PDA

View Full Version : Satellite Shot Down!



Bret
02-21-2008, 09:17 AM
Anybody else think this is cool?

Navy Shoots Down Satellite! (https://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331642,00.html)

Basil
02-21-2008, 09:24 AM
I do, but I'm biased.

DrEntropy
02-21-2008, 09:25 AM
Hitting a rock with another rock. William Tell was a piker. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/devilgrin.gif

bugimike
02-21-2008, 09:26 AM
I was hoping for a video from the nose-cone or something!!! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/devilgrin.gif WAY COOL!!!!

tony barnhill
02-21-2008, 09:36 AM
I saw a video on the news this morning - from launch to detonation...way cool it was!

bugimike
02-21-2008, 11:03 AM
I'm gonna have to watch for that!!! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/thumbsup.gif

Baz
02-21-2008, 12:37 PM
Yeah, I think it's waaay cool.
Mike, vid is here. (https://www.breitbart.tv/html/50894.html)

vagt6
02-21-2008, 01:12 PM
Hmmm, I thoght there were significant "software" probems with the missile defense systems?

This missile seemed to have no problemos at all.

Pretty good shot, too. Good enought to rattle the Russians and Chinese (who complained that it was an act of "agression")!

Keeps 'em honest, I'd say. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/thirsty.gif

Twosheds
02-21-2008, 01:40 PM
Pretty good shot, too.

Reckon they had to lead it a right fer piece!

Bret
02-21-2008, 01:47 PM
Pretty good shot, too.

Reckon they had to lead it a right fer piece!

<SNORT!> Kentucky Windage! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

Basil
02-21-2008, 02:11 PM
Hmmm, I thoght there were significant "software" probems with the missile defense systems?



Can't comment beyond saying you can't believe everything you hear (or read).

Bret
02-21-2008, 02:29 PM
I’m not in the know – but I am impressed.

Seems to me that it was a pretty significant accomplishment considering that the satellite was a considerably different target than the missiles the weapon was designed to bring down.

Consider the following; Missiles tend to fly slower & lower and tend have a pretty good IR signature (they're really REALLY HOT!). Where as the satellite was traveling at a significant speed, was at a much higher altitude and was scientifically colder than a missile having been in languishing in the coldness of space.

bugimike
02-21-2008, 04:19 PM
Thanks for posting the vid link Baz /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/thumbsup.gif ! I've been watching the news ever since and nothing but the usual "sensational" headlines!! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wall.gif

TR6oldtimer
02-21-2008, 06:07 PM
This is truly an amazing engineering feat. I recall during missile exercises in the 70's, the fire control men on the ship were instructed to aim the telemetry armed missiles slightly off the drones so as to not knock them out. But that was at 30 miles and 10,000 feet, not even close to this action. It is also impressive on how fast the engineers were able to alter the missile system to take out an orbiting body, something it was not designed to do.

Then there is the awesome capability of the radar and tracking systems to acquire and track an object in orbit.

Mind numbing to this old salt, but just another day at work for those sailors.

DrEntropy
02-21-2008, 06:11 PM
The "Lake Erie" crew. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/thumbsup.gif

The new ship's motto oughta be: "One Shot, One Kill!" /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

NutmegCT
02-21-2008, 06:19 PM
hmmm - didn't China shoot down one of its own "weather" satellites a few months back?

And didn't several countries call that an act of aggression too?

<stumbling all around, stumbling all around, stumbling all around ... stumbling here and there, stumbling everywhere ... thank you Zez Confrey!>

T.

Bret
02-21-2008, 08:28 PM
Actually China did what China always does. I mean China’s government has never been one for making "announced" missile tests. And almost always seems to schedule some sort of launch (sending missiles down range over or near Taiwan) whenever they want to make a point and never with any sort of warning. Just as they did when they shot down their own Satellite. Whereas in our case, we went to great lengths to give plenty of heads up about our actions.

At face value I tend to believe the safety aspect for justifying the shoot down of the openly admitted "spy satellite". But I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there was more to the “official story” about the downing. That said I see a significant differences in this case vs. China's shooting down of their "weather" (wink, wink - nudge) satellite.

