U.S. could do it.Who is "we"?

If by "we" you mean the collective Intelligence services of Russia, Korea, etc (any country dubbed "risky") then I suggest you make sure you're posting from behind a very good proxy, however if by "we" you mean a regular civilian with his own informed (or mis informed, I'm not educated enough about you to judge) opinion, I'd say that you're opinion doesn't necessarily agree with that of any number of countries that might have conflicts that that could escalate to war.

This, in itself, still doesn't show that the US can intercept an ICBM, but it goes a long way towards that goal.

Call it a "proof of concept."

Abbadon_2008
2008-Feb-25, 04:11 AM
Yee-Haaaa!!!!!

We came, we saw, we shot down our own malfunctioning piece of hardware!

Now, if we could only get a high-ranking al-Qaeda operative to stow away aboard one of the Delta V rockets before launch, and hide inside the next satellite...we'd really show them something.

Alas, we currently fight people who don't even have armies, much less aerospace vehicles.


FRAK!