PDA

View Full Version : Mr. Platts is not alone...



Click Ticker
2009-Mar-05, 09:21 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,505167,00.html

Regarding the satellite collision thread that is currently locked. At least one Russian thinks the U.S. did it on purpose.

I'm staying out of the conspiracy discussion. Just showing the article is all.

NEOWatcher
2009-Mar-05, 09:25 PM
So; how much fuel was left on board of Orbital Express? (ducks and runs)

Click Ticker
2009-Mar-05, 09:29 PM
so; how much fuel was left on board of orbital express? (ducks and runs)

12

NEOWatcher
2009-Mar-05, 09:32 PM
12
That proves it's not true. It needs 42.

Argos
2009-Mar-05, 09:32 PM
Ah, Fox news. Im waiting anxiously for the Pravda version.

Click Ticker
2009-Mar-05, 09:41 PM
Ah, Fox news. Im waiting anxiously for the Pravda version.

I can't look at it from here, but if anyone cares to take a look and sum up...

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090303/120392490-print.html

Argos
2009-Mar-05, 09:57 PM
I can't look at it from here, but if anyone cares to take a look and sum up...

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090303/120392490-print.html

Well, Google shows news links from all over the world under the string 'Leonid Shershnev' [the general whos brought up the story].

JayUtah
2009-Mar-05, 11:08 PM
So some guy who used to hold a high-ranking position speculates that this could have something vaguely to do with a program that's public knowledge. And this is news why?

slang
2009-Mar-05, 11:17 PM
The Maj. Gen. (Ret.) can come here and defend his idea. But somehow I suspect there will be a lot of "well, I could answer that, but it's classified!".


And this is news why?

Ad views. Page-hits. Controversy. Gearing up for "Can't prove it wasn't a UFO!". :rolleyes:

Starfury
2009-Mar-06, 12:50 AM
Ah, Fox news. Im waiting anxiously for the Pravda version.

When it comes to reliable news sources, I prefer The Onion and the Weekly World News to Fox News myself. :lol:

Gillianren
2009-Mar-06, 01:18 AM
I notice that it's the opposite of Warren's idea.

Sam5
2009-Mar-06, 04:58 AM
I can't look at it from here, but if anyone cares to take a look and sum up...

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090303/120392490-print.html

After considerable research, I finally tracked down the original article of 3.3.09, as published in the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper on Tuesday.

The Novesti re-write followed that article, and the Fox re-write was based on the Novesti re-write.

The original article, as translated by Bable Fish, seems knowledgeable and reasonable.

Let’s see if this link works....

http://66.163.168.225/babelfish/translate_url_content?.intl=us&lp=ru_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.mk.ru%2fblogs%2fMK%2f2009%2 f03%2f03%2fscience%2f397557%2f

---------

Added: Ok, the link seems to work. The General knows all about this subject because the Russians have most likely been studying the technique too. Both the US and the Russians could not ignore such a possible technology and tests of it. But I don't know of the collision was the result of such a test by either side.

Sam5
2009-Mar-06, 05:02 AM
So some guy who used to hold a high-ranking position speculates that this could have something vaguely to do with a program that's public knowledge. And this is news why?

You need to read the original article rather than the re-writes.

gwiz
2009-Mar-06, 10:41 AM
I notice that it's the opposite of Warren's idea.
Ah, but also note that one of the people commenting on the story suggests that the general is only blaming the Americans to cover up the fact that it was a Russian attack on an American satellite.

That's the joy of being a conspiracist, the same set of facts can be quoted to "prove" any theory at all.

Click Ticker
2009-Mar-06, 02:11 PM
The article just reminded me of the thread, that's all. Thanks for looking up the source article, Sam5.

Sam5
2009-Mar-07, 05:00 AM
The article just reminded me of the thread, that's all.

I understand. I certainly don’t know if the Iridium 33/Cosmos 2251 collision was an accident or not, but proposals for these types of tests have been going on for years. That’s why the Russian General already knew about them.

Military report, June 2006:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj06/sum06/page.html

”For space control, the actions remain remarkably similar to refueling, but the intent of the user differs markedly. The space-control angle of the additional ACS (hereafter referred to as space-control PACS [SC PACS]) involves controlling an enemy satellite by supplanting its original ACS and negating the satellite’s mission with the PACS. An SC PACS can control a satellite in numerous ways, incorporated within the five Ds of OCS:”


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=2570

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:1fGn6hR95IoJ:www.stratfor.com/chinas_offensive_space_capability+offensive+satell ites&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

Fortis
2009-Mar-08, 06:29 PM
I notice that it's the opposite of Warren's idea.
He's just ripping off my Devil's advocate response to Warren, where I suggested that it was actually a test of a US system. I think my version was much more inventive. ;) :)

dgavin
2009-Mar-11, 08:09 PM
Considering that the US Arsenal already includes a series of 4 known Anti-Sat missiles, (and probably a few unannounced ones) that are comparatively cheaper to waste and launch then an expensive satellite.