Thinking about it in the on going Spy vs. Spy games even today – if the missile broke up on re-entry some of the bits & pieces might be a intelligence & metallurgical treasure trove of information should any of it be recovered by the wrong hands.

DrEntropy
02-21-2008, 09:40 PM
hmmm - didn't China shoot down one of its own "weather" satellites a few months back?

And didn't several countries call that an act of aggression too?

<stumbling all around, stumbling all around, stumbling all around ... stumbling here and there, stumbling everywhere ... thank you Zez Confrey!>

T.



FINALLY!!! Tom, that trigger'd the memory.

"Fascinatin' Rhythm"... Gershwin, but been buggin' me for MONTHS!

Thank you, thankewTHANKYEW!!!

NutmegCT
02-21-2008, 10:11 PM
Doc - U WEKKUM!

bugimike
02-22-2008, 08:02 AM
The part that I find incredulous NOW is that Secretary Gates is offering some of the technology used to the Ruskies and the Chinese!!!!! Did the riccocheting pieces hit our own foot????? /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wall.gif

Bret
02-22-2008, 09:19 AM
The part that I find incredulous NOW is that Secretary Gates is offering some of the technology used to the Ruskies and the Chinese!!!!! Did the riccocheting pieces hit our own foot????? /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wall.gif I saw that too and ain't that all that comfy with the notion of giving anything to the Chinese or the Ruskies either.

But in a way this "gesture" on our part doesn’t seem to be the actions of an aggressive nation flexing it’s mussels as those two governments have suggested.

Basil
02-22-2008, 09:26 AM
And you can rest assured that we are not giving away any technology that is critial or proprietary.

Bret
02-22-2008, 09:47 AM
I believe that to be true. But the notion of giving them anything seems ridiculous to me.

Heck if’n I was in charge – I wouldn’t even give them the blue prints to the Norton Bombsight off of an old B-17. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

zblu
02-22-2008, 09:58 AM
Just hope the rubble ends up not in my backyard like last time (skylab)

lawguy
02-22-2008, 11:19 AM
I get nostalgic.

When I was but a teenager, mutually assured destruction kept everyone scared enough not to kill each other. However, it was the much derided and ridiculed Star Wars that nudged us from a cold stalemate to a clear victory.

Nope, that'll never work. All our brightest and best journalists told us so.

DrEntropy
02-22-2008, 11:21 AM
There's likely to be nothing but a light dusting of aluminum oxide from what's left of that thing after that whacking. I'd be stunned if anything larger than a pea is left. All will be subject to re-entry velocity high enuff to vaporize to dust. I kinda think Skylab was what prompted this latest effort.

Bret
02-22-2008, 11:33 AM
There's likely to be nothing but a light dusting of aluminum oxide from what's left of that thing after that whacking. I'd be stunned if anything larger than a pea is left. All will be subject to re-entry velocity high enuff to vaporize to dust. I kinda think Skylab was what prompted this latest effort.
+1!

Yup, the smaller the pieces the better chance nothing will survive re-entry.

Still - it was an amazing shot!

Twosheds
02-22-2008, 11:49 AM
Don't take this question the wrong way. I'm just curious; not making a statement. I am devoutly apolitical.

How did the hydrazine burn in outer space where there is no oxygen? Was liquid oxygen carried on board the satellite, and did it's tank rupture also, allowing it to combine with the hydrazine to make the fireball?

Bret
02-22-2008, 12:57 PM
Don't take this question the wrong way. I'm just curious; not making a statement. I am devoutly apolitical.

How did the hydrazine burn in outer space where there is no oxygen? Was liquid oxygen carried on board the satellite, and did it's tank rupture also, allowing it to combine with the hydrazine to make the fireball?
Good question. While I dan't explain how – I’ll take a stab at it.

In the video there is a clear explosion (fireball) and a vapor cloud that followed. This seemed like a logical result of the missile impacting the Satellite.

If you’ve ever watched the booster separation of multi-staged rockets in space, you can actually see residual flames & glowing embers trailing the separation. So it seems to me that if get something hot enough (say from a high velocity kinetic impact of two objects. /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif ) you’re going to have massive amounts of heat generated.

So again it seems logical that a lot of stuff was vaporized on impact in this case and (as Doc said) anything that survived will surely be burnt up during it’s re-entry.

