US to shoot down dead Satellite

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:11:58 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Blattus
Slafaly £ ¥ 0/00 " made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

The news said the fuel tanks are full? Anyway, why won't they burn up on
re-entry? They are not protected.

Apparently the fuel is frozen.

And IF they are full, why not use the
rocket motors to stabilize the orbit or send it unto the sun?

It's not physically possible for a satellite to get itself into the
sun from low earth orbit. It couldn't carry enough propellant to do
so. The sun is the most expensive place to get to in the solar
system.

So many questions, so many lies.

So much ignorance.

How did they get up there with so much fuel left over? What were they
going to do?

They were going to reboost occasionally to compensate for drag, do
avoidance maneuvers, make slight changes to look at a specific target
or maintain the local time of day and lighting angles, etc.

They were not going to escape the pull of earth's gravity, let alone
impart enough velocity to fall into the sun.

"Blattus Slafaly £ ¥ 0/00 " wrote:
:
:The news said the fuel tanks are full? Anyway, why won't they burn up on
:re-entry?
:

Potentially large thermal inertia and the tanks are built to hold
pressurized fluids and are hence somewhat tough.

:
:They are not protected. And IF they are full, why not use the
:rocket motors to stabilize the orbit
:

Because if that stuff and stabilization worked it wouldn't be a dead
satellite?

:
:... or send it unto the sun?
:

Because it doesn't have a Saturn V pasted to its ass?

Do you have ANY idea how much delta-V it takes to put something into
the Sun?


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"Blattus Slafaly £ ¥ 0/00 " wrote:
:
:How did they get up there with so much fuel left over? What were they
:going to do?
:

It's apparently a recce bird, which means it has several tons of fuel
on board by design so that it can point and alter its orbital elements
to take pictures and such.

It's also broken, which means it's never used those motors or used up
any of that fuel.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

And you know this about our ultra top-secret and absolute state of the
art spy satellite, exactly how?

Why on Earth and for certain in space wouldn't any spy satellite worth
half its salt not have Pu238 as it's failsafe or backup power source,
especially since PVs can be easily taken out with a terrestrial laser,
SBL cannon, or simply via physical debris hits (of which LEO is
getting quite a gauntlet worth of such debris)?
. - Brad Guth


Eric Chomko wrote:
On Feb 15, 11:21�am, BradGuth wrote:
On Feb 15, 7:21 am, "Blattus Slafaly � � 0/00 "



wrote:
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

I think this is fairly interesting news.

Apparently it'll be done from a cruiser launched missile.

I believe this introduces previously unannounced ASAT capability.

From my take on the satellite, I have to say, I think the likelihood of any
particular pieces reaching the ground and falling into the wrong hands is
fairly small. �So I suspect that this demonstration of ASAT capability is as
much a bit of sabre rattling as it is an actual technical issue they want to
resolve.

Can someone remind me of the satellite this is (I know it was launched in
Dec 2006 and is most likely an intel sat).

Thoughts?

The news said the fuel tanks are full? Anyway, why won't they burn up on
re-entry? They are not protected. And IF they are full, why not use the
rocket motors to stabilize the orbit or send it unto the sun? So many
questions, so many lies.

--
Blattus Slafaly �? 3 � � �7/8

Plus an amount of Pu-238 to hide as best we can.

There is no Plutonium on board. Stop making **** up as usual.

On Feb 15, 11:48 am, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Feb 15, 11:19 am, BradGuth wrote:

Pu-238

Yes, they hid the stuff up there so that the Libyan terrorists from
the movie, "Back to the Future", would get it.

Silly boy, why are you pretend-atheists so into defending such cloak
and dagger crapolla?

Clearly you want us to have that first strike capability, because
that's the one and only viable alternative to surviving your
perpetrated WWIII.
.. - Brad Guth

""Blattus Slafaly £ ¥ 0/00 "" wrote in
message ...

The news said the fuel tanks are full? Anyway, why won't they burn up on
re-entry? They are not protected.

They're frozen and apparently somewhat protected.
And IF they are full, why not use the rocket motors to stabilize the orbit
or send it unto the sun? So many questions, so many lies.

Because the satellite failed upon orbit and can't be controlled. If it were
they'd fly it down and break it up over the Pacific.




--
Blattus Slafaly ? 3 7/8

--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

I believe they have known exactly (within +/- a few km) of where that
big sucker is most likely coming down, and this is why an effort is
going to be made for making it least viable for the likes of China or
Russia to get their hands on any significant portion of our spy
technology.

BTW, why on Earth and for absolute certain in space wouldn't any spy
satellite worth half its salt not have Pu238 as it's failsafe or
backup power source, especially since PVs can be easily taken out with
a terrestrial laser, SBL cannon, or simply terminated via physical
debris hits (of which LEO is getting quite a gauntlet worth of such
debris)?
.. - Brad Guth


On Feb 14, 10:50 am, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/space/0....ap/index.html

I think this is fairly interesting news.

Apparently it'll be done from a cruiser launched missile.

I believe this introduces previously unannounced ASAT capability.

From my take on the satellite, I have to say, I think the likelihood of any
particular pieces reaching the ground and falling into the wrong hands is
fairly small. So I suspect that this demonstration of ASAT capability is as
much a bit of sabre rattling as it is an actual technical issue they want to
resolve.

Can someone remind me of the satellite this is (I know it was launched in
Dec 2006 and is most likely an intel sat).

Thoughts?

--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html