What would be the point of an Anti-Sat satellite?

Starfury
2009-Mar-12, 12:09 AM
Launching a missile from the Earth to blow up a satellite is definitely easier than trying to orchestrate an intricate orbital dance between two satellites whose end goal is to have them colliding.

Good point, dgavin.

samkent
2009-Mar-12, 11:47 AM
One is an Overt action and the other is errrr “Just an accident”.

Opps our mostly worthless sat just slowly changed its orbit and drifted into your expensive communications sat. Sorrry.

But it is interesting how high some of the debris is now. Up to 1049 miles from this article. They are going to stick around for a while.

http://www.space.com/news/090310-satellite-debris.html

dgavin
2009-Mar-13, 01:00 AM
One is an Overt action and the other is errrr “Just an accident”.

Opps our mostly worthless sat just slowly changed its orbit and drifted into your expensive communications sat. Sorrry.

But it is interesting how high some of the debris is now. Up to 1049 miles from this article. They are going to stick around for a while.

http://www.space.com/news/090310-satellite-debris.html

The military is never in the business of arranging 'Accidents' so they are blameless. From a military point of view, of which I'm qualified to speak about, when you blow something up, you usually -want- the enemy to know you did it. So they will cringe in their boots wondering what sort of new vile technology your military scientists have dreamed up now.

50% of war is actual fighting, the other 50% of war is psychology. Convince a soldier that if he fires at you, that you will be able to not only fire back at him, but also fire back at all his companions, destroy his rations, his rear supplies, his family in some remote town, and his dog... And it's more likely you will never have to fire a shot.

'Accidents' have little to no psychological value and therefore have little to no value as a weapon of war.

It's one of the reasons you'll never see the USA an China try and have a go at a conflict. Even in the 1980's our soldiers (unless they were really really dense) understood that a face off with China was a one way ticket to obvlivion. Look at it this way, did our 1.5 million troops of the 1980's really want to see a billion+ screaming angry Chinamen across a front line from them? Never. Never ever. That is the surest way to lose your army, because quite simply they are overwhelmed by the psychological reality of what those billion plus angry Chinamen could do....and surrender.

JayUtah
2009-Mar-13, 04:47 AM
50% of war is actual fighting, the other 50% of war is psychology.

Sun Tzu would argue that it's far less of the former and far more of the latter.

But the sentiment is true: especially with a military as dependent as ours is upon satellites, an enemy will want to send a message that those satellites are not safe and that he willfully can deprive us of them whenever he wishes. That creates in the mind of the satellite-dependent army the unwillingness to engage. And that is the art of war.

captain swoop
2009-Mar-13, 11:05 AM
The military is never in the business of arranging 'Accidents' so they are blameless. From a military point of view, of which I'm qualified to speak about, when you blow something up, you usually -want- the enemy to know you did it. So they will cringe in their boots wondering what sort of new vile technology your military scientists have dreamed up now.

50% of war is actual fighting, the other 50% of war is psychology. Convince a soldier that if he fires at you, that you will be able to not only fire back at him, but also fire back at all his companions, destroy his rations, his rear supplies, his family in some remote town, and his dog... And it's more likely you will never have to fire a shot.

'Accidents' have little to no psychological value and therefore have little to no value as a weapon of war.

It's one of the reasons you'll never see the USA an China try and have a go at a conflict. Even in the 1980's our soldiers (unless they were really really dense) understood that a face off with China was a one way ticket to obvlivion. Look at it this way, did our 1.5 million troops of the 1980's really want to see a billion+ screaming angry Chinamen across a front line from them? Never. Never ever. That is the surest way to lose your army, because quite simply they are overwhelmed by the psychological reality of what those billion plus angry Chinamen could do....and surrender.

Which supposes that the entire population of china is available to fight. Why not also count the Entire population of the US in your reasoning then add the Force Multipliers available to the US?

jlhredshift
2009-Mar-13, 12:17 PM
Which supposes that the entire population of china is available to fight. Why not also count the Entire population of the US in your reasoning then add the Force Multipliers available to the US?

The psychology on the U.S. side in a shooting conflict with China would be that 700 billion in Treasury notes would be revoked and made worthless, all trade would cease, and all assets of China in the U.S. would be confiscated.

dgavin
2009-Mar-13, 02:20 PM
Which supposes that the entire population of china is available to fight. Why not also count the Entire population of the US in your reasoning then add the Force Multipliers available to the US?

