US missile reduces toxic satellite to ball-sized chunks

Nice Shot !

Yes! This of course is nothing at all like what the Chinese did a while back, which the US complained fervently about and has absolutely nothing to do with weapons testing .

Mr A Sceptic

Actually it is quite different from what the Chinese did. The US exploded a satellite that was about to fall back to earth. The subsequent debris cloud is falling back to earth (according to observers on the ground), out of harm's way. The Chinese hit a satellite in a much higher orbit, leaving a debris cloud that remains a menace to space navigation to this day.

A senior Pentagon official earlier had said the missile appeared to have struck the fuel tank containing hydrazine, which could have leaked toxic gas over a wide area if it had survived re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere.

Ooooooooook. I was under the impression that a lightly protected tank of rather unstable FUEL would NOT survive reentry, and even if it did leak the concentration of gas spread over a large would render it almost undetectable, let alone dangerous, where as flying debris the size of footballs now circling the earth at high velocity WAS.

"The intent here was to preserve human life ... it was the hydrazine we were after," Cartwright, who is vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said rejecting Moscow's suggestion it was an anti-missile test.

Grr, what an absolute crock! (that's just my opinion).

Seriously, anyone actually believe this drivel, or am I making more out of this than I need to (meths-drinkers and the "Corn circle society" are not elegible to comment).

I need a cup of tea before I start typing in capital letters.

SRSLY - all our space trash lands in Australia anyway.

It is probable that the driving force behind the shoot-down was to prevent hi-tech surveillance equipment from falling into the wrong hands. This to me is totally understandable. Add to that , the hydrazine danger , which gives us a plausible humanitarian motive to shoot it down , top that with an golden opportunity to actually test a long range , hi speed outer-space shoot-down , and I think it's a slam dunk. Why NOT shoot it down??

p.s. Football size chunks will burn up upon re-entry. An intact schoolbus sized satellite would probably not. Id rather deal with falling footballs.

I agree 100% with what you have just said, and I think it highly likely to be the truth.

So why not be honest about their motives! Grrrrr!

Perhaps you should read the book "33 Strategies of WAR" It might help you gain a much through understanding of the world around you...

So why not be honest about their motives! Grrrrr!

It seems highly likely that the U.S. military saw this as a great opportunity to test its anti-satellite capabilities (as well as prevent classified satellite technology from being captured) under the pretext of "public safety". The idea of the hydrazine fuel surviving re-entry (or that it would remain dangerously concentrated) does sound far-fetched. One could argue that only a naive person would accept the "public safety" excuse (or that the satellite self-destruct pathway failed).

But it seems equally naive to expect a military organization to be completely honest with the public, which incidentally includes its enemies. I don't see any reason for anyone to feel surprised by any of this -- the military is acting just as we should logically expect. With all the weaponologists here at CR4, does many members really expect the military to refrain from testing weapons, or to share its plans publicly?

This was just an excuse to test fire an outer space surface to space intersept defense missle.

This was a military spy satelite and all U.S. military satelites are quiped with self destruct explosive capabilities. The U.S. could have just given it the signal to self destruct. I am glad we (the U.S.) is still working at missile defense. This is the next best thing to "Star Wars" technology which didn't work at the time anyway.

Russia got very upset with the U.S. space shuttle program because the U.S. could concievably go up and capture Russian satelites and bring them back down and study them. As a consiquence, from then on all Rusian military satelites were equiped with self destruct capabilities and the U.S. did the same.

As far as surface to outer space satelite weapons, a well kept secret is that in the late 1970's the Russians over heated a U.S. secret military satelite and disabled it by using a land based LASER. It iook several minutes but the satelite reported greater and greater over heating untill it died.

IF MAN CAN BUILD IT

MAN CAN BREAK IT

It was my understanding that the satellite was "deaf" , as it was reported , and was not responding to ANY communication. Possibly is was not responding to any "self-destruct" orders as well. This would be another argument for a shoot-down.

Perhaps I am naiive , but I would think that taking such a bold step as a shoot-down was the result of prudent consideration of many options. I dont believe the US military has a "Wild West" mentality about such serious issues.

Perhaps I am naiive

Yes.

Perhaps I am naiive

LOL - But perhaps my frequenting this blog will remedy my charachter flaw.

Unlike the older song" Raindrops a'falling on my head", when these bits decide to fall, not all will burn up on re-entry.

The impact scattered the parts far and wide.

The satellite was really shot to demonstrate to others, what may happen if you don't play according to the US rules".

Moral: Buy a thick-membraned umbrella, use it all the time.

Kind Regards....