TR6oldtimer
02-22-2008, 02:58 PM
...How did the hydrazine burn in outer space where there is no oxygen? Was liquid oxygen carried on board the satellite, and did it's tank rupture also, allowing it to combine with the hydrazine to make the fireball?

Hydrazine does not need oxygen for combustion. It will breakdown by being passed over a catalyst or when combined with an oxidizing agent. If the satellite used the later method, when the tanks were ruptured the two would combine and kaboom, it's over.

Twosheds
02-22-2008, 05:12 PM
Thanks, Ray.

I called my friend Mike The Rocket Scientist at an undisclosed location and he said that, for sustained combustion in outer space, hydrazine must be mixed with an oxidizer. The oxydizer must have been present on the satellite. Something perchlorate?

Something jogged my memory. Isn't C-stoff and T-stoff hydrazine hydrate and potassium perchlorate or something? I had a dream last night about an ME-163 taxiing up to the fuel pumps and the pilot asking for a fill-up of C-stoff and T-stoff. Don't remember how he could have taxiied on that skid, though. But it was a dream O.K.?

Looked it up:

C-stoff was hydrazine hydrate/methanol, the fuel.

T-stoff was hydrogen peroxide, the oxydizer.

Basil
02-22-2008, 10:32 PM
Nope, that'll never work. All our brightest and best journalists told us so.

Well, ahhh, ummm, nope, not gonna go there /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Bret
02-22-2008, 11:19 PM
Nope, that'll never work. All our brightest and best journalists told us so.

Well, ahhh, ummm, nope, not gonna go there /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif
<<SNORT!>> You n me both Basil! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

lawguy
02-23-2008, 11:06 AM
Nope, that'll never work. All our brightest and best journalists told us so.

Well, ahhh, ummm, nope, not gonna go there /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif
<<SNORT!>> You n me both Basil! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

I was clearly baiting...and i couldn't get a bite...except from myself-

That is what you get when reporters use those politically opposed to the program for their source of scientific knowledge...and they really don't want to know or report differently.

To bring it back to present day...and away from politics, the lack of scientific knowledge surrounding the reporting of the satellite shoot down is astounding. Apparently many reporters never heard of, and never bothered to find out about kinetic energy weapons. They all seem astounded that this "dummy" warhead could bring down the satellite. there's a dummy in the vicinity...but it ain't the warhead.

DrEntropy
02-23-2008, 04:40 PM
They all seem astounded that this "dummy" warhead could bring down the satellite. there's a dummy in the vicinity...but it ain't the warhead.

It's on account of all that pesky "science" stuff... that "velocity" and "mass" relationship business. Writing for a living shouldn't mean having to actually LEARN about the particular subject, should it? After all, they have so many "expert sources" to count on.

:devilgrin:

Basil
02-23-2008, 04:50 PM
Your quote tag is wrong doc

DrEntropy
02-23-2008, 05:02 PM
I seem to be doin' that a bit lately. :wink:

Basil
02-23-2008, 05:18 PM
I seem to be doin' that a bit lately. :wink:

Won't happen if you use the Quote button instead of typing it manually :laugh:

DrEntropy
02-23-2008, 05:51 PM
feh. Old horse, new trick.

Can I use th' word ~FETCH~ now? :smirk:

Basil
02-23-2008, 08:09 PM
feh. Old horse, new trick.

Can I use th' word ~FETCH~ now? :smirk:

No..that's ModSecurity - part of the Apachie server, nothing to do with the forum software.

DrEntropy
02-23-2008, 08:20 PM
BHUt...buttt....

THERE it IS!!!

:smirk:


And Apache is here on more'n one box... CentOS is my so-far fave.

Basil
02-23-2008, 08:23 PM
BHUt...buttt....

THERE it IS!!!

:smirk:


And Apache is here on more'n one box... CentOS is my so-far fave.

try it without the ~~

DrEntropy
02-23-2008, 08:32 PM
Sure.

Lure me in with chocolate and sugar....

I ain't just another pretty face, y'know. :devilgrin:

DrEntropy
02-23-2008, 08:32 PM
You're an ~UBERTROLL!!!~


:jester: