Ooops ... was that your satellite?
China is pissed. So is Russia. All because we took down a defunct NRO satellite.
What on Earth is China so up in arms about? Only last year they shot down one of their own satellites in a blatant anti-satellite test -- sabre rattling. And Russia ... cut it out with the Bear flights, the buzzing of US carriers and various and sundry provocations. We only did it "because of the hydrazine on board." Right. The tooth fairy again.
This particular satellite was launched a few years ago from Vandenberg AFB, headquarters for the 30th Space Wing. It malfunctioned almost immediately, essentially becoming a yellow school bus sized piece of space junk. The hydrazine it carried on board was for manoevering -- fuel for getting out of the way of anti-satellite devices and getting to places one might want to photograph or radar scan. According to the Air Force, it was never able to complete its mission due to computer malfunctions on board. Hmmm. And no self destruct or de-orbit mechanisms were in place. Right.
Whatever. The satellite --if was not a red herring designed to be a target all along, with hydrazine as the ostensible excuse -- was coming down, carrying the best optical and radar imaging devices available to US science. And that would probably be rather good. At least one or two generations ahead of anything Ivan and Maomen could lob into orbit. If there was a remote chance that it might land in one of their nations, or somewhere they could grab the debris, it would be an intelligence coup of unimaginable value. Given the complexity of the device, it seems likely that it would not be wasted on spying on the Zambians.
So let's bring it down. Oh, wait ... since it does not travel over the U.S., we can't really use a ground-based missile. So let's try a bank-shot ... and prove that our missile cruisers can pop a satellite in space while bobbing in 12 foot swells in the middle of nowhere. More like shooting a fly with a .22 at 100 yards, blindfolded, and hopping on one foot -- except more difficult. Proving that no satellite anywhere is safe ... all to protect some unfortunate from hydrazine escaping, if the fuel tank somehow does not burn up on re-entry or explode. Might the satellite be armored, just in case some other nation decides it is inconvenient? Hmmm, now there's a thought. Now do you suppose that those other interested parties might also know basically what that space junk comprised of? Uh, huh, that seems likely. So if we can pop an armored satellite, and not some defunct weather drone ... well now that is really something quite different, isn't it.
I wonder why we do not read about these logical deductions in the press? They (NRO) admit that it was an NRO-special, and highly classified ... this is not rocket science ... oh, wait ... it is.
Anyway, so China and Russia are pissed. They are claiming that this makes space less safe. Well, yes it does ... if it is their spy satellites they are talking about. A whole lot less safe. It also shows that the U.S. can intercept space junk on its way from point A to point B -- when it has reason to know or expect said junk might be on its way. Like space junk coming towards mainland U.S.A. from, say, North Korea.
I wonder if Taiwan has bought any of these cruisers from us?
What on Earth is China so up in arms about? Only last year they shot down one of their own satellites in a blatant anti-satellite test -- sabre rattling. And Russia ... cut it out with the Bear flights, the buzzing of US carriers and various and sundry provocations. We only did it "because of the hydrazine on board." Right. The tooth fairy again.
This particular satellite was launched a few years ago from Vandenberg AFB, headquarters for the 30th Space Wing. It malfunctioned almost immediately, essentially becoming a yellow school bus sized piece of space junk. The hydrazine it carried on board was for manoevering -- fuel for getting out of the way of anti-satellite devices and getting to places one might want to photograph or radar scan. According to the Air Force, it was never able to complete its mission due to computer malfunctions on board. Hmmm. And no self destruct or de-orbit mechanisms were in place. Right.
Whatever. The satellite --if was not a red herring designed to be a target all along, with hydrazine as the ostensible excuse -- was coming down, carrying the best optical and radar imaging devices available to US science. And that would probably be rather good. At least one or two generations ahead of anything Ivan and Maomen could lob into orbit. If there was a remote chance that it might land in one of their nations, or somewhere they could grab the debris, it would be an intelligence coup of unimaginable value. Given the complexity of the device, it seems likely that it would not be wasted on spying on the Zambians.
So let's bring it down. Oh, wait ... since it does not travel over the U.S., we can't really use a ground-based missile. So let's try a bank-shot ... and prove that our missile cruisers can pop a satellite in space while bobbing in 12 foot swells in the middle of nowhere. More like shooting a fly with a .22 at 100 yards, blindfolded, and hopping on one foot -- except more difficult. Proving that no satellite anywhere is safe ... all to protect some unfortunate from hydrazine escaping, if the fuel tank somehow does not burn up on re-entry or explode. Might the satellite be armored, just in case some other nation decides it is inconvenient? Hmmm, now there's a thought. Now do you suppose that those other interested parties might also know basically what that space junk comprised of? Uh, huh, that seems likely. So if we can pop an armored satellite, and not some defunct weather drone ... well now that is really something quite different, isn't it.
I wonder why we do not read about these logical deductions in the press? They (NRO) admit that it was an NRO-special, and highly classified ... this is not rocket science ... oh, wait ... it is.
Anyway, so China and Russia are pissed. They are claiming that this makes space less safe. Well, yes it does ... if it is their spy satellites they are talking about. A whole lot less safe. It also shows that the U.S. can intercept space junk on its way from point A to point B -- when it has reason to know or expect said junk might be on its way. Like space junk coming towards mainland U.S.A. from, say, North Korea.
I wonder if Taiwan has bought any of these cruisers from us?
posted by Zaphod at Thursday, February 21, 2008
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home