I was just giving you the pshycology of how it was in the 80's. With former USSR it was even keel, so we always blusted at them from across the fulda gap. Course they did the same.

With China, there was a general feeling that we should never go there. The prospect of having to face even 1/10th of thier population is enough to make one cringe.

dgavin
2009-Mar-13, 02:28 PM
Sun Tzu would argue that it's far less of the former and far more of the latter.

But the sentiment is true: especially with a military as dependent as ours is upon satellites, an enemy will want to send a message that those satellites are not safe and that he willfully can deprive us of them whenever he wishes. That creates in the mind of the satellite-dependent army the unwillingness to engage. And that is the art of war.

Sun Tzu is probably right. I'm not a military genius, but pointing out most soldiers, even low ranking ones, understand that war is not just about fighting. It's also about destroying your enemies will to fight.

korjik
2009-Mar-13, 03:20 PM
I was just giving you the pshycology of how it was in the 80's. With former USSR it was even keel, so we always blusted at them from across the fulda gap. Course they did the same.

With China, there was a general feeling that we should never go there. The prospect of having to face even 1/10th of thier population is enough to make one cringe.

In '90, when I was in intel training for the Army, the concern about China was their increasing ability to project force, not what would happen in an invasion of the chinese mainland. My impression was that there was never any reason to invade China. Their air force was too primitive to stop the Navy and Air Force from bombing any bridge, rail or road. Once the transport infrastructure was gone, all you would have to do is wait for the food to run out, and the war was over.

galacsi
2009-Mar-13, 03:24 PM
In '90, when I was in intel training for the Army, the concern about China was their increasing ability to project force, not what would happen in an invasion of the chinese mainland. My impression was that there was never any reason to invade China. Their air force was too primitive to stop the Navy and Air Force from bombing any bridge, rail or road. Once the transport infrastructure was gone, all you would have to do is wait for the food to run out, and the war was over.

I cannot believe that , it is well known and american officials have confirmed it many times , the Us never aim at civilians and only bomb military strategic targets.

slang
2009-Mar-13, 04:28 PM
I cannot believe that , it is well known and american officials have confirmed it many times , the Us never aim at civilians and only bomb military strategic targets.

Transport infrastructure (bridge, rail, road, etc) IS a military strategic target. Attacking those does not mean you are aiming at civilians... What is your point? Or was it political sarcasm?

korjik
2009-Mar-13, 06:33 PM
I cannot believe that , it is well known and american officials have confirmed it many times , the Us never aim at civilians and only bomb military strategic targets.

1) Bridges, rail lines and roads are military targets.

2) if the US is fighting China, then we will do what is needed to win.

galacsi
2009-Mar-13, 07:26 PM
Or was it political sarcasm?

It would be forbidden by the rules !!! :naughty: :rolleyes:

Swift
2009-Mar-13, 07:37 PM
May I suggest, not to talk about the US military policy or strategy towards China. It is not astronomy, it has less and less to do with the topic of this thread, and it is too close to politics.

SpaceCowboy
2009-Mar-14, 12:43 AM
You would think that with all the sophisticated technology that NASA and the Russian Federal Space Agency has, that one or the other would have been able to see the collision coming and take the necessary steps to avoid one.

Grashtel
2009-Mar-14, 12:58 AM
You would think that with all the sophisticated technology that NASA and the Russian Federal Space Agency has, that one or the other would have been able to see the collision coming and take the necessary steps to avoid one.
NASA didn't have anything to do with it, the Iridium network is run by Iridium Satellite LLC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_Satellite_LLC) not NASA, and its the US Space Surveillance Network's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Surveillance_Network) job to track satellites not NASA's. US Space Surveillance Network (and anyone else closely tracking satellites) did see that they were going to approach but the probability of collision wasn't high enough for Iridium Satellite LLC to consider it worth moving the satellite (remember that a major limitation on the life of satellites is their fuel supply, if you can avoid making a manoeuvre you do).

On the Russian side the Cosmos satellite was out of service an apparently dead so unless you subscribe to Warren Platts's conspiratorial point of view they couldn't do anything about the collision even if they had thought it would be worth taking action.

mugaliens
2009-Mar-22, 01:50 PM
Ah, Fox news. Im waiting anxiously for the Pravda version.

Ok: Мы прерываем эту программу для того чтобы принести вам специальную сводку последних известий. Некоторый генералитет который использовал для того чтобы держать высокий чин спекулирует что 2012 реально, только востребовать что техногенная катастрофа, первая стадия чего, котор включили преднамеренно вступать в противоречия 2 спутника. Должностные лица, однако, требуют то " это было accident."

Wow. The word "accident" doesn't translate into Russian. What does that tell you? It must be a conspiracy...


...tongue in cheek disclaimer...

...pathetic attempt at humor disclaimer...