So we're gonna shoot that satelite down, huh?

pre-set

pre-set

Well-known member
Just like that? No big deal, right? Hey, it's our satelite, we don't want it to hurt anyone, right? We'll just use one of our special Navy ships with an even more special "special" missle to destroy it in space. Easy, right?


Um, okay....Strap on your tinfoil hats, guys.


Let's look at this again.

I'm sure the US has had the capability to do ASAT (anti-satelite) missions for quite some time. If the Chinese did it last year, I figure we did it 20 or 30 years ago. Not exactly big news, but definelty not the kind of thing the US would ever brag about... It just doesn't go over well with the rest of the world when we admit we can blow up sh!t in space. But now, for some reason, the Gov. now seems to be all too willing to just casually admit that not only CAN we do this, but we WILL.... To "keep us safe"....

The official (cover?) story is that they're worried about 1,000 lbs of manuvering fuel on board that is highly toxic. Ok, fine. But it's likely it would burn up on the way down if it was just regular rocket fuel. The further odds are it would not land in any inhabited area, anyway, even if it DID hit land. Which, by the way, the odds are also against becuase 70% of Earth's surface is water. And the even bigger odds are that most peices of this thing would never see the ground anyway. Satelites are not tremendously durable things - they're designed to weigh only as much as they have to, and never for re-entry forces. Sure, some really heavy steel and titanium pieces might survive all the way down and land as smaller, charred fragments - but liquids or chemicals? Nope.

So why are we really gonna shoot it down then?

Why are we going to go to the trouble (and it's likely A LOT of trouble) to make sure that not only are we going to destroy this thing in space, but do it in such a time and way that all the peices (those strong enough to make it through re-entry) will fall into remote areas of the oceans never to be seen again?

Why?

Because there's something special on board that "intelligence" satelite. Something we're willing to go to incredible lengths to ensure that it will not come down in working order, able to be identified, or God forbid, recovered.

Something that is designed to survive re-entry...

Something that would be incredibly embarrassing to be discovered...


Have you guessed what's on that satelite yet?
 
Last edited:
Canonman

Canonman

Well-known member
There's no doubt in my mind that some type of advanced technology is aboard that satellite that they don't want to fall in the wrong place, regardless of how remote the possibility. Or, maybe it's just a good excuse to practice shooting something out of space.

I don't believe it's about the rocket fuel, although I do believe some traces might survive re-entry. This was a big concern when the space shuttle broke up and fell into east Texas (I'll never forget that sonic boom).

cm
 
pre-set

pre-set

Well-known member
Nah....


The "real" answer?



Space based nukes.

It's the only thing that makes sense. Think a little more about it.
 
JTFCM

JTFCM

Well-known member
I think it's just a case of "it's my toy and I'll break it so you can't play with it." That or there's proof about how we faked the moon landing stored on it.
 
S

southflorida

Member
Place yer bets!

So no ones saying just where the satellite is headed if it hits. Any body care to speculate which lucky town or city gets the honors?
 
S

Son-of-Spam

Active member
Didnt our test of the missle defense system fail horribly? And now were supposed to be able to shoot a satellite out of the sky no problem? Hmmm......
 
F

Foxwood

Well-known member
Space based nukes? And you thought the Bush Gay photos thing was wacky??? Wouldn't Dr. Evils Moon based "laser" be able to knock it out?
 
SeattleShooter

SeattleShooter

Well-known member
As for the percentage of it landing in water...it is smaller then you think Preset. It was launched and designed to orbit the poles rather then the equator. With that in mind, it flies over more land. Why build a spy satellite and have it over water?

But I agree...its all about what the satellite is capable of and not the fuel. Nukes? I don’t know about that. That is a little much. But cameras and other stuff yes.

One thing I find funny is how we tell China they can’t blow up one of their “weather” satellites but we can blow up one of our spy satellites. Kind of bossy it you ask me.
 
NEWSSHOOTER3

NEWSSHOOTER3

Well-known member
What The $$$?!?

"The Missile Defense Agency estimated the cost of a sea-based attempted intercept at $40 million to $60 million." ??? :confused:
 
F

Foxwood

Well-known member
It most likely has lots of cameras and listening devices and is full of fuel meant to last a number of years. It's probably moving on a polar orbit. That is North and South as opposed to the usual East/West of most manned missions.

The US can place a sub-orbital nuke anywhere on Earth in a matter of minutes. There are a large number of surface and sub-surface based missiles that can be launched from ships, submarines and thousands of air launched cruise missiles.

A space based nuke would be subject to a re-entry similar to a manned spacecraft. It would have to descend from orbit and drop to a specific target without burning up. That would take much longer, and be much more impresise than the methods the US has in place at the present time.

It makes for a great Art Bell conversation at 3 in the morning, but is pretty much impractical and kind of sci-fi when faced with reality.
 
Last edited:
pre-set

pre-set

Well-known member
Riiiiiiight. Because the idea of having an orbiting weapons platform that no one knows about, able to deliever a warhead anywhere on earth, WITHOUT any of the associated evidence (like oh, a MISSILE LAUNCH or a bomber flight or submarine) and possible leaks by the scores of personel associated with traditional delivery systems, is just plain illogical, right? Downright nutty, ain't it?

The more you try and rationalize this, the more right I sound, huh?




Now, that's not to say that my theory is perfect - even after a nuclear blast it's possible to recover the fissile material and determine it's origin - but it DOES go a long way to eliminating much of the evidence trail that a more traditional delivery of a weapon woud leave.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top